From: <Myers.Ron@epamail.epa.gov>

To: jchrist@airtechenv.com

CC: Bivins.Dan@epa.gov; Sorrell.Candace@epa.gov; Dewees.Jason@epa.gov; Joe.Fanjoy@erg.com; 

Danny.Greene@erg.com; Ray.Merrill@erg.com; . . .

Date: 9/19/2009 1:55 PM

Subject: RE: Section 114 and OTM 027

Jim:

Both OTM-27 and the proposed Method 202 only require weighing the filter

and other components to 0.1 mg. This is about the level of precision

that one could expect without going to very high proced scales and the

weigh room you would be required to get this level of precision. Also,

you would also find that the source testers ability to obtain the

consistency in recoveries (i.e. consistently obtaining near zero mass

differences on blanks) would not justify this order of magnitude

improvement in the minimum weight capabilities of the scale.

One may be able to improve the precision and eliminate the need to

extend greatly the sampling time required to collect a reasonable amount

of material to weigh. This would require source specific, site specific

and field crew specific assessment which is beyond what we would require

in a general test method.

_________________________________

Ron Myers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policy and Programs Division

Monitoring Policy Group, D243-05

RTP NC 27711

Tel. 919.541.5407

Fax 919.541.1039

E-mail myers.ron@epa.gov

-----"Jim Christ" <jchrist@airtechenv.com> wrote: -----

To: Ron Myers/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Jim Christ" <jchrist@airtechenv.com>

Date: 09/18/2009 06:43PM

Subject: RE: Section 114 and OTM 027

Thanks for the info.

Another question about this method is about the filter weighing. I

originally thought that the filters for OTM-27 needed to be weighed to

the nearest 0.01 mg. Section 11.2.1 instructs us to weigh them to the

nearest 0.1 mg.

Is this correct?

James Christ

Airtech Environmental Services

(630) 860-4740

-----Original Message-----

From: Myers.Ron@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Myers.Ron@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:48 AM

To: Jeff Kaput

Cc: jchrist@airtechenv.com; Westlin.Peter@epamail.epa.gov; 'Kurt

Wepprecht'; Parker.Barrett@epa.gov; Ray.Merrill@erg.com;

Danny.Greene@erg.com; Joe Fanjoy; Dewees.Jason@epamail.epa.gov;

Sorrell.Candace@epamail.epa.gov; Bivins.Dan@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Re: Section 114 and OTM 027

Jeff:

 Section 7.2.1 - Because of the possibility of collecting a lower mass
 for PM2.5 and for improved precision and accuracy, we are specifying

 a better grade of acetone for recovery. Acetone is readily available

 with guaranteed residues below 1ppm. An acetone with a residue of

 1ppm by volume is the same as having a residue of 0.079 mg/100 ml.

 So the blank correction limit that we have included in the method is

 what we intended to propose. As far as the ability for you to

 quantify this level of residue in the acetone, it should be within

 your capability without evaporating a liter of solvent. I would

 expect that you have a scale that has the capability of weighing to

 0.1 mg. Evaporating 150 ml of acetone would provide you the ability

 to verify that the residue in the solvent that you purchased was less

 than the guaranteed residue level of 1 ppm.

 Section 11.2.4 - You are correct this section has a typo. The "g"

 should be "mg". This is what we have (I hope) in the other

 paragraphs for weighing.

 Section 11.2.7 and 11.2.4 - The purpose of using the weighing tin is

 to counteract the variations that one of the stakeholders identified

 in weighing low masses in beakers. Either method should be

 acceptable if one makes corrections for the changes in the mass of

 air that one weighs between taring and final weights.

_________________________________

Ron Myers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policy and Programs Division

Monitoring Policy Group, D243-05

RTP NC 27711

Tel. 919.541.5407

Fax 919.541.1039

E-mail myers.ron@epa.gov

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 |Peter Westlin/RTP/USEPA/US

 |

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 |"Jeff Kaput" <jkaput@airtechenv.com>

 |

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Cc: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 |jchrist@airtechenv.com, "'Kurt Wepprecht'"

 <kwepprecht@airtechenv.com>, Ron Myers/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

 Parker.Barrett@epa.gov |

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 |09/14/2009 03:41 PM

 |

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 |Re: Section 114 and OTM 027

 |

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Jeff:

I am copying Ron and Barrett on this note to let one of them (Ron)

address your questions with more authority than I could.

Peter

Measurement Policy Group

EPA, OAQPS (mail code D243-05)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

USA

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail message.

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 |"Jeff Kaput" <jkaput@airtechenv.com>

 |

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 |Peter Westlin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

 |

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Cc: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 |<jchrist@airtechenv.com>, "'Kurt Wepprecht'"

 <kwepprecht@airtechenv.com>

 |

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 |09/10/2009 05:20 PM

 |

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 |Section 114 and OTM 027

 |

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Peter,

We have successfully completed the field work on a couple of the Section

114 boilers and we�re getting the samples through the analytical

phase.

We have noticed some pretty strange discrepancies in the analytical part

of OTM 027 and wanted to make sure we�re doing it the way you

want it.

Our questions are as follows:

 Section 7.2.1 says the maximum blank correction is 0.079mg/100ml.

 Can this be correct? If it is, we�ll have to evaporate

 over

 1,000ml of acetone to get detectable blank masses or prove that

 our acetone is clean enough. We checked M5 and calculated the M5

 allowable blank correction at 0.79mg/100ml.

 Section 11.2.4 says to report the results to the nearest 0.1g. We

 assume this is a typographical error and should read 0.1mg. Are

 we correct in our assumption?

 Section 11.2.7 has us evaporating our acetone blank to 10ml, then

 transferring the contents of the beaker to a pre-weighed tin for

 final evaporation and weights. Section 11.2.4 has us fully

 evaporate and weigh the sample in the 250ml beaker. Is this

 correct? Why would we handle a blank any differently than

 handling a sample?

Anyway, we think we know your answers to these questions, we just

didn�t

want to assume anything. Please get back to us at your earliest

convenience. Thanks in advance for your help.

Jeff Kaput

Airtech Environmental Services Inc.

jkaput@airtechenv.com