~ f 

FLUORIDE CASCADE ABSORBER 

EbIISSION EVALUATION 

CAROLINA CERAbIICS 

COLUMBIA, SOUTFI CAROLINA 
i 

FLUORIDE CASCADE ABSORBER EMISSION EVALUATION 

CAAOLINA CERAMICS 

COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 

~ 

~ 

~ 

r 

JANUARY, 2001 

DAVIS & FLOYD, INC. JOB NUMBER 61381.00 

9 

~ 

PREPARED BY 

~ DAVIS & FLOYD, INC. 

ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION 

GREENWOOD, SOUTH CAROLINA 

H:\ADM[NDA'[1PLOTHRID\IiGA\01\61381-Carolina Ceramics.doc 

navrR 1P. Frn{fn rNI` 
D ~~lJ I S Engtneering 

FL~~.'D 

Architechlre 

Enrironmental & La6oratary Serrices 

P.O. Drawer 428 Greenwood, SC 29648 • 816 East Durst Avenue Greenwood, SC 29649 •(864) 229-4413 (office) (864) 229-7119 (fax) 

January 19, 2001 

Serial No. HGA-006-01 

Job No.: 61381.00 

Mr. Ken Newell 

Carolina Ceramics 

9931 Two-Notch Road 

Columbia, SC 29223-4390 

Reference: Emission Testing on Fluoride Cascade Absorber 

Dear Mr. Newell: 

Davis & Eloyd, Inc. conducted source test sampling at Carolina Ceramics, Columbia, South Carolina, on 

December 12, 2000. These tests were conducted on the outlet gases of the fluoride cascade absorber. 

Two copies of the report containing the results of this project are enclosed. A copy of this report has 

been mailed to Mr. Jason Hobbs, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 

Bureau of Air Quality, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC, 29201. 

We would like to express our appreciation to you and the Carolina Ceramics personnel involved in this 

project for their assistance in the areas of scheduling, physical arrangements, etc. Should you have any 

questions regarding this work or report, or if we may be of additional assistance, please do not hesitate to 

contact us. 

Sincerely, 

DAVIS & FLOYD, INC. 

H. Gary Anderson, Jr. 

Field Services 

Environmental Division 

Enclosures: As stated in letter 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

1.1 

2.1 

3.1 

4.1 

4.1 

4.1 

4.1 

4.2 

5.1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

2.0 TEST OBJECTIVES 

3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 

4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 

4.1 Velocity Traverse Point Locations 

4.2 Volumetric Flow Rate 

4.3 Moisture and Molecular Weight 

4.4 Hydrogen Fluoride and Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine Concentrations 

5.0 SAMPLING RESDLTS 

Table 5.1 Hydrogen Fluoride Emission Results 

Table 5.2 Hydrogen Chloride Results 

Table 5.3 Chlorine Emission Results 

Table 5.4 Particulate Emission Results 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX 1 

EPA Method 5 and 26A Data Reduction 

APPENDIX 2 

Calculations 

APPENDIX3 

Field Data 

Field Equipment Calibrations 

APPENDIX 4 

Laboratory Data 

Production Data 

H:WDMINDAT\PLOTHRID\HGA\01\61381-Carolina Ceramics.doc 

DAVIS & FLOYD, INC. 
1.1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Carolina Ceramics, located in Columbia, South Carolina, is a manufacturer of ceramic brick. A part of 

this process is the drying or curing of the brick, which is done in ovens referred to as kilns. On December 

12, 2000, emission tests were conducted for the halides hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, and the 

halogen chlorine on the outlet gases of the recently installed fluoride cascade absorber. Stanley Broome 

and Brandon Wilson of Davis & Floyd, Inc. performed this testing. 

