PROCESS
MEASUREMENTS
REVIEW
INDUSTRIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH
LABORATORY
&EPA
Volume 2, Number 2
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Fall Edition, 1979
Massive Volume
Source Sampler
Update
A massive volume source sampler has recently
been used to collect large quantities of particulate for
use in EPA's health effects research. (Refer to the
Spring 1979 edition of the Process Measurements Me-
view for a detailed description of the massive volume
source sampler.) The sampling system was designed
to operate at a temperature of 204° C with a sam-
pling rate of 340 Nm3/hr. A cyclone with a calibrated
50 percent efficiency cutpoint of 2.5 /on aerodynamic
diameter is the initial particle collector. A fabric
filter follows the cyclone to collect the particulate
fraction below 2.5 /on.
This system was used on a 500-MW utility boiler
firing low-sulfur (1 percent) No. 6 fuel oil. No emission
control devices were used on the unit. Sampling was
begun on August 6, 1979, and completed on August
30,1979. During this period the sampler operated for
a total of 413 hr to gather 2,640 g of particulate in the
<2.5-/*m size fraction. The nominal total particulate
loading in the stack was 28 mg/Nm3 during the test.
Bill Kuykendal
EPA/IERL-RTP
Correction
toPCB
Analysis Report
The recently issued Measurement of PCS Emis-
sions from Combustion Sources (EPA-600/7-79-047)
presents an improved method for analysis of poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCB) by gas chromatogra-
phy/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). In the background
section of the report (page 3), a discussion of alter-
native PCB analysis procedures includes material
concerning previous studies utilizing the perchlorina-
tion method. An error in preparation of the manu-
script leads the reader to believe that the results
from the incinerator studies, reference 7, were later
shown'to be based on artifacts. This was not the case;
the artifact problem was related to reference 10 and
was part of a coal-fired power plant study. Future
printings of the report will include the correction. A
copy of the corrected page will be provided to anyone
contacting L. D. Johnson, EPA/IERL-RTP, or Ann
Turner, Research Triangle Institute, P.O. Box 12194,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709.
The views expressed in the Process Measurements Review do not necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or com-
mercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by EPA.
-------
Process Measurements Review
Mass Spectrometry
for Level 1
It is often suggested that Level 1 methodology
could be improved by substitution of gas chromatog-
raphy/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) for low resolution
mass spectrometry (LRMS). This is not the case and
the primary reason involves comprehensiveness.
Comprehensive is defined as "covering completely."
In the context of Level 1, it means that all substances
in a given sample should be detected during the
screening analyses. This is one of the most basic but
most often misunderstood concepts of Level 1. Al-
though it is not always possible to achieve perfect
comprehensiveness of sampling and quantitation, the
techniques employed in Level 1 have been selected
for their high potential for comprehensive detection.
Every effort has been made to promote high recov-
eries in all phases of sample acquisition and treat-
ment.
The organic analysis of many samples from pollu-
tion sources is complicated by the presence of rela-
tively high boiling, high molecular weight organic
compounds as well as polar species such-as amines
and carboxylic acids. These and other materials can-
not readily pass through a general purpose GC col-
umn such as that used for survey analysis. Therefore,
GC/MS screening analyses carried out using general
purpose GC columns rarely detect compounds with
molecular weights above 252. Special purpose col-
umns such as those used for polycyclic organic mate-
rial (POM) may allow one to see materials with molec-
ular weights up to 300. Attempts to avoid the loss of
comprehensiveness by use of special columns or tech-
niques te.g., derivatization) are only effective when
the species of interest are well defined in advance.
Such advanced definition is not typical of the screen-
ing situation. Furthermore, such procedures result in
complicated analysis schemes with multiple columns
and resulting cost escalation. Direct insertion probes
are routinely capable of allowing the detection of
materials with molecular weights in the range of
400-600. Instruments with appropriate analyzer
systems are capable of detecting materials up to a
molecular weight of 2000. The difference in detec-
table molecular weight range between a direct inser-
tion probe and GC/MS is that compounds with very
low vapor pressures are introduced directly into the
mass spectrometer source with the probe system.
