th Conference on Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis ... · 35th Conference on Stationary...

35th Conference on Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis for Air Pollutants

35th Conference on Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis for Air Pollutants Westward Look Resort, Tucson, Arizona March 20 to 25, 2011


i | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chair persons introductory remarks ..................................................................... 1

Session 1 – Challenging Monitoring Situations and Solutions • Sunday March 20, 19:30 to 22:15 ...................................................................................................... 3

1.1 MEASURING HG EMISSIONS FROM ARTISANAL GOLD MINING SHOPS .......................................................... 3 1.2 AN SO2 EMISSION RATE MONITORING SYSTEM APPLIED TO A POSITIVE PRESSURE BAGHOUSE OR HOW DO

I MEASURE FLOW AND CONCENTRATION SIMULTANEOUSLY FROM EIGHT SEPARATE STACKS ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS FOR COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION ............................................................................ 3

1.3 REAL-TIME SO3 MEASUREMENTS IN VARIOUS SAMPLE STREAMS OR SO3 BEHAVING BADLY .................... 4 1.4 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF A STEAM-ASSISTED FLARE AT HIGH TURNDOWN USING PASSIVE

FOURIER TRANSFORM INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY ........................................................................................ 4

Session 2 – EPA Updates • Monday, March 21, 08:30 to 12:00 ........................... 5

2.1 EPA/OAQPS EMISSIONS MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS 2010/2011 ................. 5 2.2 COLLECTING DATA FOR THE EPA’S REGULATORY PROGRAMS AND MANAGING THE DATA AND SETTING

STANDARDS ONCE WE GET THEM ............................................................................................................... 5 2.3 ELECTRONIC REPORTING: AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO COLLECT DATA TO SUPPORT AIR PROGRAM

REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 5 2.4 DETECTION AND QUANTIFICATION OF METHANE AND VOC EMISSIONS FROM OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION

OPERATIONS USING REMOTE MEASUREMENTS ............................................................................................ 6

Session 3 – Analytical Perspectives • Monday, March 21, 19:30 to 22:15 .......... 7

3.1 UTILITY ICR – LABORATORY PERSPECTIVE ................................................................................................. 7 3.2 LABORATORY SAMPLE HANDLING PROCEDURES AND ENHANCEMENT OF DETECTION LIMITS .................... 7 3.3 DETECTION LIMITS: BUDGETED VERSUS WHEN AND WHERE NEEDED ........................................................ 8 3.4 ANALYTICAL ISSUES AND THEIR LEGAL IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................... 8

Session 4 – Electric Generating Units Information Collection Requests • Tuesday, March 22, 8:30 to 12:00 .......................................................................... 9

4.1 UTILITY ICR – EPRI PERSPECTIVE............................................................................................................... 9 4.2 CHALLENGES AND EXPERIENCES FROM THE 2010 UTILITY ICR TESTING – AN EGU PERSPECTIVE ............. 9 4.3 OVERCOMING THE CHALLENGES OF ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF ICR DATA TO THE EPA .......................... 9 4.4 EGU ICR LESSONS LEARNED .................................................................................................................... 10

Session 5 – Organic Measurements • Tuesday, March 22, 19:30 to 22:15 .......11

5.1 VOLATILES ORGANIC SAMPLING TRAIN FUNDAMENTALS .......................................................................... 11 5.2 THE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF ACROLEIN FROM AMBIENT AIR USING O-BENZYLHYDROXYLAMINE

COATED CARTRIDGES ................................................................................................................................ 11 5.3 TESTING AND ANALYSIS OF HIGHLY POLAR VOCS AND ORGANIC ACIDS ................................................. 11 5.4 ACCURATE MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING OF TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) MASS

EMISSIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 12 5.5 TOC, VOC, THC, TGNMO? WHAT’S IN A NAME?................................................................................... 12


ii | P a g e

Session 6 – Regulatory Changes and Other Legal Implications • Wednesday, March 23, 8:30 to 12:00 .........................................................................................13

6.1 NATIONAL AIR POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES TARGETED FOR FISCAL YEARS 2011 THROUGH 2013……………… ................................................................................................................................... 13

6.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF REVISIONS TO 40 CFR PARTS 72 AND 75 ................................................................. 13 6.3 WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE WHEN ACCREDITATION WE ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE ........................ 13 6.4 AN OVERVIEW OF THE SSAS AUDIT SAMPLE PROGRAM AND WHAT IMPACTS IT MAY HAVE ON TESTERS,

LABORATORIES, AND FACILITIES ................................................................................................................ 14

Session 7-- Much Ado About Nothing • Wednesday, March 23, 16:30 to 19:00 ..................................................................................................................................15

7.1 “LESS THAN’S”: HOW TO GET THE MOST OUT OF THE DATA ..................................................................... 15 7.2 CHALLENGES IN USING DETECTED AND UNDETECTED RESULTS FOR SETTING MACT EMISSION LIMITS .. 15 7.3 WHEN IS A ‘POSITIVE’ RESULT REAL? ....................................................................................................... 16 7.4 DETERMINING SAMPLING UNCERTAINTY: DO YOU REALLY KNOW YOUR DETECTION LIMIT? ................. 16

Session 8 – Instrumental Developments • Thursday, March 24, 8:30 to 12:0017

8.1 CALIBRATION GASES: WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY ALL ABOUT? .............................................................. 17 8.2 PARTICULATE MATTER INSTRUMENTAL TESTING FOR CPT OPTIMIZATION AT A CEMENT PLANT BURNING

HAZARDOUS WASTE AND RELATED PM MONITORING ISSUES ................................................................... 17 8.3 A HYBRID PM CEMS ................................................................................................................................. 18 8.4 SO3 DETECTION WITH FTIR AND QUANTUM CASCADE LASER SYSTEMS ................................................... 18

Session 9 – Quality Assurance • Thursday, March 24, 19:30 to 22:15 .............19

9.1 AUTOMATED NO2 GENERATION SYSTEM FOR CONVERTER TESTS ............................................................. 19 9.2 FTIRS: THEIR CONFIGURATIONS, THEIR USE, AND THEIR ABUSE .............................................................. 19 9.3 UPDATE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF FLOW METHODS IN EUROPE ............................................................... 19 9.4 VALIDATION OF LONG-TERM SAMPLING OF PCDD/F IN EMISSION IN MSW INCINERATORS BASED ON THE

FILTER CONDENSER METHOD .................................................................................................................... 20

Session 10 – Manual Methods for the Most Part • Friday, March 25, 8:30 to 12:00 ........................................................................................................................21

10.1 UTILITY ICR EXPERIENCE WITH CONDITIONAL TEST METHOD 033–SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHOD FOR HYDROGEN CYANIDE .......................................................................................................................... 21

10.2 COMPARISON OF MERCURY SORBENT TUBES TO ISOKINETIC SAMPLING METHODS .................................. 21 10.3 CANADIAN PM2.5 SOURCE SAMPLING EXPERIENCE .................................................................................. 21 10.4 A FAST TRACK TO ACCREDITATION BY STAC ........................................................................................... 22

Session 11 – Poster Session • Monday through Thursday, 10:00 to 10:30 and Monday and Tuesday, 20:00 to 20:30 ..................................................................23

11.1 PARTICULATE CEMS FOR WET AND DRY FGD APPLICATIONS .................................................................. 23


iii | P a g e

11.2 NEW OTM - 29: SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR HYDROGEN CYANIDE EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY

SOURCES .................................................................................................................................................... 23 11.3 POTENTIAL LEGAL ISSUES WITH STACK TESTER ACCREDITATION ............................................................. 24 11.4 I USE F-FACTORS SO MY CEMS EMISSION DATA ARE RIGHT ................................................................... 24 11.5 BUILDING A QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT CONFORMS TO ASTM D7036-04 ............................. 25 11.6 TWO HANDS, THREE BALLS: CUSTOMER & PROSPECT MANAGEMENT (JUGGLING!) AND BUSINESS

BUILDING IN THIS, OR ANY, ECONOMY ...................................................................................................... 25 11.7 PM SPIKING FOR PS11 CALIBRATION ......................................................................................................... 26

A History of the Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis for Air Pollutants Conference ..............................................................................................................27

LIST of ATTENDEES ...........................................................................................30


1 | P a g e

Chair persons introductory remarks Welcome to the 35th Conference on Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis for Air Pollutants !! I am honored to welcome you to the SSSAAP conference which is celebrating its’ 35th meeting in its’ fortieth year since the first gathering in 1971. I was drawn into the source testing profession in late 1974 and shortly thereafter I began to hear rumors of an elite collection of stack testers who would hang up their sampling probes, put a lid on their meter boxes and gather at the beach for a week-long party. It wasn’t until the mid-eighties that I was introduced to and joined the Source Evaluation Society but even then the truth about this conference eluded me and companies that employed me were reluctant to spend money to send us to conferences unless there was some promising opportunity for marketing activities. In the latter half of the nineties word of “NELAC” and “Stack Tester Accreditation” found its’ way across the Mississippi to remote Utah. The news inspired me to finally attend my first stack tester beach party outside of Santa Barbara, California. As the old timers have always known and the new comers will soon learn, this conference is an incredible opportunity to gather and exchange technical experiences and developments in our profession. It provides not only the chance to learn from our peers but also to influence the direction of technical and policy developments. My experience of becoming the 2011 Conference Chair began when I received a phone call as I was getting out of my truck to purchase ice for a stack test in Nampa, Idaho early in 2009. The call was from a lady from the state of Georgia who I had never met. Her name is DeAnna Oser and she called to invite me to act as her co-chair for the 2010 SSSAAP conference. I offer my thanks and appreciation to DeAnna and to a long list of others who have helped me to make this 35th Conference a reality. Special appreciation goes to my co-chair, Bill Hefley who has been my first line of support in administrative decision-making situations, evaluation of the technical content of the conference and providing reality checks in times of need. Special appreciation also goes to Antoinette Chartier of Hospitality Management Services who has been involved in the organization of the SSSAAP conferences for many years in the capacity of identifying, negotiating, contracting and coordination with conference venues such as The Westward Look. Other key people include all of the session chairs as well as the presenters; SES officers that are always available to advise (or at least offer their opinions) on a variety of matters; our sponsors of ad hoc events and contests; and a number of individuals and past chairs who offer their time and experience year after year to make the conference a success. I refuse to attempt to offer an extensive list of names because I know I will omit someone that deserves acknowledgement. So, consciously, I omit you all, even as I thank and acknowledge you all. Tucson is a much different venue than we are familiar with for the conference. I have visited here often and find it to be full of diverse culture, art, history and unique flavor. There are many


2 | P a g e

attractions including art and cultural museums, hiking trails, mountain biking and road cycling, excellent golf courses, the Biospheres and a historic downtown. But mostly, I am hoping that we all have another successful, professionally educational, stimulating and at times, no doubt, controversial gathering. Everyone is encouraged to participate in technical and policy related discussions (please, in a civil and respectful manner) both on and off the session floor. Again, welcome, and as always, be safe. Larry Cottone Conference Chair


3 | P a g e

Session 1 – Challenging Monitoring Situations and Solutions • Sunday March 20, 19:30 to 22:15 Session Chairs – Laura Kinner and Jim Peeler 1.1 Measuring Hg Emissions from Artisanal Gold Mining Shops Jeffrey V. Ryan, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division

Artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) represent one of the largest uses of mercury (Hg) around the world. Moreover, this practice routinely results in significant emissions of Hg to the air. Unfortunately, very little is known or understood regarding the quantity and forms of Hg emissions.

Typically, gold is “mined” in remote areas in Peru using a process where large quantities of metallic Hg (e.g., 5-10 kg) are placed in vessels containing raw ore and water. The vessel is agitated to maximize surface content of the Hg with the slurried ore. The gold in the slurry then forms an amalgam with the Hg resulting in a large amalgam ball that is removed by the miner. The miner then uses heat (e.g., open fire or blowtorch) to vaporize and drive off some of the Hg in the ball. The ball is then transported to a central location for sale in a “gold shop.” Gold shops are commonly located in small cities or towns. At these shops, the amalgam balls are further heated in a more controlled practice to drive off all remaining Hg leaving the pure gold for purchase. These shops process many balls per day and are often operated daily. As a result, significant Hg emissions are released in a relatively localized region, including within the shops themselves.

Measuring the Hg emissions from this practice is by no means simple. Emission concentrations can exceed 100 mg/m3 during the gold purification process and are often not vented except to the shop. Saturation concentration and measuring emissions safely are real concerns.

This presentation describes the testing conducted by the EPA to characterize the Hg emissions in two diverse regions in Peru where ASGM activities are prevalent. Cultural considerations relating to Hg measurements approaches and ASGM activities are woven into the presentation as well.

1.2 An SO2 Emission Rate Monitoring System Applied to a Positive Pressure Baghouse or

How Do I Measure Flow and Concentration Simultaneously from Eight Separate Stacks on a Continuous Basis for Compliance Demonstration

Laura L. Kinner and James W. Peeler, Emission Monitoring Incorporated

A novel approach to continuously monitoring concentration and volumetric flow rate from a positive pressure baghouse is discussed. This situation is increasingly becoming an issue because many facilities having these types of APCDs have previously been exempt from continuous monitoring, and now they must do so to satisfy the numerous driving forces.

