U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
Advanced Monitoring Systems (AMS) Center
Air Stakeholder Committee Meeting
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Sacramento, CA
Meeting Minutes
Agenda
Welcome
Agenda and Meeting Objectives
Amy Dindal, Battelle
Gretchen Hund, Battelle
Stakeholder Introductions
ETV Program Update and Sustainability Thoughts
Current and Future Impact of the ETV Program
AMS Center Update
Verification Status: Mercury Emission Monitors
CARS's Innovative Clean Air Technologies
(1CAT) program
Verification Status: Soil Rapid Toxicity Technologies
Lodi Truck Study Activities
Stakeholders
Teresa Harten, US EPA
Amy Dindal/Stakeholders
Amy Dindal
Amy Dindal
Kevin deary, California Air
Resources Board
Amy Dindal
Larry Larsen, California
Air Resources Board
Technology Categories under Development Amy Dindal
(Emissions Characterization System for Semiconductor
Industry Applications Continuous PM, Ozone Monitors,
Selected Ion Flow Tube Mass Spectrometry, Remote Leak
Detection Devices, Radio Frequency Identification Devices)
Next Air Technology Categories
Wrap up/Action Items
Gretchen Hund/Stakeholders
Gretchen Hund
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Meeting - February 22, 2007
Page 1
-------
Attendees
Stakeholder Committee Members:
Jeff Cook, California Air Resources Board
Chuck Dene, EPRI
Rudy Eden, South Coast Air Quality Management District
Philip Galvin, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Tom Logan, EPA
Will Ollison, American Petroleum Institute
Roy Owens, Owens Corning
Lindene Patton, Zurich North America (phone-in)
Donald Stedman, University of Denver
Observers:
Jeff Wright, California Air Resources Board
Ahmed Mehadi, California Air Resources Board
Rebecca Neumann, California Air Resources Board
EPA/Battelle ETV Program Staff:
Bob Fuerst, EPA
Teresa Harten, EPA
Elizabeth Hunike, EPA
Amy Dindal, Battelle
Ryan James, Battelle
Gretchen Hund, Battelle
Tom Kelly, Battelle (phone-in)
Guest Speakers:
Kevin deary, California Air Resources Board
Larry Larsen, California Air Resources Board
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Meeting - February 22, 2007
Page 2
-------
Welcome, Agenda and Meeting Objectives
Gretchen Hund welcomed the stakeholders and observers to the meeting. Ms. Hund thanked Jeff
Cook for hosting the meeting at the California Air Resources Board (CARB). She reviewed the
agenda, and stated that the objectives for the meeting were similar to past meetings where the
focus will be on verification testing progress and identifying priority technology categories for
verification. Ms. Hund also noted that there will be two speakers from CARB, Kevin deary and
Larry Larson, who will present on their respective programs.
Stakeholder Introductions
For the benefit of the observers, each stakeholder introduced him or her self and described his or
her role within his or her organization and interest in air monitoring.
ETV Program Update and Sustainability Thoughts
Ms. Teresa Harten, Director of EPA's ETV program, provided an update on the ETV program.
She began with a brief background on the ETV program and its successes, noting that it provides
technology performance information that is critical to federal, state, and local agencies.
Collaborations and vendor cost-sharing leverage ETV, generating approximately 40-50 percent
of the total funds for the program. Ms. Harten further described that there have been 381
technology verifications and 85 generic protocols completed through the ETV program since
1995. Over 300 stakeholders are active in advisory groups and technical panels across the ETV
program, and internet and worldwide interest in the program has resulted in greater than three
million hits per year on the ETV web site, with interest continuing to grow.
