24412 South Main Street, Suite 106 Carson, California

90745 Phone: 310-834-8996 Fax: 310-834-8997

SOURCE TEST REPORT Determination of Partictflate

Matter(PM),

HF and SO2 Emissions at Kilns #4 & 5 of the US Tile Company

in Corona,

CA Prepared For: US Tile Company 909 W. Railroad

Street Corona, California

91720

Test Date: December 2•d & 15 t•, 1999

Issue Date: January 12, 2000 Revision Date: January 28, 2000 Tested By: Almega Environmental

& Technical

Services,

Inc. .Report Number:

C7654
Micha,eJ Z Ro•l•,ii.roject

Manager oviow .y: --7 4Z

7: Tim Din,h, .Source Testing Manager1.02.03.04.05.0 TABLE

OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary Summary of Test Results Introduction Process Description Sampling and Analytical

Procedures '- 5.1 SCAQMD

Method

1.1 • Sampling and Velocity

Traverses

for Stationary

Sources 5.2

5.3
5.4
5.5 SCAQMD

Method 2.1 "t r.,. Determination of Stack Gas Velocity

and Volumetric

Flow Rate SCAQMD Method 4.1 Stack Gas Moisture

Content Determination EPA Method

5/26A ' t-IF & Particulate

Matter Emissions

Dete•nation SCAQMD Modified

Method

6.1 -Determination of SOx as SO2 Concentrations Test Results and Discussion Quality Assurance/Quality

Control

'• ':•" PAGE12346

79

1112

,;APPENDICES Appendix A Test Results

for Kiln's 4 & 5 Appendix A-1 EPA 5/26A PM Results and Field Data Appendix A-2 EPA 5/26A HF Results and Field Data Appendix A-3 SCAQMD

Modified

Method

6.1 SO2 Results and Field Data Appendix B Laboratory

Results for Kiln's # 4 & 5 Appendix B-1 EPA 5/26A PM Lab Results and Data Appendix B-2 EPA 5/26A HF Lab Results and Data Appendix B-3 SCAQMD

Modified

Method

6.1 SO2 Results and Data Appendix C Calibration

Data Appendix D Certificate

of No Conflict

of Interest Appendix E SCAQMD

Check List for Source Test ReportPage US Tile C7654 1.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
Plant Address Equipment Type Test Objective
Test Date Test Performed

By Test Conducted

By Testing Firm Contact Plant Contact Air Pollution

Control District US Tile Company US Tile Company 909 W. Railroad

Street Corona, California

91720 Kiln # 4 & 5 To measure

emissions

of particulate

matter, HF, and SO2 from Kiln's # 4 & 5 December 2 no and 15 t•, 1999 Alme8a Environmental

& Technical

Services,

Inc. John Such and Jose Vital Tim Dinh, Source Testing Manager (310) 834-8996 Mark Thompson (904) 739-4601 South Coast Air Quality Management

DistrictPAGE 2 U.S. Tile C7554 2,0 SUMMARY

OF RESULTS

Particulate Matter (PM) Concentration, (grains/dscf) Emission Rate, Obs/hr) Hydrogen Fluoride

(HF) Concentration, (ppm) Emission Rate, dbs/hr) Sulfur Dioxide

(SO•) Concentration, (ppm) Emission Rate, 0bs/hr) 0.0065 O.55

42.831.35

94.89 9.56

0.0018 0.15

41.171.28

59.635.93

0.0025 0.21

27.24 0.83

78.52 7.68

0.0036 0.30

37.11.15

77.68 7.72

Particulate Matter (PM) Concentration, (grains/dscf) Emission Rate, (lbs/hr) Hydrogen Fluoride

(HF) Concentration, (ppm) Emission Rate, (lbs/ltr) Sulfur Dioxide

(SO•) Concentration, (ppm) Emission Rate, (lbs/hr) 0.0085 0.86

32.201.20

16.261.95

0.0064 0.65

28.76 1.08

13.371.60

0.0066 0.67

37.14 1.39

20.93 2.51

0.0072 0.73

32.70 1.22

16.85 2.02Page 3 US'rile C7654 3.0 INTRODUCTION On December

2 nd and 15 th, 1999 Almega

Environmental

& Technical

Services,

Inc. conducted

a series of tests to determine

the emissions

of particulate

matter, I-IF, and Sulfur Dioxide

from the two kilns at the US Tile Facility in Corona,

California.

Gaseous

HF was tested only on Kiln #5. Kiln #4 was tested on the 15 th while kiln #5 was tested on the 2 "d of December. Particulate matter and HF emissions

were measured

according

to EPA Method

5/26A. The SO2 was measured using SCAQMD

Modified

Method

6.1. Both tests were conducted

simultaneously. Three 60-minute

test runs were conducted

at each kilns exhaust.