Positive pressure baghouses present unique measurement challenges as they typically have 6 or more separate stacks, or they have a single monovent running along either side of the baghouse. Acquiring samples representative of the entire baghouse emissions presents the biggest challenge as is ensuring worker safety under these circumstances.


4 | P a g e

The subject facility of this presentation was required to demonstrate that it could meet the equivalent BACT SO2 mass emission rate on a continuous basis, or install a wet scrubber post fabric filter. The installation of a scrubber and stand-alone stack was estimated to cost over 20 million dollars, which was sufficient for the company to consider facility closure.

Successful implementation of this monitoring project allowed the facility to demonstrate compliance with the BACT limit, without installing the 20 million dollar scrubber and possible loss of over 150 jobs.

1.3 Real-Time SO3 Measurements in Various Sample Streams or SO3 Behaving Badly Jeff Socha, ThermoFisher

During the development of Thermo Fisher’s real-time SO3 CEMS, multiple tests have been conducted on a variety of sample streams. Many interesting observations have been made regarding the behavior of SO3 depending on the composition of the sample. For example, during laboratory testing, SO3 response through the CEMS is relatively quick. During field testing downstream of a particulate control device, the response is slightly slower. Further, field testing upstream of particulate control devices seems to further increase response time possibly as a consequence of ash reactions. The ability to measure SO3 real-time is novel and this paper is focused on the observations of SO3 behavior under different conditions.

1.4 Performance Evaluation of a Steam-Assisted Flare at High Turndown Using Passive

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy Scott Evans, Clean Air Engineering Ruth Cade, Marathon Petroleum

Over-steaming is a generic description of an undesirable operating condition possible in steam-assisted flares. In an over-steaming scenario, it is possible the steam and air introduced into the combustion zone diminishes, rather than promotes, the efficiency of the combustion process. Standard emission estimation techniques have generally assumed a 98% destruction removal efficiency or higher when calculating VOC emissions from flares.

Recent technological advances have produced remote sensing instruments capable of measuring combustion products without the safety hazards of physically sampling a flare plume. One such approach is Passive Fourier Transform Infrared (PFTIR) Spectroscopy, which characterizes a plume’s chemical make-up. The results are used in combustion and destruction efficiency calculations.

Marathon Petroleum has implemented an automatic steam control system for the main flare at its Texas City facility to minimize over-steaming and optimize combustion efficiency. Following the installation of this control system, flare performance testing was conducted using a PFTIR instrument. This presentation reviews the monitoring approach and results from the performance testing, which was the first time the PFTIR technique was used on an operating refinery flare.


5 | P a g e

Session 2 – EPA Updates • Monday, March 21, 08:30 to 12:00 Session Chairs – Robin Segall and Peter Westlin 2.1 EPA/OAQPS Emissions Measurement and Monitoring Project Highlights 2010/2011 Robin Segall, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

This presentation provides a summary of the past year’s key developments in air emissions measurement and monitoring techniques, tools, and policy from the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Specifically, the presentation will address new methods and monitoring specifications; revisions to existing methods and monitoring specifications; method development projects; emissions factor program improvement projects; and new policy developments. The EPA contacts responsible for and knowledgeable about these activities will also be presented.

2.2 Collecting Data for the EPA’s Regulatory Programs and Managing the Data and

Setting Standards Once We Get Them Peter Westlin, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has seen a remarkable increase in stationary source rule development work over the past two to three years and expects the pace to intensify for years to come. Much of the activity has been on managing and issuing enforceable information collection requests (ICRs) to multiple industries covering the entire gamut of hazardous and criteria pollutants. The purpose of the ICRs has been to define operating conditions and testing methods for hundreds of sources to use in collecting the data necessary to develop and support new and revised MACT and NSPS regulations.

An important facet of the ICR data collection experience has been the handling of data representing very low concentrations, including measurements straining the detection capabilities of the emissions test methods. In some cases, a significant fraction of the data collected in response to the ICRs is reported to be below a method’s minimum detectable limit (MDL). This presents a particular challenge for rule writers in establishing standards for sources for which we must develop applicable numerical emissions limits. With the help from the EPA’s Office of Research and Development and other OAQPS divisions, we have formulated and applied an approach for addressing MDLs in these ICR data sets.

In this presentation, we summarize the state of regulatory development activity in OAQPS now and for the next few years. We also outline the procedure we have applied in developing new emissions regulations from databases that include MDL data.

2.3 Electronic Reporting: An Effective Way to Collect Data to Support Air Program

Requirements Rachel Agnew, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

The EPA is proposing to amend the NSPS, NESHAP, and MACT General Provisions to require the electronic submittal of performance test results and other compliance data to the Office of Air Quality


6 | P a g e

Planning and Standards (OAQPS). Compliance and performance test data are typically submitted in a paper format and sometimes electronically to the governing State agency. OAQPS also has a need for these data for improving and updating emissions factors and for supporting new rulemakings. Getting these data to OAQPS has been challenging, especially without an electronic transfer mechanism. The EPA has been developing the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), a Microsoft Access© database for over four years and has applied it extensively in various information collection requests (ICR) for MACT and other rule development. In this presentation, we discuss some of the most recent additions and modifications to the ERT. Based on the enhanced ERT and an interface with on-line data collection programming (i.e., WebFIRE), OAQPS will be proposing to require sources to submit results of emissions compliance tests directly to OAQPS. Finally, ICRs and rulemakings that already require electronic reporting, as well as future ICRs and rulemakings that will require electronic reporting, will be discussed.

2.4 Detection and Quantification of Methane and VOC Emissions from Oil and Gas

Production Operations Using Remote Measurements Jason DeWees, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Eben Thoma, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development

Improved understanding of air pollutant emissions from oil and gas production operations is needed for several reasons. With a steadily increasing number of production sources, the impact of emitted volatile organic compounds on regional ozone is potentially significant. Improved knowledge of greenhouse gas emissions from this sector is also of growing national importance. Emissions estimates from oil and gas production activities are complicated by the variety of equipment designs and configurations, differences in maintenance states, and variable product composition. On-site leak survey and component-level emission measurements can be difficult and expensive to perform and may lack representative-ness. To improve the understanding of air pollutant emissions and mitigation options for this sector, the US EPA is developing a mobile assessment approach that allows for drive-by inspection of potential sources without the necessity of gaining site access. The technique is a subset of the EPA’s Geospatial Measurement of Air Pollution (GMAP) program that uses fast-response instruments and a precise global positioning system in a mobile platform to map air pollution patterns in areas around sources. The GMAP Remote Emission Quantification (REQ) technique uses a sensitive, high time resolution methane instrument and advanced wind measurements to locate and measure emissions of methane and estimate other organic compounds through SUMMA canister ratio calculations.


7 | P a g e

Session 3 – Analytical Perspectives • Monday, March 21, 19:30 to 22:15 Session Chairs – Yves Tondeur and Alexandra Sipershteyn 3.1 Utility ICR – Laboratory Perspective Tony Mastrianni, Enthalpy Analytical

The EGU-ICR presented opportunities not seen for many years for testers and laboratories. Enthalpy provided analytical support for EPA Methods OTM-27; OTM-28, 18, 26, 316; CTM-033; SW-846 Method 0010 (M8270C); and Method 0011 (M8315).

Factors outside our control influenced our ability to get ready for the work. Clarification from the EPA concerning analytical procedures and method performance were provided up to and after the start of the data collection period.

Lab customer service staff was tasked with greater coordination of pretest supplies and were presented with difficulties confirming analytical scope after samples arrived. Challenges we encountered at sample delivery included COC documentation and sample labeling, method modifications due to source conditions, and method deviations involving containers, pH, and temperature. We received samples from testing firms that were performing methods that were not in their standard service offering and their unfamiliarity was obvious. Additional lab resources were required to resolve and communicate details with our clients.

Instrument utilization and staff workloads were pushed to high levels. Capacity was added carefully given the episodic nature of the EGU-ICR program. Our ability to meet delivery commitments was impacted during peak sample receipt periods.

Overall, Enthalpy was able to use the additional volume of work that resulted from the EGU-ICR to expand our capacity and refine our service delivery. Challenges that were encountered were resolved with hard work, good communication, and a bit of patience on both sides of the sample cooler.

3.2 Laboratory Sample Handling Procedures and Enhancement of Detection Limits Andrew Mertz, Dr. Qiao He, and Joseph Siperstein, Ohio Lumex Company

The proper handling of samples is one of the most important factors in laboratory practices. Failure to observe standard procedures for sample collection, handling, and documentation often vitiates the intended purpose of the analysis itself. Laboratory sample handing procedures at Ohio Lumex Analytical Laboratory is discussed. A lot of advice and guidance is presented to assist observers and clients in conducting and developing their methods of analysis for all mercury-related tests.

The US EPA has regulated mercury releases from most of the sources during recent decades. As many control technologies have been introduced, the emission rate from all pollutant sources already has been dramatically reduced. The analytical performance at low detect limitation is obviously of great interest for the EPA, various emissions sources, and all of the emission testers. As new technologies developed at Ohio Lumex Company, the analyzer lower detection limit could reach down to the 10 picogram (10-12g) level. Meanwhile, the upper detection limit for the mercury analyzer is also strongly enhanced. A sample of 100,000ng mercury can be tested in just a few minutes without using a ramping profile. The experience


8 | P a g e

of running Ohio Lumex mercury analyzers to fit all your special applications is shared in this presentation.

3.3 Detection Limits: Budgeted Versus When and Where Needed Yves Tondeur, Ph.D., Analytical Perspectives

Following a brief description of the confusing soup of acronyms such as DL, EDL, LOD, MDL, LOQ, PQL, the case (budgeted versus authentic detection limits) is made for technologies that rely upon isotope-dilution mass spectrometry. Estimated detection limits (EDL) are derived on a sample- and an analyte-specific basis. The information is then used to develop limits of detection (LOD) and limits of quantitation (LOQ), established at the 99 percent confidence level. On the whole, the EDL/LOD/LOQ approach becomes a powerful tool for assessing a laboratory’s performance over the entire analytical process where and when it is needed. To help the audience appreciate the connection between detection limits and measurement system performance, an illustration that includes how EDLs are computed is presented.

3.4 Analytical Issues and Their Legal Implications Steve Eckard, Enthalpy Analytical

This presentation discusses the issues faced by testing firms when they send samples and the issues faced by laboratories once they accept the samples. Topics include transfer of responsibility, condition on receipt, and what happens when the samples are warm or damaged upon receipt. Lab issues discussed include missing hold times, the science (or lack thereof) of holding times, lab errors, liabilities, contingent liabilities, and potential remedies.


9 | P a g e

Session 4 – Electric Generating Units Information Collection Requests • Tuesday, March 22, 8:30 to 12:00 Session Chairs – Jim Wright and Jeff Burdette 4.1 Utility ICR – EPRI Perspective Naomi Goodman, EPRI

The EPA required more than 450 coal- and oil-fired power plant units to test for a range of hazardous air pollutants over a 4-5 month period. Due to concerns that the expedited schedule would lead to severe issues with data quality, EPRI initiated a project to review ICR stack test data before it was submitted to the EPA. Participation in the review was offered to all ICR respondents on a free and voluntary basis; over 300 units eventually agreed to participate.

A computer program was created to retrieve data from the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) and spreadsheet templates and to perform automated data quality checks. EPRI and our consultants developed detailed checklists for each of the ICR stack test methods that covered sampling procedures, analytical data quality, and electronic reporting. The results of our reviews were sent in confidence to the facilities.

This presentation provides an overview of our findings relating to the ICR data quality, and reviews the prevalence of selected data quality issues and their potential impact on the EPA's MACT rulemaking.

4.2 Challenges and Experiences from the 2010 Utility ICR Testing – An EGU Perspective Sean Warden, Dominion Generation

This presentation addresses the challenges and experiences from the utility side of the MACT ICR testing conducted during the first half of 2010. It focuses specifically on the more difficult logistical aspects and technical problems encountered with the test methodology and the ERT submittals.

Logistical issues include the challenges of coordinating the availability of 14 sources and numerous contractors to meet the EPA’s very short deadline window contained in the 114 letter.

Technical issues include the evolution of changes made to the testing methods all the way through the program. Guidance, as to the execution of some methods (e.g., CTM 033 and M 26), varied widely and resulted in more questions.

The reporting process was a challenge and the ERT was not an intuitive process. Further, the unusual flagging of the data and the volume of data made this process very cumbersome. The short reporting deadline did not help matters either.

4.3 Overcoming the Challenges of Electronic Reporting of ICR Data to the EPA Natalie Vaught, Weston Solutions, Inc.

You were awarded the contract for a large multi-source testing program to support an EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) program. You planned and completed the work. With the exception of a few


10 | P a g e

foul weather days, testing has proceeded smoothly. Your performance data all check out. Your lab got you the analytical data on time. You received an organized package of supporting process data. Your test teams enjoyed the work. Your client is thrilled with your performance. It looks like the perfect job! Yeah, you’re dreaming. But regardless of the problems you might have had, you’re probably not prepared for the reporting nightmare that lies ahead unless you have pre-planned your electronic reporting effort.

