• 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 Molecular Weight ...................................... 4 

3.1.5 Determination of Moisture Content.. ............................................ 4 

3.1.6 Determination of Particulate and Condensable Emissions ....... 4 

3.1. 7 Determination of Visible 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 

Appendix A 

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 Environmental Management 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 with Allegheny 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) 

• Carbon Monoxide (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 of the control device to determine the removal efficiency for HF, HCl and SOz. 

Tables I through 4 summarize the results of the testing. 

1 
2.0 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES 

The scope of this project was to determine particulate, condensables, visible, HF, HCI, NOx, CO 

and S02 emissions at the new Brick Tunnel Kiln located at the Ha.m@ville Pennsylvania plant 

emission control system using approved reference-sampling methods. HF, HCI and S02 were 

measured simultaneously at the control system inlet and outlet to determine the removal efficiency 

for these compounds. Testing W?S conducted to determine the emission rates and removal 

efficiencies using Fireclay and Shale as the product raw material. The measured emissions and 

removal efficiencies will be used to determine compliance with ACHD regulations. The following 

parameters were determined, at a minimum, for each of three 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/ dscf and lb/hr 

• Condensibles Emissions gr/dscf and Iblhr 

• Visible Emissions %opaque 

• HF Emissions and Loading gr/dscf and lb/hr 

• HCI Emissions and Loading gr/ dscf and 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 of a Fireclay product 

and March 11 and. 12, 2002 during the manufacturing of a Shale product. The Blue Mountain test 

personnel consisted of Messrs. 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 of all field data sheets including the continuous analyzer printouts of the 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 of 54.0 inches at the test 

location. The nearest upstream disturbance is a bend and is approximately 38 :teet from the test 

location. The nearest downstream disturbance is a duct transition and is approximately 1 0 feet 

from the test location. EPA Method !-Sample and Velocity Traverses From Stationary Sources 

was used to determine the number and location of the traverse points. Twelve points were used, 

SL'I: points at each of two 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 of 47.0 inches at the test location. The nearest upstream 

disturbance is the stack inlet plenum and is approximately 30 feet from the test location. The 

nearest downstream disturbance is the stack exit and is approximately 25 feet from the test 

location. EPA Method l was used to determine the number and location of the traverse points. 

Twelve points were used, six points at each of two 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 sampling run. 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 gas temperature at each of the traverse points. The gas flow and gas temperature 

measurements followed the principles of EPA Method 2-Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and 

Volumetric Flow Rate (Type S Pitot Tube). 

3 
3.1.4 Determination of Dry Molecular Weight 

A Fyrite analyzer was used to determine the molecular weight of the exhaust gas using the 

principles of EPA Method 3-Gas Analysis for the Determination of Dry Molecular Weight. The 

average of three grab samples was used to calculate the molecular weight of the 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 EPA Method 4-Determination 

of Moisture Content In Stack Gases concurrently with the emission and loading sampling. 

Parameters evaluated in order to determine the gas stream moisture 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 on March 6 and March 

12, 2002 using the sampling train and methodology of EPA Method 5-Determination of 

Particulate Matter From Stationary Sources and EPA Method 202-Detrmination of Condensible 

Particulate From Stationary Sources. Particulate matter was withdrawn isokinetically from the gas 

stream and collected in a probe, nozzle and filter. This portion of the sample is called the fronthalf. A series of glass impingers containing distilled water and silica gel collected water vapor and 

condensed particulate. This portion of the sample train is called the back-half. A calibrated dry gas 

meter measured the gas sample volume. 

3.1.7 Determination of Visible Emissions 

EPA Method 9-Visual Determination of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources was 

used in this test program. A certified visible emission observer observed the opacity of emissions 

for a 60-minute period during each particulate 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 EPA Method 26ADetermination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources on March 5 

and 11, 2002. HF and HCl in particulate 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 of sulfuric acid. The sample was 

collected in the same manner as particulate and condensables. A calibrated dry gas meter 

measured the gas sample volume. 

4 
3.1.9 Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions 

The principles of EPA 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 of the sample was conveyed to an 

analyzer. The analyzer measured the NOx concentration using the principles of 

chemiluminescence. The NOx data was recorded on a data logger. The data logger recorded a 

NOx concentration once each minute. The emission rate data in terms of lblhr was reported as 

nitrogen dioxide (N02). Sampling was conducted simultaneously with CO and S02 emission 

sampling using the same extraction system. 

3.1.10 Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions 

The principles of EPA Method 10- Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions from 

Stationary Sources were used for this test program to determine CO emissions. A gas sample 

was continuously extracted from the gas stream and a portion of the sample was conveyed to an 

analyzer. The analyzer measured the CO concentration using the principles of gas filter 

correlation. The CO data was recorded on a data logger. The data logger recorded a CO 

concentration once each minute. Sampling was conducted simultaneously with NOx and S02 

using the same extraction system 

3.1.11 Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions and Loading 

The principles ofEPA Method 6C-Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Stationary 

Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure) were used for this test program to determine S02 

emissions and loading. A gas sample was continuously extracted from the exhaust stack and a 

portion of the sample was conveyed to an analyzer. The analyzer measured the S02 concentration 

using the principles of infrared analysis. The S02 data was recorded on a data logger. The data 

logger recorded a S02 concentration once each minute. Sampling was conducted simultaneously 

with CO and NOx emission sampling using the same extraction system. 

3.2 ANALYTICAL 

Copies of all analytical reports are contained in Appendix B. Blue Mountain conducted the 

particulate emission gravimetric analysis. Air Quality Services Inc. conducted the condensable, 

HF and HCI analysis. 

