## 2010 EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE SOURCE TEST REPORT JOHNS MANVILLE WILLOWS, CALIFORNIA

Prepared For: 

### JOHNS MANVILLE 5916 County Road 49 Willows, California 95988

For Submittal to: 

### GLENN COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 720 North Colusa Street Willows, California 95988

Prepared By: Mark Stanfield 

### THE AVOGADRO GROUP, LLC 2825 Verne Roberts Circle Antioch, California 94509 (925) 680-4300

June 5, 2010Johns Manville June 5, 2010 2010 Emissions Compliance Tests

10133.0 & 1c iii 

### SUMMARY INFORMATION

Source Information
Source Location: Johns Manville 5916 County Road 49 Willows, CA 95988 Contact: Mr. Don Sexton Telephone: (530) 934-6273 Regulatory Agency: Glenn County Air Pollution Control District (GCAPCD) Contact: Mr. Kevin Tokunaga Telephone: (530) 934-6500 Units: Process Line 133, Dust Collector Process Line 133, Collection Stack Process Line 133, Combined Cooling and Curing Stack Process: Fiberglass manufacturing Purpose: Emissions testing to determine the compliance status of the units with respect to the relevant conditions outlined in the authority to construct Procedures: EPA Methods: 1, 2, 3A, 4, 5, 6C, 10, 25A, 29, 202 and OTM-028 

### Testing Company Information Testing Firm: The Avogadro Group, LLC 2825 Verne Roberts Circle Antioch, CA 94509 Contacts: Mr. Jeremy Klosinksi Mr. Erick Mirabella Project Manager General Manager Telephone: (925) 381-9302 (925) 680-0935 Facsimile: (925) 680-4416 (925) 680-4416 Certifications: ARB Independent Tester Test Dates: May 12 and 13, 2010Johns Manville June 5, 2010 2010 Emissions Compliance Tests

10133.0 & 1c 1 

### SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
The Avogadro Group, LLC (Avogadro) was contracted by Johns Manville (JM) to perform a series of air emission compliance tests on the several sources serving Process Line 133 at their facility in Willows, California. The test program was conducted on May 12 and 13, 2010 by Mark Stanfield, David Ramirez, Kris Huckabay and Dustin Carter of Avogadro. Unit operations were coordinated by Mr. Donald Sexton of Johns Manville. Mr. Kevin Tokunaga of GCAPCD witnessed portions of the testing. Testing was performed to determine emissions of the following parameters: Line 133 Baghouse

Emission Compliance TestsCarbon Monoxide (ppmvd, lb/hr)Oxides of Sulfur, SO x as SO 2 (ppmvd, lb/hr)Total Hydrocarbons (ppmvd, lb/hr)Trace Metals (As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Se)Total Particulate Matter (lb/hr)

Gaseous Species as Diluent GasesOxygen and Carbon Dioxide (O 2 and CO 2 ) Line 133 Collection and Cooling/Curing Combined Stacks

Emission Compliance TestsTotal Hydrocarbons (ppmvd, lb/hr)Total Particulate Matter (lb/hr)

Gaseous Species as Diluent GasesOxygen and Carbon Dioxide (O 2 and CO 2 ) This report provides descriptions of the facility and test location, descriptions of the testing program, test methods and procedures, test results, and a summary of our quality assurance program. The tests results are summarized in Tables 1-1 through 1-7. Detailed results of individual test runs are presented in Section 4.0. All supporting data including field data sheets, laboratory reports, calculations and spreadsheets are located in the appendices.Johns Manville June 5, 2010 2010 Emissions Compliance Tests

10133.0 & 1c 2 

### TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF GASEOUS TEST RESULTS BAGHOUSE STACK MAY 12, 2010

Results Stack Gas Parameters

O 2 , % volume dry 20.88 CO 2 , % volume dry 0.160 Moisture cont., % by vol. 1.750 Stack temp., oF 119.6 Vol. flow rate, dscfm 25,721 SO X as SO 2 ppmvd 9.78 lb/hr 2.54 CO

ppmvd 23.65 lb/hr 2.70 TNMHC

ppmvd as CH 454.37 lb/hr as CH 43.53 lb/hr as C 2.64Johns Manville June 5, 2010 2010 Emissions Compliance Tests