Electronic reporting under the ICR – and in the future for Part 60 sources – is much more complicated than sending an email with attached spreadsheets and a PDF of the test report. Affected sources must upload a comprehensive collection of source, field, lab, and process data into a Microsoft Access database application, which in turn calculates emission test results for subsequent use by regulatory agencies.

This presentation examines the requirements and challenges of electronic reporting, focusing on the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) and Excel® Spreadsheet Reporting Templates (SRT). For each reporting option, we’ll examine organization of data in preparation for electronic reporting; avoiding problems with electronic reporting; and validating accuracy and completeness of reported data. We’ll also explore the future of electronic reporting for Part 60 sources. The goal of the presentation is to better prepare attendees to submit and review electronic data submittals for both ICR and anticipated compliance reporting purposes.

4.4 EGU ICR Lessons Learned Larry Golden, Clean Air Engineering

The Information Collection Request (ICR) was quite a Christmas present to the EGUs selected to participate in the program. Approved by the OMB on Dec. 24, 2009, the ICR entitled “Information Collection Effort for New and Existing Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units” directly impacted approximately 492 units at some 291 facilities operated by about 135 power companies and all to be accomplished in roughly 120 days.

From the testing company’s perspective, each test program presented its own challenges of timing, logistics, equipment preparation, sample planning, project management, staffing, plant coordination, and in many cases, training, as several new or modified test methods were to be used. Not to mention the mountain of samples to be analyzed and the electronic reporting that followed the actual on-site programs.

From the utilities’ perspective, it was an unwelcome burden that required dedicated personnel, planning, grid cooperation, and outside consulting. Typically, it was an all-around headache for the operators and EH&S staff, all at a high cost with no apparent return on that investment. No wonder they seemed grumpy.

From the regulatory agency side, they initiated a well-intentioned program that, although long in planning, was short on common sense. It was an ambitious schedule, to say the least, and shortly after its launch (actually before for many), it became clear that this task would place an immense strain on the testing community and all the plants and utilities involved. The EPA also had to finalize an electronic reporting concept to accumulate all these results in some useable fashion.

It is safe to say everyone is a lot wiser now than they were at the beginning. This presentation attempts to chronicle some of the more valuable lessons learned by all parties involved and hopefully provide some guidance for future ICR programs.


11 | P a g e

Session 5 – Organic Measurements • Tuesday, March 22, 19:30 to 22:15 Session Chairs – Cal Loomis and Steve Eckard 5.1 Volatiles Organic Sampling Train Fundamentals William Andersen, STL

The Environmental Protection Agency considers the Volatile Organic Sampling Train (VOST) an essential medium for the characterizations of stack gas compounds boiling between 30ºC and 131ºC. This boiling point range of compounds can be lowered using performance verification data, but generally speaking, compounds whose boiling points fall between Freon 12 and chlorobenzene are considered candidate target analytes that can be sampled and analyzed by the VOST method. This presentation provides a review of the fundamental concepts of VOST sampling and analysis that affect final data quality and defensibility. Some data artifacts that often occur during VOST testing, including background contamination and breakthrough, are presented with some laboratory observations and recommendations that should be helpful to a test team to ensure defensible data is acquired.

5.2 The Sampling and Analysis of Acrolein From Ambient Air Using O-

Benzylhydroxylamine Coated Cartridges Eric Grosjean, Marcus Hueppe, and Sucha S. Parmar, Atmospheric Analysis and Consulting, Inc.

Acrolein is a highly reactive, unsaturated aldehyde that is considered to be an extremely toxic substance with significant health risks that include severe irritation of the lungs, mucous membrane and skin. It ranks high in most air toxicity assessments and is listed by the EPA on the priority list of hazardous substances. A person’s main source of exposure to Acrolein is usually through the inhalation of contaminated air. Sources of Acrolein include emissions from combustion processes such as cigarette smoke and vehicle exhaust, emissions from its use in manufacturing, and vapors from cooking oil or grease being overheated. The standard method typically used for the analysis of ambient carbonyls (EPA Method TO-11A) has proven to be unreliable for the measurement of Acrolein. This method collects carbonyls on acidified 2,4-Dinitrophenylhydrazine coated silica gel cartridges forming an Acrolein hydrazone derivative that is unstable and breaks down producing inaccurate results. AAC is developing a method for the analysis of Acrolein in ambient air based on NCASI Method 105.01, in which silica gel cartridges are coated with O-Benzylhydroxylamine. When sampled, an Acrolein oxime derivative is formed on the cartridge, which is believed to be more stable than the hydrazone derivative. The cartridge is extracted with Hexane and the extract is analyzed using Gas Chromatography with Nitrogen Phosphorous Detection. Preliminary studies have shown promising results using this technique for the sampling and analysis of Acrolein in ambient air.

5.3 Testing and Analysis of Highly Polar VOCs and Organic Acids Steven Eckard, Enthalpy Analytical, Inc

This presentation focuses on the inherent pitfalls one must navigate when testing compounds that have multiple alcohol groups (e.g., glycols, triols, polyols) and the steps that can be taken to deal with the


12 | P a g e

physical properties of these compounds. Unfortunately, the steps needed to get reliable data are sometimes difficult and time consuming.

The second part of the presentation focuses on the propensity of organic acids to convert to methyl esters (and visa versa) during and after collection. The problem is described as a caution to testers. Some simple precautions can be taken, but in some instances the only solution is to realize that both the target analyte and its methyl ester must be considered when evaluating test data.

5.4 Accurate Measurement and Reporting of Total Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)

Mass Emissions Charles Simon, PhD, and Phil Billick, Air Compliance Testing, Inc. Steve Szambaris, Archer, Daniels, Midland Corporation

Accurate reporting of total volatile organic compound (VOC) mass emissions has been a thorn in the side of emission testers for decades. Tens of millions of dollars in fines have been levied by the EPA for violations of the Clean Air Act associated with under-reporting of VOC mass emissions from stationary sources. We present several case studies of what went wrong and how to do it right. We also discuss specific historic simultaneous applications of reference test methods such as M18, M25, M25A, and M308 to measure total VOC mass emissions from traditional and non-traditional sources. Further, we discuss the relationships of measurement test results to VOC mass emissions and how to properly calculate those emissions. Industries examined include panelboard manufacturing; corn, bean and citrus processing; ethanol production; and coating operations. The presentation also provides details of the EPA’s guidance document known as the ‘Midwest Scaling Protocol” for ethanol plants, and how to develop similar protocols for other industries.

There will be math.

5.5 TOC, VOC, THC, TGNMO? What’s in a Name? Cal Loomis, PE, QSTI, Bison Engineering

When you begin to look at organic pollutants, you soon realize the depth of information available to you and how there seems to be no beginning and no end to the information. You hear the terms “total hydrocarbons,” “volatile organic compounds,” “total gaseous non-methane organics,” and “organics compounds.” How do you separate one from the other and do they or do they not overlap? This presentation covers the basics of these difficult to understand pollutants.


13 | P a g e

Session 6 – Regulatory Changes and Other Legal Implications • Wednesday, March 23, 8:30 to 12:00 Session Chairs – Chuck Duncan and Robert Baxter 6.1 National Air Pollution Enforcement Initiatives Targeted for Fiscal Years 2011

through 2013 Mamie Miller, Associate Director, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance

The EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) aggressively goes after significant pollution problems using vigorous civil and criminal enforcement. This presentation summarizes the OECA targeted air pollution issues that have been identified for the next two years, with an emphasis on point source emission categories. OECAs general approach to resolving these issues will be discussed.

6.2 Implementation of Revisions to 40 CFR Parts 72 and 75 Matthew Boze, USEPA Clean Air Markets Division

A number of revisions to 40 CFR Parts 72 and 75 are expected to be finalized in February 2011. Of greatest interest to the source testing community are probably the requirements that all emission testing performed to demonstrate compliance with the Acid Rain Program be performed by an AETB complying with ASTM D7036, and the requirement that testers using EPA Protocol gas to perform stack tests on Part 75 sources must use gas from gas production sites that are participating in the PGVP (an ongoing gas audit program). There are varying effective dates for the AETB and PGVP requirements that will be discussed. EPA’s use of control charting to help sources identify leaks in their ducts, stacks or sampling systems will also be discussed. EPA will offer an overview of rule requirements.

6.3 What a Tangled Web We Weave When Accreditation We Attempt to Achieve David Elam, Summa Consultants, Inc.

Most businesses pursue a straightforward approach to quality system implementation and accreditation. Typically, they will adopt a quality management standard - ISO 9001 or ISO 17025 for example – build the systems to support conformance to the standard, and then operate those systems. Once they are confident that the systems are working, they’ll retain a registrar who performs a detailed audit of the operation and then issues a certificate of accreditation to the business.

Not surprisingly, the source testing profession is subject to quality system requirements that mirror the difficulty of the profession. It isn’t enough to deal with challenging work conditions, evolving regulations, physically and mentally demanding work, and the uncertainty about the weather. We are also subject to quality system requirements that are every bit as challenging as source testing work.

We have a quality system standard based on ISO 17025, but with the added twist of individual qualifications. Individual qualifications or credentials are common amongst professionals, but we have


14 | P a g e

adopted a method grouping approach that potentially forces individuals to sit for an exam for methods they don’t perform so they can qualify for methods they do perform.

Quality management systems for most analytical operations include the analysis of proficiency test materials. If a source testing firm is accredited by Louisiana Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (LELAP), it will perform proficiency sample analysis for certain parameters twice per year, an approach that is common for analytical laboratories. Not only are emission-testing firms subject to proficiency test sample requirements, but new regulations also require that audit samples be included for several emission testing programs. No other environmental measurement discipline is subject to the level of audit sample analyses that have been imposed on the source-testing profession.

While the combination of accreditation, individual qualification, and analysis of proficiency test materials and audit samples represent major challenges, they are technical in nature. More troubling is language in the proposed rule governing minimum competency requirements for source testers performing Part 75 work (i.e., conformance to ASTM D7036). The proposed rule allows the EPA to fine AETBs that fail to produce proper credentials up to $32,500/day.

Developing and implementing quality management systems that balance these evolving requirements – while allowing the source-testing firm time to do profitable source testing work – requires complete understanding of the requirements coupled with a sharp market focus. Few firms will be able to support the overhead requirements for tests that they perform infrequently. Fewer will be able to afford the fines or the expense of challenging those fines. The most successful firms will likely be those that develop specialized capabilities and collaborate with other specialized firms to tackle the jobs requiring multiple areas of expertise.

This session examines key quality management standards affecting the source testing community, how to implement those standards, how to work to improve those standards, and how to stay in business and avoid fines while doing so.

6.4 An Overview of the SSAS Audit Sample Program and What Impacts It May Have on

Testers, Laboratories, and Facilities Jim Serne, TRC

The final rule privatizing and restructuring the Audit Sample requirements was promulgated in September 2010. Implementation is expected to occur by early 2011. The impact on testers, laboratories, and facilities will be significant. All compliance test programs conducted in the USA must include SSAS Audit Samples or face potential Notice of Violations (NOVs) from the EPA.

This presentation provides an overview of the new SSAS Audit requirements and the “standards” developed by The NELAC Institute (TNI) to implement the EPA requirements. The presentation also addresses these issues:

• The methods covered by this new rule • The procedure for obtaining SSAS Audit Samples and for reporting the audit results • The impacts that failed audits may have on testers, laboratories, and facilities


15 | P a g e

Session 7-- Much Ado About Nothing • Wednesday, March 23, 16:30 to 19:00 Session Chairs – Scott Evans and Raymond Merrill 7.1 “Less Than’s”: How to Get the Most Out of the Data Jim Craigmile, ORTECH Environmental, Inc.

Low-level emission sources provide unique challenges, not just in sampling but also in analysis and reporting of the data. Usually test results are used by different parties for different reasons. Source test results may demonstrate compliance with a stack concentration limit for regulatory purposes but may indicate the facility is one of the highest emitters for a national database. Having a good working relationship with the analytical laboratory analyzing the samples is essential in obtaining useful results for the client. And when the results come back as less than the detection limit, there are several options that can be used to get the most useful data for the client. Some of the options that are used in Ontario for “less than” data are discussed using actual test data.

7.2 Challenges in Using Detected and Undetected Results for Setting MACT Emission

Limits Glenn C. England and Joy Brooks, ENVIRON International Corporation

In recent development and periodic reviews of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the EPA has adopted a number of new approaches resulting in more stringent emission limits for industrial facilities. The implementation of HAP-by-HAP emission limits at levels near detection and quantitation limits raises several questions regarding enforceability of such limits. For example, previous studies reported that hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from gas-fired industrial boilers and process heaters are typically near or below detection limits of the state-or-the-art test methods used to measure them. This also can be seen in emissions data provided to the EPA for the Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boiler MACT Information Collection Request (ICR). The EPA has used undetected results at the reported analytical method detection limits along with detected results to establish MACT floors and calculate emission limits for HAPs. The contribution of undetected results to prospective emission limits for gas-fired boilers and process heaters, and the large uncertainty inherent in measurements near these levels, is especially significant.

