# • BIA- ol

## S**Rec\\~** 

## H-o..Ytv\ar 

# Plo.nt 

# • ?J/s-1.1{2.ooz.. • 3 /11-12../2-002..

FINAL REPORT EMISSIONS EVALUATION OF BRICK TUNNEL KILN HARMERVILLE PENNSYLVANIA PLANT 

### REDLAND BRICK WILLIAMSPORT MARYLAND

BLUE MOUNTAIN PROJECT 494

APRIL 4, 2002
PREPARED BY PAUL JADLOWIEC DIVISION MANAGER-SOURCE TESTING

BLUE MOUNTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 1191 PITTSBURGH ROAD VALENCIA, PENNSYLVANIA 16059 

### .' :--**'~** 

### -./j

.

-- ..**~·----_,j**TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................1 2.0 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................2 3.0 PROCEDURES.....................................................................................................3 3.1 Field Work.................................................................................................3 3.1.1 Field Data Sheets ..........................................................................3 3.1.2 Emission Testing Station and Traverse Locations ...................3 3.1.3 Determination of Gas Flow and Gas Temperature .....................3 3.1.4 Determination of Dry MolecularWeight ......................................4 3.1.5 Determination of Moisture Content..............................................4 3.1.6 Determination of Particulate and Condensable Emissions
.......4 3.1.7 Determination ofVisible Emissions ............................................4 3.1.8 Determination of Hydrogen Fluoride and Hydrogen Chloride Emissions and Loading ................................................................4 3.1.9 Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions ............................5 3.1.1 0 Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions..........................5 3.1.11 Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions and Loading .........5 3.2 Analytical ..................................................................................................5 3.3 Calculations..............................................................................................5 3.4 Process Data ............................................................................................6 3.5 Field Equipment CaHbration
......;.................................................. 6 4.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS....................................................................................7 4.1 Particulate Emissions..............................................................................7 4.2 Condensible10 Emissions.......................................................................7 4.3 Visible Emissions.....................................................................................7 4.4 Hydrogen Fluoride Emissions and Loading and Control Device Removal Efficiency........................................................................7 4.5 Hydrogen Chloride Emissions and Loading and Control Device Removal Efficiency........................................................................8 4.6 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions ....................................................................8 4.7 Carbon Monoxide Emission ......................................................... 9 4.8 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions and Loading and Control Device Removal Efficiency...........................................................................,,.,.. 9

### TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3
Table 4 Emissions Summary, 100% Fireclay, March 5 and 6, 2002 Emissions Summary, 100% Shale March 11 and 12, 2002 Inlet Loading and Control Device Removal Efficiency For Hydrogen Fluoride, Hydrogen Chloride and Sulfur Dioxide, 100% Fireclay, March 5, 2002 Inlet Loading and Control Device Removal Efficiency For Hydrogen Fluoride, Hydrogen Chloride and Sulfur Dioxide, 100%Shale, March 11, 2002 APPENDICES AppendixA Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Field Data Sheets And One-Minute Concentrations Analytical Reports Calculations Process Data Field Equipment Calibration Data

### 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Redland Brick contracted Blue Mountain EnvironmentalManagement Corporation**(Blu~** Mountain) to conduct an emission evaluation at the new Brick Tunnel 

### Kiln located in H e e Pennsylvania. Emission testing was performed to demonstrate compliance withAllegheny ounty Health Department (ACHD) regulations. Testing was conducted to determine the following emissions:

• Particulate • Condensables • Visible • Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) • Hydrogen Chloride (HCI) • Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) • CarbonMonoxide (CO) • Sulfur Dioxide (SOz) Sampling was conducted during two separate sampling events. Each sampling event was conducted with a different raw material type for brick manufacturing. Sampling was conducted at the inlet and outlet ofthe control device to determine the removal efficiency for HF, HCl and SOz. Tables I through4 summarize the results ofthe testing.