10133.0 & 1c 3 

### TABLE 1-2 SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE MATTER TEST RESULTS BAGHOUSE STACK MAY 12, 2010

Results Stack Gas Parameters

O 2 , % volume dry 20.884 CO 2 , % volume dry 0.160 Moisture cont., % by vol. 1.750 Stack temperature, oF 119.6 Vol. flow rate, dscfm 25,721 Particulate Matter (PM)

F1⁄2 gr/dscf 0.0002 F1⁄2 lb/hr 0.0424 B1⁄2 gr/dscf 0.0052 B1⁄2 lb/hr 1.150 Total, gr/dscf 0.0053 Total, lb/hr 1.193Johns Manville June 5, 2010 2010 Emissions Compliance Tests

10133.0 & 1c 4 

### TABLE 1-3 SUMMARY OF TRACE METALS TEST RESULTS BAGHOUSE STACK MAY 12, 2010

Results Stack Gas Parameters

Vol. flow rate, dscfm 25,660 Sample volume, dscf 70.636 O 2 , % volume dry 20.88 CO 2 , % volume dry 0.16 Moisture cont., % by volume 1.86 Arsenic

μg/sample 2.000 μg/dscm 1.008 lb/hr 9.60E-05 Cadmium

μg/sample B< 0.300 μg/dscm B< 0.150 lb/hr B< 1.44E-05 Chromium

μg/sample 2.27 μg/dscm 1.132 lb/hr 1.09E-04 Lead

μg/sample J 0.963 μg/dscm J 0.488 lb/hr J 4.63E-05 Selenium

μg/sample 10.300 μg/dscm 5.165 lb/hr 4.95E-04 Notes: ND< - species not detected in sample. Results are calculated using the reporting limit. < - species detected in at least one sample or on e sample fraction but not in all samples or fractions. B– Estimated concentration (less than reporting limit) in one or more samples or fractions. Results are calculated using the reporting limit. J

- Method blank contamination. The associated method blank contains the target analyte at a reportable level.Johns Manville June 5, 2010 2010 Emissions Compliance Tests

10133.0 & 1c 9 

### SECTION 2.0
SOURCE LOCATION INFORMATION

2.1 FACILITY DESCRIPTION Johns Manville operates a fiberglass manufacturing facility located in Willows, California. This plant produces light density glass insulation for use in a wide variety of residential, commercial and industrial applications.


### 2.2 SAMPLING LOCATIONS Samples were collected at the outlet of the dust collector serving Process Line 133, from sampling ports that meet EPA Method 1 criteria. Samples were also collected at the collection stack and cooling/curing combined stack serving Process Line 133 from sampling ports that meet EPA Method 1 criteria. Access was provided by stairs and ladders to the roof. All stack measurements were confirmed on-site by Avogadro personnel. Diagrams of the sampling locations and traverse point locations are presented in Appendix C.1.Johns Manville June 5, 2010 2010 Emissions Compliance Tests

10133.0 & 1c 10 

### SECTION 3.0
TEST DESCRIPTION

3.1 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The test program was conducted to determine compliance with the source testing limitations of the ATC issued by the GCAPCD.



### 3.2 TEST CONDITIONS Testing was performed under normal operating conditions. Operating conditions were established and maintained by JM personnel. Avogadro communicated with JM staff throughout the testing to ensure that the desired operating conditions were maintained. Operating data were collected by JM during the test periods. The process data are presented in Appendix C.5.


### 3.3 TEST PROGRAM SCHEDULE The testing program was completed in 3 days (including set-up time). Mark Stanfieldserved as test team leader for this test program. He was responsible for overseeing all onsite sampling activities, as well as all reporting tasks. The schedule for the testing program is presented in Tables 3-1A and 3-1B.



### TABLE 3-1A TEST SCHEDULE JOHNS MANVILLE
Day Activity Test Runs Run Duration

May 12, 2010 Baghouse stack tests PM O 2 , CO 2 , SO 2 , CO TNMHC Trace Metals Vol. flow rate & moisture 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 120 min. ea. 60 min. ea. 60 min. ea. 120 min. ea. 120 min. ea.Johns Manville June 5, 2010 2010 Emissions Compliance Tests

10133.0 & 1c 11 

### TABLE 3-1B TEST SCHEDULE JOHNS MANVILLE
Day Activity Test Runs Run Duration

May 13, 2010 Collection stack tests PM O 2 , CO 2 , TNMHC Vol. flow rate & moisture 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 120 min. ea. 60 min. ea. 120 min. ea.
Cooling/Curing stack tests PM O 2 , CO 2 , TNMHC Vol. flow rate & moisture 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 120 min. ea. 60 min. ea. 120 min. ea.



