# Osprey Units 29, 30 NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report

Prepared for: 

# Johns Manville

**Waterville Plant 7 7500 Dutch Road**  **Waterville, Ohio 43566**

**Project No. 10-3990.22 January 12, 2010** 

**BT Environmental Consulting, Inc.**

**2615 Wolcott Street Ferndale, Michigan 48220** 

**(248) 548-8070**

### Johns Manville Waterville, Ohio BTEC P roject No. 10-3990.22

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 12, 2011 

## i Executive Summary

U.S. EPA has agreed with the North American Insulat ion Manufacturer’s Association (NAIMA) and its members to a voluntary collection of residu al risk-related data for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Mineral Wool Production 1 

## as well as for the NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 2 

## . To assist in collecting the agreed upon data, BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. (BTEC) was retain ed by NAIMA to evaluate emission rates of the following pollutants from the one exhaust st ack associated with the Pot and Marble Process Units 29 and 30 located at the Johns Manville site in Waterville, Ohio:

• Particulate matter (PM) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5 

## )

• Antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, co balt, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium

• Mercury

• Hexavalent chromium

• Hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride

Reference test methods used and test program method ologies were agreed upon by U.S. EPA and NAIMA prior to initiating test program fieldwork. Table I on the following page summarizes the overall results of the emissions test program.

1 

### Codified at Title 40, Part 63, Subpart DDD of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 63, Subpart DDD )
2 

### Codified at 40 CFR 63, Subpart NNN

### Johns Manville Waterville, Ohio BTEC P roject No. 10-3990.22

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 12, 2011 

## ii Table I Emissions Test Program Results Summary

Source Test

Date(s) Pollutant MDL used Emission

Rate (lbs/hour) Emission

Rate (lbs/ton) Emission

Rate (mg/dscm)

Filterable PM 2.5 

## 7.0 x 10 -1 

## 4.4 x 10 0


## Organic Condensible PM 2.5 

## 6.8 x 10 -2 

## 4.2 x 10 -1



## Inorganic Condensible PM 2.5 

## < 8.7 x 10 -2 

## 5.4 x 10 -1 

## November 16-18, 2010

Total PM 2.5 

## < 8.6 x 10 -1 

## 5.4 x 10 0



## Filterable Particulate 8.8 x 10 -1 

## 5.9 x 10 0



## Antimony < 6.9 x 10 -5 

## 4.6 x 10 -4



## Arsenic < 6.9 x 10 -5 

## 4.6 x 10 -4 

## Beryllium < 1.7 x 10 -5 

## 1.1 x 10 -4



## Cadmium < 2.2 x 10 -5 

## 1.4 x 10 -4


## Chromium < 6.4 x 10 -5 

## 4.2 x 10 -4



## Cobalt < 4.2 x 10 -5 

## 2.7 x 10 -4


## Lead 2.0 x 10 -4 

## 1.3 x 10 -3 

## Manganese < 1.2 x 10 -4 

## 7.7 x 10 -4



## Nickel < 9.6 x 10 -5 

## 6.4 x 10 -4 

## November 16-18, 2010

Selenium < 1.7 x 10 -4 

## 1.1 x 10 -3



## November 16-17, 2010 Mercury 2.2 x 10 -5 

## 1.4 x 10 -4



## November 16-18, 2010 Hexavalent

Chromium 1.7 x 10 -4 

## 1.1 x 10 -3



## Hydrogen Chloride < 2.2 x 10 -2 

## 1.5 x 10 -1 

## Pot and Marble Unit 29, 30

November 17-18, 2010 Hydrogen Fluoride 3.8 x 10 -2 

## 2.6 x 10 -1


### Notes: (1) Pollutant emission rates in terms of m g/dscm were not corrected to 7% O 2 

### because exhaust from the process is essentially ambient (i.e., approximately 20.9% O 2 

### ). (2) The “less than” symbol (<) included in the tab le indicates that the emission rate was calculated using the method detection limit (MDL) value instead of zero because the analytical result was below the MDL for one or more of the sample fractions.

### Johns Manville Waterville, Ohio BTEC P roject No. 10-3990.22

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 12, 2011 

## iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................

................................................... ..................... 1

2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION ................................