Hence, this technique is not only capable of detecting
materials that cannot pass through a GC column, it
will also detect materials that cannot be analyzed
with any other type of inlet system.
The potential for loss of organics due to gas
chromatographic difficulties was demonstrated in a
recent Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
study carried out at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
It was found that less than 10 percent by weight of
the benzene extractable organics from a fly ash sam-
ple were amenable to gas chromatography. As fur-
ther illustration of this important difference between
GC/MS and direct insertion probe LRMS, a set of
Level 1 data is being evaluated to determine com-
pounds that would not have been detected by GC/MS
screening. A few of the compounds not detected by
GC/MS include dibenzofluorenone, alkyl dibenzocar-
bazoles, POM's with molecular weights over 400, and
palmitic acid.
WhDe the direct insertion probe is the best ap-
proach for high-boiling-point substances, compounds
with boiling points below 300° C are normally lost
with probe techniques. These substances are ana-
lyzed during Level 1 screening using a conventional
batch inlet system on the mass spectrometer. As can
be seen from Table 1, the two analysis techniques
complement each other well and provide the compre-
hensiveness necessary for Level 1.
Table 1. Level 1 LRMS Analysis-LC Fraction 2
Species
Batch Inlet
-------
Volume 2, Number 2, Fall Edition, 1979
Bioaccumulation Procedure and Its Applications
to Complex Industrial and Energy Samples
The need for inclusion of a simple screening pro-
cedure in Level 1 to evaluate the bioaccumulation po-
tential of complex samples has been identified. Such a
procedure should serve as a screen for components in
a complex mixture that would accumulate in aquatic
organisms. The usefulness of this procedure comes
from its ability to establish the need to perform sub-
chronic or chronic biological tests at Level 2.
A high-performance liquid chromatographic
(HPLC) procedure presently exists that fulfills the
basic requirements of the need. The HPLC procedure
is based on known correlations between octanol/
water partition coefficients and bioconcentration.
The retention characteristics of known compounds
determined by HPLC correlated well with octanol/
water partition coefficients and, therefore, calibra-
tion of the HPLC instrument allows it to be used to
determine potential accumulation in aquatic orga-
nisms. Compounds whose retention times correspond
to Log partition coefficients (Log P) greater than 3.5
are expected to accumulate in an aquatic environ-
ment and are defined as a positive response in the
test.
The HPLC procedure for bioaccumulation being
evaluated for inclusion in the bioassay portion of the
Level 1 analysis procedures for environmental as-
sessment is a modification of the procedure proposed
by the EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW) (Federal
Register, Vol. 43, No. 243, December 18, 1978,
p. 59025). Changes in this procedure were necessary
to accommodate the characteristics of samples from
process streams.
The most important part of the procedure for
process stream samples is the selection of the
reverse phase column. The requirements for the col-
umn are that: (a) it have sufficient capacity to perform
analysis on up to 2 mL of organic extract, (b) it be
operated and perform in a manner that gives a linear
calibration of Log P against Log retention for a
known set of standards, and (c) it be operated at a
linear flow velocity equivalent to 4 cm/min. Two col-
umns are being evaluated for Level 1 use. Each con-
tains a reverse phase packing as recommended in the
Federal Register, but the overall column dimensions
differ. One column currently being evaluated for use
with complex industrial and energy process samples
is a 300 mm x 8 mm (ID) column supplied by Varian
Instrument Corporation. The evaluation of a second
column 250 mm x 4.6 mm (ID) has recently been com-
pleted. Both columns give excellent calibration of Log
P against Log retention for the set of known stand-
ards identified in the Federal Register.
