U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
Advanced Monitoring Systems (AMS) Center
Air Stakeholder Committee Teleconference
Thursday, December 6, 2007
1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Eastern
Teleconference Meeting Minutes
AGENDA
Rachel Sell,
Battelle
Amy Dindal, Battelle
Teresa Harten, EPA
David Williams, EPA
Tom Kelly, Battelle
Welcome, Agenda, and Meeting Objectives
ETV Program and AMS Center Updates
Verification of Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) Devices
at Petroleum Refineries and Chemical Plants
Update on Technology Categories
• Chemiluminescent Ozone Monitors
• Personal Sampling Pumps
• Selected Ion Flow Tube Mass Spectrometers
• Fungal Contamination Field Monitors
New Technology Category - Odor Detection (electronic-nose) Technologies
o Odor Detection, Mitigation and Control Forum - Rudy Eden, South Coast AQMD
o Vendor/Collaborator interest - Tom Kelly
New Technology Category Recommendations - What's on the Horizon? Rachel Sell
Next Meeting and Action Items Rachel Sell
Adjourn
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Teleconference- Dec. 6, 2007
Page 1
-------
ATTENDEES
Stakeholder Committee Members:
Jeff Cook, California Air Resources Board
Chuck Dene, EPRI
Rudy Eden, South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
Philip Galvin, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Will Ollison, American Petroleum Institute (API)
Roy Owens, Owens Corning
Stephen Priebe, Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
Guest Speaker:
David Williams, EPA
ETV AMS Center Staff:
Amy Dindal, Battelle
Bob Fuerst, EPA
Teresa Harten, EPA
Tom Kelly, Battelle
Rachel Sell, Battelle
Abby Waits, EPA
Welcome, Agenda, and Meeting Objectives
Rachel Sell, Battelle AMS Center Stakeholder Committee Coordinator, welcomed committee
stakeholders and AMS Center staff, took roll call of those stakeholders participating in the
teleconference, and proceeded with an overview of the agenda, noting the focus of the call would
be on evolving technology categories, verification testing progress, and identifying priority
technology categories for verification.
ETV Program and AMS Center Updates
Amy Dindal, Battelle AMS Center program manager, provided an update on the ETV Program
and AMS Center. Ms. Dindal provided a brief summary of the activities during the February
2007 stakeholder meeting since this was the first meeting of the group since that meeting. She
described how 128 verification reports have been completed by the AMS Center to date with
4 technology verification tests in progress (chemiluminescent ozone monitor, leak detection and
repair, ELISA test kits for endocrine disrupting compounds, and lead-based paint test kits) and
numerous under development. Ms. Dindal emphasized that any new verification test must have
funding support in order to proceed, so the stakeholders are critical to the sustainability of the
AMS Center since they are the ones that identify pressing environmental monitoring needs and
identify and/or provide testing collaborations. Battelle provided seven letters of support to
vendors of small business, a required option in phase II Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) proposals. A list of the AMS Center collaborators in FY07 were provided, including: US
Coast Guard; US EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory; EPA Region 3;
American Petroleum Institute; City of Columbus; US EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response; and US EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Teleconference- Dec. 6, 2007
Page 2
-------
Ms. Teresa Harten, director of EPA's ETV program, provided an update on the ETV program.
Ms. Harten noted that 399 verifications (188 in the monitoring area) and 90 protocols have been
completed to date by the ETV program. Collaborations and vendor cost-sharing has generated
50% of the program funds each of the last three years. A new ETV web site was unveiled in
October with a more user friendly look and feel. Case studies booklets document and project
outcomes for 15 technology categories verified are one of the most popular visited areas of the
ETV web site. Ms. Harten presented a bar chart showing ETV cost efficiency over the last nine
years which demonstrated that the cost per verification or protocol had decreased -20% in FY07.
She also presented a bar chart on Program-wide ETV Timing which showed that verifications
completed in FY07 were completed, on average, seven months faster than those completed in
FY06. Vendors want verifications to take less time to keep up with innovation and their
competitors (ideally 12 months or less). Ms. Harten stated that the program has a continued focus
on sustainability and incorporating sustainability metrics into verification testing. Stakeholder
and vendor ideas on sustainability metrics are what should be inserted in the protocols.
