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.co m, "'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 27711USA 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 ofthe 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