Experience with the procedure has shown that col-
umn cleanup with 100 percent methanol is necessary
after analysis of each sample. In many cases, addi-
tional components were detected during this phase of
operation. This information is useful in evaluating
potentially accumulatable materials not determined
in the standard procedure. However, information ac-
quired from column cleanup must be evaluated care-
fully since these post-run components can arise from
the sample, the makeup water, or the methanol
eluent, or they may be instrument artifacts. The final
output of the analysis is a list of the retention times
exceeding a Log P of 3.5 and exceeding a concentra-
tion/instrument sensitivity criterion. No quantitative
measure in terms of Log P can be reported for sample
components eluting in the methanol cleanup.
Ray Merrill
Mark Graham
EPA/IERL-RTP
Symposium on Fugitive Emissions
The fourth symposium on "Fugitive Emissions:
Measurement and Control" is scheduled for May
28-30, 1980, in New Orleans, Louisiana. Papers will
cover basic approaches for measuring and controlling
both air and water emissions and specific applications
to industrial processes. The symposium, coordinated
by TRC, is sponsored by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory at Research Triangle Park, North Caro-
lina. For further information, contact Christine Wib-
berley, TRC, 125 Silas Deane Highway, Wethersfield,
Connecticut 06109.
-------
Process Measurements Review
Evaluation of Level 2
Organic Analysis
Methods
In the EPA/IERL-RTP's phased approach to
sampling and analysis for environmental assessment,
Level 1 organic methodologies are designed to iden-
tify the major chemical classes present in a process
or effluent stream and to estimate their concentra-
tions. The objective of the Level 2 methodology is to
obtain more detailed and accurate data about the
composition of a particular process stream. Level 2
inquiries will be directed primarily at the identifica-
tion, quantification, and confirmation of specific com-
pounds whose presence could be inferred on the basis
of the chemical category analysis of Level 1.
To address this objective, the report EPA/IERL-
RTP Procedures for Level 2 Sampling and Analysis
of Organic Materials, EPA-600/7-79-033, PB 293-800,
February 1979, prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
under EPA Contract 68-02-2150, includes specific
recommended analytical methods for particular com-
pound categories. The categorization scheme paral-
lels that used in the MEG list classification and in the
Level 1 organic analysis report format. The recom-
mended methods are sufficiently detailed to specify
detectors, GC columns, and GC temperature pro-
grams considered to be appropriate for each par-
ticular category based on both literature documenta-
tion and conversations with experts currently per-
forming these analyses in other contexts.
A laboratory program is currently underway at
Arthur D. Little, Inc., under EPA Contract 68-02-3111,
to evaluate the recommended methods and to begin
development of an analytical data base as a resource
for contractors undertaking Level 2 studies. The data
base will include comments on detection limits,
chromatographic peak shapes, adequacy of resolu-
tion, and approximate retention times to be expected
for typical compounds within each category. Contrac-
tors with an immediate interest in applying the Level
2 organic analysis procedures are encouraged to con-
tact Kathleen E. Thrun or Judi Harris at Arthur D.
Little, Inc., Acorn Park, Cambridge, MA 02140 for ac-
cess to information obtained to date. Some data are
now available for most of the methods recommended
in the February 1979 manual.
Judi Harris
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
New EPA Quality
Assurance
Requirements
During May and June of 1979, two directives were
issued that will form the basis of a new EPA-wide
quality assurance program. These two directives
establish EPA policy toward quality assurance and
delineate some specific requirements. The policy re-
quires participation in an Agency-wide quality assur-
ance program by all EPA Regional Offices, Program
Offices, and Laboratories, and includes all monitoring
and measurement efforts supported through con-
tracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and inter-
agency agreements. The goal of the program is to en-
sure that data resulting from all EPA-sponsored proj-
ects involving environmental measurements are sci-
entifically valid, defensible, and of known precision
and accuracy.
The general quality assurance program includes
the following five major requirements:
• A written QA plan that includes the oversight
role of management, identification of personnel
responsible for the QA program, proper sam-
ple collection, use of approved measurement
techniques, calibration standards and their
verification, internal quality control practices,
and appropriate data management controls.