Additional sources of error beyond the analytical method contribute significantly, often dominantly, to the total uncertainty and overall detection limits of stationary source emission test methods. This is evident in the wide range of undetected values–two to three orders of magnitude–for key HAPs such as HCl, mercury and dioxins/furans reported in EPA’s ICR database that raises serious questions regarding the reproducibility of “best” method performance on a routine basis. Source testers seldom include all sources of error when reporting test results; indeed, it is typically relatively expensive in a routine source test to collect the data needed to evaluate them. The EPA and industrial organizations devoted considerable resources to evaluate test methods for metals, organic compounds, and acid gases at concentrations characteristic of waste incinerators during development of NESHAPs and NSPS for those sources in the 1980s and 1990s. The same methods are now being applied to establish emission limits at much lower concentrations near method detection limits, without adequate consideration of how reliable measurement results are at these levels. At the detection limit (using a common but not universal definition), the statistical uncertainty is equal to the measured value; i.e., the true result may be zero, the detection limit,


16 | P a g e

or 2x the detection limit with equal probability. It is arbitrary to choose any number in this range. This presentation reviews the implications of undetected results evident in the Boiler MACT ICR data with respect to the proposed and prospective emission limits for industrial/commercial/institutional boilers and process heaters (which are expected to be finalized prior to this conference). Potential alternative approaches also are presented.

7.3 When Is a ‘Positive’ Result Real? Ron McLeod, ALS Canada, Ltd.

When a contaminant is reported as an analytical result, how do we know if this reported value is derived from the actual source emissions? This presentation identifies sources of concern such as background laboratory and field contamination as well as artifacts derived from stack emission reactions with sampling media.

7.4 Determining Sampling Uncertainty: Do You Really Know Your Detection Limit?

Raymond Merrill, US Environmental Protection Agency

This presentation initiates discussion of ways to include sampling uncertainty into measurement results. Do you really know when you are measuring amounts different from zero? How can field train blank data combined with laboratory detection and quantitation limits be used to assess the uncertainty of manual sampling results from stationary sources? Data from recent and historical tests for methods that have a measurable field blank are used to show how field train blanks can contribute to determining the confidence limits for manual stationary source measurements.


17 | P a g e

Session 8 – Instrumental Developments • Thursday, March 24, 8:30 to 12:00 Session Chairs – Dieter Kita and Bob Davis 8.1 Calibration Gases: What the Hell Are They All About? Bob Davis, Airgas

The use of EPA protocol gases is vital to accurate testing and continuous monitoring. The gases are the “gold standard” by which all measurements are possible. Without using the proper guidelines, gases will not be as accurate or consistent as they need to be, and they will be relied upon more in the future.

This presentation provides an overview of what EPA protocol gases are all about. There are misconceptions as to how EPA protocol gases are made and the requirements behind their production. The stack testers and users need to know the analytical methods used to create EPA protocol gases to perform the test methods properly. There are also required tests that need to be done to define the true accuracy and precision of EPA protocol tests. After all these years, the manufacturing of EPA protocols has resulted in changes in technology that have made precision to ±1% easier to meet than ever before. This presentation also addresses which EPA protocol gases there will and will not be in the future and the best potential accuracy for these new pollutants.

8.2 Particulate Matter Instrumental Testing for CPT Optimization at a Cement Plant

Burning Hazardous Waste and Related PM Monitoring Issues Jim Peeler and Laura Kinner, Emission Monitoring Inc.

Cement plants that burn hazardous waste are subject to 40CFR63, Subpart EEE and must periodically conduct comprehensive performance tests (CPTs) (formerly “trial burns”) during which compliance with emission standards for PM, dioxin/furans, hazardous metals, hydrogen chloride, chlorine, and other compounds are demonstrated. Also during the CPT, on-going kiln system operating limits and feed rates for various hazardous waste components are established by conducting tests at different operating rates, waste feed rates, and metal spiking rates. For PM emissions, the kiln operating limits include automated waste feed cut offs (AWFCOs) for opacity, effluent flow rate, feed rates, etc., as well as alarm limits for PM Detectors or bag leak detectors (BLDs). CPTs are inherently complicated and expensive test programs due to the range of parameters tested, the costs associated with spiking high levels of hazardous waste, and the spiking HAP metals. Detailed test protocols must be submitted for agency approval, and opportunities for public participation/review must be provided well in advance of the tests and are not easily modified. Because cement plants operate well below the applicable emission standards, the regulations allow detuning of control devices during the CPT in order to establish AWFCOs and PM monitoring alarm levels providing necessary operational flexibility. The use of an instrumental PM test method to provide feedback to the cement plant operator allows for the optimization of test parameters and conditions for conducting CPT test runs.

This presentation describes the use of the Thermo Series 7000 in-situ inertial microbalance during CPT test programs to establish kiln system operating conditions and APCD control efficiency for conducting PM test runs and for verifying the stability of PM concentrations during such test runs. The sampling and analysis procedures are similar to ASTM D6831-02 “Standard Test Method for Sampling and Determining Particulate Matter in Stack Gases Using an In-Stack, Inertial Microbalance” except that


18 | P a g e

certain simplifications are applied to enhance the value of the real-time feedback to guide the cement plant operator. Examples of dynamic PM concentration transitions from in-line raw “mill on” to “mill off” are illustrated, as well as changes due to coal mill operation, production rate, and adjustments to the baghouse bypass necessary to increase emissions. Comparisons of the PM concentrations with the concurrent PMD monitor output and opacity monitoring data are provided based on one-minute averages. Also, comparisons of single-point Series 7000 PM concentrations are made with concurrent two-hour Method 5 test results. Recommendations for performing tests to demonstrate the uniformity of PM concentrations are provided.

8.3 A Hybrid PM CEMS Kevin Goohs and Dieter Kita, Thermo Fisher Scientific

The continuous measurement of particulate source emissions using surrogate methodology is an exercise in reference method correlation. To further the science of particulate emissions measurement, ongoing development is being conducted to continuously extract a diluted sample from both dry and wet sources and to measure the conditioned particulate concentration at a proposed reference condition.

The real-time measurements are accomplished by utilizing elastic light scattering scaled intermittently by an inertial microbalance. Ongoing development focuses on the extraction of sample and the accurate measurement of the dilution ratio using two separate methods. Additional testing compares measured concentrations using clean dry air versus nitrogen. Sample extraction, handling, and measurement techniques are discussed along with laboratory and field test results from wet and dry sources.

8.4 SO3 Detection with FTIR and Quantum Cascade Laser Systems Curt Laush and R.L. Spellicy, Industrial Monitor and Control Corporation

Imacc has been working with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and with private industry to develop monitoring methods for SO3 in power plant ducts. Attempts to do this extractively were met with limited success because of line-loss effects. Most recently, cross-duct approaches have been undertaken using both an FTIR instrument and a Quantum Cascade (QC) laser. A significant challenge to doing cross-duct measurements is the substantial particulate loading in a typical SCR duct. This loading substantially reduces any propagated signal. For the QC laser this is not as limiting as it is for the FTIR because of its higher power. To improve FTIR performance, a new high-intensity, laser-excited IR source was developed that operates at 1900° to 2000° C as opposed to conventional IR sources that operate at 1200° to 1400° C. The higher temperature produces over twice the signal to noise allowing for cross-duct measurements to be performed.

This presentation discusses data collected in an SCR duct with the FTIR. The measurements were made in a duct with an SO3 generator allowing for variable concentrations to be observed. Preliminary results of the Imacc QC laser sensor also are presented. This device has been tested in the laboratory with an elevated temperature cell allowing for controlled concentrations of SO3 to be generated. A prototype system has been delivered to a client and subsequent validations are in progress at the client’s facilities. Results of these validations also are presented.


19 | P a g e

Session 9 – Quality Assurance • Thursday, March 24, 19:30 to 22:15 Session Chairs – Ron McLeod and Kevin Crosby 9.1 Automated NO2 Generation System for Converter Tests Kirk Lovewell, Teledyne Advanced Pollution Instrumentation

Generating NO2 test gas for verification of CEMS NOX analyzers has historically been a challenging problem. New EPA rules allow the use of gas phase titration (GPT) generation of NO2 using NO gas and ozone. This presentation describes a new automated NO + ozone GPT and dilution calibration system specifically designed for the QA requirements of CEMS gas analyzers. The new system has been designed to provide stable, repeatable, and cost effective NO2 calibration gas as well as standard dilution functions.

9.2 FTIRs: Their Configurations, Their Use, and Their Abuse Scott B. Swiggard, M.S., QSTI (I-IV)

Over the past several years FTIR has made headway into an accepted technology for the use of environmental data collection and source testing. At the same time manufacturers have simplified the software and operational complexities allowing for a larger operational market in the field of source testing. This presentation looks at standard configurations of predominate FTIRs in use and evaluates their ability to report inaccurate data while loosely following the literal interpretation of the methods.

Five areas of concern are addressed:

• Insufficiently trained FTIR operators • Insufficiently trained regulators who review reports • Manufacturers’ over-statements of instrument performance, causing false sense of security • Reactive gas transportability and verification • Vast variation of method interpretation 9.3 Update on the Development of Flow Methods in Europe Rod Robinson, NPL and Chairman of STA

Two standard flow methods are being developed in Europe. These standards cover periodic (manual) flow and velocity measurement for calibration and duct characterization and continuous instrumental methods– primarily to enable mass emission rates to be reported. One driver for these standards is the requirement under the European Emissions Trading Scheme for direct measurement of emissions to be reported with a traceable uncertainty of 2.5%. This has led to an aim to achieve uncertainties in flow rate determination of 1.5%.

Techniques that are being addressed in the methods include various differential pressure devices (pitots), tracer gas techniques, calculation approaches, and vane anemometers for low flow applications. Instrumental methods include ultrasonic, thermal mass flow, correlation, averaging pitots, and vortex.


20 | P a g e

An overview of the standards is provided, and the results of laboratory and field validation studies that have recently been undertaken in Europe is discussed. Other issues to be discussed include temperature effects, interferences, and the effect of flow profile on installation of cross duct instruments. A brief discussion on the uncertainties in the methods is also given.

9.4 Validation of Long-Term Sampling of PCDD/F in Emission in MSW Incinerators

Based on the Filter Condenser Method Gilles Campagnola, TCR Tecora srl

The Filter Condenser Method has been widely used for decades, in conjunction with heated probe and heated filter holders, to capture PCDD/F emissions from MSW incinerators. The Filter Condenser Method is a well-known method adopted by the US EPA as Method 23 and as European Method 1948-1. The method is often used for sampling that must be performed in a short time period of 6 to 8 hours for expected concentrations below 0,1 ng/m3 TEQ.

The presentation provides a number of tests to validate the ability of the method, using adsorbent resin XAD2, to collect over a long period of time (15 to 30 days) the total amount of PCDD/F respecting the EN1948 method and uncertainty criteria.

The presentation discusses the results from various tests in different plants at different concentrations of PCDD/F at the source.


21 | P a g e

Session 10 – Manual Methods for the Most Part • Friday, March 25, 8:30 to 12:00 Session Chairs – Walt Smith and Jason DeWees 10.1 Utility ICR Experience with Conditional Test Method 033–Sampling and Analysis

Method for Hydrogen Cyanide Derek Brewster, TRC, Inc.

The Utility ICR required hundreds of combustion sources to quantify emissions of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and recommended the use of CTM-033 for quantification. CTM-033 is a method with some inherent challenges and potential biases when performed on a source where there are elevated concentrations of CO2. This presentation addresses some of the complications that are experienced when operating the CTM-033 train in such conditions and includes recommendations for mitigating those issues. The method will be addressed from relevant field experience in the operation and recovery of the sampling train from several different types of sources and reagent strengths.

Reaction of the CO2 with the sodium hydroxide reagent can have impacts on the HCN data quality and these may apply to the recent Utility ICR test results. The presentation also includes the effects if the train were run as a modified EPA Method 26A with additional back-half analysis including the HCN component. The results of laboratory bench tests will also be conducted and the data presented with the intention of demonstrating certain biases that could be considered when evaluating data presented from this method.

10.2 Comparison of Mercury Sorbent Tubes to Isokinetic Sampling Methods Jim Craigmile, ORTECH Environmental, Inc.

Sorbent tubes are an inexpensive option for measuring mercury emission at sources with low particulate bound mercury concentrations. They also provide accurate emission data when compared to mercury sampling using more costly and time-consuming isokinetic methods.

A comparison of mercury emission test data from facilities such as coal-fired power plants and waste incinerators using sorbent tubes and isokinetic sampling methods is presented.

10.3 Canadian PM2.5 Source Sampling Experience Pat Linton, Environmental Technology Centre

This presentation reviews Environment Canada’s (EC) stack testing experience with versions of OTM 27 and OTM 28 hardware. The tests were performed with in-stack cyclone, out-of-stack filter, and single ice-bath box.

Field and laboratory results are presented and discussed. The issues investigated include:

• Sampling of moisture saturated gases • Sample recovery by water rinse


22 | P a g e

• CPM artifact formation on 8-hour test runs • Use of ethanol additive to inhibit dissolved SO2 oxidation • Weighing reactive particulate (CaO, H2SO4) • Condenser cleaning by solvent soaking 10.4 A Fast Track to Accreditation by STAC Walt Smith, Walter Smith and Associates, Inc.

