-....

**------~** 

# (ESS)

ENVIRONMENTAL SOURCE SAMPLERS, INC.- AIR QUALITY CONSULTANTS

I v AIR EMISSIONS REPORT PINE HALLBRICK- MADISON OPERATIONS DLA INLET-OUTLET EMISSIONS HCUHF EMISSIONS TESTREPORT

.

**~"'**
**~** NOVEMBER 1, 2006

Prepared for: Pine Hall Brick Madison, North Carolina

Prepared by: ·.· Environmental Source Samplers, Inc. Cornelius, South Carolina

18631-H Northline Drive • Cornelius, NC 28031 Phone 704.892.4405 • Fax 704.892.8127 esstest@bellsouth.net • ESSKnowsAir.com 

# SIA-o\\•



## TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 

### 1.0 IN1RODUCTION I 

### 2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 

### 2 I 

### 3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION 7



### .. 4.0 SAMPLING POINT LOCATION 

### 8 

### 5.0 FIELD ANDANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES II 

### APPENDICES APPENDIX A- FIELD DATA SHEETS APPENDIX B- CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C- OPERATIONAL DATA APPENDIX D- LABORATORY DATA APPENDIXE- CALIBRATION DATA



## ..

-1- 

## (ESS) EnviromnentalSource

**Samplers~** Inc.

## CERTIFICATION

This testreport is submitted to PineHallBrick, by Environmental Source Samplers, Inc., covering air emissions samplingconducted atthe Madison, NC plant onNovember 1, 2006. The data and results presented 

### inthis report are believed to be representative ofthe actual operating and test parameters.

-ii- 

## (ESS) EnvironmentalSourceSamplers, Inc. 

# /4o~ M';iCD. Looney President November 14, 2006



## ..

### =

.::



## -

-

=



## = 1.0 INTRODUCTION Environmental Source Samplers, Inc. (ESS) conducted air emissions sampling at PineHall Brick's Madison, North Carolinaplant. Sampling was conducted onthe DLA (Control DeviceID No. 4ESDLA) Inlet and Outlet stacks associated withthe BrickKiln(for sources KilnNo. 4ES-LKD4.1 and Kiln4ES-LKD4.2). Sampling wasperformed for particulate (PM), visible emissions (VE), hydrogenchloride (HCl), and hydrogen fluoride (HF). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 5 was utilized to perform the PM sampling (conducted only at the outlet stack). EPA Method 9 was conducted pursuantto the stipulatedmethodology. Method26 wasusedto conductthe HCl and HF emissions testing at the inlet and outlet sampling locations. EPA Methods 1-4 were used in support ofthe above testing procedures, as required. All methods appearin40 CFR60, Appendix A. A series of three (3) 60-minutetestruns were performed for each ofthe aforementionedparameters. This sampling was performedto demonstrate compliance, as required in40 CFR 63, SubpartJJJJJ and with the permit requirements imposed

### by the North Carolina Departmentofthe Environment andNatural Resources (NCDENR)- PermitNo. 03997Tl8. Personnel present included:



## (ESS) Mr. Jack Kitchen, NC DENR- DAQ 

### Mr. Ray Stewart,NC DENR- DAQ Mr. HaroldNewman, Pine Hall Brick 

### Mr. KenWright, Pine Hall Brick 

### Mr. Robert Eksten, Environmental Source Samplers, Inc. 

### Mr. Charlie Gamer, Environmental Source Samplers, Inc. Mr. Phillip Harris, Environmental Source Samplers, Inc. 

### Mr. MarkLooney, Environmental Source Samplers, Inc. Ms. Carol Rosol, Environmental Source Samplers, Inc.



# ..

-1-

EnvironmentllSource

**Samplers~** Inc.

## 2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS The test results are detailed below and on the following pages. Field data sheets are included in Appendix A; calculations in Appendix B; operational data in Appendix C; laboratory data in Appendix D; and calibration data in Appendix E. Maximum- Two-Kiln Operations

" "-.

. .. 