The specific QA plan will generally be devel-
oped and subsequently approved by EPA after
award of funds.
• An estimate of costs associated with the QA
program in terms of percentage of overall proj-
ect cost. Normally, a minimum of 10 to 30 per
cent of the estimated sample collection and
analyses costs is anticipated for adequate qual
ity control.
• Acceptable performance on audit samples,
when available and where applicable.
• Onsite laboratory and/or field site evaluation
for a performance evaluation and documenta-
tion that all equipment and supplies necessary
for successful completion of projects are avail-
able.
• Documented quality control performance.
While the specific details of the implementation of
these quality assurance requirements are still under
development, it is clear that a more formal and
rigorous quality assurance program will become an
integral part of EPA environmental measurement
programs.
Bill Kuykendal
EPA/IERL-RTP
-------
Volume 2, Number 2, Fall Edition, 1979
Stack Sampling
Programs for the
TRS-80
A collection of programs has been written to
cover several aspects of stack sampling techniques
and cascade impactor operation. Although specifi-
cally intended for use with the Radio Shack TRS-80
microcomputer, these programs are written in
BASIC and may be used with any computer support-
ing the BASIC interpreter. The programs are divided
into two groups, each of which is preserved on a tape
cassette. A group of programs is loaded as a module,
and the desired parts called up as needed. The hand-
book, HP-65 Programmable Pocket Calculator Ap-
plied to Air Pollution Measurement Studies: Sta-
tionary Sources (EPA-600/8-76-002), provided the
basis for these programs.
The formulas and quantities used in each method
were defined in the program before they were used,
thus making each program segment self-explanatory.
When possible, the more common units were used
(e.g., degrees F rather than degrees R) and conver-
sion was accomplished within the programs.
Group one calculates the traverse sampling
points for a circular duct. Inputs are the dimensions
of the flange and duct, and the number of traverse
points required. A table of distances from the outside
edge of the flange to the sampling points is printed
out. It also calculates the stack velocity and volu-
metric flow rate as determined with a Type S pitot
tube. The program also calculates excess air, dry
molecular weight, and moisture of the gas. In this
case, the usefulness of having all the program parts
resident in the computer becomes evident. The veloc-
ity/flow program can be temporarily terminated; ex-
cess air, molecular weight, or moisture computed;
and the original velocity/flow program part recalled
to complete the calculations.
The last program in this group determines the
particulate emissions from stationary sources accord-
ing to Method 5. Calculations determine the percent-
age of isokinetic sampling and the mass loading of the
stack gas (concentration of particulate matter), and
express the results in three different systems of
units.
The second group describes the operation of a cas-
cade impactor. All necessary computations are linked
together inside the program. It accepts input data
from a table of pitot tube and temperature readings
and determines the average velocity and tempera-
ture of the sampled stream. A series of calculations
then enables the user to select an impactor nozzle
diameter and flow rate needed to give isokinetic
sampling. Two different test setups may be used: for
low flow rate impactors, two metering orifices are
used in the impactor flow stream; for high flow rate
impactors, one metering orifice and a dry gas meter
may be used. A table of values of the run parameters
is computed and displayed, enabling the user to ad-
just the sampling stream flow rate (as measured by
the orifice pressure drops or the gas meter flow rate)
to obtain isokinetic sampling in the impactor.
A listing of these programs is available from: D.
Bruce Harris, PMB/IERL-RTP, MD-62, Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711.
Donald Elliott
Northrop Services, Inc.
Level 1 Extraction of Aqueous Samples
Recent experience of Hittman Associates in per-
forming an environmental assessment has identified
an aqueous sample that requires a modified Level 1
organic extraction procedure. The sample stream
concerned was process water produced in a reactor
and condensed from the gaseous effluent as it cooled.