1

### 2.0 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

The scope ofthis project was to determine particulate, condensables, visible, HF, HCI, NOx, CO and S02emissions at the new Brick Tunnel Kiln located at the Ha.m@ville Pennsylvaniaplant emission control systemusing approvedreference-sampling methods. HF, HCI and S02were measuredsimultaneously at the control system inlet and outlet to determine the removal efficiency for these compounds. Testing W?S conducted to determine the emissionrates and removal efficiencies using Fireclay and Shale asthe product rawmaterial. The measured emissions and removal efficiencies will be used to determine compliance with ACHD regulations. The following parameters were determined, at a minimum, for eachofthree test runs during each test: 

## • Gas Flow acfrn and dscfrn 

## • Gas Temperature 

### "F 

## • Gas Moisture %by volume 

## • Oxygen %by volume 

# • Carbon Dioxide %by volume 

## • Particulate Emissions gr/dscfand lb/hr 

## • Condensibles Emissions gr/dscfand Iblhr 

## • Visible Emissions %opaque 

## • HF Emissions and Loading gr/dscfand lb/hr 

## • HCI Emissions and Loading gr/dscfand lblhr 

## • NOx Emissions ppm and lb/hr 

## • CO Emissions ppm and lb/hr 

## • S02 Emissions and Loading ppm and lb/hr Sampling was conducted on March 5 and 6, 2002 during the manufacturing ofa Fireclay product and March 11 and. 12, 2002 during the manufacturing ofa Shale product. The Blue Mountain test personnel consisted ofMessrs. PauiJadlowiec, Joseph Stanger, Richard Eboli and William Ondriezek. Mr. John Vrobel served as company liaison. Messrs. Chad Chaney and Barry Miller from Redland Brick conducted the visible emission observations. Messrs. John Logan, James Lefik and Philip Lawrence from ACHD witnessed the emission testing.

2

### 3.0 PROCEDURES
3.1 FIELD WORK 3.1.1 Field Data Sheets Copies ofall field data sheets including the continuous analyzer printouts ofthe one-minute emission concentrations are contained in Appendix A. 3.1.2 Emission Testing Station and Traverse Locations The inlet duct to the emission control device has an internal diameter of54.0 inches at the test location. The nearest upstream disturbance is a bend andis approximately 38 :teet from the test location. The nearest downstream disturbance is a duct transition and is approximately 10 feet from the test location. EPAMethod !-Sample and Velocity Traverses From Stationary Sources was used to determine the number and location ofthe traverse points. Twelve points were used, SL'I: points at each oftwo test ports located ninety degrees to center. The six traverse points were located at the following distances from the inner duct wall: 2.4, 7.9, 16.0, 38.0, 46.1 and 51.6 inches. The outlet stack has an internal diameter of47.0 inches at the test location. The nearest upstream disturbance is the stack inlet plenum and is approximately 30 feet fromthe test location. The nearest downstream disturbance is the stack exit and is approximately 25 feet from thetest location. EPAMethod l was used to determine the number and location ofthe traverse points. Twelve points were used, six points at each oftwo test ports located ninety degrees to center. The six traverse points were located at the following distances from the inner stack wall: 2.1, 7.0, 13.9, 33.1, 40.1 and44.9 inches. 3.1.3 Determination of Gas Flow and Gas Temperature The gas flow rate and temperature profiles for the gas streams were measured by simultaneously conducting a velocity and temperature traverse for each emission and loading samplingrun. Gas velocity head was measured with a calibrated "S"-type Pitot tube that was connected to an inclined manometer. A chrome-alumel thermocouple attached to a digital indicator was used to measure the gastemperature at eachofthe traverse points. The gas flow and gas temperature measurements followed the principles ofEPAMethod 2-Determination ofStack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (Type S Pitot Tube).