Ms. Harten explained that there is a lot going on with international ETV events. The ETV
program office and the AMS Center (Karen Riggs) participated in the third International ETV
Forum in Paris in November. A common approach to verification is being actively sought by an
international workgroup from the US, Canada, and European Union (EU). In addition, the AMS
Center is actively pursuing co-verification testing with ETV Canada (soil rapid toxicity testing)
and NOWATECH, a Danish group funded by the EU under the EU pilot ETV program (passive
groundwater samplers).
Verification of Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) Devices at Petroleum Refineries and
Chemical Plants
Before the presentation, Ms. Dindal noted this technology category is part of the Environmental
and Sustainable Technology Evaluations (ESTE), the EPA-directed portion of the ETV program.
The test/QA plan was developed under ESTE, but vendor recruitment and testing will be
conducted under the AMS Center. David Williams said the EPA is interested in the verification
of portable optical and thermal imaging devices for leak detection at petroleum refineries and
chemical plants and is supporting an ETV test in this area. Currently in the U.S. and in other
industrialized countries, fugitive emission monitoring (FEM) and LDAR programs are based on
EPA Method 21, which involves the use of a portable organic vapor analyzer to monitor for
leaks at industrial component interfaces such as flanges, couplings, and valves. Monitoring is
performed so that leaks can be identified and repaired. Mr. Williams said this is accomplished
by comparing the organic vapor analyzer reading, or screening value, with the leak definition in
the applicable regulation. Current FEM methods, such as organic vapor analyzers, bubblers, and
ultrasonic leak detection equipment, have traditionally been used in accordance with Method 21.
While thorough, this procedure is costly because it requires a large amount of operator effort. In
addition, since most of the fugitive emissions come from a few large leaks, the practice of
individually checking each potential source is inefficient. The actual number of components to
be tested in a refinery or chemical plant can be quite large, making Method 21 monitoring both
time intensive and expensive.
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Teleconference- Dec. 6, 2007
Page 3
-------
A class of technology generally referred to as optical imagers offers operators the ability to
monitor components from a distance and instantaneously identify leaking components within the
line of sight of the optical imager. The remote sensing and instantaneous detection capabilities
of optical imaging technologies allow an operator to scan areas containing many potential leaks,
thus eliminating the need to visit and individually measure all potential leak sites. Optical
imaging technologies include thermal imagers, laser systems, multispectral and hyperspectral
imagers, Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, and visible- to near-infrared systems.
These technologies (similar in appearance to a 1990s camcorder) provide a tool to more quickly
identify high leaking components by allowing the user to see images of leaking gas.
Mr. Williams said the new technologies offer many advantages such as identifying leaks
immediately, allowing quicker repair, and facilitating efficient use of resources.
A stakeholder asked how these new technologies will be instituted at industrial facilities in lieu
of technologies that have traditionally been used in accordance with Method 21. Mr. Williams
responded that hopefully these optical imaging technologies will become an alternative work
practice promulgation in the near future. Texas, California, and Louisiana have instituted their
own state alternative work practice and are using cameras to a great extent.
Mr. Williams said the verification is expected to be in collaboration with industry; the Texas
Chemical Council and American Chemistry Council are expected to provide funding and a site
for the test. The technologies will be tested against a suite of vapors (about 12-14 compounds);
the EPA wants a robust system that sees many compounds, not a single one. It is expected that
testing will occur in both winter and summer following laboratory testing.
Update on Technology Categories
Tom Kelly provided an update on four technology categories; the first one has recently
completed verification, one is in the planning stages, while the last two technology categories are
in the preliminary discussion stages. He reviewed slides from a PowerPoint presentation
distributed to stakeholders before the teleconference. He said that if anyone had questions about
the slides to follow up with him after the call or to follow up with the point of contact listed on
page 2 of the presentation.
Dr. Kelly reviewed the Chemiluminescent Ozone Monitors verification recently completed.