Ms. Harten also stated that new case study booklets have been produced that document
technology verifications and project future outcomes resulting from these verifications. She
went on to describe a specific case study from one of the booklets, the verification testing of
diesel retrofit technologies. Seven technologies were tested as part of this verification test, with
six of them qualifying for EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) grant
programs, such as the Clean School Bus Grant Program. As a result of the verification testing, at
least 1,345 diesel retrofit technologies were sold. Ms. Harten pointed out that, over a seven-year
period, because of these purchases, six to nine tons of particulate matter (PM) would be reduced
and one life and $3-5 million would be saved, based on risk reduction extrapolations using
EPA's regulatory analysis for the Highway Diesel Rule. Over seven years at 10 percent
projected market penetration, 9,000 to 31,000 tons of PM will be reduced, $4-16 billion will be
saved, and 683 to 2,380 people will avoid premature mortality.
Ms. Harten then proceeded to discuss graphical representations of statistics of the ETV program
over the years. In a bar graph detailing ETV program verifications and funding sources, she
showed how ETV base program funding has declined over the years, peaking in 1998 at just
under $10 million and declining to approximately $2 million in 2006. The number of
verifications has also decreased as base funding has declined, peaking at 57 verifications in 2000
and decreasing to 13 in 2006. Funding from other sources (not including in-kind contributions),
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Meeting - February 22, 2007
Page 3
-------
began contributing to ETV program funding in 1997 when the first verification tests were
conducted and has continued in varying amounts over the next nine years. Ms. Harten then
showed how the average time for completion of a verification test has increased over the years,
taking from approximately 15 months in fiscal year 2002 to approximately 21 months in fiscal
year 2006. Ms Harten stated that increased collaborations have likely increased the time for
verification.
The average cost per verification test or protocol development has varied over the past eight
years (1998-2006), ranging from $80,000 to $300,000. Funding outside of ETV base program
funding has also varied over time, though outside funding has increased over the past few years.
Cost-sharing, cash or in-kind support from outside groups, is also a significant source of support
for the ETV program. Ms. Harten showed how cost-sharing contributions to verification tests
have varied between fiscal years 2002 and 2006. Direct funding, or cash, from other
organizations has accounted for 25 percent to 85 percent of the total cost-share on verification
tests and totaled $840,000 in fiscal year 2006. In-kind support has consistently exceeded cash
contributions, sometimes by as much as double (in fiscal year 2006). In-kind support has
accounted for approximately 40 percent to 47 percent of the cost share in verification tests and
ranged from $1.3 million to $2 million in estimated cash value.
Ms. Harten then turned her attention to the idea of sustainability. To better understand this area,
she provided example sustainability metrics: recyclability, reusability, toxics use, resource (i.e.,
renewable or non-renewable), and life cycle analysis and impact analysis. Ms. Harten indicated
that adding sustainability criteria to ETV verification tests would be ideal, but there are
challenges. There would have to be agreement, through the use of the stakeholder process, on
the appropriate sustainability criteria and how to measure and report these criteria. There would
be additional costs associated with verification for these sustainability criteria. Also, the ETV
program has been based on the fact that it provides third party testing data of a known quality.
Ms. Harten indicated that sustainability criteria will rely largely on self-reporting by vendors,
which means that the data for these criteria will be of an uncertain quality as they would not be a
direct product of the ETV verification test. She pointed out that there would also be delays in
reporting because of the likely challenges by vendors to presentation of the sustainability criteria
results. It was pointed out that that AMS Center has often included sustainability criteria in its
reports but has not called them "sustainability". It was agreed that the AMS Center should
increase its focus on specifically calling out sustainability criteria.
Current and Future Impact of the ETV Program
Due to time constraints, this session was delayed for discussion in conjunction with the
"Developing Technology Categories" discussion in the afternoon. Ms. Amy Dindal, Battelle
AMS Center program manager, asked the stakeholders to respond to the "homework" questions
that were sent to the stakeholders before the meeting:
• What is one area in your field of expertise that has benefited from ETV tests? What
direct results/benefits have you noted?
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Meeting - February 22, 2007
Page 4
-------
• In what other areas might ETV be able to make an impact? Where could an ETV test
really be beneficial?