In addition to substantial quantities of organics (> 0.5
percent phenols), this pH 9 stream contained about
5,000 ppm of sulfide ion. Therefore, violent evolution
of potentially toxic quantities of hydrogen sulfide oc-
curred when the sample was acidified in the field for
solvent extraction according to Level 1 procedures.
Volatile organics may also have been lost in the proc-
ess. It is recommended that the pH of aqueous sam-
ples be checked before acidification and that PMB,
EPA/IERL-RTP approval be sought for an alter-
native extraction sequence whenever the field
measurements identify an aqueous sample that is
strongly basic.
Judi Harris
Arthur D. Little
John Kim
Hittman Associates
-------
Process Measurements Review
Stationary Source
Continuous Monitor Survey
During August 1978, a survey was conducted of
EPA/IERL-RTP contractor experience with instru-
mentation and sampling systems for continuous
source monitoring. The intention was to gather infor-
mation concerning installation, operation, and main-
tenance procedures and indications of reliability and
accuracy for several types of continuous monitors.
Questionnaires were sent to 26 contractors who were
using this type of measurement technology. About 80
percent were returned covering 120 monitors for
measurement of S02, C02, 02, NOX, CO, opacity, and
hydrocarbons. Sources included fluidized-bed com-
bustors; S02 scrubbers; conventional coal-, oil-, and
gas-fired utility boilers; coal gasification units; and
various experimental combustors and furnaces. Sum-
marized here are some of the results for the first five
types of analyzers. Since the majority of the in-
struments are operated in conjunction with control
technology R&D studies, these results are probably
"best case."
In ratings of overall instrument performance, C02
and O2 analyzers had the fewest problems while S02
and NOX instrumentation had the most. Significant
differences in the ratings among the different manu-
facturers' instruments appeared only for the S02
analyzers. For all the other types of instruments the
various manufacturers received roughly equivalent
ratings, generally "satisfactory."
For those instruments for which an estimate for
downtime was given, 80 percent were down for less
than 10 hours during the last 6 months of operation.
Only 7 percent of the instruments had downtime in
excess of 100 hours. NOX, CO, and S02 instruments
had somewhat higher downtime than C02 and 02
units. Reasons given for downtime included cell
cleaning, optical alignment, replacement of lamps,
detectors, and chopper motors, and occasionally prob-
lems with the electronics.
A wide variety of particulate and water removal
techniques was reported. Tables 2 and 3 indicate the
number of instruments using each. For particulate
removal, glass fiber filters were the most popular,
either alone or in combination with sintered or
micropore stainless steel filters. Balston filters
(usually "grade B") were also widely used. For water
removal, refrigerative driers, either alone or in com-
bination with permeation tubes and desiccants, were
Table 2. Particulate Removal Techniques
Number of units
Technique using
Glass wool filter 30
Balston filter 16
Stainless steel filter 11
(sintered and micropore)
Commercial "gas conditioner" 9
(unspecified)
"Sieve" 6
Glass wool + stainless steel filters 6
Millipore filter 2
Porous ceramic filter 2
Water scrubber 2
Table 3. Water Removal Techniques
Number of units
Technique using
Refrigerative drier 38
Permeation tube 17
Water/ice-cooled condenser 8
Refrigerative drier + permeation 6
tube + desiccant
Water-cooled condenser + desiccant 5
Permeation tube + molecular sieve 5
Refrigerative drier + permeation tube 2
Unspecified cold traps 2
most common. It is obvious from the many comments
received from the questionnaires that many of the in-
strumentation difficulties (frequent need for cell
cleaning, erratic performance, excessive calibration
drift) are related to inadequate particulate or water
removal.
Bill Kuykendal
EPA/IERL-RTP
6
-------
Volume 2, Number 2, Fall Edition, 1979
Revisions to IERL-RTP Procedures Manual:
Level 1 Environmental Assessment,
Second Edition. EPA-600/7-78-201
(Changes 1-10 applied to the First Edition of the manual and have been incorporated into the
Second Edition. Changes in the Second Edition will be sequentially numbered starting with #11.)
