1

From: Peter Westlin/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Serne, Jim \ (Raleigh,NC

- US \ )" <JSerne@TRCSOLUTIONS.com>

Cc: "Palazzolo, Michael A." <Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com>, Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin Segall/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Gary

McAlister/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Parker.Barrett@epa.gov, Ron Myers/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jason Dewees/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, William

Grimley/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, agnew.rachel@epa.gov, driscoll.tom@epa.gov, Jeff Ryan/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/12/2010 02:07 PM

Subject: Re: Method 0031 Questions and the ICRs

Jim:

In response to your questions:

Question 1: For the ICR (in this case the Secondary Aluminum Chip Dryers & Delac Furnaces) does EPA want the

M0031 tube sets analyzed as 2 fractions, ie combine the 2 Tenax tubes and separately analyze the Anasorb. Or

does EPA want all three tubes comb ined and analyzed together to get the decreased detection limits ?? I have

talked to two labs and a few other testers, and it appears both ways are commonly done. The advantages of

analyzing the whole tube set as one fraction are the decreased detection limits, and of course the lower cost.

Response: You may combine the samples from all three adsorbent tubes for each Method 0031 sampling train for a

single analysis.

Question 2. Method 0031 (Section 6.6.1) states “At least one field blank should b e collected for every two

- hour

test run sampling period.” That means three field blank tube sets per stack. Since the actual field results are

not corrected for the field blank values, is it necessary to analyze any or all of the field blanks. Is it a cceptable to

archive the 3 field blanks and only analyze the field blanks if an actual test run appears to have been contaminated

? Analyzing each field blank costs about $ 300 (if analyzed as 1 fraction) or $ 600 (if analyzed as 2 fractions)

Response:

You may set aside the field blanks and not analyze them unless there is a discrepancy that analysis data from a blank

sample would resolve.

Peter Westlin

Measurement Policy Group

OAQPS, SPPD

919

- 541

- 1058

From: "Serne, Jim \ (Raleigh,NC

- US \ )" < JSerne@TRCSOLUTIONS.com>

To: Peter Westlin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Palazzolo, Michael A." <Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com>

Date: 07/09/2010 04:27 PM2

Subject: Method 0031 Questions and the ICRs

Peter,

Method 0031 calls for 3 tubes (Tenax, Tenax, then Anasorb).

In Section 1.8 the method states “Traps may be analyzed separately or combined onto one trap to improve det ection limits.”

In Section 7.5 the method states “The tubes may be analyzed individually, or the Tenax combined as a pair with the Anasorb

analyzed separately, or multiple tubes may be combined on one trap in order to decrease detection limits”

Questi on 1: For the ICR (in this case the Secondary Aluminum Chip Dryers & Delac Furnaces) does EPA want the M0031 tube sets

analyzed as 2 fractions, ie combine the 2 Tenax tubes and separately analyze the Anasorb. Or does EPA want all three tubes

combined and analyzed together to get the decreased detection limits ?? I have talked to two labs and a few other testers, and it

appears both ways are commonly done. The advantages of analyzing the whole tube set as one fraction are the decreased detection

limits, and of course the lower cost.

Question 2. Method 0031 (Section 6.6.1) states “At least one field blank should be collected for every two

- hour test run sampling

period.” That means three field blank tube sets per stack. Since the actual field resu lts are not corrected for the field blank values,

is it necessary to analyze any or all of the field blanks. Is it acceptable to archive the 3 field blanks and only analyze the field blanks if

an actual test run appears to have been contaminated ? Analyz ing each field blank costs about $ 300 (if analyzed as 1 fraction) or $

600 (if analyzed as 2 fractions)

I did not see these questions previously addressed in the FAQ.

Thanks,

Jim Serne, PE, QSTI

TRC Environmental Corporation

5540 Centerview Drive

Raleigh, NC 27606

(919) 256 -6231

(919) 838

-

9661 (fax)