These tests were observed by South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

(SCDHEC) representative, T. J. Lancaster. 

u 

® 

H:W.DMINDATAPL0THRID\HGA\01\61381-Carolina Ceramics.doc 

n,tvrc c. cr nvn ~ mn 
2.1 

2.0 TEST OBJECTIVES 

The objective of this testing was to demonstrate compliance with South Carolina Department of Health 

~ 

and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) established air standards for hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen 

~ chloride, and chlorine using EPA Method 26A (Determination of Hydrogcn Halide and Halogen 

~ Emissions from Stationary Sources — Isokinetic Method) and particulate emissions using EPA Method 5. 

~d 

I I e 

H:\ADMINDATIPLOTHRID\HGA\Ol\61381-Carolina Ceramics.doc 

DAVIS & FLOYD, INC. 
3.1 

3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 

3.1 The process is the firing of dried brick products 31.27 hours from entrance of kiln to 

exiting kiln through an "intermittent push" tunnel kiln. Intermittent push is defined as 

moving the product a certain distance through the kiln and th0n holding the product 

stationary for a specific amount of time. The product does not move on a continuous 

basis. The kiln sections are described as follows: Pre-heat Section, Firing Section, Quick 

Cool Section, and Slow Cool Section. During the preheating of the product, fluorine, 

i~ 

which is present in the raw material, is released and combines with hydrogen inside the 

kiln and forms gaseous hydrogen fluoride. This hydrogen fluoride is then exhausted into 

% 

a duct and travels through stacked beds of limestone. The Irydrogen fluoride reacts with 

the limestone to form calcium fluoride. The clean air is then exhausted into the 

, 

~ atmosphere. 

!s 

3.2 The designed rate: 207.9 tons/day fired. Test Rate: 208.5 tons/day fired. ~ t 

3.3 The production rate for the kiln, in tons per hour, was recorded for the test as follows: 

Push Speed x Brick Per Car x Average Weight of Unit = 2000 = Fired Tonnage Rate 

I~ 3.4 This fluorine cascade absorber is manufactured by Hellmich. It is a Model No. 1528. 

t The flue gas is conducted via a pipeline to a collecting hood. In the hood, the flue gases 

I

I. 

' are distributed over the flue gas cascades of roof-shape design. From there, the gases 

flow through uniformly poured crushed limestone granules into the cleaned gas 

i7 

cascades. During this, the crushed limestone absorbs the HF contained in the flue gas. 

~ From the cleaned gas cascades, the cleaned exhaust air is conducted in a pipeline further 

1

j 

I 

via a collecting hood to the fan. The crushed used limestone is discharged intermittently 

H: ~ADMINDA7\PLOTHRID\HGA\01\61381-CarolinaCecamics.doc 

; DAVIS & rLOYD, INC. —~ 

j~ 
3.2 

via a screw conveyor. The crushed limestone stored in a storage silo subsides at the 

same time. To ensure that the flue and cleaned gas cascades are always fully covered, 

they must be topped up with crushed limestone within a suitable period of time. The 

storage silos are filled by means of pneumatic trucks. The delivery air is filtered through 

the poured limestone and taken to the cleaned gas hood. The FCA is insulated in order 

to avoid loss of heat through the outer skin of the absorber. 

3.5 There are no stack gas or opacity monitoring systems associated with the dry lime 

sorption scrubber. 

3.6 A time control system associated with the discharge of spent lime from the scrubber 

e 

ensures that the limestone continues to fall down evenly from the storage silo over the 

cascades, thus making sure that adsorption of the hydrogen fluoride and the utilization of 

the limestone granules are optimal. The control monitors are as follows: Pressure drop 

across scrubber, Thermocouple, and lime purge cycle. 

3.8 During the emission test, the process rate and kiln temperature of the kiln were recorded 

by Carolina Ceramics personnel. It was the responsibility of the kiln supervisor to 

collect this information. 