Change 11:
"Leaching Procedure for Bulk Solids" Appendix E, page E-3
The manual describes drying the entire sample at 104° C in order to determine solids con-
tent. Significant portions of the low-boiling organics and perhaps certain inorganics would be
lost during this process.
The new procedure is to determine solids content by drying a representative aliquot of the
sample and to prepare leachate from a separate, undried portion.
Change 12:
UQC Check on TCO in Cleaned XAD-2" Appendix B, page B-7
The procedure specified for concentrating methylene chloride extracts in checking the qual-
ity of cleaned XAD-2 in Appendix B is incorrect. This section was not updated to reflect the cur-
rently approved concentration procedure. On page B-7, Section B.4.2.1, the phrase "using a
nitrogen evaporation stream" should be replaced by the phrase "using a Kuderna-Danish
evaporative concentrator with a three-ball Snyder column." The rest of the QC procedure is cor-
rect as written.
Change 13:
"Extraction of Aqueous Samples" Chapter 9, page 136
The presently specified volume of methylene chloride to be used for aqueous sample extrac-
tion is probably too low. The sentence "two extractions are to be done at each pH, using a
250 mL volume of methylene chloride for each of the four extractions of a 10 L sample," should
be changed to read "two extractions are to be done at each pH, using a 500 mL volume of
methylene chloride per 10 L aqueous sample for each extraction" (italics added).
NOTE: Revisions appear in condensed form. For complete change notices, contact Ann Turner,
Research Triangle Institute (919-541-6894), P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27709.
-------
Process Measurements Review
U.S./U.S.S.R.
Participate Control
Technology Program
The third U.S./U.S.S.R. Symposium on Particu-
late Control was held during September 1979 in Suz-
dal, U.S.S-R. Among the 24 papers presented during
the 3-day meeting were 6 discussing participate
measurement technology. Participants from the
United States presented papers on instrumentation
for particle sizing and impactor design and a review
of the status of particulate measurements in the
United States. Soviet investigators discussed pro-
cedures for sizing particles less than 3 jim, an instru-
ment for measuring the mass of material collected on
an impactor stage, and methods for determining the
dewpoint of gases.
The Soviet approach to sampling < 3-/on particles
involves a low-pressure impactor similar to the
devices developed in the United States. As part of a
U.S./U.S.S.R. cooperative program, the unit will be
tested and calibrated by EPA during 1980. The
Soviet device for particulate sizing is based on the
principle of direct electrical detection of the mass col-
lected on an impactor stage. The unit essentially
measures the steady-state current that results from
imposing a voltage between the collector stage and
the jet. In laboratory tests with different types of
particulate matter, sizing measurements correlated
well with mass measurements. The particle sizing
unit may also be tested by EPA after the Soviet
scientists have completed their developmental work.
Although the number of Soviet scientists working
on particulate measurement techniques does not ap-
pear to be large, the scientists participating in this
conference were very knowledgeable in the theory
and practice of particulate measurements. Their
equipment for manual measurements compares fa-
vorably with U.S. designs. Their major problem
appears to be a lack of facilities for generating con-
trolled, monodispersed aerosols for laboratory cali-
bration of their instruments.
Bruce Harris
EPA/IERL-RTP
CIDRS Available on Tape
for Cascade Impactor Data Reduction
Cascade impactors have gained wide acceptance
as a practical means of making particle size distribu-
tion measurements. These devices are regularly used
in a wide variety of environments ranging from am-
bient conditions to flue gas streams at 400° C (750° F).
Specially fabricated impactors can be used for more
extreme conditions.
Because of their usefulness, the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency has funded research that has
explored the theoretical and practical aspects of im-
pactor operation. Under contract to EPA, a team of
impactor specialists at Southern Research Institute
has designed a comprehensive data reduction system
that makes full use of cascade impactor measure-
ments. The result is described in detail in A
Computer-based Cascade Impactor Data Reduction
System, EPA-600/7-78-042.