Many QA officers believe that being accredited by NELAC or LELAC gives them an easy tract to ASTM D-7036 accreditation by STAC. This could not be further from the truth. ASTM D-7036 requires that the testers actually know how to test the methods they advertise they can perform. Since SES only has 4 exams that cover a limited number of methods, the testing company must have their own exams for those methods they perform but the SES exam does not cover. Therefore, the testing company needs to have a training program and individual training schedules as well as SOPs for all these methods. ASTM D-7036 has a minimum of 294 requirements that must be incorporated into an AETB’s QA Manual. The best way to meet these requirements is to actually insert these requirements into the QA Manual. This removes misinterpretation by STAC of the manual’s intent. This presentation gives solutions to these problems and others problems that may occur with accreditation by STAC.


23 | P a g e

Session 11 – Poster Session • Monday through Thursday, 10:00 to 10:30 and Monday and Tuesday, 20:00 to 20:30 Session Chairs – DeAnna Oser (in abstentia) and Pablo Maiz 11.1 Particulate CEMs for Wet and Dry FGD Applications Bill Howe, Apex Instruments and William Averdieck, PCME

This poster overviews the technology for wet and dry stack particulate monitoring and describes PCME’s extractive and in situ light scattering systems developed to provide reliable measurement in PM-CEM applications. It also summarises the stack sampling approach required to calibrate such instruments to be compliant with the US EPA’s PS-11 standard.

The uptake of wet Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) technology in the power industry has created a new demand to continuously monitor particulate emissions in the US due to changing regulatory requirements, the challenge of low dust concentration measurement, and, in applications without reheat, the need for operation in ‘wet stack’ conditions. Wet conditions are more challenging to continuously monitor than ‘dry or non-condensing’ stack conditions due to problems of overcoming interference from water droplets. Traditional opacity and particle measurements cannot be used in these applications due to interference from condensed water vapour.

There are essentially two core techniques for monitoring particulate emission concentration with high accuracy in wet stacks and both are extractive in nature (i.e., a sample is drawn continuously from the stack in a representative fashion) and are passed through the analyser before return to the stack. These techniques are:

1) Beta attenuation 2) Extractive light scatter

In the second type, the extracted stack sample is heated to evaporate any residual water droplets. Thus the sample becomes effectively dry so that it may be analysed by a standard dry measurement technique.

In addition to expanding on the issues detailed above, this poster provides insights into the results from both in situ and extractive light scatter instruments using data obtained from PCME’s light scatter PM-CEMS.

11.2 New OTM - 29 : Sampling and Analysis for Hydrogen Cyanide Emissions from

Stationary Sources Rachel Agnew, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

The Emissions Measurement Center website has a conditional test method, CTM-033, designed for the measurement of hydrogen cyanide emissions from stationary sources. CTM-033 is a manual source test method using a Method 5 sampling train. In this method, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) present in the stack gas reacts with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) in the impingers to form a cyanide ion that is analyzed by ion chromatography (IC). Currently, the method specifies that the pH of the NaOH solutions be ≥12 throughout the test. Below a pH of 12, the NaOH solution loses its ability to absorb HCN. The EPA is revising this method because acidic gases commonly found in combustion exhaust gas, such as carbon


24 | P a g e

dioxide, can severely lower the pH of the NaOH solution. We are proposing modifications to address this issue and are taking this opportunity to improve some of the recovery, analytical, and quality assurance procedures as well.

Major modifications to CTM-033 include:

• Increase the normality of the caustic solution used in the impingers from 0.1N to 6.0N. • Increase the number of caustic impingers from two to three. • Measure the pH of each impinger solution at the end of the test. If the pH of the final NaOH impinger

is <12, the test is invalid. • Recover and determine the cyanide concentration of the final NaOH impinger separately. If the final

impinger contains more than 5% of the total mass of cyanide captured, the test is invalid. • If the concentration of CO2 in the gas stream is higher than 5%, measure the CO2 concentration in the

stack gas and at the outlet of the impinger train continuously. Since the NaOH solution will remove some of the CO2, the gas-sampling rate should be adjusted to account for the CO2 removed from the sample gas.

11.3 Potential Legal Issues with Stack Tester Accreditation Troy Burrows, Entec Services, Inc., Corporate Quality Manager

This poster presents the potential legal issues associated with stack testing and accreditation. Potential issues are presented that may be discovered during or after a stack test. Additionally, information is given concerning what each of those potential issues might mean to the test company, the client, and the regulatory body.

The issues presented are some that have actually been discovered and some that could potentially occur. The issues are discussed from several points of view to include the point of discovery (when and where the issue was discovered), the time of occurrence, and the possible corrective actions to mitigate any negative impacts. The poster also covers whether or not the issue could have a legal impact on the AETB or the client. Some of the issues may include:

• Missing a method requirement • Changes to methods without authorization • Falsification of data • Not verifying that a qualified individual is on site

11.4 I Use F-Factors So My CEMS Emission Data Are Right Peter Pakalnis, LEHDER Environmental Services Ltd.

This poster presents issues discovered during numerous CEMS Certifications at Canadian natural gas fired power plants using Environment Canada’s EPS 1/PG/7 Protocol. Many people assume that all you need to do is a concentration measurement and all of your F-Factor calculated emissions are perfectly fine. Many stack testers also assume that the heat input values given to us by the facility are correct (and in theory they should be).


25 | P a g e

Over the years we have discovered many little gremlins that can cause the emissions to be off significantly–with facility personnel having no idea. A comparison of manual method emissions and F-Factor emissions can result in quite a few surprises.

A number of the issues we have discovered are reviewed and hopefully this information will help other RATA testers to resolve RATA problems they may encounter. Issues to be discussed include fuel flow meters operating incorrectly, duct burner gas flows not being accounted for, incorrect conversions, incorrect gas densities, and incorrect factors.

11.5 Building a Quality Management System that Conforms to ASTM D7036-04 David Elam, Summa Consultants, Inc.

Today, the emission testing community has a practice-specific, consensus-based quality management system standard, ASTM D7036-04 (Standard Practice of Competence for Air Emission Testing Bodies). While adoption of this standard by emission testing firms has been cautious, the EPA is poised to promulgate minimum competency requirements for emission testing organizations that would require conformance to ASTM D7036-04 for all Part 75 work. Once these rules are promulgated, adoption of ASTM D7036-04 will accelerate.

At first glance, the development of a conforming quality management system seems like a daunting task, requiring significant re-work of an organization’s operations. Upon closer examination though, successful test firms will find that they are already performing much of what the standard requires. What most firms find is that they do not have the documentation in place to support their conformance to the standard. The key to straightforward, cost-effective development of quality system documentation is to understand the requirements of the standard and then describe the operation of the firm within the framework of the standard. Where gaps between standard requirements and operations exist, the firm will need to create procedures to overcome those gaps; however, those procedures should logically connect existing and conforming procedures and practices. No successful emission-testing firm will require a complete overhaul of its operations to conform to the requirements of the standard.

This poster will describe quality management system documentation, how to prepare it to conform to ASTM D7036-04, and provide a flowchart of the process for developing and implementing a conforming quality management system.

11.6 Two Hands, Three Balls: Customer & Prospect Management (juggling!) and Business

Building in This, or Any, Economy Michael Cahill, P.E., LEED GA, QSTI (Groups 1-4), Co-Founder, former Vice President of CK Environmental, Inc, Co-Founder, present Vice President of bcx Energy, Inc.

From the time I hunched over a partially soggy bar napkin to launch my first business, I’ve noticed certain themes that continually come up. In this poster, I share these tips:

• E-marketing communiqué is OK, but real contact via telephone or in-person is better.


26 | P a g e

• Bid low, bill high. Or, “my wife will pay me more to stay home?” Don’t undersell personnel resources, i.e., continually putting mid-level personnel out at a technician rate will undermine their growth and loose money, as you’ll undercut your labor multiplier.

• Forget about making a customer happy, a satisfied customer is what you seek. Though simply semantics, you’ll noticed that I’ve converted from referring to our end users as customers instead of as clients.

• My accountant tells me that it’s not just about how much money you make, but rather how much you hold on to. Don’t chase every rat down the hole.

• Under promise, over deliver; SIMPLIFY. It’s a technical document not a Tom Clancy novel. Let the numerical results, tables and appendices speak for themselves.

• Put first things first. Higher revenue, higher margin are higher priority. Create a metric to assess the customer’s value. Don’t leave it up to the PM to make the best call on behalf of the business.

11.7 PM Spiking for PS11 Calibration Robert W. Baxter, B3 Systems, Inc.

It is increasingly difficult to detune highly efficient air pollution control equipment to the extent that will allow generation of a representative calibration curve for PS 11 applications. The researcher has developed a method for spiking particulate matter (PM) into stacks and ducts using native ash to create higher quality and wider range calibration curves. A demonstration program was conducted on a power plant in November of 2010. This presentation will summarize the case study of this field effort. It will include information on the system operation and testing parameters.


27 | P a g e

A History of the Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis for Air Pollutants Conference

Over 30 Years of Vital Exchange on Emissions

Measurement and Monitoring Technology, Regulations, and Policies

Background

In September of 1971, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) proposed New Source Performance Standards for several major industrial air pollution source categories. Along with these proposed standards, the U.S. EPA proposed new test methods for sampling and analyzing emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen. The Agency proposed that source owners use these test methods to demonstrate compliance with the new proposed emissions limits. The new regulations and test methods were to form the basis for a new part 60 of Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations that now include regulations for over 60 source categories and over 70 emissions test methods.

Industrial technical experts representing the industries affected by these new proposals and representatives of consulting and laboratory firms determined to meet to discuss the new test methods. The purpose of the meeting was to identify and talk over problems with the new proposed methods and to develop a coordinated response to the proposal that would lead to improved and more flexible methods. The meeting occurred around late 1971 and representatives from U.S. EPA instrumental in preparing the proposed test methods also attended. The discussions were animated and informative and in the end resulted in informed decisions and some changes to the proposed methods before promulgation.

Another key consequence of the meeting was an agreement on the need for an ongoing interchange of ideas, findings from field and laboratory studies, and information about new technology developments. The ground rules for that first meeting included an agreement that there would be no published proceedings and that discussions between participants would remain confidential. The participants agreed that such a format was an important factor in the success of that first meeting. The attendees also agreed to meet within 18 months with a similar theme and a formal agenda that encouraged a free flow of information about emissions testing methods, field and laboratory applications, and new technologies. The conference planners established an agenda that provided both formal presentations of field and laboratory experiences and sessions set aside for ad-hoc discussions of interest to particular attendees. The stage was set for the Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis for Air Pollutants Conference that continues as most comprehensive information exchange about air pollution emissions testing methods and technologies in the US, if not the world.

Schedule and Format

The conference participants arranged with the Engineering Foundation to sponsor and administer the first conferences. Several of the first conferences were held on the West coast at the Asilomar Conference Center in California. Conference planners determined to move the conference around the country to


28 | P a g e

encourage a broader attendance and to highlight particularly urgent issues. The conference location began alternating between coasts and has been held in Ohio, Georgia, Florida, and California. The conference continued on an 18-month schedule until the latter part of the 1980s. Then, attendees agreed that regulatory actions and technology developments were accelerating to the point that justified more frequent conferences. The conference planners established an annual schedule with the meetings in the spring of the year (March or early April).

As noted above, the conference planners believe that the meeting format and the basic operating rules are critical to the success of the information exchange. To minimize interferences from daily business demands, the conference is held at a conference center at a location generally distanced from government or private offices and laboratories. Conference attendees stay in accommodations at the same facility and the conference fees are inclusive of administrative fees, meals, and accommodations. The conference format includes ten successive formal sessions beginning on Sunday evening and continuing with morning and evening sessions through Friday morning. The conference agenda intentionally leaves the afternoon periods free for ad-hoc discussions, recreation, and other opportunities for attendees to interact.

Typical attendees include staff and management professionals from commercial source sampling and analysis companies, industrial operations subject to air pollution emissions standards, research and equipment development organizations, and government regulatory, permitting, and enforcement offices. There are no exhibit areas and presentations focused on promoting vendor-specific products or services are discouraged. Presenters do not provide written papers, there are no written proceedings, and the conference participants are not allowed to publish any of the data or information, other than their own, presented during the conference.

Agenda

The conference agenda includes sessions that focus on implementing environmental regulations, new and developing emissions measurement technologies, field and laboratory problem-solving, data management, and data quality measures. Session chairpersons arrange to have three to five presentations by technical experts for each 3 to 3½ hour session usually focusing on a common issue or theme. Session topics include developing regulatory and method products from the EPA, worker safety, new toxic and criteria pollutant measurement technologies, field and laboratory problem solving, control technology assessment projects, data quality management, and issues faced by the state, local, and international regulatory and permitting authorities. Each presenter provides background on the issue or experience with as much data support as necessary to support the conclusion or frame the question. Each presenter allows time (about half of the time allotted per presentation) for questions and discussion with the conference participants. Session chairpersons have much latitude in arranging sessions including sequential presentations, panel discussions, small and large group engagement exercises, and equipment or procedural demonstrations.

Conference Administration

Responsibility for the planning and organization of each conference is through a conference Chair Person and Co-Chair Person, with guidance from the Conference Steering Committee. The conference Chair


29 | P a g e

Person for the next conference is usually the current Co-Chair Person and has already begun selecting potential sites for the next conference. Site selection is affected by the location of the current conference (e.g., alternating coasts) and climate issues, warm weather being preferable. Traditionally, the Chair Person for the next conference selects a Co-Chair prior to the current conference and begins soliciting possible session chairs. The next conference Chair Person also arranges a planning session during one of the ad-hoc periods at the conference (e.g., Thursday afternoon following the Source Evaluation Society annual meeting). All participants with an interest in planning and participating in the next conference are invited. During this planning session, the conference Chair Person collects ideas for sessions and session chairpersons and generally sets the tone for the next conference.