H:\ADMINDAT\PLOTHRID\HGA\01\61381-Cuolina Ceramics.doc 

DAVIS & FLOYD, INC. 
s 

4.1 

4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 

4.1 Velocity Traverse Point Locations 

The velocity traverse point locations were selected in accordance with EPA Method l, "Sample 

and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources". The scrubber exhaust is equipped with a circular 

stack that is 48 inches in diameter. Two sample ports were located on the circumference of the 

stack at a location that was approximately 42 feet downstream of the nearest flow disturbance 

and 11.5 feet upstream from the top of the stack. Twelve (12) traverse points were selected for 

velocity determinations, 6 along each sample port cross-section (see Figure 1). 

4.2 Volumetric Flow Rate 

Stack gas volumetric flow rate was determined in accordance with EPA Method 2, 

"!`)etermination of Stack Gas Velocity and Vohimetric Flow Rate". This was performed in 

r; 

conjunction with EPA Method 26A. 

4.3 Moisture and Molecular Weieht 

Stack gas moisture content was determined as per EPA Method 4, "Deterrnination of Moisture 

Content in Stack Gases" in conjunction with EPA Method 26A. Stack gas molecular weight was 

determined by obtaining samples and analyzing for oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations 

using a Teledyne Max-5 combustion analyzer and was found to be near ambient condition. 

~ 4.4 Hydroeen Fluoride, Hydroeen Chloride, and Chlorine Concentration 

~ Hydrogen Fluoride, Hydrogen Chloride, and Chlorine concentrations were determined in 

accordance with EPA Method 26A, "Determfnatfon of Hydrogen Halfde and Halogen Emissfons 

5 - from Stationary Sources - Isokinetic Method'. Three one-hour test runs were conducted. The 

~ sample train consisted of a one-piece glass-lined probe and glass nozzle, a glass fiber filter 

H:\ADMINDA'[1PLOTHRII)\HGA\01 \61381-Carol ina Ceramics.doc 

I DAVIS & rLOYD, INC. — 
4.2 

(Teflon mat, Pallflex), EPA Method 5 glass impingers, and an EPA Method 5 control console. 

The first two impingers contained 100 ml each of 0.1 N sulfuric acid, the third and fourth 

impingers each contained 0.1N sodium hydroxide, and the fifth impinger contained 200 

milligrams of silica gel. After the testing was completed, the samples were transported to the 

laboratory where the volume of the impinger catch was measured, the silica gel was weighed, 

and the impinger solution was transferred to EPA protocol tvashed glass sample bottles. The 

impingers were then rinsed with a known volume of D. I. water, and the rinse was combined 

with the samples. The samples lvere then analyzed using ion ®hromatography as specified in the 

method. 

4.5 Particulate Concentration 

e 

Particulate emission concentrations and emission rates on the outlet ex}laust stack were 

determined in accordance cvith EPA Method 5, "Deterrnination of Particztlate Enaissions fr•otr: 

Stationary Sonrces", in conjunction with EPA Method 26A, 

H:WDM[NDATPLOTHRIDViGA\01\61381-Carolina Ceramics.doc 

DAV1S & FLOYD, INC. 
M~ 

A 

W 

~ 

~ 

.~ 

V 

yr10Nl~ TCC 

Vtio 

b ~ Nh ~ Md~'7 

O 00 ti ~ A N ~ 

a 

° a ~ 

zuu 

~ E 

O ~ VO ¢ 

~ 01 

'~w vioAUU "
5.1 

5.0 SAlYIPLING RESULTS 

On December 12, 2000, stack gas emission studies were conducted at Carolina Ceramics, Columbia, 

South Carolina. The results of this testing are found in Tables 5.1 through 5.4. 