The Cascade Impactor Data Reduction System
(CIDRS) includes six mainline programs and 34 sub-
routines in the FORTRAN IV language. The pro-
grams include computation of stage D^,, cumulative
mass concentration, number size distribution,
averages of runs, and percent efficiency and penetra-
tion of control devices. The system also utilizes a
modified spline technique to fit distribution data and
generates various graphical outputs.
The original programs were developed for a
PDP-15/76. As a result of its quality assurance testing
of CIDRS, the Research Triangle Institute has devel-
oped modifications to the original code. These
modifications were designed to facilitate the im-
plementation of CIDRS on other computers by ap-
plications programmers. An outline of the program
was presented at the recent "Advances in Particulate
Sampling and Measurement Symposium" at Daytona
Beach, Florida, in October 1979.
A slightly modified version of the original CIDRS
and six modules of editing statements are available
for testing to users of cascade impactors. RTI is re-
questing a brief report on such testing from each par-
ticipating user. For further information, call Gene
Tatsch at Research Triangle Institute, (919) 541-6733.
8
-------
Volume 2, Number 2, Fall Edition, 1979
Development of
Computerized
Environmental Assess-
ment Data Systems
The Environmental Assessment Data Systems
(EADS) is a group of interrelated computerized data
bases that describe multimedia discharges from
energy systems and industrial processes and provide
reference information on potentially hazardous
chemicals that may be found in the discharge
streams. The EADS is being developed by EPA/
IERL-RTP to consolidate the increasing volume of
environmental data, to provide uniform data report-
ing formats, and to provide current information and
methods for evaluating sampling data.
The EADS waste stream data bases consist of:
• the Fine Particle Emissions Information Sys-
tem (FPEIS)
• the Gaseous Emissions Data System (GEDS)
• the Liquid Effluents Data System (LEDS)
• the Solid Discharges Data System (SDDS)
In conjunction with the waste stream data bases
there are two reference data bases. One provides
detailed toxicological and health effects data for more
than 1,000 chemical compounds. The second records
reported ambient concentrations of noncriteria multi-
media pollutants. These reference data bases will
allow users to compare sampled pollutant concentra-
tions with known values to aid in the determination
of any hazard potential.
The EADS data bases are currently available to
process waste stream sampling data. Detailed data
input forms have been developed to allow the com-
prehensive encoding of data, which include source/
process conditions; fuel/feed material characteristics;
control technology characteristics; and the results of
chemical, biological, or radiological assays. The
EADS has been designed to accommodate full Level 1
and Level 2 reporting of sampling data.
The EADS will support the data needs of the
OR&D Wastewater Treatability Coordination Com-
mittee in the development of treatability manuals.
The storage and analysis of wastewater toxic sub-
stances data for the Wastewater Research Division/
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory will
also be supported as well as the evaluation of existing
fine particle data pertinent to the inhalable par-
ticulate sampling program.
User documentation on the EADS will be issued
in late November 1979. It will consist of an EADS
Overview Manual and a users guide for each of the
waste stream data systems. Training seminars on the
use of the EADS have been conducted in Cincinnati,
at Research Triangle Park, and at two locations in
California. Additional training will be provided as
necessary.
Gary L. Johnson
EPA/IERL-RTP
Environmental Assessment
Measurement Symposium
A reminder that the second symposium on "Proc-
ess Measurements for Environmental Assessments"
will be held in Atlanta, Georgia, February 25-27,1980.
The agenda includes papers on new developments in
sampling, analysis, and bioassay of complex mixtures.
Make plans to attend by contacting Phil Levins,
Arthur D. Little, Inc., Acorn Park, Cambridge, Mas-
sachusetts 02140.