Much of the registration, mailing, and facilities contract work is done through a professional conference management organization. The conference is self-sustaining, meaning that the attendees provide all the resources necessary to conduct the conference through the registration fees. Attendance steadied for many years at around 80 to 100; however, since passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act and the promulgation of new regulations controlling hazardous and other air pollutants, the attendance has grown to over 200 air pollution professionals. There is no organization underwriting the conference.

The conference planners and the Source Evaluation Society (see below) decided in 2001 to seek bids for conference management support with a view towards lowering the overall costs for participants. Beginning in 2004, conference management has been provided by Hospitality Management Services, Inc.

Source Evaluation Society

In the mid-1970s, the conference participants identified a need for ongoing communications between professionals in the source emissions sampling and analysis field beyond the conference setting. The Source Evaluation Society developed out of this discussion. Members of this professional organization established a constitution that defined officer positions and functions as well as member dues. Memberships are available to individuals rather than corporations or other organizations, and are renewable each year. The SES meets during the conference to announce election results and to discuss and vote on new action items. Among the SES actions over the years are annual Manhattan College scholarship sponsorship and development and distribution of a source sampling safety manual, the only such document for this industry. The SES supports a quarterly newsletter to communicate information about recent regulatory and technical developments and provide a public forum for disseminating papers on related subjects. The SES also has a website with information about the organization, membership contact information, and other related materials. Most recently, the SES has undertaken to develop and implement Qualified Source Test Individual and Qualified Source Test Observer approval programs and, in a separate action, to undertake administrative responsibilities for the annual conference.


LIST OF ATTENDEES

30 | P a g e

35th Conference on Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis for Air Pollutants

LIST of ATTENDEES


LIST OF ATTENDEES

31 | P a g e

Rachel Agnew Kirk Alexander U.S. EPA General Engineering 109 TW Alexander Dr. P.O. Box 30712 Durham, NC 27709 Charleston, SC 29417 Phone: (919) 541-0328 Phone: (843) 769-7378 Fax: (919) 541-3207 Fax: (843) 769-7397 [email protected] [email protected] William Anderson David Arbuckle TestAmerica Labs New Environmental Quality 5815 Middlebrook Pike 1/20 Meadow Ave Knoxville, TN 37921 Coopos Plains, Qld. 4108 Phone: (865) 291-3080 Phone: +61 7 3452 4700 Fax: (865) 584-4315 Fax: +61 7 3349 8924 [email protected] [email protected] Mr. David Bagwell Mr. Tom Baldwin Horizon Engineering, LLC. Baldwin Environmental, Inc. 13585 NE Whitaker Way 405 Western Rd. Unit 33 Portland, OR 97230 Reno, NV 89506 Phone: (503) 255-5050 Phone: (775) 850-1800 Fax: (503) 255-0505 Fax: (775) 850-1818 [email protected] [email protected] C. Greg Banchiere Robert Baxter Control Analytics, Inc. B3 Systems, Inc. 1171 Garden Street 3208 Spottswood St Suite 106 Greensburg, PA 15601 Raleigh, NC 27615 Phone: (724) 837-8800 Phone: (919) 790-9090 x103 Fax: (724) 837-3418 Fax: (919) 790-0550 [email protected] [email protected] David Berkowitz William Best Enthalpy Analytical, Inc. Kleinfelder 2202 Ellis Road 6200 Harris Technology Blvd Durham, NC 27703 Charlotte, NC 28269 Phone: (919) 850-4392 Phone: (704) 598-1049 x461 Fax: (919) 850-9012 Fax: (704) 598-1050 [email protected] [email protected] J. Wade Bice Quinn Bierman Alabama Power Company Air Hygiene International 744 Hwy. 87 5634 S. 122nd E. Ave. Suite F Calera, AL 35040 Tulsa, OK 74146 Phone: (205) 664-6055 Phone: (918) 307-8865 Fax: (205) 664-6309 Fax: (918) 307-9131 [email protected] [email protected]


LIST OF ATTENDEES

32 | P a g e

Mr. Philip Billick Daniel Bivins Air Compliance Testing, Inc. U.S. EPA P.O. Box 4156 109 TW Alexander (MC E143-02) Cleveland, OH 44141 Research Tri. Park, NC 27711 Phone: (216) 525-0900 Phone: (919) 541-7774 Fax: (216) 525-0901 Fax: (919) 541-0516 [email protected] [email protected] Gary Blackmon Dave Blankenship Southern Company Bison Engineering 708 Dyer Road 1400 11th Ave Newman, GA 30263 Helena, MT 59601 Phone: (770) 252-0670 Phone: (406) 442-5768 Fax: (770) 252-0699 Fax: (405) 449-6653 [email protected] [email protected] James Blanton Terry Borgerding Integrity Air Monitoring, Inc. Pace Analytical Services, Inc. PO Box 559 1700 Elm Street SE Suite 200 Huntersville, NC 28070 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Phone: (704) 398-1119 Phone: (612) 607-6374 Fax: (704) 398-1113 Fax: (612) 607-6388 [email protected] [email protected] Barry Boulianne Jason Bouwman BT Environmental Consulting Horizon Engineering, LLC. 2615 Wolcott 13585 NE Whitaker Way Ferndale, MI 48220 Portland, OR 97230 Phone: (248) 548-8072 Phone: (503) 255-5050 Fax: (248) 548-8073 Fax: (503) 255-0505 [email protected] [email protected] John Bowry Matthew Boze Dominion Generation U.S. EPA 1100 Coxendale Road 1310 L Street NW Room 727J Chester, VA 23836 Washington, DC Phone: (804) 796-6038 Phone: (202) 343-9211 Fax: (804) 796-6004 Fax: (202) 343-2359 [email protected] [email protected] James Brady Derek Brewster Tennessee Valley Authority TRC Environmental Corp. 1709 Finger Leapwood Rd. 5500 Meadowland Ln Finger, TN 38334 Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (423) 593-3572 Phone: (919) 618-3198 Fax: (423) 876-6734 Fax: (919) 838-9661 [email protected] [email protected]


LIST OF ATTENDEES

33 | P a g e

J. Michael Brown Mike Brown United Sciences Testing, Inc. Luminant Power 201 Commonwealth Drive 9000 W Jefferson Blvd Warrendale, PA 15086 Dallas, TX 75211 Phone: (724) 778-6930 Phone: (972) 343-3719 Fax: (724) 778-6959 Fax: (972) 343-3980 [email protected] [email protected] Richard Brown Jeff Burdette Alabama Power Company TRC Environmental Corp. 744 Hwy. 87 5540 Centerview Dr, Suite 100 Calera, AL 35040 Raleigh, NC 27606 Phone: (205) 664-6003 Phone: (919) 256-6249 Fax: (205) 664-6309 Fax: (919) 838-9662 [email protected] [email protected] John Buresh Ed Burgher Xcel Energy Apex Instruments, Inc. 414 Nicollet Mall MP7 204 Technology Park Lane Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fuquay- Varilla, NC 27526 Phone: (612) 330-7630 Phone: (919) 557-7300 Fax: (612) 330-6556 Fax: (919) 557-7110 [email protected] [email protected] Thomas Burian Troy Burrows Syncrude Canada Ltd. Entec Services, Inc. 125 Brachett Cres 16-D Commerce Ave. Ft McMurray, AB 19K 1X2 Hueytown, AL 35023 Phone: 7807904969 Phone: (205) 491-6676 Fax: 7807904850 Fax: (205) 491-6614 [email protected] [email protected] Bill Byczynski Michael Cahill Stack Test Group, Inc. BCX Energy 1500 Boyce Memorial Drive 276 Gano Street Ottawa, IL 62350 Providence, RI 02906 Phone: (815) 433-0545 Phone: (401) 421-2200 Fax: (815) 433-0592 Fax: (401) 421-3290 [email protected] [email protected] Mr. Gilles Campagnola Maggie Cangro TCR Tecora SRL Catalyst Air Management Via A Volta 22 2505 Birlington Solway Road Corsico 20084 Knoxville, TN 37931 Phone: 380244505501 Phone: (813) 994-5880 Fax: 3800248601811 Fax: (813) 531-0750 [email protected] [email protected]


LIST OF ATTENDEES

34 | P a g e

Donald Chapman Mr. Patrick Clark ARI Environmental, Inc. Airtech Environmental Services Inc. 951 Old Rand Road, Unit 106 601A Country Club Drive Wauconda, IL 60084 Bensenville, IL 60106 Phone: (847) 487-1580 Phone: (630) 860-4740 Fax: (847) 487-1587 Fax: (630) 860-4745 [email protected] [email protected] Jeff Cleland Wayne Coe ADM-EMG Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management 1000 60th Avenue SW 1400 Coliseum Blvd. Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 Montgomery, AL 36110 Phone: (319) 398-0753 Phone: (334) 270-5680 Fax: (319) 398-0738 Fax: (334) 279-3044 [email protected] [email protected] Joseph Conti Mr. Rick Cooper C.E.M. Solutions, Inc. Owens Corning 1183 Overdrive Circle 2790 Columbus Road Route 16 Hernando, FL 34442 Granville, OH 43023 Phone: (352) 489-4337 Phone: (740) 321-7628 Fax: (352) 489-4801 Fax: (740) 321-4628 [email protected] [email protected] Larry Cottone, QSTI, QEP Mr. Jim Craigmile CCI Environmental Consultants, Inc. ORTECH Environmental 3855 South 500 West, Suite I 804 Southlown Rd Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Mississauga, ON LSJ 2Y4 Phone: (801) 580-5543 Phone: (905) 822-4120 Fax: (801) 265-3656 Fax: (905) 855-0406 [email protected] [email protected] Kevin Crosby Bob Davis The Avogadro Group, LLC Airgas 2825 Roberts Circle 2287 Black River Rd Antioch, CA 94509 Bethlehem, PA 18105 Phone: (925) 680-4300 Phone: (610) 675-6854 Fax: (925) 680-4416 Fax: (610) 336-8474 [email protected] [email protected] Mr. Dave Dayton Augustin de la Vega Eastern Research Group (ERG) Florida Power and Light 601 Keystone Suite 700 10345 S.W. 99th Street Morrisville, NC 27960 Miami, FL 33176 Phone: (919) 468-7883 Phone: (786) 236-8614 Fax: (919) 468-7803 Fax: (305) 242-3893 [email protected] [email protected]


LIST OF ATTENDEES

35 | P a g e

Michael Denomme Jason DeWees LEHDER Environmental Services U.S. EPA 704 Mara Street, Suite 210 109 TW Alexander Drive Pt. Edward, ON N7V1X4 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: (519) 336-4101 Phone: (919) 541-9724 Fax: (519) 336-4311 Fax: (919) 541-0516 [email protected] [email protected] Chuck Duncan Hung Duong Entec Services, Inc. Airkinetics, Inc. 9420 Holly Springs Road 1308 S. Allec St. Apex, NC 27539 Anaheim, CA 92805 Phone: (205) 491-6676 Phone: (714) 254-1945 Fax: (205) 491-6614 Fax: (714) 956-2350 [email protected] [email protected] Mr. Kirk Easto Steven Eckard RWDI Air Inc. Enthalpy Analytical, Inc. 650 Woodlawn Road West 2202 Ellis Road Guelph, ON N1K1B8 Durham, NC 27703 Phone: (519) 823-4311 Phone: (919) 850-4392 Fax: (519) 823-1316 Fax: (919) 850-9012 [email protected] [email protected] Eric Ehlers David Elam Platt Environmental Services, Inc. Summa Consultants, Inc. 1520 Kensington Road, Suite 204 100 Deerfield Trail Oak Brook, IL 60523 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Phone: (630) 993-2663 Phone: (919) 967-0535 Fax: (630) 993-9017 Fax: (888) 498-5842 [email protected] [email protected] Todd Ellis Glenn England NL Dept. of Environmental Quality Environ International Corp. 1200 N Street 18100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 600 Lincoln, NE 68509 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (402) 471-4561 Phone: (949) 798-3643 Fax: (402) 471-2909 [email protected] [email protected] Scott Evans Jake Fahlenkamp Clean Air Engineering Air Hygiene International 500 W. Wood Street 5634 S. 122nd East Avenue, Suite F Palatine, IL 60067 Tulsa, OK 74146 Phone: (847) 991-3300 Phone: (918) 307-8865 Fax: (847) 991-3385 Fax: (918) 307-9131 [email protected] [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]�


LIST OF ATTENDEES

36 | P a g e

Charles Figueroa Mr. Bob Finken Almega Environmental Delta Air Quality Services, Inc. 5251 McFadden Ave. 1845 N. Case Huntington Beach, CA Orange, CA 92865 Phone: (714) 889-4000 Phone: (714) 279-6777 Fax: (714) 889-7030 Fax: (714) 279-6781 [email protected] [email protected] Lawrence Fisher Dan Fitzgerald Ashtead Technology ARI Environmental, Inc. 1474 Elmhurst Road 951 Old Rand Road, Unit 106 Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 Wauconda, IL 60084 Phone: (847) 631-0002 Phone: (847) 487-1580 Fax: (847) 758-2089 Fax: (847) 487-1587 [email protected] [email protected] Patrick Ford Russell Fowler, Jr. AECOM Environment Burns and McDonnell Eng. Co. 2 Technology Park Dr. 9400 Ward Parkway Westford, MA 01886 Kansas City, MO 64114 Phone: (978) 589-3427 Phone: (816) 333-9400 Fax: (978) 589-3100 Fax: (816) 822-3409 [email protected] [email protected] Steve Fryberger Chris Gatlin Bison Engineering Aeros Environmental, Inc. 1111 Maggie Lane 18828 Highway 65 Billings, MT 59101 Bakersfield, CA 93308 Phone: (406) 896-1716 Phone: (661) 391-0112 Fax: (406) 896-1725 Fax: (661) 391-0153 [email protected] [email protected] Mark Gierke Barry Gipson Southern Environmental Sciences, Inc. Emission Testing Services 1204 N. Wheeler Street 10461 Mammoth Drive Plant City, FL 33863 Baton Rouge, LA 70814 Phone: (813) 752-5014 Phone: (225) 925-8405 Fax: (813) 752-2475 Fax: (225) 925-2343 [email protected] [email protected] Mitchell Gober Larry Golden Southern Company Clean Air Engineering 708 Dyer Rd. 500 West Wood Street Newnan, GA 30263 Palatine, IL 60067 Phone: (770) 550-3094 Phone: (847) 991-3300 x4634 [email protected] Fax: (847) 991-3385 [email protected]


LIST OF ATTENDEES

37 | P a g e

Naomi Goodman Kevin Goohs EPRI Thermo Fisher Scientific 3420 Hillview Avenue 27 Forge Parkway Palo Alto, CA 94304 Franklin, MA 02038 Phone: (650) 855-2193 Phone: (508) 553-6808 Fax: (650) 855-2737 Fax: (508) 553-6940 [email protected] [email protected] Cliff Gordon Michael Gray M & C Products Analysis Technology Aeros Environmental, Inc. 1879 Portola Road, Suite G 18828 Highway 65 Ventura, CA 93003 Bakersfield, CA 93308 Phone: (805) 654-6970 x107 Phone: (661) 391-0112 Fax: (805) 654-6971 Fax: (661) 391-0153 [email protected] [email protected] Miroslaw Gudz Rafael Guillen Bluescope Steel Australia Energy & Environmental Measurement Corp. Bluescope Steel Kembia Steelworks 3730 N. Pellegrino Drive Port Kembia 2505 Tucson, AZ 85749 Phone: 61242757410 Phone: (520) 749-2167 [email protected] Fax: (520) 749-3582 [email protected] Scott Hajek Ms. Angela Hansen Nebraska Environmental Quality Am Test-Air Quality/Horizon Eng. PO Box 98922 P.O. Box 6256 Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 Ketchum, ID 83340 Phone: (402) 471-0291 Phone: (208) 891-4550 Fax: (402) 471-2909 [email protected] [email protected] Mr. Michael Hartman Michael Hayes Airtech Environmental, LLC Linde Electronics and Specialty Gases P.O. Box 12353 1 Greenwich Street Research Tri. Park, NC 27709-2353 Stewartsville, NJ 08886 Phone: (919) 544-6338 Phone: (908) 329-9774 Fax: (919) 572-2203 [email protected] [email protected] Jon Hays Joe Heffernan Duke Energy Horizon Engineering, LLC. 1000 East Main WP994 13585 NE Whitaker Way Plainfield, IN 46168 Portland, OR 97230 Phone: (317) 696-5369 Phone: (503) 255-5050 Fax: (317) 838-2490 Fax: (503) 255-0505 [email protected] [email protected]




LIST OF ATTENDEES

38 | P a g e

Mr. Bill Hefley Christopher House Air Sampling Associates, Inc. Environment Canada PO Box 1175 335 River Road South Lewisville, TX 75067 Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Phone: (972) 492-1001 Phone: (613) 991-4051 Fax: (972) 492-1402 Fax: (613) 998-4032 [email protected] [email protected] Jeremy Hutchens Mr. Mike Hutcherson E. Roberts Alley & Associates METCO Environmental 214 Central Circle SW P.O. Box 598 Decatur, AL 35601 Addison, TX 75001 Phone: (256) 351-0121 Phone: (972) 931-7127 Fax: (256) 651-0151 Fax: (972) 931-8398 [email protected] [email protected] Joel Iserman James Jacklin Burns and McDonnell Eng. Co. Maxxam Analytics 9400 Ward Parkway 1334 State Rd. Kansas City, MO 64114 Coopersburg, PA 18036 Phone: (816) 822-3458 Phone: (610) 346-1649 Fax: (816) 822-3409 Fax: (610) 346-9573 [email protected] [email protected] Jeremy Johnson Mr. Jeff Kaput C.E.M. Solutions, Inc. Airtech Environmental Services Inc. 1183 E. Overdrive Circle 601A Country Club Drive Hernando, FL 34442 Bensenville, IL 60106 Phone: (352) 489-4337 Phone: (630) 860-4740 Fax: (352) 489-4801 Fax: (630) 860-4745 [email protected] [email protected] Shawn Kassner Phil Kauppi ERA Prism Analytical Technologies, Inc. 6000 W. 54th Avenue 1200 N. Fancher Arvada, CO 80222 Mount Pleasant, MI 48858 Phone: (303) 463-3531 Phone: (989) 772-5088 Fax: (303) 421-0159 Fax: (989) 772-5870 [email protected] [email protected] Robert Keeney Chungkoo Kim Aura Scientific LLC KNJ Engineering Inc. 2481 Reliance Avenue 5F Deahyeon Techno. #174 Apex, NC 27539 Uiwang City 437-820 Phone: (919) 387-0090 Phone: 82-31-451-7082 Fax: (919) 387-6611 Fax: 82-31-459-7321 [email protected] [email protected]



LIST OF ATTENDEES

39 | P a g e

Ms. Laura Kinner Dieter Kita Emission Monitoring, Inc. Thermo Fisher Scientific 8901 Glenwood Avenue 27 Forge Park Raleigh, NC 27617 Franklin, MA 01504 Phone: (919) 781-3824 Phone: (508) 553-6916 Fax: (919) 782-9476 Fax: (508) 553-6940 [email protected] [email protected] Christian Klein Richard Lambert EML Air PTU LTD Eli Lilly 427 Canterbury Rd, Surrey Hills Lilly Corporate Center, Drop 5611 Melbourne, Victoria 3195 Greenwood, IN 46143 Phone: 0011613983619999 Phone: (317) 276-1820 Fax: 001161398360517 Fax: (317) 655-4080 [email protected] [email protected] Curtis Laush Thomas Leach Industrial Moniter & Control Corp. OG&E Electrical Services 800 Paloma Dr. Suite 100 321 N. Harvey Round Rock, TX 78665 Oklahoma City, OK 73101 Phone: (512) 341-8189 Phone: (405) 553-2984 Fax: (512) 341-8993 Fax: (405) 553-2981 [email protected] [email protected] Thomas Lentzner Pete Liebl Xcel Energy Air Source Technologies, Inc. 4653 Table Mountain 20505 W. 67th Street Golden, CO 80403 Shawnee, KS 66218 Phone: (720) 497-2135 Phone: (913) 422-9001 [email protected] Fax: (913) 422-9019 [email protected] Trey Lightsey Pat Linton Alabama Power Company Environment Canada 744 Hwy. GSC #8 335 River Road Alabaster, AL 35005 Ottawa, ON K1V 1C7 Phone: (205) 288-4870 Phone: (613) 998-7916 Fax: (205) 664-6309 Fax: (613) 952-1006 [email protected] [email protected] Robert Lischinsky Paul Little U.S. EPA Air Hygiene International 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (Mail Code 2223A) 5634 S. 122nd E. Avenue, Suite F Washington, DC 20460 Tulsa, OK 74146 Phone: (202) 564-2628 Phone: (918) 307-8865 Fax: (202) 564-0050 Fax: (918) 307-9131 [email protected] [email protected]


LIST OF ATTENDEES

40 | P a g e

Steve London Cal Loomis Xcel Energy Bison Engineering 1120 Main St. 1400 11th Ave. Lubbock, TX 79401 Helena, MT 59601 Phone: (806) 765-2608 Phone: (406) 442-5768 [email protected] Fax: (406) 449-6653 [email protected] Theresa Lowe Pablo Maiz CCI Environmental Consultants, Inc. Gamatek, SA DE CV 3855 South 500 West, Suite 1 Alanis Valdez 2308, Col. Industrial Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Monterey, NL 64440 Phone: (801) 269-0550 Phone: 011-52-81-83748856 Fax: (801) 265-3656 [email protected] [email protected] Simon Majahad Mukesh Malik N.E. Air Testing Syncrude Canada Ltd. 6 59th Street P.O. Bag 4009 MD 1070 Plumis, MA 01950 Fort McMurray, Alta T9R2E6 Phone: (978) 387-1108 Phone: (780) 790-8016 [email protected] Fax: (780) 790-4850 [email protected] John Malone Mr. Stephen Mandel United Sciences Testing, Inc. Linde Electronics and Specialty Gases 201 Common Wealth Drive 1 Greenwich Street Warrendale, PA 15086 Stewartsville, NJ 08886 Phone: (614) 836-4206 Phone: (908) 329-9725 Fax: (614) 836-4168 Fax: (908) 329-9740 [email protected] [email protected] John Marshall Calvin Mason Perma Pure LLC Consumers Energy Company 8 Executive Drive 2021 Hoyt Street Toms River, NJ 08754 Muskegon, MI 49444 Phone: (732) 244-0010 Phone: (231) 727-6513 Fax: (732) 244-8140 Fax: (231) 727-6589 [email protected] [email protected] Tony Mastrianni Tom Mattei Enthalpy Analytical, Inc. Avogadro Environmental, Corp. 2202 Ellis Road 1350 Sullivan Trail Durham, NC 27703 Easton, PA 18040 Phone: (919) 850-4392 Phone: (610) 559-8776 x103 Fax: (919) 850-9012 Fax: (610) 559-8913 [email protected] [email protected]




LIST OF ATTENDEES

41 | P a g e

Terry May Mr. Thomas Maza Western Environmental Services & Testing, Inc. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources & Env. 913 Foster Road 3058 West Grand Blvd Casper, WY 82601 Detroit, MI 48202 Phone: (307) 234-5511 Phone: (313) 456-4709 Fax: (307) 234-8324 Fax: (313) 456-4692 [email protected] [email protected] Ron McCulloch Craig McKenzie Golden Specialty, Inc. GEL Engineering, LLC 931 Seaco Ct. 2040 Sauage Rd. Deer Park, TX 77536 Charleston, SC 29407 Phone: (281) 476-9898 Phone: (843) 7697378 Fax: (281) 476-9876 Fax: (843) 7697397 [email protected] [email protected] John McKenzie Mr. Ron McLeod AMP- Cherokee Insturments ALS Environmental 901 Bridge Street 5420 Mainway Drive, Unit #5 Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526 Burlington, ON L7L6A4 Phone: (919) 552-0554 Phone: (905) 331-3111 Fax: (919) 552-3991 [email protected] [email protected] Phillip McMaster Mr. Ray Merrill Perma Pure LLC U.S. EPA 8 Executive Drive 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Toms River, NJ 08754 Research Triangle PK, NC 27709 Phone: (732) 664-7491 Phone: (919) 544-3047 Fax: (732) 244-8140 Fax: (866) 673-8137 [email protected] [email protected] Andrew Mertz Matt Michaelis Ohio Lumex Company Air Testing Services, Inc. 9263 Ravenna Rd. Unit A-3 26 Redney Road Twinsberg, OH 44087 Dartmouth, NS B2Y 3V5 Phone: (330) 405-0837 Phone: (902) 830-9014 Fax: (330) 405-0847 Fax: (902) 820-1108 [email protected] [email protected] Phillip Midgett Maurieio Migliore Airgas TCR Tecora SRL 214 E. Beechtree Lane Via A. Volta 22 Wayne, PA 19087 Corsico 20084 Phone: (610) 213-7788 Phone: +38 02 4505501 Fax: (610) 687-3333 Fax: +38 02 48 601811 [email protected] [email protected]