3.3 CALCULATIONS 

Emission calculations were completed using a computer spreadsheet format. The results of each 

pertinent parameter are detailed on the spreadsheet for each sampling run and are contained in 

Appendix C. 

5 
3.4 PROCESS OAT A 

A summary of the hourly production rates and natural gas usage 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 can be 

found in the Comments section of the field data sheets. 

3.5 FIELD EQUIPMENT CALIBRATIONS 

The following field equipment calibration data are contained in Appendix E. 

• Pitot tubes; 

• Thermocouples; 

• Dry Gas Meters and Orifices (Pre and Post Test); 

• Nozzles; 

• Visible Emission Observers Certification; 

• Calibration Gas Certificates 

• Analyzer Drift; 

• Analyzer System Bias; 

• Analyzer Interference, and 

• NOx Analyzer NO to N02 conversation data. 

EPA Method 205-Verification of Gas Dilution Systems For Field Instrument Calibration was used 

to dilute calibration gases for the proper ranges of concentrations measured during the test. The 

Method 205 analyzer flow controller calibration data is contained in Appendix E. 

6 

• 
4.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 

4.1 Particulate Emissions 

The particulate emission concentration on March 6, 2002 using Fireclay ranged 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 per hour (lblhr). 

The particulate emission concentration on March 12, 2002 using Shale ranged 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 concentration on March 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 concentration on March 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 on March 12, 2002 using Shale ranged from 0 to 15 percent opacity. The 

averages for the three observation periods were 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 on March 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 concentration using the detection Jlllllt was less than 0.00003 gr/dscf 

and less than 0.00624 lblhr. 

----

7 
The HF loading concentration on March 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 on March 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 on March II, 2002 using Shale for all test runs 

were greater than 99.9 percent. 

4.4 Hydrogen Chloride Emissions and Loading and Control Device Removal 

Efficiency 

The HCl emission concentration on March 5, 2002 using Fireclay ranged from less than 0.00004 

to 0.00011 gr/dscf. The average was less than 0.00008 gr/dscf. The average HCl emission rate 

was less than 0.01636 lblhr. Run 3 was not detectable and detection limit was used to calculate 

the concentration and emission rate. 

The HCl emission concentrations on March 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/dscf and less than 0.00624 lb/hr. 

The HClloading concentration on March 5, 2002 using~ec~ged from 0.02548 to 0.02758 

gr/dscf. The average was 0.02625 gr/dscf. The average Her loading rate w~ 

The HClloading concentration on March II, 2002 using shale ranged from 0.01851 to 0.02059 

gr/dscf. The average was 0.01944 gr/dscf. The average HClloading rate was 1.96457lb/hr. 

The control device removal efficiency for HCI on March 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 on March 11, 2002 using Shale for all test runs 

were greater than 99.7 percent. 

4.6 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions 

The NOx emission concentration on March 5, 2002 using Fireclay ranged from 13.93 to 29.90 

parts per million (ppm). The average was 19.63 ppm. The average NOx emission rate was 3.37 

lb/hr. 

8 
The NOx emission concentration on March 11, 2002 using Shale ranged from 28.16 to 30.71 

ppm. The average was 29.48 ppm. The average NOx emission rate was~· 

4.7 Carbon Monoxide Emissions 

The CO emission concentration on March 5, 2002 using Fireclay ranged from 120.20 to 153.73 

ppm. The average was 140.84 ppm. The average NOx emission rate was 14.86lblhr. 

The CO emission concentration on March 11, 2002 using Shale ranged from 77.10 to 83.08 ppm. 

The average was 79.04 ppm. The average CO emission rate was 8.44 lblhr. 

4.8 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions and Loading and Control Device Removal 

Efficiency 

The S02 emission concentration on March 5, 2002 using Fireclay ranged from 0.0 to 55.6 ppm. 

The average was 18.57 ppm. The average S02 emission rate was 4.47 lb/hr. 

The SO, emission concentration on March 11, 2002 using Shale ranged from 0.0 to 0.5 ppm. The 

average was 0.17 ppm. The average S02 loading rate was 0.03 lblhr. 

The S02 loading concentration on March 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 75.0 ppm. 

The average was 65.23 ppm. The average S02 loading rate was 7.67lblhr . ..____......... 

The control device removal efficiency for SO, on March 5, 2002 using Fireclay ranged 89.2 to 

100.0 percent. The average was 96.41 percent. 

The control device removal efficiency for SO, on March 11, 2002 using Shale ranged 98.6 to 

100.0 percent. The average was 99.52 percent. 

9 
TABLES 
\ <c 

TABLE 1 

EMISSIONS SUMMARY 

100% FIRECLAY 

March 5 and 6, 2002 

Parameter Run 1 Run2 

Particulate Matter Emissions: 

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 

Sulfur Dioxide 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 

Particulate Matter Emissions: 

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 Chloride Emissions: 

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 Monoxide Emissions: 

ppm 77.10 76.95 

lblhr 8.2 8.2 

Sulfur Dioxide 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 Fluoride Loading: 

gr/dscf 

lblhr 

removal efficiency, % 

Hydrogen Chloride Loading: 

gr/dscf 

lb!hr 

removal efficiency, % 

Sulfur Dioxide Loading: 

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 

Hydrogen Fluoride Loading: 

gr/dscf 

lblhr 

removal efficiency, % 

Hydrogen Chloride Loading: 

gr/dscf 

lblhr 

removal efficiency, % 

Sulfur Dioxide 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