The AMS Center evaluated the performance of the JSC Optec Ltd. 3.02 P-A ozone analyzer, a
continuous monitor for determining ozone in air. Newly available in the U.S., the 3.02 P-A
detects ambient ozone by means of its chemical reaction with a solid-phase reactant of
proprietary composition, resulting in light emission, with peak intensity near 560 nm
wavelength. The objective of the verification test was to evaluate the ozone analyzer's
performance for determining ozone in air in part by comparing it to the response of the
ultraviolet (UV)-absorption Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) for ozone.
Dr. Kelly briefly described the performance parameters tested and noted that both 3.02 P-A units
relied entirely on their internal automated calibration systems, as specified by the vendor.
Testing was conducted in conjunction with an American Petroleum Institute (API)-funded
evaluation of multiple ozone monitors. Dr. Kelly thanked stakeholders Will Ollison and
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Teleconference- Dec. 6, 2007
Page 4
-------
Rudy Eden for their reviews of the verification report. It is expected that the final verification
report will be available in early 2008.
Dr. Kelly said that during the February 2007 stakeholder meeting, stakeholders had interest and
provided concurrence in proceeding with the technology category of battery-powered Personal
Sampling Pumps, with a focus on sustainability criteria. Dr. Kelly reviewed slides detailing
several kinds of high, medium, and low flow personal sampling pumps such as the Leland
Legacy, Omni, AirChek XR5000, and 222 Pocket Pump. Stakeholders indicated there may be
others to add to the list. Dr. Kelly reviewed the performance and sustainability criteria to be
tested. Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center (NUATRC) is expected to
provide co-funding for the test which is planned to start in summer of 2008. Dr. Kelly asked if
any stakeholders would be interested in participating in the test. Jeff Cook and Rudy Eden both
volunteered.
Dr. Kelly provided an update on the Selected Ion Flow Tube Mass Spectrometers (SIFT-MS)
technology, another technology category that received stakeholder concurrence during the
February meeting. Syft Technologies of New Zealand is interested in verification of its SIFT-
MS technology, the Voice 100 SIFT-MS. Dr. Kelly said that Syft described the technology as
utilizing precisely controlled chemical ionization reactions to detect and quantify trace amounts
of volatile organic compounds (VOC). 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. During the February meeting,
stakeholders identified many potential application areas including VOC speciation, odor
complaint resolution, emergency response, human exposure (breath analysis), wood treatment
sites, and evaluation of oxygenates. Syft is currently working through improvements in the
SIFT-MS to increase its sensitivity and decrease its cost and size. Syft remains interested in
ETV verification, but cannot fully fund a test. Until collaborators and co-funding is found, no
additional action is planned for this category.
Chuck Dene and Phil Galvin wanted to know what kind of funding would be necessary and what
application would be a good first choice to test. Ideal applications to test first would be ones that
are difficult to measure with other technologies such as the wood products industry, ethanol, and
organic acids from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Dr. Kelly responded that co-
funding depends on the application. Ms. Sell said she would send stakeholders more information
on the SIFT-MS.
Dr. Kelly reviewed the final technology category, Fungal Contamination Field Monitors.
Mycometer, Inc. of Tampa, Florida approached the AMS Center with interest in verification of
its fungal contamination technology. Their technology, the Mycometer®-test, is a versatile tool
for investigating mold in buildings allowing analysis of air, surface, and bulk samples. The field
portable system allows users to determine total fungal biomass on-site in less than one hour and
has a detection limit reported in nanograms. Stakeholders would like more information about
this technology. They had questions about the types of mold sampled (e.g., are some molds
harmless and some not) as well as specificity issues since total fungal biomass sounds non-
specific.
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Teleconference- Dec. 6, 2007
Page 5
-------
New Technology Category - Odor Detection (electronic-nose) Technologies
Rudy Eden of the South Coast AQMD provided information about the Odor Detection,
Mitigation and Control Technology Forum and Roundtable Discussion hosted by the South
Coast AQMD on October 30, 2007. He said that odors are of interest to agencies such as the
AQMD since the public is concerned about the impact of odiferous substances on health and
overall quality of life. Furthermore, odor is important with respect to compliance activities.