### Brick Production 24.71 

### Tons/Hour Particulate Emissions 4.395 

### lbslhr Particulate Emissions 0.1779 

### lbs/Ton Brick HCl Emissions 0.013 

### lbs/TonBrick HCl Destruction Efficiency 65.67 

### % HF Emissions 0.032 

### lbs/TonBrick HF Destruction Efficiency 95.25 

### % Visible Emissions 0.05 

### % I


### Maximum- One-Kiln Operations ;c.,, .--,,- •. >-· • -.·.r" .. ,,0

.

## .. •. .. 

### Brick Production 12.82 

### Tons/Hour Particulate Emissions (lblhr) 1.269 

### lbs/hr Particulate Emissions (lb/Ton Brick} 0.0990 

### lbs/Ton Brick HCl Emissions 0.015 

### lbs/Ton Brick HCl Destruction Efficiency(%) 56.77 

### % HF Emissions 0.012 

### lbs/Ton Brick HF DestructionEfficiency (%) 97.11 

### %

-2- 

## (ESS) .EuYironmentalSource Samplers, Inc.RUN# DATE TIME START (EST) TIME COMPLETE (EST) FLUE GAS TEMP (F) FLUE GAS VELOCITY (FPS) FLUE GAS FLOWRATE (M ACFM) FLUE GAS FLOWRATE (M DSCFM) VOL OF GAS SAMPLES (DSCF) MOISTURE (%) ISOKINETIC SAMJ?LE .RATE (%) BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (IN HG) STACK

**PR~SSURE** (IN HG) OXYGEN (%) CARBON DIOXIDE (%) CARBON MONOXIDE (%) NITROGEN (%) MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF GAS(MOLES) PARTICULATE (GR/DSCF) PARTICULATE (LBS/HR) BRICK PRODUCTION (TONS/HR) PARTICULATE (LB/TON BRICK)



## (ESS) Eaviro.mnentalSource Samplers1 Inc. PHB

- KILN STACK MADISON NC PARTICULATE EMISSIONS TEST SUMMARY 1 2 3 AVG 11-1-06 11-1-06 11-1-06

0730 0900 1020 0833 1003 1124 368.4 368.6 365.8 367.6

74.06 74.73 74.53 74.44 55.838 56.343 56.193 56.125 32.124 32.337 32.279 32.246 47.45 48.08 47.07 47.54

7.1 7.3 7.5 7.3 103.6 104.3 102.3 103.4

29.10 29.10 29.10 29.10 29.07 29.07 29.06 29.07 17.0 17.2 17.0 17.1

2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.5 80.4 80.5 80.5 28.44 28.41 28.40 28.42

0.0176 0.0114 0.0187 0.0159 ·4.848 3.161 5.176 4.395 24.7100 24.7100 24. 7100 24.7100

0.1962 0. 127.'1 0.2095 0.1779

-3-PINE HALL BRICK- MADISON, NC PLANT- DLA INLET M26 HCUHF EMISSIONS RUN NUMBER 1 2 3 AVG DATE 11/1/06 11/1/06 11/1/06 

# . TIME START (EST) 7:30 9:15 10:45 TIME STOP (EST) 8:30 10:15 11:45 FLOWRATE (DSCFM) 34854 35150 33792 34471 CORRECTED METER VOL (DSCF) 6.848 5.955 5.954 5.955 PRODUCTION RATE (TONS/HR) 24.71 24.71 24.71 24.71 LAB HCL COLLECTED (uG) 1,290 1,040 1,020 1,030 HCL EMISSIONS (LB/HR) 0.87 0.81 0.77 0.79 LAB HF COLLECTED (uG) 18,200 15,600 15,800 15700 HF EMISSIONS (LB/HR) 12.24 12.17 11.85 12.01 PINE HALL BRICK- MADISON, NC PLANT- KILN STACK (DLA-OUTLET) I M26 HCUHF EMISSIONS

.. RUN NUMBER 1 2 3 AVG DATE_. 11/1/06 11/1/06 11/1/06 

### .., TIME START (EST) 7:30 9:00 10:45 TIME STOP (EST) 8:30 10:00 11:45 FLOWRATE (DSCFM) 32124 32337 32279 32308 CORRECTED METER VOL (DSCF) 3.319 4.373 3.721 4.047 