The gas volumetric

flow rate and moisture content were measured

according

to SCAQMD

Method

1.1, 2.1, and 4.1. Testing was performed

by Mr. John Such and Mr. Jose Vital of Almega

Environmental. Arrangements for the source test were made through Mr. Mark Thompson

of US Tile.Page 4 US Tile C7654 4.0 PROCESS

DESCRIPTION The US Tile Company,

located in Corona,

California,

manufactures

various forms of tile. Kiln #4 exhaust stack is 28" x 28" and has three 3" sample ports. The stacks are located on the roof and the ports are located approximately

1⁄2 equivalent

diameters

upstream

and greater than 8equivalent diameters downstream.

Kiln #5 stack is 30" x 30" and has three 3" sample ports. The ports are located approximately

1 equivalent

diameter

upstream

and greater than 8 diameters

downstream.

A process diagram

is located in Figure 4-1 on page 5.FIGURE 4-1 [• Process Diagram

c-

i Page 5 US Tile C7654Page 6 US Tile C7654 5.0 SAMPLING

AND ANALYTICAL

PROCEDURES 5.1 SCAQMD

Method

1.1 Sampling

and Velocity

Traverses

for Stationary_

Sources A preliminary

source test site assessment

was performed

prior to the source test in order to determine applicable

testing port locations

and sample point traverse

locations.

The stack diameter and the distance

upstream

and downstream

from sample ports to disturbances,

(i.e. bends, flanges,

etc.) were measured.

This information

was utilized

to determine

the minimum number of sampling

points per traverse

and the distance

from the inner stack wall to each sample point location.

This assessment

was performed

during the required

pre-test

volume

flow rate measurement. 5.2 SCAQMD

Method

2.1 Determination

of Stack Gas Velocity

and Volumetric

Flow Rate The velocity

of the gas stream was determined

using an "S" type pitot tube, a magnehelic differential pressure

gauge or inclined

manometer

and type "K" thermocouple

with a digital temperature measuring

device.

The calibrated

pitot tube was connected

to the calibrated magnehelic gauge or inclined

manometer

and leak checked

at 80-100%

of full scale. A temperature and delta P was obtained

at each traverse

point and the duct's static pressure

was measured and recorded.

The dry standard

volumetric

flow rate was determined

from the gas velocity data, stack pressure,

stack gas moisture

content,

stack gas molecular

weight andcrosssectional area of duct. 5.3 SCAQMD

Method

4.1 Stack Gas Moisture

Content

Determination Moisture content was determined

using a sampling

train consisting

of a stainless

steel probe, Teflon line, four impingers

in an ice water bath, a leak-free

pump, a vacuum

gauge and a dry gas meter. Impinger

#1 and #2 were charged

with 100 ml of water. Impinger

#3 was left empty and impinger #4 was charged

with approximately

200 g of silica gel which was appropriately

tared, to the nearest 0.1 g using a digital scale. These volumes

and weights

were recorded

prior to the sample test. Prior to sampling,

a leak check of the sampling

train was performed

to ensure system integrity.

After the leak check, the initial meter reading,

and inlet and outlet meter temperatures were recorded

and the sample pump started.

The sample rate was adjusted

to the desired sampling

rate and sampled

for approximately

120 minutes. After sampling,

the final readings

and final volumes/weights

of each impinger

were determined and recorded.

Percent

moisture

content was calculated

from the weight of water collected

and the dry gas volume

sampled.
In this test the moisture

content was measured

with the PM/HF sampling

train, according

to EPA Method

5/26A.Page 7 US Tile C7654 CALCULATIONS Moisture (bws)

Vwstd (Vmstd + Vwstd) Where: Vwstd 0.04707

tI._•_• x Vol. H20 collected

(ml) ml Vmstd 17.64 x Ym x Vm x Pm/Tm where: 0.04707 17.64 YmVmPmTm volume of water vapor @ 68°F/ml of water 528°R/29.92 in.Hg meter correction

factor sample gas volume collected sample gas pressure

in Hga sample gas temperature

in °R at meter 5.4 EPA Method

5/26A Particulate

Matter & HF Emissions

Determination
A series of preliminary

measurements

was made prior to conducting

the PM/HF test. SCAQMD Methods 1.1, 2.1, and 4.1 were performed

to determine

location

and number

of traverse

points, average gas velocity,

molecular

weight, and moisture

content,

respectively.

The results of these measurements were used to determine

the appropriate

nozzle size for isokinetic

sampling. The sampling

train used, shown in Figure 5-1, consisted

of a stainless

steel nozzle, heated glass probe, a heated filter housing

before the 1 •t iminger,

a set of five glass impingers,

a 30 foot umbilical line, a vacuum

pump, dry gas meter, and calibrated

orifice.

Impingers

#1 and #2 in the absorption train were charged

with 100 ml ofH2SO4,

impingers

#3 and impinger

#4 were filled with 100 ml of NaOH, and impinger

#5 was filled with approximately

200 g of silica gel. The probe was brushed

out, rinsed with DI water. The filter was tared and placed in the filter holder. The sampling

apparatus

was sealed and transported

to the sampling

site where it was assembled and leak tested at 15 inches of mercury

(Hg.) vacuum. After the initial gas meter reading was appropriately

recorded,

the nozzle was positioned

into the gas flow. The vacuum

pump was started immediately

and adjusted

to obtain an isokinetic sample rate. A complete

traverse

was performed.