-------
Process Measurements Review
Recent EPA
Publications of
Interest
K. E. Thrun, J. C. Harris, and K. Beltis
Gas Sample Storage, EPA-600/7-79-095, PB 298 350
(4/79).
This report gives results of a laboratory evalua-
tion to compare the storage stability of selected gases
covering a range of compound categories in glass
bulbs and two different polymeric sample bags. The
studies indicate that glass bulbs are the best overall
choice, with no significant gas losses. Reactive and
highly polar gases were preferentially lost from
samples stored in the polymeric bags. Some contami-
nants were detected in the samples taken from the
polymeric sample bags, presumably the result of
outgassing from the materials used to construct the
bags.
K. M. Gushing and W. B. Smith
Particulate Sampling and Support: Final Report,
EPA-600/2-79-114, PB 299 213, (6/79).
The report summarizes results of research,
development, and support tasks performed during
the Syear period of the contract (11/75-11/78}. The
tasks encompassed many aspects of particulate sam-
pling and measurement in industrial gaseous process
and effluent streams. Under this contract, cascade
impactors were calibrated and evaluated; novel parti-
cle sampling cyclones were designed and evaluated;
technical and procedures manuals were prepared for
control device evaluation and particle sampling
methods; an electrostatic precipitator backup was
designed for high flow rate systems; and advanced
concepts in monitoring particle mass and size, using
optical systems, were evaluated. A number of smaller
tasks, involving lower levels of effort, are also dis-
cussed. The appendix lists technical documents pub-
lished under the contract
L. E. Ryan, R. G. Beimer, and R. F. Maddalone
Approach to Level 2 Analysis Based on Level 1
Results, MEG Categories and Compounds, and Deci-
sion Criteria, EPA-600/7-79-063a, PB 298 482 (2/79).
The report describes an approach to the decision
criteria needed to proceed from the initial emission
screening analysis (Level 1) to the detailed emission
characterization (Level 2), and a Level 2 analytical ap-
proach.
Types of Level 1 environmental assessment sam-
ples and the chemical data available that can be used
to design a Level 2 plan are discussed. The report also
presents an integrated approach to Level 2 inorganic
compound analysis. Detailed logic networks are in-
cluded to provide direction to the analyst during the
identification process.
L. E. Sparks
In-Stack Plume Opacity from Electrostatic
Precipitator/Scrubber System at Harrington Unit 1,
EPA-600/7-79-118, PB 299 215 (5/79).
R. H. Barnes, M. J. Saxton, R. E. Barrett, and A. Levy
Chemical Aspects of Afterburner Systems,
EPA-600/7-79-096, PB 298 465 (4/79).
M. A. Shackleton
Extended Tests of Saffil Alumina Filter Media,
EPA-600/7-79-112, PB 297 567 (5/79).
R. Dennis, H. A. Klemm, and W. Battye
Fabric Filter Model Sensitivity Analysis,
EPA-600/7-79-043c, PB 297 755 (4/79).
C. W. Westbrook
Level 1 Assessment of Uncontrolled Sinter Plant
Emissions, EPA-600/2-79-112, PB 298 055 (5/79).
Copies of these publications are available from:
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22151
10
-------
Volume 2, Number 2, Fall Edition, 1979
The Process Measurements Review is prepared by the Research Triangle Institute, P. 0. Box 12194,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial En-
vironmental Research Laboratory, Process Measurements Branch, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711, under EPA Contract No. 68-02-2156. The EPA Task Officer is James A. Dorsey (919-541-2557)
and the RTI Editor is Raymond M. Michie, Jr. (919-541-6492). Comments on this issue and suggestions
for future topics are welcome and may be addressed to either the Task Officer or the Editor.
Request for the Process Measurements Review
Name Position or Title_
Company __^_
Address
(Street)
(City) (State) (Zip Code) (Phone)
Return to: Ann Turner
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194, Building 6
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709
(919)541-6893
Check if applicable: I I Incorrect address I I Discontinue
11
------- |