From: Scott Brown <sbrown@cleanair.com>

Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:43 PM To: Garwood, Gerri Cc: Green, David A.; Putney, David Subject: RE: Method 428/429 glassware soak

Contamination issues and difficult to get tare weig hts on soxhelet rinsed filters. On Apr 23, 2013 2:38 PM, "Garwood, Gerri" <Garwood. Gerri@epa.gov> wrote:

Scott,

Out of curiosity, why the extra M5 train?

You are current; the sample volumes were selected t o ensure adequate detection

limits. While it

would be nice to have all of the data collected the same way, we are okay with decreasing the sample volume/time, as long as you can detect somet hing in the shortened timeframe. And you must report all test runs.

Sincerely, Gerri G. Garwood, P.E.

--------------------------------------------------- ----- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OAR/OAQPS/SPPD Measurement Policy Group

Ph: 919-541-2406 Fax: 919-541-3207

-----Original Message----- From: Scott Brown [mailto:sbrown@cleanair.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 2:04 PM To: Garwood, Gerri; Putney, David Cc: Green, David A. Subject: RE: Method 428/429 glassware soak

Gerri/David,David,

We are in the midst of testing this week and I need a quick answer to the following.

The 428/429 testing requires a sample volume of 3 dscm so we are doing 3 hour test runs (I assume this is for detection limit purposes). At a few of the locations we are also performing M5 (FPM). To keep from having port conflicts we are d oing 3 hour M5 test runs as well.

If we have to do an extra M5 test run does it need to be 3 hours in duration?

I know the combo Metals/FPM train in the ICR calls for 4 dscm test run volumes but I

assume this is for metals detection purposes since FPM det ection is not a problem.

Is it possible to get a quick answer since we will likely be doing an extra M5 run today? Would

a 1 or 2 hour run suffice?

Regards,

Scott Brown Project Manager

CleanAir

847-654-4544 847-612-0561 (cell)

-----Original Message-----From: Garwood, Gerri [mailto:Garwood.Gerri@epa.gov]

Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 2:52 PM To: Scott Brown; Putney, David Cc: Green, David A. Subject: RE: Method 428/429 glassware soak

Scott,

This is treated as a minor modification to the meth od. I discussed with our methods group, and because of the expected low moisture, this should b e okay.

Sincerely, Gerri G. Garwood, P.E.

--------------------------------------------------- ----- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OAR/OAQPS/SPPD Measurement Policy Group

Ph: 919-541-2406 Fax: 919-541-3207

-----Original Message----- From: Scott Brown [mailto:sbrown@cleanair.com] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 12:12 PM To: Putney, David Cc: Green, David A.; Garwood, Gerri Subject: RE: Method 428/429 glassware soak

To all, Thanks for the response.

I have had extensive conversations with the lab. T hese are low moisture sources so

the extra knockout is not needed (1.5% or so). We are planni ng on soaking the condenser as in

Method 23. The lab has no problem with us combining the a cetone and toluene rinses since they would

do that themselves if we did not. Thus the fractio ns will be:

1) Acetone / toluene rinse (probe, filter holder, j umper (if used), condenser and any other connection glassware - Basically everything before the XAD trap 2) Filter 3) XAD trap 4) Impinger liquid 5) Impinger and connecting glassware acetone / tolu ene rinse

Regards,

Scott Brown -----Original Message----- From: Putney, David [mailto:putney.david@epa.gov] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:01 AM

To: Scott Brown Cc: Green, David A.; Garwood, Gerri Subject: FW: Method 428/429 glassware soak

Mr. Brown,

Please see below for the response to your questions regarding Methods 428 and 429.

Thanks, and have a great weekend.

David Putney, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 Mail Drop D243-02 Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207 Email: putney.david@epa.gov

-----Original Message----- From: Garwood, Gerri Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:16 AM To: Putney, David Subject: RE: Method 428/429 glassware soak

David,

This is the response I got from MTG:

This plan is acceptable, though the tester may want to add a knock out in front of

the first impinger if water condensation might be an issue. Furthermore, the tester should verify this approach with the lab. In the field, they should keep the fractions separate (front half/back half with t he XAD sorbent trap as the dividing line). The back half should only be analyzed for the PCBs/PAHs

.

So the fractions would be

FH - acetone FH- toluene

FH - filter

XAD BH - impingers

BH - acetone BH - toluene

Rereading the original email, I realized Scott only mentioned soaking the connecting

glassware. The tester should also soak the condens er.

Gerri

-----Original Message----- From: Putney, David Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:37 PM To: Garwood, Gerri Subject: FW: Method 428/429 glassware soak

Gerri,

Sorry, but I'm coming back to the well again. Would you please take a look at the request below and let me know if the tester's plan is acceptable?

Thanks,

David Putney, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 Mail Drop D243-02 Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207 Email: putney.david@epa.gov-----Original Message-----

From: Scott Brown [mailto:sbrown@cleanair.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:07 PM To: Green, David A. Cc: Putney, David Subject: RE: Method 428/429 glassware soak

Mr. Green,

One more question regarding the combination of CARB 428 and 429 and the designated impinger trains.

428 calls for 4 impingers, all modified Greenberg S mith with the first impinger being a knock out impinger, second containing 100 ml DI H2O, thir d empty and fourth silica gel.

429 calls for 4 impingers, all modified Greenberg S mith with the first two impingers

each containing 100 ml of 3mM NaHCO3 / 2.4 mM Na2CO3, th ird empty and fourth silica gel.

I have been planning on combining these by using fo ur impingers: knockout, modified, modified, modified with impingers 1 and 2 continaing the NaHC O3 / Na2CO3 solution, the third

empty and the fourth silica gel.

Is this acceptable?

Scott Brown CleanAir

847-654-4544

-----Original Message----- From: Green, David A. [mailto:green@rti.org] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 7:03 AM

To: sbrown@cleanair.com Cc: putney.david@epa.gov Subject: Method 428/429 glassware soak

Mr. Brown:

We recommend doing the five minute soak to ensure t he best quality data. Even though CARB 428/429 don't require it, those me thods also use different solvents

so it makes sense for the procedures to be somewhat diffe rent.

David Green

RTI International

919.316.3412 www.rti.org

-----Original Message----- From: Scott Brown [mailto:sbrown@cleanair.com] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:51 PM To: Green, David A. Subject: RE: solvents for M428/429

Thank you for your quick response.

To verify. CARB Methods 428 and 429 call for rinsi ng all components of the train

three times with the recovery solvents but do not require a 5 m inute soak (in triplicate) of theconnecting

glassware with the final rinse solvent as Method 23 does.

Since we are using CARB 428 / 429 per the ICR shoul d we follow the method(s) and not soak, just rinse?

Scott Brown Project Manager

CleanAir -----Original Message----- From: Green, David A. [mailto:green@rti.org] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:43 PM

To: Scott Brown Subject: RE: solvents for M428/429

Mr. Brown:

The use of acetone/toluene for recovery is acceptab le. Basically, you should follow

Method 23 recovery but may skip the methylene chloride step.

Please let me know if any other questions arise.

David Green

RTI International

919.316.3412 www.rti.org

--

--

--