33.1.4 Determination of Dry MolecularWeight A Fyrite analyzer was used to determine the molecular weightofthe exhaust gas using the principles ofEPAMethod 3-Gas Analysis for the Determination ofDryMolecular Weight. The average ofthree grab samples was used to calculate the molecular weight ofthe exhaust gas for each sample run. Percent carbon dioxide (C02) and oxygen (02) by volume were measured. Percent nitrogen (N2) by volume was determined by difference. 3.1.5 Determination of Moisture Content Moisture sampling was conducted using the principles presented in EPAMethod 4-Determination ofMoisture Content In Stack Gases concurrentlywiththe emission and loading sampling. Parameters evaluated in order to determine the gas streammoisture content were: sample gas volume, sample gas temperature, sample gas pressure, impinger moisture gain, and silica gel moisture gain. 3.1.6 Determination of Particulate and Condensible Emissions Particulate and condensible particulate emission sampling were conducted onMarch 6 and March 12, 2002 using the sampling train and methodology ofEPAMethod 5-Determination of Particulate Matter From Stationary Sources and EPAMethod 202-Detrmination ofCondensible Particulate From Stationary Sources. Particulate matter was withdrawn isokinetically from the gas stream and collected in a probe, nozzle and filter. This portion ofthe sample is called the fronthalf. A series ofglass impingers containing distilled water and silica gel collected water vapor and condensed particulate. This portion ofthe sample train is called the back-half. A calibrated dry gas meter measured the gas sample volume. 3.1.7 Determination ofVisible Emissions EPA Method 9-Visual Determination ofthe Opacity ofEmissions from Stationary Sources was used in this test program. A certified visible emission observer observed the opacity ofemissions for a 60-minute period during eachparticulate emission sampling run. 3.1.8 Determination of Hydrogen Fluoride and Hydrogen Chloride Emissions and Loading HF and HCl emissions and loading sampling was conducted using EPAMethod 26ADetermination ofHydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources onMarch 5 and 11, 2002. HF and HCl inparticulate and gaseous form were withdrawn isokinetically from the gas streams and collected in a glass-lined probe, glass nozzle, heated Teflon probe extension, Teflon filter and impingers containing a 0.1 normal solution ofsulfuric acid. The sample was collected in the same manner as particulate and condensables. A calibrated dry gas meter measured the gas sample volume.

43.1.9 Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Theprinciples ofEPA Method 7E-Determination ofNitrogen Oxides Emissions from Stationary Sources were used for this test program to determine NOx emissions. A gas sample was continuously extracted from the exhaust stack and a portion ofthe sample was conveyed to an analyzer. The analyzer measured the NOx concentration using the principles of chemiluminescence. The NOx data was recorded ona data logger. The data logger recorded a NOx concentration once eachminute. The emissionrate data in terms oflblhr was reported as nitrogen dioxide (N02). Sampling was conducted simultaneously with CO and S02emission sampling using the same extraction system. 3.1.10 Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions The principles ofEPA Method 

### 10- Determination ofCarbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources were used for this test programto determine CO emissions. A gas sample was continuously extracted from the gas stream and a portion ofthe sample was conveyed to an analyzer. The analyzer measured the CO concentrationusing the principles ofgas filter correlation. The CO data wasrecorded on a data logger. The data logger recorded a CO concentration once eachminute. Sampling was conducted simultaneously withNOx and S02 using the same extraction system 3.1.11 Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions and Loading The principles ofEPAMethod 6C-Determination ofSulfur Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure) were used for this test programto determine S02 emissions and loading. A gas sample was continuously extracted from the exhaust stack and a portion ofthe sample was conveyed to an analyzer. The analyzer measured the S02concentration using the principles ofinfrared analysis. The S02 datawasrecorded on a data logger. The data logger recorded a S02 concentrationonce each minute. Sampling was conducted simultaneously with CO and NOx emission sampling using the same extraction system. 

### 3.2 ANALYTICAL Copies ofall analytical reports are contained in Appendix B. Blue Mountain conducted the particulate emission gravimetric analysis. Air Quality Services Inc. conductedthe condensable, HF and HCI analysis. 

### 3.3 CALCULATIONS Emission calculations were completed using a computer spreadsheet format. The results ofeach pertinent parameter are detailed onthe spreadsheet for each sampling run and are contained in Appendix C.