Ms. Dindal noted that the Lodi Truck Study (presented by Larry Larson) was a good example of
the benefit of the ETV results from the ambient particulate monitoring (PM) test. Mr. Rudy Eden
noted that his organization (South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) benefited
from the NOx reports that were completed under ETV. The stakeholders also noted that the
verification of poor performance of technologies in general was a direct benefit. Others areas
where ETV might make an impact were discussed in terms of future technology categories (see
discussion on "Next Technology Categories").
AMS Center Update
Ms. Dindal provided an AMS Center update. She reported that, over its 10-year existence, 121
verification reports have been completed by the AMS Center. In addition, 22 test/QA plans have
been completed, 37 stakeholder meetings have been held, and 84 AMS Center newsletters (The
Monitor} have been published. She also said that seven technology verifications are currently in
various stages of progress and numerous are under development. Ms. Dindal then listed the
technology categories that the AMS Center has tested. Of the 121 verified technologies, 54 have
been air monitoring technologies and 67 have been water monitoring technologies.
Technologies verified by the AMS Center have ranged from ambient ammonia monitors to
dioxin emissions monitors to atrazine ELISA test kits to on-line turbidimeters. Within each
technology category, anywhere from one to 13 technologies have been verified by the AMS
Center. There are six current, on-going AMS Center verification tests: mercury emission
monitoring systems (four technologies), personal cascade impactor sampler (one technology),
beach monitoring samplers (protocol development only), multi-parameter water sensors (one
technology), ballast water exchange screening tools (one technology), and soil rapid toxicity
technologies (protocol development only).
Ms. Dindal described recent outreach initiatives by the AMS Center: the November issue of The
Monitor was distributed, AMS Center staff attended the February 7 Ohio Harmful Algal Bloom
Focus Group Workshop as well as the February 11-14 National Air Quality Conference, and a
manuscript to Environmental Science and Technology was in progress. Ms. Dindal also
highlighted the support the AMS Center has received over its existence. This includes $685,000
in vendor contributions, $581,000 in cash co-funding from collaborators, and $3.68 million in in-
kind support. Recent verification tests have been co-funded at or near 100 percent and vendor
cost-share is increasing in certain market segments. Ms. Dindal noted that any new verification
test must have funding support. She also indicated that stakeholders will be critical in the
sustainability of the AMS Center. To this end, the stakeholders must continue to identify
pressing environmental monitoring needs, identify and/or provide testing collaborations, and
continue to take an interest in the AMS Center and its activities.
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Meeting - February 22, 2007
Page 5
-------
Verification Status: Mercury Emission Monitoring Systems
Ms. Dindal presented information on the verification test for mercury continuous emission
monitoring (CEM) systems. She acknowledged the support of the Illinois Clean Coal Institute,
the Northern Indiana Public Service Company, and EPA's Office of Research and Development
for the mercury test. She started by providing a background on mercury monitoring
requirements, indicating that the Clean Air Mercury Rule requires that all utility plants emitting
more than a minimal amount of mercury begin reporting stack gas mercury levels by January 1,
2009. Only total vapor phase mercury is required to be monitored. Ms. Dindal also noted that a
cap-and-trade system for mercury emissions is being implemented, but that states are free to
choose other approaches for addressing mercury emissions. She then discussed the two different
types of mercury monitoring systems that are acceptable for monitoring under 40 CFR Part 75:
CEMs and sorbent systems. CEMs consist of a sample probe, umbilical line, gas conditioner
analyzer, and a calibration source. As the name suggests, CEMs can monitor continuously (or
nearly so) and can report elemental mercury, oxidized mercury, and total mercury. Sorbent
systems collect mercury onto charcoal sorbent traps that are inserted directly into the stack. The
traps are subjected to mercury analyses after collection and typically only measure total mercury.
