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

-------