Mr. Eden summarized the expert panel presentations that focused on the science of odors,
odiferous substance detection technologies, odors as nuisance complaints, the impact of odors on
health, and odor control technology. A roundtable discussion and public question and answer
session followed the presentations in the afternoon. Mr. Eden said that presentations from the
forum are online, but stakeholders were asked to contact Mr. Eden if they would like a CD set.l
Dr. Kelly provided an update on a new technology category, Odor Detection (electronic-nose)
Technologies. He said that ODOTECH contacted the AMS Center regarding potential interest
in ETV verification of its technology, the OdoWatch™ System. The OdoWatch™ System is a
network of e-noses with a meteorological package that is controlled by proprietary software and
characterizes odors at various facilities (e.g., CAFOs, water treatment plants, etc.). Each sensor
consists of 16 semiconductor sensor for various gases (e.g., NH?, H2S). ODOTECH wants the
entire system to undergo verification testing, not just the sensors. Dr. Kelly described how one
or more sensor modules could be tested in a laboratory and field setting.
In the U.S., there is a lot of concern for CAFO odors. Discussions are underway with the state of
Missouri to potentially host a CAFO site. Other sources of potential collaborator support being
considered include the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Pork Board.
ODOTECH prefers a test site in Canada and has indicated they would be willing to contact
potential clients to seek co-funding.
Rudy Eden asked about human exposure issues since some odor compounds are toxics.
Mr. Eden said that 1-butanol is a standard odorant and with odor panels you have to start at
below detectable quantities and work your way up gradually. Furthermore, getting a qualified
panel is doable, but complicated (i.e., all sorts of factors have to be considered - no perfume, no
spicy food, etc.)
In response to that question, Dr. Kelly said that the OdoWatch™ System is calibrated by
comparison to a human odor panel, using whole air samples from the target facility, so perhaps
human exposure considerations may not be an issue. The output is reported as odor intensity, not
as a chemical measurement. Two systems are currently in place in the U.S. at water treatment
facilities.
Finally, Dr. Kelly noted that a solicitation for other odor sensor vendors was released and
vendors with commercially available odor sensors were identified including:
1 Odor Detection, Mitigation and Control Forum. October 30, 2007. Announcement and
Webcast Information, Agenda & Slides, and Forum Summary. Available at:
http://www.aqmd. gov/tao/Conferences Workshops/techforum htm
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Teleconference- Dec. 6, 2007
Page 6
-------
Q+A Solutions (not interested), AIRSENSE, INTERSCAN, Calibrated Instruments Inc., and
Scensive Technologies. All vendors offer portable instruments, not field systems.
New Technology Category Recommendations - What's on the Horizon?
Ms. Sell said that it sounded like stakeholders had provided stakeholder concurrence on pursuing
a verification test for personal sampling pumps and would like more information on SIFT-MS
and the fungal contamination monitor.
Regarding the odor detection technologies, stakeholders had interest in and provided concurrence
for this category. Phil Galvin said he saw applications for this technology in cities dealing with
sewage odors. Chuck Dene was interested in this topic (primarily SO3 and ammonia) and said he
could check for more vendors. Dr. Kelly said he would contact the vendor to see what they'd
envision for an ETV test.
Will Ollison mentioned a new technology by the company, Picarro. Based on Cavity Ring-
Down Spectroscopy (CRDS), Picarro offers portable trace gas analyzers which have application
in many industrial process applications. The analyzer offers ppb-level detection sensitivity.
Potential markets include CAFOs, for their NHa and H^S instruments. Mr. Ollison also said they
have a NOx monitor in development and are considering developing an ozone instrument. The
analyzers measure ambient levels, not source levels. He offered to forward more information to
Ms. Sell following the call.
Next Meeting and Action Items
Ms. Sell thanked all of the stakeholders for attending the meeting and contributing so much to
the ETV program. She said that she would be back in touch with everyone in 2008 with meeting
minutes to review from today's call as well as plan for the next stakeholder teleconference. The
call adjourned at 3:00 pm Eastern.
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Air Stakeholders Teleconference- Dec. 6, 2007
Page 7
------- |