The ETV verification test of mercury CEMs occurred June 12 to July 25, 2006 at Unit 17 of the
R.M. Schahfer plant of NIPSCo, near Valparaiso, Indiana. Two CEMs, one from Tekran
Instruments and one from Thermo Electron, participated in the test. Two sorbent sampling
systems also participated in the verification test, one from Apex Instruments and one from
Environmental Supply Company. Ms. Dindal said that Unit 17 of the R.M. Schahfer plant burns
Illinois subbituminous coal, and has an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and a wet flue gas
desulfurization (FGD). Typical stack conditions at this unit are 130 F, 100 parts per million
(ppm) NOX, 200 ppm SOX, and 15 percent water. The mercury emissions from the unit are
approximately 1 |J,g/m3 total mercury, with greater than 90 percent being elemental mercury.
Ms. Dindal then provided details on the verification test. She said that for the sorbent sample
analysis, Environmental Supply purchased traps and analysis from Frontier Geosciences. The
traps were pre-spiked with mercury, and the analysis was performed via extraction and
laboratory cold vapor atomic adsorption (CVAA) spectroscopy analysis. Apex Instruments
purchased traps and analysis from Ohio Lumex. The traps were pre-spiked with mercury and the
analysis of the samples consisted of pyrolizing the charcoal to drive off the collected mercury
into a Lumex RA-915+ mercury analyzer. Ms. Dindal indicated that a set of performance
parameters were verified as part of the verification test. These parameters were accuracy, time
response, seven-day calibration drift, linearity, data completeness, operational factors, and cost.
Accuracy was measured with regards to the Ontario Hydro (OH) method. For this method, two
sets of 12 two-hour runs were analyzed. Two separate OH method sampling periods were
conducted, one from June 12-15 and the other from July 10-13. Ms. Dindal said that both
relative accuracy and the absolute difference of the mean results were determined for the
accuracy parameter and that linearity was only determined for the CEM samplers.
Ms. Dindal then provided some results from the mercury CEMs verification test. Because the
ETV program does not compare technologies, the technologies for this category are referred to
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Meeting - February 22, 2007
Page 6
-------
as CEM A, CEM B, Sorbent C, and Sorbent D. Ms. Dindal said that CEM A operated
throughout the six-week field period of testing, including both OH methods reference periods.
CEM B arrived late in the field, had numerous problems that limited its period of operation, and
only participated in the second OH method reference period. Sorbent C operated without
problems in the first OH method reference period. Sorbent D had traps that were fragile and
non-uniform with a heavy sampling probe. It only was operated during the second OH method
reference period. (Sorbent C and Sorbent D each were operated during one reference sampling
period due to limited sampling ports in the stack.) Ms. Dindal then provided the relative
accuracy results. Relative accuracy for total mercury was 21.2 percent on average for the two
CEM technologies and 28.1 percent for the two sorbent technologies. Average relative
accuracies for elemental mercury were similar. Ms. Dindal then presented accuracy results as a
difference of means for the four technologies. Results ranged from -0.264 to 0.108 |J,g/m3 for the
CEM samplers across all types of mercury monitored (total, elemental, and oxidized). Corrected
total mercury sorbent sampler differences were 0.243 and 0.162 |J,g/m3.
Ms. Dindal reported on other results for the CEM technologies. The time response was between
5 and 10 minutes for the two CEMs while the seven-day calibration shift was up to 1.3 percent
and 3.1 percent of the 10 |J,g/m3 scale. Linearity was similar for both CEMs, within
approximately 7 percent. Data completeness ranged for all four technologies throughout the
verification test. Completeness results were between 28 percent for valid CEM data and 100
percent for operating CEM data. Purchase prices were lower for the sorbent technologies
($10,000 to $19,000) and higher for the CEMs ($125,000 each).
Ms. Dindal said that final revisions have been made to all four technology verification reports in
response to vendor, peer reviewers, EPA administrative reviewers, and EPA science policy
reviewer comments. The verification reports and statements have been signed by a Battelle
representative and were submitted to EPA in February 2007 for EPA's final approval.