TABLE 5.1 

H dr v ogen Fluoride Emission Results 

Outlet to Fluoride Cascade Absorber 

Carolina Ceramics 

Columbia, South Carolina 

Test conducted: December 12, 2000 

Test Time Air Sample 

Volume 

dscm 

Stack Gas 

Flow Rate 

(dscfm) 

Emission 

Concentration HF 

mg/m3 

Emission Rate 

(lb/hr) 

Run#1 1150-1303 1.0126 11,128.32 2.27 0.0946 

Run #2 1325-1432 0.9917 10,732.49 2.52 0.1012 

Run #3 1454-1558 1.0397 11,672.73 2.40 0.1048 

Average 1 1 1.0147 1 11,177.85 2.40 0.1002 

Calculatiens: 1. Lbs/hr= 1 Ib/454,000 mg x mg/m 3x Std. Ft3/Min x m3/35.31 ft3x 60 min/hr. 

NOTE 1: Standard cubic feet per minute at 29.92 inches of ineroury and 68 degrees F. 

H2SO4 0.1N Blank = <1100 Micrograms HF 

D.I. Water Blank = <500 Micrograms Chlorine 

D.I. Water Blank = <1100 Micrograms HF 

NOTE 2: (<) Note = less than the detection limit for the method and/or instrument. 

TABLE 5.2 

Chlorine Emission Results 

Outlet to Fluoride Cascade Absorber 

Carolina Ceramics 

Columbia, South Carolina 

Test conducted: December 12, 2000 

Test Time Air Sample 

Volume 

dscm 

Stack Gas 

Flow Rate 

dscfm 

Emission 

Concentration 

Chlorine mg/m3 

Emission Rate 

Ibs/hr 

Run#1 1150-1303 1.0126 11,128.32 <0.49 <0.020 

Run #2 1325-1432 0.9917 10,732.49 <0.50 <0.020 

Run#3 1454-1558 1.0397 11,672.73 <0.48 <0.020 

Calculations: I.Lbs/hr = 1 lb/454,000 mg x mg/m3x Std. Ft 3/Min x m3/35.31 ft3x 60 min/hr. 

NOTE 1: Standard cubic feet per minute at 29.92 inches of inercury and 68 degrees F. 

D.I. Water Blank = <500 Micrograms Chlorine 

O.IN Na OH Blank = <500 Micrograms Chlorine 

NOTE 2: (<) Note =1ess than the detection limit for the method and/or instrument. 

H:\ADMINDAT%PLOTHRID\HGA\O116138I-Carolina Ceramics.doc 

DAVIS & FLOYD, INC. 
5.2 

TABLE 5.3 

Hydrop}en Chloride Emission Results 

Outlet Fluoride Cascade Absorber 

Carolina Ceramics 

Columbia, South Carolina 

Test conducted: December 12, 2000 

Test Time Air Sample 

Volume 

dscm 

Stack Gas 

Flow Rate 

(dscfm) 

Emission 

Concentration HCI 

mg/m3 

Emission Rate 

(lb/hr) 

Run#1 1150-1303 1.0126 11,128.32 2.37 0.0987 

Run #2 1325-1432 0.9917 10,732.49 2.42 0.0912 

Run #3 1454-1558 1.0397 11,672.73 2.31 0.1010 

Average 1 1 1.0147 11,177.85 2.36 0.0987 

Calculations: 

1. Lbs/hr = 1 Ib/454,000 mg x mg/m3x Std. Ft 3/Min x m3 /35.31 0 x 60 min/hr. 

H2SO4 0.1N Blank = <1000 Micrograms HF 

D.I. Water Blank = <1000 Micrograms HF 

NOTE 1: Standard cttbic feet per minute at 29.92 inches of inercury and 68 degrees F. 

NOTE 2: (<) Note =1ess than the detection limit for the metllod and/or instrument. 

e 

TABLE 5.4 

_ Part ~ateEmission Results 

Outlet Fluoride Cascade Absorber 

Carolina Ceramics 

Columbia, South Carolina 

Test conducted: December 12, 2000 

Test Time Air Sample 

Volume 

dscf 

Stack Gas 

FlowRate 

(dscfm) 

Particulate Emission 

Concentration 

Grains per SCF 

Emission Rate 

(Ib/hr) 

Run#1 1150-1303 35.7616 11,128.32 0.0127 1.2158 

Run #2 1325-1432 35.0227 10,732.49 0.0133 1.2257 

Run #3 1454-1558 36.7178 11,672.73 0.0101 1.0071 

Average 35.8340 11,177.85 0.0120 L1495 

a 7 F 524'%@ftY ~s~~ e tct o ~ Y,%Ffza. , ~~ . 5 7<,q Ii,~,~ 

NOTE: Standard cubic feet per minute at 29.92 inches of inercury and 68 degrees F. 

