Lessons learned in preparing method 29 filters for compliance testing audits.

Companies conducting compliance testing are required to analyze audit samples at the time they collect and analyze the stack samples if audit samples are available. Eastern Research Group (ERG) provides technical support to the EPA's Emission Measurements Center's Stationary Source Audit Program (SSAP) for developing, preparing, and distributing performance evaluation samples and audit materials. These audit samples are requested via the regulatory Agency and include spiked audit materials for EPA Method 29-Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources, as well as other methods. To provide appropriate audit materials to federal, state, tribal, and local governments, as well as agencies performing environmental activities and conducting emission compliance tests, ERG has recently performed testing of blank filter materials and preparation of spiked filters for EPA Method 29. For sampling stationary sources using an EPA Method 29 sampling train, the use of filters without organic binders containing less than 1.3 microg/in.2 of each of the metals to be measured is required. Risk Assessment testing imposes even stricter requirements for clean filter background levels. Three vendor sources of quartz fiber filters were evaluated for background contamination to ensure that audit samples would be prepared using filters with the lowest metal background levels. A procedure was developed to test new filters, and a cleaning procedure was evaluated to see if a greater level of cleanliness could be achieved using an acid rinse with new filters. Background levels for filters supplied by different vendors and within lots of filters from the same vendor showed a wide variation, confirmed through contact with several analytical laboratories that frequently perform EPA Method 29 analyses. It has been necessary to repeat more than one compliance test because of suspect metals background contamination levels. An acid cleaning step produced improvement in contamination level, but the difference was not significant for most of the Method 29 target metals. As a result of our studies, we conclude: Filters for Method 29 testing should be purchased in lots as large as possible. Testing firms should pre-screen new boxes and/or new lots of filters used for Method 29 testing. Random analysis of three filters (top, middle, bottom of the box) from a new box of vendor filters before allowing them to be used in field tests is a prudent approach. A box of filters from a given vendor should be screened, and filters from this screened box should be used both for testing and as field blanks in each test scenario to provide the level of quality assurance required for stationary source testing.