### 3.4 TEST PROCEDURES The test procedures used in this program are summarized in Tables 3-2A and 3-2B. Descriptions of standard procedures are included in Appendix A. Additional information on site-specific applications and any modifications to procedures are described in the following sub-sections. Where any conflicts exist in the descriptions, the specific description here in Section 3.4 will take precedence.



### TABLE 3-2A TEST PROCEDURES JOHNS MANVILLE

Parameter Measurement Principle Reference Method Method Detection Limit O 2Paramagnetism EPA 3A 2% of span CO 2Non-dispersive infrared EPA 3A 2% of span CO Gas filter correlation EPA 10 2% of span SO 2Ultra-violet absorption EPA 6C 2% of spanJohns Manville June 5, 2010 2010 Emissions Compliance Tests

10133.0 & 1c 12 

### TABLE 3-2B TEST PROCEDURES JOHNS MANVILLE

Parameter Measurement Principle Reference Method Method Detection Limit TNMHC Flame ionization detection EPA 25A 2% of span Trace Metals ICP/MS EPA 29 0.1-1.0 ug/m 3 PM Gravimetry EPA 5/OTM-28 0.0002 gr/dscf EPA 5/202 0.0002 gr/dscf Moisture content Gravimetry EPA 4 --

Vol. flow rate Pitot tube / temp. traverse EPA 1, 2 --
3.4.1 Gaseous Emissions (Baghouse Stack) Concentrations of the gaseous constituents of the stack gas (SO 2, CO, CO 2 , and O 2 ) were measured using Avogadro’s dry extractive continuous emissions monitor system (CEMS) described in Appendix A. This system meets the requirements of EPA and CARB methods for gaseous species. Triplicate 60-minute test runs were performed for determination of compliance. The sample conditioning and delivery system includes components to extract a representative sample from the source, remove the moisture and particulate matter from the sample stream, and transport the sample to the analyzers. The primary components of this subsystem are: 1) A quartz, titanium, stainless steel or glass probe - heated or insulated as necessary to avoid condensation, 2) Sample filtration – filters located on the probe, pump, and prior to all of the analyzers for removal of particulate matter, 3) Teflon tubing - connecting the probe to the sample conditioner and the sample conditioner to the analyzer manifold - heated or insulated as necessary to avoid condensation, 4) Sample conditioner - glass or stainless steel flasks immersed in an ice bath to remove the moisture from the sample gas stream, 5) Vacuum pump - a leak-free pump with Teflon diaphragm to transport the sample gas through the system, 6) Sample manifold - a distribution system, constructed of stainless steel and Teflon tubing, to direct sample gas to the analyzers, andJohns Manville June 5, 2010 2010 Emissions Compliance Tests

10133.0 & 1c 13 7) Sample flow rate control - a series of rotameters, vacuum gauges and pressure gauges connected to the manifold used to maintain the appropriate sample flow rates. The calibration gas system utilizes only EPA Protocol gases to verify the operation, linearity, and range settings of the electronic analyzers. The sample gas system allows for the introduction of the protocol gases to the analyzers either directly through the manifold (calibration error check - performed once daily) or through the sampling system (system bias check - performed with each run). The electronic analyzers are rack-mounted and are maintained in the mobile lab. The data recording and acquisition system is based on a digital system known as STRATA. It includes software for controlling the collection of calibration and emission monitoring data, and hardware for connection of the analyzer outputs to the recording system. Test results can be provided in three forms: on-site printouts of the digitized data, diskette recordings of the digitized data, and printouts of strip charts from the monitoring data.
3.4.2 Gaseous Emissions (Collection and Cooling/Curing Stacks) Concentrations of the gaseous constituents of the stack gas (O 2and CO 2 ) were measured using Avogadro’s dry extractive continuous emissions monitor system (CEMS) described in Appendix A. An integrated bag sample was taken during each test run at each location. EPA Protocol gases were used to verify the operation, linearity, and range settings of the electronic analyzers.
3.4.3 Particulate Matter (Baghouse Stack) Stack gas concentrations of total and filtera ble particulate matter were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 202, and included analysis of the impinger contents for condensible particulate matter. Each test run was 120 minutes in duration.
The filterable “front-half” PM was recovered from the sampling apparatus as described in the method. The sample included the nozzle wash, filter, and rinses from the front-half of the filter holder. The sample was analyzed gravimetrically to determine the concentration of filterable PM. Prior to thesample recovery, the sampling train was purged with nitrogen as described in Method 202. The “back-half” contents were recovered and analyzed as described in the method including the sulfate. A separate sample container was used to collect the impinger contents and rinses, sample line, probe wash, and the back-half filter holder wash. Each sample was extracted with dichloromethane in a separatory funnel. The analysis included gravimetric measurement of the residue from the aqueous and organic fractions. The corrected results were used to determine the concentration of condensable particulateJohns Manville June 5, 2010 2010 Emissions Compliance Tests