### .., LAB HCL COLLECTED (uG) 130 360 270 315 HCL EMISSIONS (LB/HR) 0.17 0.35 0.31 0.33 

### .., HCL EMISSIONS (LB/TON) 0.007 0.014 0.013 0.013 LAB HF COLLECTED (uG) 80 610 880 745 .., HF EMISSIONS (LB/HR) 0.10 0.60 1.01 0.80 HF EMISSIONS (LB/TON) 0.004 0.024 0.041 0.032

.. HCL REMOVAL EFFICIENCY(%) 80.8 56.6 59.5 65.7 

### .. HF REMOVAL EFFICIENCY(%) 99.2 95.1 91.5 95.3 

### '



## .. '



## (ESS) -4- Enl'ironmentJSource

**Samplers~** Inc.RUN# DATE**~** TIME START (EST) TIME COMPLETE (EST)

- FLUE GAS TEMP (F) FLUE GAS VELOCITY (FPS) FLUE GAS FLOWRATE (M ACFM)

- FLUE GAS FLOWRATE (M DSCFM) VOL OF GAS SAMPLES (DSCF)**~** MOISTURE (%)**~** ISOKINETIC**S~PLE** RATE (%) BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (IN HG) STACK PRESSURE (IN HG) OXYGEN (%) CARBON DIOXIDE (%) CARBON MONOXIDE 

### (%) NITROGEN (%) MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF GAS(MOLES) PARTICULATE (GR/DSCF) PARTICULATE (LBS/HR) BRICK PRODUCTION (TONS/HR) PARTICULAT,E (LBS/TON BRICK)·.



## (ESS) Envi.ronmentJSource Samplers, Inc. PHB

- KILN STACK TEST 2 MADISON NC PARTICULATE EMISSIONS TEST SUMMARY 1 2 3 AVG 11-1-06 11-1-06 11-1-06

1250 1415 1530 1353 1520 1634 356.2 351.1 346.3 351.2

46.41 45.82 45.89 46.04 34.991 34.546 34.599 34.712 20.328 20.174 20.347 20.283 47.19 47.59 47.51 47.43

7.6 7.7 7.6 7.6 99.0 100.6 99.6 99.7 29.10 29.10 29.10 29.10 29.08 29.08 29.08 29.08 17.7 17.7 17.6 17.7

2.1 2.1 2.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.1 80.2 80.2 80.2 28.33 28.34 28.36 28.34

0.0070 0.0077 0.0072 0.0073

. 1. 220 1.332 1.256 1.269 ·12. 8200 12.8200 12.8200 12.8200

0.0952 0 :1939 0.0980 0.0990

-5-PINE HALL BRICK - MADISON, NC PLANT - DLA INLET M26 HCUHF EMISSIONS**~** RUN NUMBER 1 2 3 AVG DATE 11/1/06 11/1/06 11/1/06 TIME START (EST) 12:50 14:15 15:30 TIME STOP (EST) 13:50 15:15 16:30 FLOWRATE (DSCFM) 20000 20481 20217 20349 CORRECTED METER VOL (DSCF) 4.124 4.399 3.498 3.949 PRODUCTION RATE (TONS/HR) 12.82 12.82 12.82 12.82 LAB HCL COLLECTED (uG) 610 710 460 585 HCL EMISSIONS (LB/HR) 0.39 0.44 0.35 0.39 LAB HF COLLECTED (uG) 8,580 12,100 8,550 10325 HF EMISSIONS (LB/HR) 5.50 7.45 6.53 6.99
PINE HALL BRICK- MADISON, NC PLANT- KILN STACK (DLA-OUTLET) M26 HCUHF EMISSIONS RUN**NUMBE~** 1 2 3 AVG DATE • ., 11/1/06 11/1/06 11/1/06 TIME S\ART (EST) 12:50 14:15 15:30**TIM!=~** STOP (EST) 13:50 15:15 16:30 FLOWRATE (DSCFM) 20328 20174 20347 20261 CORRECTED METER VOL (DSCF) 4.493 4.700 4.659 4.679 LAB HCL COLLECTED (uG) 220 360 300 330 HCL EMISSIONS (LB/HR) 0.13 0.20 0.17 0.19 HCL EMISSIONS (LB/TON) 0.010 0.016 0.014 0.015 LAB HF COLLECTED (uG) 380 340 220 280 HF EMISSIONS (LB/HR) 0.23 0.19 0.13 0.16 HF EMISSIONS (LB/TON) 0.018 0.015 0.010 0.012 HCL REMOVAL EFFICIENCY(%) 66.4 53.3 50.7 56.8 HF REMOVAL EFFICIENCY(%) 95.9 97.4 98.1 97.1