5

### 3.4 PROCESS OATA A summary ofthe hourly production rates and natural gasusage for the test dates were summarized by Redland brick and are contained in Appendix D. The pressure drop across the baghouse and the pressure at the inlet to the baghouse were recorded during sampling and canbe found in the Comments section ofthe field data sheets. 

### 3.5 FIELD EQUIPMENT CALIBRATIONS The following field equipment calibration data are contained in AppendixE.

• Pitottubes;

• Thermocouples;

• Dry GasMeters and Orifices (Pre and Post Test);

• Nozzles;

• Visible Emission Observers Certification;

• Calibration Gas Certificates

• Analyzer Drift;

• Analyzer SystemBias;

• Analyzer Interference, and

• NOx AnalyzerNO to N02 conversation data. EPA Method 205-Verification ofGas Dilution Systems ForField Instrument Calibration was used to dilute calibration gases for the proper ranges ofconcentrations measured during the test. The Method 205 analyzer flow controller calibration data is contained in AppendixE.

6 

### •

### 4.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 4.1 Particulate Emissions The particulate emission concentration onMarch 6, 2002 using Fireclayranged from 0.00376 to 0.00848 grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf). The average was 0.00603 gr/dscf. The average particulate emission rate was 1.25 pounds perhour (lblhr). The particulate emission concentration onMarch 12, 2002 using Shaleranged from 0.00530 to 0.01513 gr/dscf. The average was 0.01243 gr/dscf. The average particulate emission rate was 2.61lblhr. 4.2 Condensable Emissions The condensable emission concentrationonMarch 6, 2002 using Fireclay ranged from 0.02546 to 0.03567 gr/dscf The average was 0.02985 gr/dscf. The average condensable emission rate was 6.18 lblhr. The particulate emission concentrationonMarch 12, 2002 using Shale ranged from 0.00042 to 0.00111 gr/dscf. The average was 0.00071 gr/dscf. The average condensable emission rate was 0.15 lblhr. 4.3 Visible Emissions The visible emissions on March 6, 2002 using Fireclay ranged from 0 to 10 percent opacity. The averages for the three observation periods were all 0.7 percent opacity. The visible emissions onMarch 12, 2002 using Shale ranged from 0 to 15 percent opacity. The averages for the three observation periodswere 1.4, 1.7, and 1.8 percent opacity. 4.4 Hydrogen Fluoride Emissions and Loading and Control Device Removal Efficiency The HF emission concentration onMarch 5, 2002 using Fireclay ranged from less than 0.00004 to 0.00041 gr/dscf. The average was less than 0.00020 gr/dscf. The average HF emission rate was less thag 0.04365 lblhr. Run 3 was not detectable and detection limit was used to calculate the concentration and emission rate. The HF emission concentration on March 11, 2002 using Shale was not detectable. The calculated emission rate and concentrationusing the detectionJlllllt was less than 0.00003 gr/dscf and less than 0.00624 lblhr. 

# ----

7The HF loading concentrationonMarch 5, 2002 using Fireclay ranged from 0.05702 to 0.06995 gr/dscf. The average was 0.06497 gr/dscf. The average HF loading rate was 6.5326lb/hr. The HF loading concentration on March II, 2002 using Shale ranged from less than 0.06549 to 0.07377 gr/dscf. The average was 0.07051 gr/dscf. The average HF loading rate was 7.12333 lb/hr. The control device removal efficiency fur HF onMarch 5, 2002 using Fireclay ranged'from 98.7 to 99.9 percent. The average was greater than 99.4 percent. The control device removal efficiencies for HF onMarch II, 2002 using Shale for all test runs were greaterthan99.9 percent. 4.4 Hydrogen Chloride Emissions and Loading and Control Device Removal Efficiency The HCl emission concentration onMarch 5, 2002 using Fireclay ranged from lessthan 0.00004 to 0.00011 gr/dscf. The average was less than0.00008 gr/dscf. The average HCl emissionrate was less than 0.01636 lblhr. Run 3 was not detectable and detectionlimit was used to calculate the concentrationand emission rate. The HCl emission concentrations onMarch II, 2002 using Shale were not detectable for all runs. The calculated emission rate and concentration using the detection limit was less than 0.00003 gr/dscfand less than 0.00624 lb/hr. The HClloadingconcentration on March 5, 2002
**using~ec~ged** from 0.02548 to 0.02758 gr/dscf. The average was 0.02625 gr/dscf. The average