CARB's Innovative Clean Air Technologies (ICAT) program
Mr. Kevin deary of CARB gave a presentation on CARB's Innovative Clean Air Technologies
(ICAT) program. Mr. deary said that the purpose of ICAT is to promote emissions reductions,
CARB initiatives, and the California economy by co-funding field demonstrations of new,
beneficial technologies such as emissions control and emissions monitoring and measurement
technologies. He then discussed capital availability as it relates to the development phase of a
new technology. More specifically, as the phase of technology development progresses from
idea to prototype, capital availability decreases but regains momentum through the
demonstration and commercial sales phases.
Mr. Cleary listed the technology eligibility criteria for the ICAT program. The technology must
be a new emissions control technology, show an increase in capability, be a new application of a
control, or be a cost reduction of a useful control. The technology should be advanced in
research and development but not be commercially available yet. It must reduce criteria, toxic, or
greenhouse gases in California and must also be marketable and cost-competitive. He said that
ICAT funds up to 50 percent of the projects costs for development of a technology. The grantee
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Meeting - February 22, 2007
Page 7
-------
pays for 10 percent of the project costs with cash while 1C AT pays for the labor, fringe benefits,
materials and supplies, subcontractor costs, and travel costs; however, ICAT does not pay for
equipment or overhead, and there are conditions on the payment to the grantees.
When selecting grantees, Mr. Cleary indicated that there are various criteria that the ICAT
program considers, including the stage of the technology's development, the potential air quality
benefits, the applicant's credentials, the commercial potential of the technology, and the quality
of the project. Grants have been awarded to 56 projects under the ICAT program since 1994,
with an average grant amount of $203,000. In fact, 12 new projects are set to start this year. The
24 completed projects include electrically-regenerated diesel particulate filter for school buses,
paint resin produced from vegetable oils, and a staged combustion low-NOx boiler burner.
Mr. Cleary then detailed the overall ICAT program process, which he said begins with a public
solicitation for ideas. Next, pre-proposals are screened; selected pre-proposal authors are invited
to submit a full proposal. The proposals go through a review process, ending with Board
approval of the selected grants. Once selected, a grantee has certain responsibilities under the
ICAT program. The grantee must hold a kick-off meeting in California, submit quarterly
progress reports, host site visits (as requested), submit a final report, and hold a post-project
seminar in California. Mr. Cleary then provided an overview of the new ICAT grants in 2006,
which include diesel particulate matter (DPM) measurement using electrostatic charging, laser
induced incandescence for soot measurement, a solid NH3 storage system for selective catalytic
reduction, an acoustic sensor for filling liquefied petroleum gas storage tanks, and a closed-loop
combustion control system for microturbines.
Mr. Cleary then discussed the possibility of an ICAT/ETV collaboration. He said that this was
an opportunity to collaborate on worthy projects of mutual interest. Mr. Cleary said that the
programs could leverage funding, allowing both programs to expand their understanding and
pool of potential applicants. Candidates for this collaboration would go through the ICAT
program process. Ms. Harten said that the announcement of the ICAT solicitation could be
added to the ETV program's monthly listserv (ETVoice). Ms. Dindal said she would send the
ICAT announcement to the AMS Center email database. To learn more about the ICAT
program, interested parties can visit their web site at www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/icat.htm.
Verification Status: Soil Rapid Toxicity Technologies
Ms. Dindal provided an overview on the status of the rapid soil toxicity verification test. As
background, she said that soil toxicity testing helps to screen sites for areas of concern and
monitor cleanup effectiveness. A broad range of screening technologies may respond to many
toxic compounds as this is a non-selective technique. Traditional soil toxicity tests like seed
germination, or earthworm survival, can take weeks to provide a result, unlike the rapid soil
toxicity technologies which can provide screening results in hours.