# ..

(ESS) EnvironmentalSource Samplers, Inc. -6-

### 3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION The DryLimestone Absorber (DLA) 4ES-DLA controls the emissions from the two Kilns (4ESLKD4.1 and 4ES-LKD4.2). The maximumpermitted fired brickcapacity is 13.5 tons per day each. = 40 CFR 63 Subpart 

### JJJJJ NationalEmissions Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing applies tothis source.

= The test series was conductedunder two (2) Kiln operating scenarios. During Test 1, tbe facility operated at a maximum operating conditionwhile firing two (2) kilns. During Test 2, the facility operated at a maximum operating conditionwhile firing one (l) kiln. 

### An operators log is included inAppendix Ctothisreport.

.•

-7- 

## (ESS) EnvironmentalSourceSamplers, Inc.

# -· 4.0 SAMPLINGLOCATION A schematic ofthe sampling location is providedon the following two (2) pages. Two (2) test ports are located in the stack servingthe kiln (on the inlet side ofthe DLA control device). The test ports are located 18 feet, or4.5 stack diameters, downstream ofa duct bend and 11 feet, or 2.7 5 stack diameters, upstream ofthe DLAbreaching. The stack outlet measures 4.0 feet in diameter. The testports are located greater than 8 stack diameters downstream ofthe stack breaching and more than 2 stack diameters upstream ofthe stack exit. Six (6) traverse points were sampled at each oftwo (2) test ports for velocity determination on each ofthe two (2) stacks. Diagrams ofthe stack samplingplanes are included on the following pages. Verification ofthe

### abseri.~"ofcyclonic flow was conducted onthe stack in accordance with section 2.4 ofEPAMethod I. I
.

.

## ..

-8- 

## (ESS) EnvironmentalSource Samplers, Inc.

# i

18'
I

11' 

# 1

(ESS) PINE HALL BRICK DLA INLET DUCT STACK SAMPLING LOCATION DIRECTION

OF FLOW 

# t From Kilns 41 and 42

/-Bypass Damper

Sampling Plane

TODLA

-9- 

# ..Stack Diameter = 48 " Dis\ From Inside Stack Wall to Point 1 46.46" 2 42.96" 3 38.69" 4 32.50" 5 15.50" 6 9.31 " 7 5.04" 8 1.54"

EnvironmentalSource Samplers, Inc.Stack Exit

_J 312" 

# i 

# t -r- 0 I ,_J 360"



## '

-



## (ESS) EmironmentilSourceSamplers, Inc. /Sa 

### .I

-10- PINE HALL BRICK KILN STACK PM STACK SAMPLING LOCATION

mpling Plane



# I

.

# -· Stack Diameter= 48 " Dis! From Inside Stack Wall to Point 1 2.112 " 2 7.008" 3 14.208 " 4 33.792" 5 40.992 " 6 45.888"

### 5.0 FIELD AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
EPA Method 26- HCVHF Emissions EPA Method 26 procedures were followed in collectingthe acid emission data. Sample test runs were 60 minutes in duration, assuring aminimum sample volume of greater than 

### the 3.5 cubic feet. I, 2, 3, and 4 were used in support ofEPA Method 26procedures. Flowrate, moisture and 02/C02 measurements were obtained from the Method 5 test that was conducted simultaneously with the M26 sampling. On the inlet side ofthe DLA, a separate flowrate and 02/C02 measurement was conducted. Moisture was conducted inconjunction withthe M26 test
- onthe inlet duct. The test probe consisted of a heated glass lined sheath. The filter andprobe heat temperatures were maintained above 248 degrees F, per Method 26 requirements. A Pallflex TX40Hl45 filter was used in conjunction with a teflon filter frit and glass filter assembly. The first two (2) impingers' each contained l0 mls of0.1 N sulfuric acid. The following two (2) impingers eachcontained l