LIST OF ATTENDEES

42 | P a g e

Mamie Miller Max Moore U.S. EPA California Analytical Instruments, Inc. USEPA/CAMPD (2223A) 1312 West Grove Avenue 1200 Pennsylvania Avnue, NW Orange, CA 92865 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: (714) 974-5560 Phone: (202) 564-7011 Fax: (714) 921-2531 Fax: (202) 564-0038 [email protected] [email protected] J. Scott Mortimer Mark Mullen Western Environmental Services & Testing, Inc. DTE Energy 913 Foster Road 6100 W. Warren H136 Casper, WY 82601 Detroit, MI 48210 Phone: (307) 234-5511 Phone: (313) 897-0298 Fax: (307) 234-8324 Fax: (313) 897-0160 [email protected] [email protected] Mr. Bill Mullins David Mundy Air Sampling Associates, Inc. Santee Cooper PO Box 1175 One River Road Lewisville, TX 75067 Moncks Corner, SC 29461 Phone: (972) 492-1001 Phone: (843) 761-8000 x5245 Fax: (972) 492-1402 Fax: (843) 761-4156 [email protected] [email protected] Byron Nelson Bruce Nemet Southern Environmental Sciences, Inc. Resolution Analytics, Inc. 1204 N. Wheeler St. 2733 Lee Avenue Plant City, FL 33563 Sanford, NC 27332 Phone: (813) 752-5014 Phone: (919) 774-5557 Fax: (813) 752-2475 Fax: (919) 776-6785 [email protected] [email protected] David Norman Robert O'Connor Air Techniques Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 2999 Johnson Ferry Road 57 Verdi St. Marietta, GA 30062 Farmingdale, NY 11735 Phone: (770) 518-7200 Phone: (631) 420-1866 Fax: (770) 518-0681 Fax: (631) 420-1767 [email protected] [email protected] Ryan O'Dea Petro Oh Alliance Source Testing, LLC Maxxam Analytics 8020 Counts Massie Road 5555 North Service Road N. Little Rock, AR 72113 Burlington, ON L7L5H7 Phone: (256) 351-0121 Phone: (905) 332-8788 Fax: (256) 351-0151 Fax: (905) 332-9169 [email protected] [email protected]




LIST OF ATTENDEES

43 | P a g e

Jeffrey O'Neill Mr. Leroy Owens Weston Solutions, Inc. Owens Corning 1400 Weston Way 3921 Ewart Road West Chester, PA 19380 Mount Vernon, OH 43050 Phone: (610) 701-3081 Phone: (740) 321-6863 Fax: (610) 701-3161 Fax: (740) 321-4863 [email protected] [email protected] Peter Pakalnis Natalie Parsons LEHDER Environmental Services Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management 704 Mara Street, Suite 210 1400 Coliseum Blvd. Point Edward, ON N7V1X4 Montgomery, AL 36110 Phone: (519) 336-4101 Phone: (334) 270-5699 Fax: (519) 336-4311 Fax: (334) 279-3044 [email protected] [email protected] Robert Patterson Jim Peeler Metco Environmental Emission Monitoring, Inc. P.O. Box 598 8901 Glenwood Avenue Addison, TX 75001 Raleigh, NC 27617 Phone: (972) 931-7127 Phone: (919) 781-3824 Fax: (972) 931-8398 Fax: (919) 782-9476 [email protected] [email protected] Edward Peterson Robert Platt GE Energy Platt Environmental Services, Inc. 1950 Griffith Blvd. Suite A 1520 Kensington Road, Suite 204 Griffith, IN 46319 Oak Brook, IL 60523 Phone: (219) 838-6082 Phone: (630) 993-2101 Fax: (219) 838-6083 Fax: (630) 993-9017 [email protected] [email protected] William Pockstaller Brad Pracheil Alabama Power Company Nebraska Environmental Quality 744 Hwy. 87 P.O. Box 98922 Calera, AL 35040 Lincoln, NE 68509 Phone: (205) 438-3405 Phone: (402) 471-4141 Fax: (205) 664-6309 Fax: (402) 471-2909 [email protected] [email protected] Mark Ready James Reed Desert Air Environmental United Sciences Testing, Inc. 4939 W. Ray Road 4-348 201 Commonwealth Drive Chandler, AZ 85226 Warrendale, PA 15086 Phone: (480) 236-3197 Phone: (724) 778-6924 Fax: (517) 287-4059 Fax: (724) 778-6959 [email protected] [email protected]




LIST OF ATTENDEES

44 | P a g e

Tim Rhodes Mr. Rod Robinson Rhodes Environmental Testing, L.L.C. NPL P.O. Box 526112 Hampton Road Salt Lake City, UT Teddington TW11 OLW Phone: (801) 485-1419 Phone: 442089437146 Fax: (801) 485-1419 [email protected] [email protected] Mr. Tom Rose John Rosenquest Eastern Technical Associates, Inc. Cal Check P.O. Box 1009 11600 Black Horse Run Garner, NC 27529 Raleigh, NC 27613 Phone: (919) 878-3188 Phone: (919) 847-1898 Fax: (919) 872-5199 Fax: (919) 847-8005 [email protected] [email protected] Jeffrey Ryan Doug Saathoff U.S. EPA METCO Environmental 109 TW Alexander Drive 3226 Commander Drive Research Tri. Park, NC 27711 Carrollton, TX 75006 Phone: (919) 541-1437 Phone: (972) 931-7127 Fax: (919) 541-0554 Fax: (972) 931-8398 [email protected] [email protected] Tina Sanderson Finnegan Schall ORTECH Environmental Air Source Technologies, Inc. 804 Southdown Rd, 20505 W. 67th St. Mississauga, ON L5J 2Y4 Shawnee, KS 66218 Phone: (905) 822-4120 x522 Phone: (913) 422-9001 Fax: (905) 855-0406 Fax: (913) 422-9019 [email protected] [email protected] Thomas Schmelter David Schutz Bureau Veritas Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 45525 Grand River Ave. P.O. Box 1677 Novi, MI 48374 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (248) 388-1525 Phone: (405) 702-4198 Fax: (248) 344-2656 Fax: (405) 702-4101 [email protected] [email protected] Philip Schwindt Ms. Robin Segall Air and Waste Engineering U.S. EPA 6845 Myrtle Beach Drive Mail Code: E143-02 Plano, TX 75093 Research Tri. Park, NC 27711 Phone: (972) 307-2292 Phone: (919) 541-0893 Fax: (972) 307-2292 Fax: (919) 541-0516 [email protected] [email protected]




LIST OF ATTENDEES

45 | P a g e

Patrick Selakovich Jim Serne Air Sampling Associates, Inc. TRC Environmental Corp. P.O. Box 1175 5540 Centerview Avenue Lewisville, TX 75067 Raleigh, NC 27606 Phone: (866) 492-1001 Phone: (919) 256-6231 Fax: (972) 492-1402 Fax: (919) 838-9661 [email protected] [email protected] Mr. Gilad Shpitzer Mr. Yair Shpitzer A.S. Research Services LTD. A.S. Research Services LTD. Givat Yearim Givat Yearim 90970 90970 Phone: 97225709450 Phone: 97225309450 Fax: 97225705451 Fax: 97225709451 [email protected] [email protected] Charles Simon Alexandra Sipersteyn Air Compliance Testing, Inc. Ohio Lumex Company 2106 NW 67th Place Suite 4 9263 Ravenna Rd. Unit A-3 Gainesville, FL 32653 Twinsburg, OH 44087 Phone: (352) 335-1890 Phone: (330) 405-0837 [email protected] Fax: (330) 405-0847 [email protected] Mr. Walter Smith Jeff Socha Walter Smith and Associates Thermo Fisher Scientific 6225 Splitrock Trail 27 Forge Parkway Apex, NC 27539 Franklin, MA 02038 Phone: (919) 772-7843 Phone: (508) 553-6939 Fax: (919) 772-7843 [email protected] [email protected] Daniel Soderberg Robert Spellicy Soderberg Polytechnic Company Industrial Moniter & Control Corp. 306 W. 7th St. 800 Paloma #401 Suite #100 Kansas City, MO 64105 Round Rock, TX 78664 Phone: (816) 221-9018 Phone: (512) 341-8189 Fax: (888) 841-5857 Fax: (512) 341-8993 [email protected] [email protected] Don Stock Tom Stucker Pace Analytical Services, Inc. The Avogadro Group, LLC 1700 Elm Street SE 2825 Verne Roberts Circle Suite 200 Suite E Minneapolis, MN 55414 Antioch, CA 94509 Phone: (612) 607-6370 Phone: (925) 680-4300 Fax: (612) 607-6388 Fax: (925) 680-4416 [email protected] [email protected]



LIST OF ATTENDEES

46 | P a g e

Matthew Swanson Scott Swiggard California Analytical Instruments, Inc. Golden Specialty, Inc. 1312 W. Grove Avenue P.O. Box 1898- 931 Seaco Ct. Orange, CA 92865 Deer Park, TX 77536 Phone: (714) 974-5560 Phone: (281) 476-9898 Fax: (714) 921-2531 Fax: (281) 476-9876 [email protected] [email protected] Steve Szambaris Gregg Szymkowicz Archer Daniels Midland's Emissions GEL Engineering, LLC Measurement Grp. 2040 Savage Road 2205 N. Brush College Road Charleston, SC 29407 Decatur, IL 62526 Phone: (843) 769-7378 Phone: (217) 451-8175 Fax: (843) 769-7397 Fax: (217) 451-4044 [email protected] [email protected] Hank Taylor Mr. Yves Tondeur ARI Environmental, Inc. Analytical Perspectives 951 N. Old Rand Road Unit 106 2714 Exchange Drive Wauconda, IL 60084 Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone: (847) 487-1580 Phone: (910) 794-1613 Fax: (847) 487-1587 Fax: (910) 794-3919 [email protected] [email protected] Fred Turner Sam Turner OG&E Electrical Services Archer Daniels Midland's Emissions 10800 CR 230 Measurement Grp. Red Rock, OK 74651 1001 Brush College Road Phone: (405) 206-4797 Decatur, IL 62526 [email protected] Phone: (217) 451-8174 Fax: (217) 451-4044 [email protected] Tim VanderWood Natalie Vaught MVA Scientific Consultants Weston Solutions, Inc. 3300 Breckinbridge Blvd. #400 1625 Pumphrey Ave Duluth, GA 30086 Auburn, AL 36832 Phone: (770) 662-8509 Phone: (334) 466-5607 Fax: (770) 662-8532 Fax: (334) 466-5660 [email protected] [email protected] Henry Vergeer Carl Vineyard CEM Specialties Inc. Grace Consulting, Inc. 1100 Dearness Dr. Unit 11 510 Dickson Street London, ON N6EIN9 Wellington, OH 44090 Phone: (519) 681-9595 Phone: (440) 647-6672 Fax: (579) 681-8799 Fax: (440) 647-6673 [email protected] [email protected]


LIST OF ATTENDEES

47 | P a g e

Ed Wadington George Wagner Energy & Environmental Measurement Corp. Avogadro Environmental, Corp. 3730 N. Pellegrino Drive 1350 Sullivan Trail Suite A Tucson, AZ 85749 Easton, PA 18040 Phone: (520) 749-2167 Phone: (610) 559-8776 Fax: (520) 749-3582 Fax: (610) 559-8913 [email protected] [email protected] Bill Walker Richard Warden Clean Air Engineering Dominion Generation 500 W. Wood Sreet 1100 Coxendale Road Palatine, IL 60067 Chester, VA 23836 Phone: (847) 654-4580 Phone: (804) 796-6074 [email protected] Fax: (804) 796-6004 [email protected] Mark Waznys Chris Wehner Environmental Laboratories, Inc. Air Quality Services, LLC 57 Verdi Street 425 Main Street Farmingdale, NY 11735 Evansville, IN 47708 Phone: (631) 420-1866 Phone: (812) 452-4785 Fax: (631) 420-1767 Fax: (812) 452-4786 [email protected] [email protected] Mr. Peter Westlin Stephanie Wien U.S. EPA GE Energy Mail Code D243-02 1 River Road, Building 40 Room 250N Research Tri. Park, NC 27711 Schenectady, NY 12345 Phone: (919) 541-1058 Phone: (518) 385-3704 Fax: (919) 541-1039 Fax: (949) 221-7691 [email protected] [email protected] Jake Wiggs Larry Williams Energy & Environmental Measurement Corp. URS 1744 Mullowney Lane 11600 Stark Road Billings, MT 59101 Stockton, UT 84071 Phone: (406) 252-4450 Phone: (301) 351-7706 Fax: (406) 252-6350 Fax: (435) 833-7693 [email protected] [email protected] Jason Wirth Jim Wollenberg ERM Bison Engineering 1351 S. Grove Ave. Ste. 110 1400 11th Ave. Ontario, CA 91761 Helead, MT 59601 Phone: (909) 947-3500 Phone: (406) 442-5768 Fax: (909) 947-3499 [email protected] [email protected]



LIST OF ATTENDEES

48 | P a g e

Derek Wong Tony Wong Bureau Veritas AirKinetics, Inc. 45525 Grand River Avenue 1308 South Allec Street Novi, MI 48374 Anaheim, CA 92805 Phone: (248) 875-7581 Phone: (714) 254-1945 Fax: (248) 344-2656 Fax: (714) 956-2350 [email protected] [email protected] Chris Wrenn James Wright TCR Tecora SRL Clean Air Engineering Via Volta 22 1601 Parkway View Drive Corisco 20094 Pittsburgh, PA 15205 Phone: 39024505501 Phone: (412) 787-9130 Fax: 390248601811 Fax: (412) 787-9138 [email protected] [email protected] Daryl Zander Richard Zimmerman LEHDER Environmental Services Eastman Chemical Co. 6516 82nd Avenue P.O. Box 511 Edmonton, AB 76R0E7 Kingsport, TN 37662 Phone: (780) 462-4099 Phone: (423) 229-6555 Fax: (780) 462-4392 Fax: (423) 224-0199 [email protected] [email protected]

th Conference on Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis ... · 35th Conference on Stationary...

Documents

Transcript of th Conference on Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis ... · 35th Conference on Stationary...