................................................... ............ 1

2.1 P ROCESS 

## M ONITORING



## ................................................... ................................................... . 2

3.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGIES.............. ................................ 2

3.1 E XHAUST 

## G AS 

## V ELOCITY 

## , M OLECULAR 

## W EIGHT 

## , AND 

## M OISTURE 

## C ONTENT 

## .................... 2 3.2 PM AND 

## PM 2.5 

## C ONCENTRATIONS AND 

## E MISSION 

## R ATES



## ................................................... 3 3.3 T OTAL 

## S ELECTED 

## M ETALS 

## C ONCENTRATIONS AND 

## E MISSION 

## R ATES 

## ................................ 3 3.4 H G 

## C ONCENTRATIONS AND 

## E MISSION 

## R ATES



## ................................................... .................. 3 3.5 H EXAVALENT 

## C HROMIUM 

## C ONCENTRATIONS AND 

## E MISSION 

## R ATES 

## ................................. 4 3.6 HF AND 

## HC L 

## C ONCENTRATIONS AND 

## E MISSION 

## R ATES



## ................................................... .. 4

4.0 TEST RESULTS .......................................

................................................... ....................... 5

TABLES

Table 1 – Test Personnel Table 2 – Emissions Test Program Summary

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Exhaust Stack Traverse Point Diagram Figure 2 – Method 3A Sampling Train Schematic Drawi ng Figure 3 – OTM 27/OTM 28 Sampling Train Schematic D rawing Figure 4 – Method 29 Sampling Train Schematic Drawi ng Figure 5 – Method 30B Sampling Train Schematic Draw ing Figure 6 – Method 0061 Sampling Train Schematic Dra wing Figure 7 – Method 26A Sampling Train Schematic Draw ing

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Detailed Test Run Results Appendix B – Production Data Appendix C – Field and Computer-Generated Data Shee ts and Notes Appendix D – Equipment Calibration Documents Appendix E – Laboratory Analytical Reports

### Johns Manville Waterville, Ohio BTEC P roject No. 10-3990.22

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 12, 2010 1 

## 1.0 Introduction

U.S. EPA has agreed with the North American Insulat ion Manufacturer’s Association (NAIMA) and its members to a voluntary collection of residu al risk-related data for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Mineral Wool Production 3 

## as well as for the NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 4 

## . To assist in collecting the agreed upon data, BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. (BTEC) was retain ed by NAIMA to evaluate emission rates of the following pollutants from the one exhaust st ack associated with the Pot and Marble Process Units 29 and 30 located at the Johns Manville site in Waterville, Ohio:

• Particulate matter (PM) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5 

## )

• Antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, co balt, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium

• Mercury

• Hexavalent chromium

• Hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride

Reference test methods used and test program method ologies were agreed upon by U.S. EPA and NAIMA prior to initiating test program fieldwork. The emissions test program was conducted on November 15 through 19, 2010. The test program con sisted of emission tests at one exhaust stack for each parameter. The field sampling porti on of the emissions test program included the personnel summarized by Table 1.

Table 1 Emissions Test Program Personnel Personnel Affiliation Barry Boulianne BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. Todd Wessel BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. Matthew Snyder BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. Brandon Chase BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. Jon Beach BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sarah Harrison Johns Manville

2.0 Process Description

Units 29 and 30 are part of the Pot and Marble Proc ess. Glass marbles are melted and the molten glass is directed through bushings to form fiber gl ass. The glass is collected on drums, bailed and packaged. Particulate matter is controlled by an Os prey unit. The Osprey unit consists of filter media that removes the particulate matter and colle cts it in a bag. These units can also be controlled by the Ducon scrubbers as a backup.

3 

### Codified at Title 40, Part 63, Subpart DDD of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 63, Subpart DDD )
4 

### Codified at 40 CFR 63, Subpart NNN

### Johns Manville Waterville, Ohio BTEC P roject No. 10-3990.22

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 12, 2010 2 

## 2.1 Process Monitoring

During the emissions test program, the Pot and Marb le Process was operated under normal conditions. Process production data is available i n Appendix B. Control and/or additional production information will be available to the U.S . EPA on request.

3.0 Sampling and Analytical Methodologies

Sampling and analytical methodologies for the emiss ions test program can be separated into six categories as follows:

(1) Measurement of exhaust gas velocity, molecular weig ht, and moisture content; (2) Measurement of exhaust gas PM and PM 2.5 

## concentrations and emission rates; (3) Measurement of exhaust gas total selected metals co ncentrations and emission rates; (4) Measurement of exhaust gas Hg concentrations and em ission rates; (5) Measurement of exhaust gas hexavalent chromium conc entrations and emission rates; and, (6) Measurement of exhaust gas HF and HCl concentration s and emission rates.

Descriptions of sampling and analytical methodologi es by category are summarized by Sections 3.1 through 3.6, respectively.

3.1 Exhaust Gas Velocity, Molecular Weight, and Moistur e Content

Measurement of exhaust gas velocity, molecular weig ht, and moisture content was conducted using the following reference test methods codified at Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 60, Appendix A):

Method 1: “Location of the Sampling Site and Sampling Points” Method 2: “Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flowrate” Method 3A: “Determination of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concent rations in Emissions

from Stationary Sources”(Instrumental Analyzer Proc edure) Method 4: “Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases”

These test methods were used to evaluate exhaust ga s flowrates either in conjunction with the isokinetic sampling methodologies used to evaluate some pollutant emission rates or as separate, discrete measurements conducted in support of the n on-isokinetic sampling methodologies.