### 0 mls of0.1 N sodium hydroxide. Following eachtest run, the contents ofthefirst/two (2) 

### impingers (container 

### l) were saved along with the wash ofthe impingers and connecting_glassware. The samples were delivered to the laboratory for ion chromatography analysis. The samples were analyzed on a Hewlett Packard series ll00 High Performance Liquid Chromatograph using ion chromatography. Each sample was analyzed in duplicate. The results were also verified through duplicate HPLC analysis. Flowrate Measurements EPA Method l -Sampling Point Determination EPA Method l 

### procedures were used to determine the 12 sample points for the acid sampling. EPA Method 2

- Flue Gas Velocity EPA Method 2 procedures were used to determine velocity measurements. The pitot tube tips conformed with EPA Method 2 criteria, and. each was assigned a coefficient of 0.84. Differential pressures were measured withoil manometer gauges. Stack gas 

### temperatures were determined**~th**

### chromel-alumel therinometers. Pitottube leak checks were performedpriorto each test run. The leak checks are presentedon each ofthe field data sheets in Appendix A.

-II- 

## (ESS) EnvironmentalSource Samplers, Inc.EPA Method 3

- Flue Gas Composition and Molecular Weight The stack gas composition determinationwasperformed withan integrated gas sample collected in atedlarbag. The C02 and 02 datawere used to determine the molecular weight of the flue gas. AFyrite gas analyzer was used to measure the 02 and C02 concentrations. EPA Method 

### 4 - Flue Gas Moisture Content The flue gas moisture content was determined during eachtest run in conjunction with the EPA Method 26 test runs. Isokinetic Particulate Sampling EPA Methods 1 - 5 were used in accomplishingthe particulate emissions sampling: EPAMethod 1 - Sampling PointDetermination -·"'. EPA Method 1 procedures were used to determine the 12 sample points for the particulate sampling
. .._", EPA MethOd 2

- Flue Gas Velocity EPA Method 2 procedures were usedto determine velocity measurements. The pitot tube tips conformed with EPA Method 2 criteria, and each was assigned a coefficient of 

### 0.84. Differential pressures were measured with magnehelic gauges. Stack gas temperatures were determined withchromel-alurnelthermometers. Pitottube leak checks were performed prior to eachtest run. The leak checks are presented on each ofthe field data sheets in Appendix A. EPA Method 3b

- Flue Gas Composition and Molecular Weight EPA Method 3b procedures were used to determine 02 and C02 concentrations. An integrated gas sample was collected in a tedlarbag during eachtest run. The C02 and 02 data were used to determine the molecular weight of the flue gas. A Fyrite gas analyzer

### was used to measure the 02 ·and C02 concentrations. EPA Method 

### 4 - Flue Gas Moisture Content The flue g1fs moisture contentwas determined during eachtestruns 1n-·conjunction withthe EPA Method 

### 5test runs.

-12- 

## (ESS) EnvironmentalSource Samplers, Inc.

### EPA Method 5 - ParticulateEmissions EPA Method 5procedures were followed incollecting the particulate emission data. Sample test runs were 60 minutes in duration, assuring a minimum sample volume of greater than40 cubic feet. EPA Methods l, 2, 3b, and 4 were used in support ofEPA Method 5 procedures. The test probe consisted of a heated stainless steel lined sheath, with attached stainless steel pitot tubes and temperature sensor. Per section 4.2 of EPA Method 5, acetone was used to rinse the nozzle, probe, and front halfofthe filter holder. An

### EPAtype glass fiber filter was used in the heated filter box. The gravimetric analysis ofthe acetone probe washes and filters was performed in the ESS laboratory in accordance withEPAMethod 5 section4.3 procedures. EPA Method 5 procedures were also followed, requiring the filter to be oven dried at 220 degrees F. for 2-3 hours, desicated for 2 hours and then weighed to a constant weight. The acetone probe wash was evaporated at anelevatedtemperature, but below the 

### boilingpointto preventbumping. The beaker was then desiccatedfor 24 hours priorto weighingto a constant weight. QUALITY ASSURANCEACTIVITIES

, . . I Sample Cu'S'tody
. 