Ms. Dindal then provided an update on the status of the verification test. She said that
stakeholder concurrence has been received on this category. Co-funding for developing the
testing protocol has been received from EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Meeting - February 22, 2007
Page 8
-------
and several vendors have expressed interest in participating in a verification test. However, co-
funding is needed to proceed with testing. The level of co-funding needed for a test of these
technologies would depend on the scale of the test. Ms. Dindal said that there are six interested
vendors: Cybersense, Abraxis, Assure Controls, Fisher Scientific, Strathkelvin Instruments, and
Crown Biosystems. These technologies range from luminescent bacteria to a respirometer.
Ms. Dindal said that a generic protocol was under development for the rapid soil toxicity
technology category. Input has been received from external peer reviewers. Ms. Dindal then
discussed some likely components of a rapid soil toxicity verification test. A major component
of the test would be to determine what contaminants technologies are sensitive to and what the
detection limits of each technology is. Also, environmental, "real world" samples would be
used. Other possible components of testing would be to assess whether the technology can be
used to estimate the extent to which the contaminants being tested for are bioavailable. Another
potential component of testing would be to assess bacterial remediation approaches, that is, can
the technology predict how well bacteria applied for site remediation are working. There are,
however, pros and cons to including each of these factors as part of a verification test. Other
considerations for the protocol include prioritizing the test to stay within the vendor/co-funding
budget, determining what a standard application of the technology is for most vendors, and
determining what end-users want evaluated the most. To the latter point, the stakeholders
commented that the protocol should be focused on determining if the technologies can be used as
a quick screen for toxic components and stay away from the bioavailability and bacterial
remediation aspects which they viewed as separate protocols. Ms. Dindal said that the generic
protocol will be ready for EPA and external reviewers in March. The AMS Center expects
several vendors to sign up once the protocol is finalized. Test/QA plan development will begin
at that time, after vendor co-funding has been received. Questions on the soil rapid toxicity test
can be directed to Ms. Mary Schrock who is the Verification Test Coordinator (614-424-4976,
schrock@b attell e. org).
Lodi Truck Study Activities
Mr. Larry Larsen of CARB discussed activities from the Lodi Truck Study in a presentation
titled "Freeway-based Diesel Signature Study: Pilot Study Results and Plans for Full-Scale
Study." Mr. Larsen first gave a background on the study. He said that a substantial percent of
statewide risk from toxic air contaminants is from DPM; however there is not a generally
accepted method for quantifying ambient DPM concentrations. Mr. Larsen said that a relatively
inexpensive approach using continuous instruments offers advantages and was successfully
tested in a 30-day pilot study of this program. Preparation for a full-scale, freeway-based diesel
signature study is almost complete, with sampling set to begin in October or November of 2007.
Mr. Larsen then discussed the freeway-based diesel signature study in more detail. He said that
the approach for this study seeks to quantify DPM in California communities based on easily
measurable air quality data. The study measures air quality near a freeway for which counts of
diesel and gasoline vehicles are known by hour. Study data is then used to identify a diesel
signature and develop a simplified source-apportionment method to determine DPM using air
quality data only. Mr. Larsen said that the overall study is divided into several stages. First, lab
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Meeting - February 22, 2007
Page 9
-------
testing was conducted to gain additional familiarity with key instruments, specifically the
aethalometers (for black carbon) and the PAS2000s (for particle-bound polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH)). Next, a pilot study was conducted to answer basic technical questions.
The results of the pilot study supported committing resources for a full-scale study. The full-
scale study is the final stage in the overall study and, as Mr. Larsen indicated, should begin
sampling late winter or early spring and continue sampling for 12 months.