Stack gas temperature,

velocity

pressure

(dP), meter temperature,

gas volume,

meter pressure,

and absorption

train vacuum

were monitored

and recorded at each sample point. A leak check was also performed

at the end of the test. The samples were rinsed with DI water and stored in glass containers.

A chain of custody

was completed and the samples

were transported

to the laboratory

for analysis.Page 8 US Tile C7654 FIGURE 5-1 EPA Method

5/26A

Ca1•bra•ed Co,rs•

In¢1•-a•d Dry Ga• Vacuum Raaome%er •eter

PumpPag• 9 US Tile C7654 Sample recovery

was performed

as follows: 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3

5.4.4 Sample

was recovered

from the nozzle and pre-filter

components

by brushing

while irrigating with DI water, and was collected

and stored in a polypropylene

bottle. The filter was recovered

and stored in a petri dish. The volume

of liquid in the four impingers

was measured

to an accuracy

of 1 ml. The first two impingers

were placed in one sample bottle and the next two were placed in a separate container.

The impingers

and the connecting

glassware

from the back half of the filter housing,

were rinsed three times with DI water and the rinse was added to the appropriate sample bottles. The silica gel was recovered

from the fifth impinger

and was stored in a polypropylene bottle and re-weighed. Sample analysis

was performed

as follows: 5.4.5
5.4.6 The catch/wash

collected

in 5.4.1 above was evaporated

at room temperature:

The residue was desiccated

and weighed

to constant

weight

(+ 0.1 mg) for particulate determination. The filter was desiccated

and weighed

to constant

weight (+ 0.1 mg) for particulate determination. The samples

collected

in 5.4.3 were analyzed

for I-IF by ion chromatography. Calculation of concentration

and emission

rate followed

the procedure

detailed

in the method,

5.5 SCAQMD

Modified

Method

6.1-Determination

of Sulfates

and SO z Concentrations The sampling

train used is shown in Figure 5-2 on Page 10. It consisted

of a stainless

steel probe, an unheated

Teflon sampling

line, a set of glass impingers,

a 30 foot umb.ilical

line, a vacuum pump, dry gas meter, and calibrated

orifice.

Impingers

#1 and #2 in the absorption

train

were charged

with 100 ml of 3% H20/, impinger

#3 was empty, and impinger

#4 was filled with approximately 200 g of silica gel. The probe was brushed

out, rinsed with DI water.

The sampling apparatus

was sealed and transported

to the sampling

site where it was assembled

and leak tested at 15 inches of mercury

(Hg.) vacuum. After the initial gas meter reading was appropriately

recorded,

the probe was positioned

into the gas flow. The vacuum

pump was started immediately

and adjusted

to obtain a non-isokinetic sample rate. Meter temperature,

gas volume,

meter pressure,

and absorption

train vacuum

were monitored and recorded

at each sample point.
At the end of the test, the samples

were recovered

in a sample bottle and transported

back to Almega's laboratory

for chain of custody

recording

and shipped

to the Health

Sciences Laboratory for analysis

for SO2.FIGURE 5-2 SCAQMD Method

6.1 Page 10 US Tile C7654

4

7 7 6 8 15 16

1. Heated

Glass Probe 2. Stack Wall 3. Dial Thermometer 4. Whatman

Thimble

Filter (Inside Hot Box) 5. Impinger

with 200 ml Isopropanol 6. Empty Bubbler 7. Impinger

with 100 ml H20 = (3%) 8. Bubbler

with Silica

Gel

9. Ice Bath i0. Sealed

Pump (Leak Free) 11o Filter

for Pump 12. Metering

Valve 13. Vacuum

Gauge 14. By-pass

Valve 15. Temperature

Compensated Dry Gas Meter 16. Orifice 17. Orifice

Inclined

ManometerPage USC7654 6.0 TEST RESULTS

AND DISCUSSION On December

2 nd and 15 t•, 1999, Almega

Environmental

& Technical

Services,

Inc. conducted

a source emissions

test of the US Tile facility in Corona, California.

Field data, calculations,

and the results for all the tests can be found in Appendix

A. Appendix

B contains

the laboratory

results. The results of the source test are summarized

on page 2. Kiln #4 had a 3-run average

concentration of 0.0036 gr/dscf and a mass emission

rate of 0.30 lb/hr for particulate

matter.

The SO2 average
was 77.7 ppm's with an average emission

rate of 7.72 lbs/hour. Kiln #5 had an average concentration

of 0.0072 grains/dscfwith

a mass emission

rate of 0.73 lbs/hr for particulate

matter. The gaseous

I-IF and SO2, averaged

32.7 and 16.9 ppm's, with an emission rate of 1.2 and 2.0 lbs/hour,

respectively.