H:WDMINDATxPLOTHRID\I-IGA\01\61381-Carolina Ceramics.doe 

DAVIS & FLOYD, INC. 

I 

j 

DAVIS & FLOYD INC. 

POST OFFICE DRAWER 428 

GREENWOOD, SOUTH CAROLINA 29648 

tt*k***t**# ##+k** **#*t#kk**#*#t## 

*'* SOURCE SAMPLING DATA SUMMARY **' 

###++****k*t#++*****#++tt*#*+###*k#tt 

L FOR:CAROLINA CERAMICS TEST METHOD:EPA METHODS 5& 26A 

LOCATION:COLUMBIA, SC SAMPLE DATE:12-12-00 

SOURCE:FLUORINE CASCADE ABSORBER DAVIS &FLOYD, INC. JOB#:61381.00 

% CO2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

% 02 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

% CO N/A N/A N/A N/A 

% N2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Dry molecularweight (MD) 29.00 29.00 29.00 29.00 

Final impinger volume (VF) 490.0 488.0 490.0 489.3 

Initial impinger volume (VI) 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 

Silica gel vol. increase (VS GEL) 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.7 

Total moisture collected (VIC) 97.0 95.0 96.0 96.0 

Total moist. collected (VM STD) 4.5784 4.4840 4.5312 4.5312 

Stack gas moist.content (B WO) 11.350 11.350 10.985 11.228 

Meter dry gas volume (VM) 36.400 36.206 38.223 36.943 

Barometric pressure (P BAR) 29.70 29.70 29.70 29.70 

Dry gas meter temp (TM) 75.1 83.4 87.4 82.0 

Dry gas orifice pressure (DELTA) 1.412 1.348 1.505 1.421 

Meter dry gas volume (VM STD) 35.7616 35.0227 36.7178 35.8340 

Stack gas moist.content (B WO) 0.1135 0.1135 0.1098 0.1123 

Wet molecular weight (MS) 27.7516 27.7515 27.7917 27.7649 

Pitot coefficient (CP) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 

Avg stack gas temp (TS AVG) 333.4 338.3 341.3 337.6 

(AVG SQ/R DELTA P) 0.3578 0.3461 0.3759 0.3599 

Static stack pres. (STATIC P) -0.170 -0.170 -0.170 -0.170 

Pressure of stack (PS) 29.6875 29.6875 29.6875 29.6875 

Stack gas velocity (VS) 25.2141 24.4655 26.5993~7/~e(. 25.4263 

Cross-sectional stack area (A) 12.5664 12.5664 12.5664 12.5664 

Stack gas flow (QS STD CFM) 11128.3284 10732.4958 11672.7397 11177.8546 

Stack gas flow (QS ACFM) 19010.9742 18446.5414 20055.4165 19170.9773 

Wet bulb temp (WB/T) N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Particulate gain (MN) 29.6000 30.3000 .24.0000 27.9667 

Particulate concent. (C/S) 0.0127 0.0133 0.0101 0.0120 

C/S @%12 CO2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Particulate emission rate (CS) 1.2168 1.2267 1.0071 1.1495 

Total Sampling Time (TIME) 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 

Nozzie diameter (DN) 0.3440 0.3450 0.3400 0.3430 

Area of nozzle (AN) 6.4542E-04 6.4918E-04 6.3050E-04 6.4170E-04 

PeCcent isokinetic (i) 104.32 105.32 104.53 104.72 

im 

~ 

j 

~