Mr. Larsen then discussed the pilot study in more detail. The pilot study objective was to assess
field performance of black carbon and PAH monitors, including determining limits of detection
(LODs) and precision of the monitors (the Aethalometer and the PAS2000). Mr. Larsen noted
that, according to the results of the pilot study, the LODs were well below all measured ambient
contaminant concentrations while the signal for both monitors was approximately five times
greater than the uncertainty. It was also clear from this study that traffic does indeed make
enough black carbon and PAHs to be measured. Mr. Larsen said that the performance of the
instruments in the pilot study supported their use for a full-scale study.
Finally, Mr. Larsen discussed additional insights that were gained from the pilot study. He said
that the pilot study data suggest that PAH and black carbon ratios are significantly different for
diesel vehicles compared to gasoline vehicles. The pilot study data further suggest that PAH-to-
black carbon ratios for diesel and gasoline vehicles can be used to quantify diesel black carbon
through a simplified source apportionment model. Mr. Larsen said that a full-scale field study is
being planned. Equipment has been purchased and materials already committed to the effort;
however site logistics still needed to be worked out. The study is expected to start around
March 15, 2007 and on or after December 31, 2007 as data will be collected for the summer and
winter seasons. The study is expected to be completed in April 2008 with reports and
publications to follow. Mr. Stedman very strongly suggested adding CC>2 monitoring capability
to that program in view of the fact that with the aid of CC>2 data one can directly compute
emissions per unit of fuel burned.
Technology Categories under Development
Ms. Dindal discussed technology categories under development by the AMS Center. There are
six current or developing air technology verifications including emission characterization system
for semiconductor applications; continuous PM monitoring systems; ambient ozone monitors;
selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS); remote leak detection devices; and radio
frequency identification devices. Ms. Dindal went on to briefly discuss each technology
category.
Applied Materials is the vendor for the emissions characterization system for semiconductor
applications verification test. The technology is the Integrated Platform for Emissions
Characterization (IPEC). It uses a Fourier Transform infrared (FTIR) and quadrupole MS for the
detection of toxic emissions from semiconductor processing, such as HF, NFs, and SFe. The
vendor is contributing nearly 100 percent of the funding for testing. Ms. Dindal indicated that
this technology might be the subject of a joint verification with the Air Pollution Control
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Meeting - February 22, 2007
Page 10
-------
Technology Center of ETV, to address both monitoring and emission control components of the
technology.
A request for continuous PM monitor vendors was issued in a recent AMS Center newsletter and
through the ETV web site. Ms. Dindal said that a few mixed responses were received.
Interested vendors include Thermo Electron, Land Instruments, and MSI. The stakeholders
commented that the PM monitors category can be split into ambient PM monitors and source PM
monitors. The ambient PM monitors should be portable hand-held units, while the source PM
monitors should focus on utility industry applications.
For ambient ozone monitors, an ETV verification has been requested by Optec, Inc., a Russian
company. This technology is for ambient monitoring and is based on solid-phase
chemiluminescence. Ms. Dindal noted that, coincidentally, there is interest in further evaluation
of ambient ozone monitors currently used in network applications, with possible potential
collaborations available with the American Petroleum Institute. Stakeholders provided
concurrence in proceeding with this category.
Syft Technologies of New Zealand is interested in verification of its selected ion flow tube mass
spectrometry (SIFT-MS) technology, the Voice-100 SIFT-MS. Ms. Dindal said that the vendor
described the technology as utilizing precisely controlled chemical ionization reactions to detect
and quantify trace amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOC). Ms. Dindal then described
the operation principles of the technology, which involves the generation of positive ions, ion
selection, reaction of the ions with the introduced sample, and detection of the selected reaction
products. The SIFT-MS claims sensitive, rapid analysis of whole air even in humid samples. It
is applicable to alkane, alkene, and aromatic hydrocarbons, and oxygen-, sulfur-, and halogen-
containing organics, as well as ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen dioxide,
and phosphine. The instrument has a continuous operation with a one-minute measurement time.
