Digital Camera Field Testing Results in Support of the Digital Opacity Compliance System (DOCS)

1
Digital Camera Field Testing Results in Support
of the Digital Opacity Compliance System (DOCS)
Michael J. McFarland (Utah State
University) Steve L. Rasmussen (Hill AFB) Daniel
A. Stone (Hill AFB) Glenn R. Palmer (Hill
AFB) Mike Spencer (Eastman Kodak, Inc.) Josh A.
Gunter (EMassist, Inc.)
Joint Services Environmental ManagementConference
ExpositionApril 13, 2005
2
OUTLINE

• Background
• Theory of DOCS
• Goal and Objectives
• Methods
• Hardware Validation Field Results
• Conclusions and Recommendations

3
Acknowledgements

• Field demonstration was financially supported by
  the Environmental Security Technology
  Certification Program (Contract CP-200119)

4
Acknowledgements

• Participating Organizations Included
• EPA Emission Measurement Center
• EPA Regions VI, VIII
• California Air Resources Board
• Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
• Utah Division of Air Quality
• Hill AFB, UT
• Eastman Kodak, Inc. (Rochester, NY)

5
BACKGROUND

• Visible opacity is the most frequently cited air
  quality parameter in Title V operating permits.
• For the majority of regulated air sources, the
  primary method for determining compliance with
  permitted opacity levels is EPA Reference Method
  9 (Method 9)

6
BACKGROUND

• Method 9 relies on trained human observers to
  visually determine compliance by estimating the
  opacity of a smoke plume once every 15 seconds
  for a specified time period.
• Because its opacity estimates are inherently
  subjective, Method 9 results are vulnerable to
  claims of inaccuracy, bias and, in some cases,
  outright fraud.

7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
BACKGROUND

• Beyond the technical concerns, the recurring
  Method 9 training costs can become a significant
  financial burden on a facilitys compliance
  budget.
• The Department of Defense (DoD) spends
  approximately 42 million dollars per year to
  support the Method 9 compliance program.

11
BACKGROUND

• With declining DoD compliance budgets,
  development of cost-effective and regulatory
  supportable methods for verifying visible opacity
  is receiving increased attention.

12
Digital Opacity Compliance System

• The Digital Opacity Compliance System (DOCS) is a
  low cost and innovative technology that employs
  digital imaging technology for quantifying
  visible opacity
• Recent economic analyses have demonstrated that
  adoption of the DOCS technology could save DoD
  approximately 16 million dollars per year in air
  compliance costs.

13
Digital Opacity Compliance System

• The DOCS uses a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)
  digital camera to capture images of visible
  opacity, which are then analyzed using a simple
  computer software package

14
Basics of the DOCS Technology
15
Digital Opacity Compliance System

• Operational Steps
• Activate the DOCS opacity analysis program
• Retrieve those digital photographs to be
  evaluated
• Draw an analysis box (or grid) around that
  portion of the visible emissions that will be
  analyzed for opacity

16
(No Transcript)
17
Previous Field Demonstrations

• From Jan. 2001 through Dec. 2003, the DOCS
  technology was field tested at three EPA-approved
  smoke schools (Ogden, UT, Augusta, GA and
  Columbus, OH) as well as a number of military and
  private commercial sites.
• Earlier field data confirmed that the DOCS
  consistently met the performance standards
  established for Method 9

18
Field Demonstration of the DOCS at Sludge
Incinerator in Healy, Alaska
19
Validated DOCS Hardware

• The validated digital cameras used to support the
  DOCS field demonstrations included the Kodak
  models DC265 and DC290.
• Both digital camera models are no longer
  commercially available.
• Without validated hardware, DOCS technology users
  can not be supported

20
Goal of Study

• The goal of the current effort was to develop,
  implement and evaluate a series of commercially
  available digital cameras in support of the DOCS
  technology

21
OBJECTIVES

• Evaluate commercially available digital cameras
  for their ability to support the DOCS technology
  software.
• Statistically compare the opacity results
  obtained from digital cameras to those reported
  by EPA-certified in-stack transmissometers and
  previously validated digital camera systems.

22
METHODS

• Based on price and functionality, the Kodak model
  DX6490, Sony Cybershot DSC-WI, Fuji Finepix E500
  and the Nikon Coolpix 5200 were selected to
  undergo field validation testing.
• Kodak Model DX6490 was evaluated against the
  Kodak Model DC290 at an EPA-approved Method 9
  smoke school held in Syracuse, NY

23
METHODS

• The digital photographs of visible opacity taken
  by the Kodak model DX6490 and DC290 were
  evaluated using the DOCS technology.
• The field results were compared to the visible
  opacity reported by the EPA-certified in-stack
  transmissometer

24
METHODS

• The average opacity difference for both the Kodak
  model DX6490 and DC290 was computed using the
  following equation

Opacity (Transmissometer) Opacity (DOCS)
25
METHODS

• The field data was analyzed statistically using a
  paired t-test and by computing the 99 confidence
  interval about the average opacity difference.