10133.0 & 1c 14 matter. The results of the front and back-half sections were combined and reported as total particulate matter.
3.4.4 Particulate Matter (Collection and Cooling/Curing Stacks) Stack gas concentrations of total and filtera ble particulate matter were measured using EPA Methods 5 and OTM-028, and included analysis of the impinger contents for condensible particulate matter. Each test run was 120 minutes in duration.
The filterable “front-half” PM was recovered from the sampling apparatus as described in the method. The sample included the nozzle wash, filter, and rinses from the front-half of the filter holder. The sample was analyzed gravimetrically to determine the concentration of filterable PM. The OTM-028 test train consisted of four impingers connected in series. The first and second impingers were empty, a Teflon filter was placed between the second and third impingers and maintained below 85  F, the third impinger contained 100 ml of deionized (DI) water, and the fourth contained silica gel. All of the impinger tare weights were recorded prior to sampling. All glassware and other components coming in contact with the sample were pre-cleaned using hot water and detergent, tap water, methylene chloride and DI water, in that order.The “back-half” condensable contents were recovered and analyzed according to OTM028. The entire “back-half” sampling system was purged with nitrogen at 20 liters per minute for one hour immediately following the end of each test run. The contents of the impingers were weighed, recorded and placed into a separate glass sample container which included the water rinses of the impingers, sample line, probe and the back-half filter holder. Additional methylene chloride rinses were collected. The liquid level was marked on the sample containers. The silica gel was also weighed and recorded. A field blank sample was collected as described in the method. The field blank involves a complete sampling train that was prepared, configured, leak-checked, and recovered in the same manner as that for the samples. Field blank samples were submitted for analysis with the remaining samples.

3.4.5 Trace Metals Concentrations of trace metals in the exhaust stream were determined using EPA Method 29 modified to exclude measurement of mercury. As mercury was not to be measured, the sampling train omitted the two potassium permanganate-containing impingers. Samples were analyzed for arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb) and selenium (Se).Johns Manville June 5, 2010 2010 Emissions Compliance Tests

10133.0 & 1c 15 The samples were digested and analyzed for metals using inductively coupled plasma / mass spectroscopy (ICP/MS) analysis.
3.4.6 Total Hydrocarbon Emissions Concentrations of total hydrocarbons (THC) were measured using EPA Method 25A. The results of the three 60-minute test runs performed at the exhaust stack of the unit were averaged for determination of compliance. Flame ionization detector (FID) analyzers were used for measurement of the concentrations at the exhaust stack of the unit as described in EPA Method 25A. The sampling apparatus included a probe of titanium tubing connected by a length of heated Teflon tubing to the inlet port of the FID analyzer. The analyzer uses an internal sampling pump and a heated oven/analysis section to keep the sample gas at a minimum of 180 degrees Celsius (356 °F) throughout the system. The heated line was maintained at a minimum of 135 degrees Celsius (275 °F) during the test program to prevent condensation. The analyzers were calibrated with three different concentrations of EPA Protocol gases that contain mixtures of methane in air. Results were calculated and presented as carbon equivalents.

3.4.7 Volumetric Flow Rate and Moisture Content Stack gas volumetric flow rates were determined according to EPA Methods 2 and 4. Velocity traverses were performed on the exhaust stacks using an S-type Pitot tube and a manometer. Velocity traverse data were colle cted as part of the particulate and trace metals emission tests. Similarly, stack gas moisture data were collected in conjunction with the particulate and trace metals sampling. The volumetric flow rate results were corrected to standard conditions and used with the concentration data to calculate mass emission rates.

3.4.8 Process Data The plant’s process instrumentation was used to document unit conditions during the test runs and is presented in Appendix C.5.