Smart, Modular Sample Systems What’s in it for us Dan Podkulski

May 2006CPAC Meeting - Seattle, WA Value Propositions What we know today –90% of components necessary for sample systems are available in down mount configuration –Cost of down mount components are higher than traditional design –Construction costs are lower for down mount systems – fewer workforce hours –Typical issues with traditional systems Over tightening of fittings Improper connections to major components making removal difficult, leak sources Variations in layout making standardization difficult –Construction errors lower with down mount systems –Sample system layout is more predictable with down mount systems

May 2006CPAC Meeting - Seattle, WA EM Installed Base Sarnia –Fifteen systems on aromatics, diesel, effluent water, gas streams Most standardized systems in EM –Enclosures, heating systems, Valco valve bypasses –Source of standard designs for other plant sites BOP –Twelve systems on olefins plant gas streams First attempts at HMI via GC BTCP –Seven systems on aromatics plant streams One with GE Panametrics probe incorporated No leaks No complaints from techs BMCP –Six systems on similar streams as BTCP

May 2006CPAC Meeting - Seattle, WA Value Propositions - Cost Saving Items Design and Construction –Engineering time reduction Layout design and drawings for traditional systems take a week Layout design and drawings for modular complete in three days –Net savings of two days per system –Partially completed as part of configurator –Assembly time reduction Traditional system takes one week to layout and assemble Modular system takes two days to layout and assemble, –Net savings of three days per system –More standard designs With 90% of components on the stick design is already significantly constrained – in a good way Save checkout time – two hours for each sample system –Electrical power and signal bus installation Traditional sample system – a week to connect to different form factor sensors Modular sample systems – 1-2 days to connect up a bus –Projected time savings since experience level is low here

May 2006CPAC Meeting - Seattle, WA Value Propositions - Cost Saving Items Field –Reliability of installations Traditional sample system can be installed incorrectly (fittings over tightened, inaccessible components for filter replacement, etc.) Modular sample systems will have less than 10% of these errors than traditional systems since so much of the design is constrained by form factor Fewer leaks –Field modifications (different manufacturer’s component being used) Traditional system – One day for a simple component replacement Modular system – ½ hour, most of this time for depressuring and venting sample system –Savings of at last seven hours per modification –Lower activation energy to make a change

May 2006CPAC Meeting - Seattle, WA Value Propositions - Cost Saving Items Analytical Performance –Lower surface area Less than ½ of comparable traditional systems This equipment is set down in a laydown area with dirt, sand, other stuff –Lower internal volume Less than ½ of comparable traditional systems Faster turnover of sample Dead spots still possible if design isn't done well –Unintended consequences Revised designs with improvements –Improvements in double block and bleed technology –Remote discrete sampling may occur before my career ends CFD and other tools –Configurators, tools that save time Standard designs actually get talked about