### Sample -custody procedures are based upon EPA recommended procedures presented in the individualtest methods, and in the Quality Assurance Handbook for 

### Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume 3, Stationary Source Specific Methods. Field Sampling Operations 

### The project supervisor was responsible for ensuring that proper custody and documentation procedures were followed for the field sampling and field analytical efforts. He was assisted bythe stack team assistant. The samples were collected, transported, and storedin clean containers which are constructed of materials inert to the sample contents. All sampling data was recorded on data sheets specific to the test method employed. After collection, all samples were maintained in a locked transportbox or vehicle.

·

## .. Isokinetic Particulate Sampling 

### The isokinetic sampling train was visuallyinspected upon arrival at the test site for potential -13- 

## (ESS) Enviromnen13lSourceSamplers, Inc.

### damage. Upon assembly ofthe sampling traincomponents, careful inspections were made of the sampling nozzle andpi tot tube tips. A leakcheckwas performed across the entire sampling 

### train, as well as across eachleg ofthepitottubes. The rnagnehelic pressure gauges were properly leveled. The probe was carefully marked with heat resistant marking tape at each ofthe designated sample points. 100 mls of distilled water is placed in each of the first two (2) Imptngers. During each test run, care was takento insurethatthe pitot tubes remained atthe proper angle perpendicular to the sample plane. The testportwas properly sealed to insure no intrusion of ambient air into the sample nozzle. Data was carefully recorded, and the pump was adjusted quickly upon moving to eachnew sample pointto maintain an isokinetic samplerate. Datawas manuallyrecorded at 5.0 minute intervals. Sufficient ice was retained in the impingertrain to maintain a temperature below 68 degrees F exiting the silica gel impinger. At the conclusion of each test run, a leak checkwas performed across the entire sample train. The probe and nozzle were rinsed and brushed with acetone a minimum ofsix (6) passes. The acetone rinse collectiQn bottle was marked, in orderthat it could be checked upon arrival atthe ESS laboratory for leakage. The filter holder was removed, plugged, and stored for transport back 

### J<o the ESS laboratory.

< •.. __• 

### Separate filter· holders were used for each testrun to prevent contamination ofthe filter through handling in the field. Calibration Procedures 

### EPA and DHEC procedures were followed in performing equipment calibrations. Procedures outlined inthe EPA Quality Assurance Handbookfor Air PollutionMeasurement Systems, Volume III, 

### (EPA/600/R-94/038c) werefollowed. The dry gas meter receives a complete calibration at a minimum ofevery 6 months. A post test calibrationis performed after each field use. Theposttest calibrationmust be within 5% ofthe pretest calibration. The pitot tubes receive a complete calibration accordingtop section4.1 ofEPA Method 2 prior to and following each field use. Following each field use, the procedures in sections 4.1.6.2.1

- 4.1.6.2.2 are followed. Acomplete calibration is performedonthe dry gas, impinger, stack"g<J.S, and probe thermometers every 6months. This calibrationis checked after each field use, and'mustbe within 1.5 percentof the reference temperatureper section4.3 ofEPA Method 2.
-14- 

## (ESS) EnvironmentalSource Samplers, Inc.

### The nozzles are calibrated every 6 months in accordance with section 5.1 ofEPA Method 5. The nozzles are re-measured following eachfield use. The local weather stationis called following eachparticulate matter emissiontest in orderto receive accurate barometric pressure data. Theweather serviceis responsible for insuringpropercalibration ofthe barometers. QUALITY ASSURANCEACTIVITIES Sample Custody 

### Sample custody procedures are based upon EPA recommended procedures presented in the individual testmethods, and in the Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume 3, Stationary Source Specific Methods. Field SamplingOperations 

### The project

**sup~rvis~r** 

### Was responsible for ensuring that proper custody and documentation procedure'S" were·followed for the field sampling and field analytical efforts. He was assisted by 

### the stack team assistant. The samples were collected, transported, and stored in clean containers which are constructed of materials inertto the sample contents. All sampling data was recorded ondata sheets specific to the test method employed. After collection, all samples were maintained in a lockedtransport box or vehicle.

-15- 

## (ESS) EnvironmentalSource Samplers, Inc.