EPA) (2012). EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards. EPA‐600/R‐12/531.
62 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2020a). Continuous emission monitoring. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR 75. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register.
63 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2020b). Reference method 19 – determination of sulfur dioxide removal efficiency and particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emission rates. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR 60 Appendix A. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register.
64 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2020c). Subpart BB – standards of performance for Kraft Pulp Mill. Appendix A. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR 60 Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register.
65 Wawrowski, J.M. (2004). Modular Platform Components (MPC) Overview. NeSSI Workshop 6 May 2004. Seattle: University of Washington Center for Process Analysis and Control.
66 White, J.R. (1995). Problems and solutions for continuous emissions monitors while measuring SO2 down stream of NOx control. Paper presented at the Air & Waste Management Association Meeting, San Antonio, paper 95‐TA16B.03 (18–23 June 1995).
67 Williams, B. (1992). Environment Canada. Private communication.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 Chapman, R.L. (1974). Continuous stack monitoring. Environmental Science & Technology 8 (6): 520525.
2 Dillehay, D. (1993). Direct extractive measurement of unconditioned wet flue stack gases. In: Proceedings – Continuous Emission Monitoring – A Technology for the 90s, 350–359. Pittsburgh: Air and Waste Management Association.
3 Electric Power Research Institute (1993). Continuous Emission Monitoring Guidelines: Update. EPRI TR‐102386‐V1. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute.
4 Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2008). Air Pollution Prevention Manual on Emission Monitoring. Research Report 360 16 004 UBA – FB 001090. DessauRosslau, Germany: Federal Environment Agency.
5 Frank, H. and Mullowney, R. (1990). Recycling ambient monitors as stack gas monitors at Dairyland power. In: Proceedings – Specialty Conference on: Continuous Emission Monitoring – Present and Future Applications, 390–392. Pittsburgh: Air and Waste Management Association.
6 Houser, E.A. (1977). Principles of Sampling Handling and Sampling System Design for Process Analysis. Pittsburgh: Instrument Society of America.
7 Jahnke, J.A. (1995). Eliminating bias in CEM systems. In: Proceedings – Acid Rain & Electric Utilities – Permits, Allowances, Monitoring, & Meteorology, 391–400. Pittsburgh: Air & Waste Management Association.
8 Jahnke, J.A. (1994). An Operator's Guide to Eliminating Bias in CEM Systems. EPA 430‐R‐94‐016. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.
9 Jahnke, J.A. and Johnson, W.E. (2003). Continuous Emission Monitoring (CEM) System Application and Maintenance Guide. Electric Power Research Institute Technical Report 1009057. Palo Alto, CA
10 Laird, J.C., Patton, J.C., Zolner, W.J., and Tomlin, R.L. (1978). Unique extractive stack sampling system for continuous emission monitoring. Paper presented at the Instrument Society of America Meeting, Houston, (22–25 May 1978).
11 Maurice, R.L., Robertson, J.A., and Howder, J.M. (1986). Design, specification, and installation of a replacement CEM at Apache Station. In: Transactions – Continuous Emission Monitoring – Advances and Issues, 44–51. Pittsburgh: Air Pollution Control Association.
12 Myers, R.L., Fredette, P., and Vojtko, D. (1995). New Vacuum Dilution sample transport system provides low maintenance CEMS front‐end with greatly enhanced flexibility. In: Proceedings – Acid Rain & Electric Utilities – Permits, Allowances, Monitoring, & Meteorology, 690–701. Pittsburgh: Air & Waste Management Association.
13 Navarre, A.J. and Ayer, C. (1978). Development of champion papers' stack gas sampling/calibration system using a calibration probe. Paper presented at Air Pollution Control Association Meeting, Houston, paper 78‐47.5 (25–30 June 1978).
14 Patton, J.C., Martin, G.W., Ross, J.A., and Spangler, W. (1979). A turn‐key extractive sampling system to continuously monitor gaseous emissions from fossil fuel fired boiler stacks. Paper presented at the Air Pollution Control Association Meeting, Cincinnati, paper 79‐35.1 (24–29 June 1979).
15 Peritsky, M.M., Wood, R.D., and Wendt, J.O.L. (1981). Extractive Flue‐gas Sampling Challenges Insitu Methods. Power (December).
16 Richards, J.A. (1984). Guidelines on Preferred Location and Design of Measurement Ports for Air Pollution Control Systems. EPA‐340/1‐84‐017.
17 Schakenbach, J. Fax, G., and Werner, A.. (2002) Spin off of selected CEMS‐related QA activities selected CEMS‐related QA activities. Paper presented at the Air & Waste Management Association Meeting, Baltimore, paper 42583 (23–27 June 2002).
18 Shapiro, A.H. (1953). The Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Compressible Fluid Flow. New York: Ronald Press.
19 Sherman, R.E. (2002). Process Analyzer Sample‐Conditioning System Technology. New York: Wiley.
20 Sorrel, C.B. (1986). Critical orifice in gas sampling trains for volume and rate measurements. Paper presented at the Air Pollution Control Association Meeting, Minneapolis, paper 8671.1.
21 Tatera, J. (1993). A review and discussion of several design requirements that will impact CEM systems used in hazardous process plant environments. In: Proceedings – Continuous Emission Monitoring – A Technology for the 90s, 99–110. Pittsburgh: Air and Waste Management Association.
22 Turnbull, J. (1998). Sample handling and calibration. In: Proceedings – CEM 98 International Workshop on Continuous Emissions Monitoring, 184–192. London: IEA Coal Research.
23 Waters, T. (2013). Industrial Sampling Systems: Reliable Design & Maintenance for Process Analyzers. Swagelok Company.
CHAPTER 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYTICAL METHODS
The heart of any CEM system, whether extractive or in‐situ, consists of the analyzers. An extractive system transports and conditions the flue gas, but the analyzers perform the job of measurement. The selection or evaluation of CEM system analyzers must consider both regulatory specifications and performance characteristics. Although most analyzers are advertised as meeting or exceeding required specifications, care must be exercised in their selection because an analyzer's performance in the field can differ greatly from its performance on a laboratory bench.
CEM system analyzers must measure gases without interference from other gases. They are increasingly being required to measure accurately in low‐concentration ranges, and they must perform well often in hostile environments. Current U.S. EPA, Canadian, and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards for CEM system analyzers do not specify analytical techniques that are to be used (except for opacity monitors), but rather provide performance‐based specifications. Therefore, it is left to the CEM system manufacturer or the user to determine the measurement techniques that would be the most appropriate for a given application. This chapter provides a basis for the understanding of several techniques employed in commercially available CEM system analyzers.
THE PROPERTIES OF LIGHT
The majority of instruments used in CEM systems are based on principles associated with the interaction of light with matter. Opacity monitors measure the effects of light scattering and absorption; a nondispersive infrared analyzer measures the amount of light absorbed by a pollutant molecule; and a chemiluminescence analyzer senses the light emitted in a chemical reaction. One could treat the operation of CEM system analyzers as “black boxes” that give out answers, but an understanding of their operation is necessary to properly apply an analyzer for monitoring at a