26
METHODS

• The Sony Cybershot DSC-WI, Fuji Finepix E500 and
  the Nikon Coolpix 5200 were evaluated using a
  Method 9 smoke generator in Anchorage, Alaska.

27
METHODS

• Since an EPA-certified transmissometer was not
  available, the opacity results collected from the
  new digital cameras were compared to results
  obtained from the Kodak model DC290.

28
METHODS

• The average opacity difference for between the
  Kodak model DC290 and the new digital camera
  models was computed using the following equation

Opacity (DC290) Opacity (new systems)
29
METHODS

• As in the Syracuse, NY Method 9 smoke school, the
  field data was analyzed statistically by
  computing the 99 confidence interval about the
  average opacity difference.

30
Positioning of DOCS Cameras
STACK
Stack Height 15 Feet
Stack Distance 50 feet
70 degrees
C1
70 degrees
C4
C2
C3
70 degrees
70 degrees
31
RESULTS
Performance of the Kodak DC290 and Kodak DX6490
at Method 9 Smoke School (0 100)
Camera Model Opacity Range Plume Photos (n) Ave. Difference (Transmissometer Camera) 99 CI Significant?
Kodak DC290 0-100 100 -0.72 -4.24lt-0.72lt2.79 No
Kodak DX6490 0-100 100 -7.30 -12.74lt-7.30lt-1.85 Yes
32
Results suggest that from 0 100 opacity, the
Kodak model DC290 was statistically equivalent to
the EPA-certified transmissometer. The Kodak
model DX6450 was not equivalent.
33
RESULTS
Performance of the Kodak DC290 and Kodak DX6490
at Method 9 Smoke School (0 - 40)
Camera Model Opacity Range Plume Photos (n) Ave. Difference (Transmissometer Camera) 99 CI Significant?
Kodak DC290 0-40 55 -1.36 -4.91lt-1.36lt2.19 No
Kodak DX6490 0-40 55 -7.87 -17.77lt-7.87lt2.04 No
34
Results suggest that over the opacity range of 0
40, both the Kodak model DC290 and DX6450 were
statistically equivalent to the EPA certified
transmissometer.
35
RESULTS
Performance of the Kodak DC290 and New Digital
Camera Models (0-100)
Camera Model Opacity Range No. of Photos (n) Ave. Difference (Kodak DC290 New Camera) 99 CI Significant?
Sony Cybershot DSC-WI 0-100 810 2.42 1.16lt2.42lt3.68 Yes
Fuji Finepix E500 0-100 810 -1.13 -2.2lt-1.13lt-0.05 Yes
Nikon Coolpix 5200 0-100 810 1.85 0.65lt1.85lt3.05 Yes
36
Results suggest that over the full range of
opacity (0 100), none of the new camera models
were statistically equivalent to the Kodak model
DC290.
37
RESULTS
Performance of the Kodak DC290 and New Digital
Camera Models (0 40)
Camera Model Opacity Range No. of Photos (n) Ave. Difference (Kodak DC290 New Camera) 99 CI Significant?
Sony Cybershot DSC-WI 0-40 679 0.11 -0.81lt0.11lt1.04 No
Fuji Finepix E500 0-40 679 -2.20 -2.98lt-2.20lt-1.42 Yes
Nikon Coolpix 5200 0-40 679 -0.46 -1.24lt-0.46lt0.32 No
38
Results suggest that over the opacity range of 0
40, the Sony Cybershot DSC-WI and the Nikon
Coolpix 5200 were statistically equivalent to the
Kodak model DC290.
39
Over the 0 40 opacity range, the performance
of the Fuji Finepix E500 was significantly
different.
40
CONCLUSIONS

• Over the entire opacity range, the Kodak
  DC290-DOCS combination was found to measure
  visible opacity with an accuracy statistically
  equivalent to the EPA-certified transmissometer.

41
CONCLUSIONS

• Over the 0 40 opacity range, the performance
  of the Kodak model DX6490, Sony Cybershot DSC-WI
  and Nikon Coolpix 5200 was found to be comparable
  to the Kodak DC290

42
CONCLUSIONS

• The Fuji Finepix E500-DOCS combination measured
  visible opacity with an accuracy that was
  statistically different from the Kodak model
  DC290.

43
RECOMMENDATIONS

• Because of rapid improvements in digital
  technology, any regulatory approved opacity
  method that employs digital imagery must
  incorporate a protocol for testing and validating
  new hardware.
• Camera validation testing should be expanded to
  include a greater number of digital camera
  makes/models

44
RECOMMENDATIONS

• For the DoD (and others) in the regulated
  community to recognize the financial benefit of
  adopting digital technology for opacity
  compliance verification, development and
  promulgation of a new regulatory approved method
  is urgently needed.

45
QUESTIONS?