Ms. Dindal said that the absolute concentrations of an analyte can be calculated for this
technology. The instrument's linear response range is typically single-digit parts per billion by
volume to tens of parts per million by volume. She said that the technology is applicable to stack
emissions and to motor vehicle emissions. The vendor, Syft Technologies, is interested in some
feedback from the stakeholder group on where to apply the technology. Stakeholders responded
with many potential application areas including VOC speciation, odor complaint resolution,
emergency response, human exposure (breath analysis), wood treatment sites, and evaluation of
oxygenates. The stakeholders were highly in favor of proceeding with this technology category.
Ms. Dindal then moved on to remote leak detection devices. She said that these technologies are
portable infrared video cameras that detect chemicals leaking from flanges, valves, fittings, etc.,
and are being proposed as an alternative to EPA Method 21. Battelle/ETV have participated in
discussions with EPA, American Petroleum Institute, and industry representatives on these
technologies.
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Meeting - February 22, 2007
Page 11
-------
Next Air Technology Categories
Ms. Hund discussed next air technology categories with the stakeholders. She said that the goal
of this session was to determine verification priorities for discussed technology categories,
provide new technology category recommendations, and gather information needed to proceed
forward with a new technology category, such as vendor names and potential collaborators. In
considering what technology categories to prioritize, Ms. Hund said that stakeholders should
consider the feasibility of verifying such a technology, the number of commercially available
technologies, and what outcomes might result from a verification test. She reminded the group
of the collaboration needs for a verification test, which include co-funding, test site host, on-site
staff, reference method sampling and analyses, and possibly the hosting and preparation of a
technology field day.
To put current technology category recommendations into perspective, Ms. Hund reviewed
previous stakeholder meeting minutes to discuss what technology categories have been
suggested in the past. She indicated that the AMS Center was often able to connect stakeholder
suggestions with collaborators and vendors for successful verification tests, such as with ambient
PM monitors and mercury CEMs. Sometimes, however, all of the pieces don't come together,
despite a great stakeholder suggestion, as with mold detection technologies. Some of the source
monitoring technologies that have been suggested in the past include indoor air sensor arrays,
monitors for emissions from vehicles, multi-gas emissions monitors, and ultrafine particulate
monitors. For ambient air monitoring technologies, past suggestions include real-time carbonyl
monitors, passive monitors, and continuous formaldehyde ambient monitors. Ms. Hund noted
that over the years, 46 percent of the technology category suggestions by stakeholders have been
for source monitors, while 54 percent have been for ambient monitors. However, in terms of
actual verification tests, the split was 50/50. Ms. Hund then listed some recent technology
category suggestions, which include vapor intrusion technologies, e-noses, and mass
spectrometry technologies, as well as technologies discussed as "under development" previously.
Ms. Hund asked the stakeholders to consider some criteria for each new technology category that
they suggest for testing. They should consider if the technology category is well-defined,
whether it is still important to verify, if there are commercially available technologies on the
market, who potential test collaborators could be, and which stakeholders have an interest in or
experience with this technology.
This list of technology categories suggested by the stakeholders included the following. Those
categories in bold received the stakeholders concurrence.
Source PM monitors (electric utility industry)
Ambient PM monitors (portable, battery-operated, hand-held)
Baghouse leak detectors
Ozone ambient monitors
SIFT-MS
Battery-powered sampling pumps (focusing on sustainability criteria)
Remote Leak Detection
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Meeting - February 22, 2007
Page 12
-------
Radio Frequency Identification Devices
Climate change technologies
Agricultural emissions technologies for VOCs or PM
Wrap up/Action Items
Ms. Hund closed the meeting by saying that the AMS Center would continue to conduct
teleconferences with the stakeholders on a quarterly basis. The next air stakeholder call will be
in late spring/early summer. Ms. Hund thanked the stakeholders for their active participation in
the meeting. The meeting concluded and a tour of the facilities at CARB was conducted by Jeff
Cook.
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Meeting - February 22, 2007
Page 13
------- |