### Herloadingrate
**w~** The HClloadingconcentrationon March II, 2002 using shale rangedfrom 0.01851 to 0.02059 gr/dscf. The average was 0.01944 gr/dscf. The average HClloadingrate was 1.96457lb/hr. 

### The control device removal efficiency for HCI onMarch 5, 2002 using Fireclay ranged 99.1 to greater than 99.7 percent. The average was greater than 99.4 percent. The control device removal efficiencies for HCI onMarch 11, 2002 using Shale for all test runs were greater than 99.7percent. 4.6 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions The NOx emission concentration onMarch 5, 2002 using Fireclay ranged from 13.93 to 29.90 parts per million (ppm). The average was 19.63 ppm. The average NOx emissionrate was 3.37 lb/hr.

8The NOxemissionconcentrationonMarch 11, 2002 using Shale ranged from 28.16 to 30.71 ppm. The average was 29.48 ppm. The average NOxemissionrate **was~·** 

### 4.7 Carbon Monoxide Emissions The CO emission concentrationonMarch 5, 2002 using Fireclayranged from 120.20to 153.73 ppm. The average was 140.84 ppm. The average NOx emissionrate was 14.86lblhr. The CO emission concentration onMarch 11, 2002 using Shale ranged from 77.10 to 83.08 ppm. The average was 79.04 ppm. The average CO emissionrate was 8.44 lblhr. 

### 4.8 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions and Loading and Control Device Removal Efficiency The S02 emission concentration onMarch 5, 2002 using Fireclayranged from 0.0to 55.6 ppm. The average was 18.57 ppm. The average S02 emissionrate was 4.47 lb/hr. The SO, emissionconcentration onMarch 11, 2002 using Shale ranged from 0.0to 0.5 ppm. The average was 0.17 ppm. The average S02 loading rate was 0.03 lblhr. The S02 loading concentrationonMarch 5, 2002 using Fireclay ranged from 1048.5 to 1096.4 ppm. The average was 1076.83 ppm. The average S02 loading rate was 126.07lblhr.


# ---------- The SO, loading concentration on March 11, 2002 using shale ranged from 59.9 to 75.0ppm. The average was 65.23 ppm. The average S02 loading rate was 7.67lblhr
. 

# ..____......... The control device removal efficiency for SO,onMarch 5, 2002 using Fireclay ranged 89.2 to 100.0percent. The average was 96.41 percent. The control device removal efficiency for SO, onMarch 11, 2002 using Shale ranged 98.6 to 100.0percent. The average was 99.52 percent.

9

### TABLES\ 

## <c TABLE 1
EMISSIONS SUMMARY 100% FIRECLAY March 5 and 6, 2002 Parameter Run 1 Run2 ParticulateMatterEmissions: gr/dscf 0.00848 0.00376 1b!hr 1.8 0.8 Condensible Emissions: gr/dscf 0.02843 0.03567 lb!hr 6.0 7.3 Hydrogen Fluoride Emissions: gr/dscf 0.00041 0.00015

**·~"-** 

## - . 

### lb!hr 0.0894 0.0336 Hydrogen Chloride Emissions: gr/dscf 0.00011 0.00008 lb!hr 0.0244 0.0168 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions: ppm 13.92 29.90 lb!hr 2.4 5.1 Carbon Monoxide Emissions: ppm 153.73 148.59 lb!hr 16.5 15.4 SulfurDioxide Emissions: ppm 0.1 0.0 lb!hr 0.0 0.0 Visible Emissions: Lowest Opacity, percent 0 0 Highest Opacity, percent 10 10 Average Opacity, percent 0.7 0.7 Run3 Average 0.00583 0.00603 1.2 1.25 0.02546 0.02985 5.3 6.18 0.00004 0.00020

0.0079 0.04365 0.00004 0.00008

0.0079 0.01636

15.07 19.63 2.6 3.37 120.20 140.84 12.7 14.86 55.6 18.57 13.4 4.47 0 0 10 10 0.7 0.70

### TABLE 2 EMISSIONS SUMMARY 100%SHALE March 11 and 12, 2002 Parameter Run 1 Run2 ParticulateMatterEmissions: gr/dscf 0.00530 0.01513 lb!hr 1.1 3.2 Condensible Emissions: gr/dscf 0.00111 0.00042 1b!hr 0.23 0.09 Hydrogen Fluoride Emissions: gr/dscf 0.00003 0.00003 lb!hr 0.0063 0.0062 Hydrogen ChlorideEmissions: gr/dscf 0.00003 0.00003 lblhr 0.0063 0.0062 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions: ppm 28.56 28.16 lblhr 5.1 4.9 Carbon MonoxideEmissions: ppm 77.10 76.95 lblhr 8.2 8.2 SulfurDioxide Emissions: ppm 0.0 0.5 lb!hr 0.0 0.1 Visible Emissions: Lowest Opacity, percent 0 0 Highest Opacity, percent 15 15 Average Opacity, percent 1.4 1.7 Run3 Average

**~** 

### 0))



# ~__;; 0.01243 

### 3.(

**l'~** ''---

**~** 0.00059 0.00071 0.12 0.15 0.00003 0.00003

.. ----- 0.0063 '0.00624 .•.. 0.00003 0.00003

.. 0.0063 0.00624

.. ·

30.71 29.48 5.4 

### -5.13 / 83.08 79.04 8.9 

### 8M 0.0 0.17 0.0
. **0.0~** )

0 0 15 15 1.8 1.63

### TABLE 3
INLET LOADING AND CONTROL DEVICE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR HYDROGEN FLUORIDE, HYDROGEN CHLORIDE AND SULFUR DIOXIDE

Parameter Hydrogen FluorideLoading: gr/dscf lblhr removal efficiency, % Hydrogen Chloride Loading: gr/dscf lb!hr removal efficiency, % SulfurDioxideLoading: ppm lb!hr removal efficiency, % 100% FIRECLAY March 5, 2002 Run1 0.06995

7.0659 98.7 0.02758

2.7864 99.1 1085.6

127.6 100.0 Run2 Run3 Average 0.06793 0.05702 0.06497 6.715 5.8168 6.5326

99.5 99.9 99.4 0.02567 0.02548 0.02625

2.5373 2.5995 2.641 99.3 99.7 99.4 1096.4 1048.5 1076.83

126.1 124.5 126.07 100.0 89.2 96.41

### TABLE4
INLET LOADING AND CONTROL DEVICE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR HYDROGEN FLUORIDE, HYDROGEN CHLORIDE AND SULFUR DIOXIDE

Parameter HydrogenFluorideLoading: gr/dscf lblhr removal efficiency, % Hydrogen Chloride Loading: gr/dscf lblhr removal efficiency, % SulfurDioxide Loading: ppm lblhr removal efficiency,% 

### 100 %SHALE March 11, 2002 Run 1 0.06549

6.7015 799.9 0.01851

1.8944 799.7



### 75.0

8.9 !00.0 Run2 Run3 Average 0.07227 0.07377 0.07051

7.1437 7.5248 7.12333 7 

### 99.9 799.9 799.9 0.01921 0.02059 0.01944

1.8986 2.1008 1.96457 799.7 799.7 7 

### 99.7 60.8 59.9 65.23

7.0 7.1 7.67 98.6 100.0 99.52