Stack gas velocity traverses were conducted in acco rdance with the procedures outlined in Method 1 and Method 2 (see Figure 1 for a traverse location drawing). An S-type pitot tube with a thermocouple assembly, calibrated in accordance w ith Method 2, Section 4.1.1, was used to measure exhaust gas velocity pressures (using a man ometer) and temperatures at each location during testing. The S-type pitot tube dimensions w as within specified limits, therefore, a baseline pitot tube coefficient of 0.84 (dimensionl ess) was assigned.

Molecular weight was determined according to USEPA Method 3A. The O 2 

## content of the exhaust gas was measured using a M&C Products PMA 1 00-L O 2 

## gas analyzer (or equivalent) and the CO 2 

## content of the exhaust gas was measured using a Ca lifornia Analytical Instruments

### Johns Manville Waterville, Ohio BTEC P roject No. 10-3990.22

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 12, 2010 3 

## (CAI0 600 Series CO 2 

## gas analyzer (or equivalent). An integrated sampl e of the gas stream was drawn through an insulated stainless-steel probe wi th an in-line glass fiber filter to remove any particulate and into a tedlar sample bag utilizing a evacuated sample lung. At the completion of each test the gas sample was introduced to the anal yzers. Data was recorded at 4-second intervals on a PC equipped with data acquisition so ftware. A schematic drawing of the emission monitoring system is provided as Figure 2.

Exhaust gas moisture content was evaluated using Me thod 4. Exhaust gas moisture content was be determined volumetrically (liquid impingers) and gravimetrically (silica gel impinger).

3.2 PM and PM 2.5 

## Concentrations and Emission Rates

PM/PM 2.5 

## concentrations and emission rates were measured us ing U.S. EPA Other Test Methods (OTM) 27 and OTM 28. PM, PM 2.5 

## , and CPM concentrations and emission rates were measured using BTEC’s Nutech ® Model 2010 modular isokinetic stack sampling syste m. This system consisted of (1) a tapered nozzle, (2) a PM 10 

## particle sizer cyclone followed by a PM 2.5 

## particle sizer cyclone, (3) a glass or quartz fiber filter assembly and heated probe, (4) a glass recirculating ice water condenser system, (5) a set of four GS impingers, (6) a length of sample line, and (7) a Nutech ® control case equipped with a pump, dry gas meter, and calibrated orifice. Prior to each test, the second and third impingers were filled with 100 ml of HPLC water, the first and fourth impingers were empty, a nd the fifth impinger contained approximately 300 g of silica gel desiccant. A sch ematic drawing of the PM 2.5 

## /CPM sample train is provided as Figure 3. The total filterabl e PM faction was collected on the front half of the M29 Metals sampling train as per the QAPP.

3.3 

## Total Selected Metals Concentrations and Emission R ates

Total selected metals concentrations and emission r ates were measured using the procedures of 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 29. Selected metals concentrations and emission rates were measured using BTEC’s Nutech ® Model 2010 modular isokinetic stack sampling syste m. This system consisted of (1) a borosilicate glass or qua rtz nozzle, (2) a steel probe w/glass liner, (3) a heated quartz fiber filter assembly, (4) a set of s ix GS impingers, (5) a length of sample line, and (6) a Nutech ® control case equipped with a pump, dry gas meter, and calibrated orifice. Prior to each test, the first two impingers were fi lled with 100 ml of a 5% nitric acid (HNO 3 

## )/10% hydrogen peroxide solution, the third impinge r was empty, and the fourth contained approximately 300 g of silica gel desicca nt. A schematic drawing of the metals sampling train is provided as Figure 4.

3.4 Hg Concentrations and Emission Rates

Hg concentrations and emission rates were measured using the procedures of 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 30B and using BTEC’s Nutech ® Model 2010 modular isokinetic stack sampling system. This system consisted of (1) a so rbent trap, (2) a steel probe, (3) Teflon tubing, (4) three GS impingers, (5) a length of sam ple line, and (6) a Nutech ® control case equipped with a pump, dry gas meter, and calibrated orifice. The first impinger was left empty as a water knockout, and the remaining two impinger s contained approximately 300 g of silica gel desiccant. A schematic drawing of the Hg sampl ing train is provided as Figure 5.

### Johns Manville Waterville, Ohio BTEC P roject No. 10-3990.22

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 12, 2010 4 

## 3.5 Hexavalent Chromium Concentrations and Emission Rat es

Hexavalent chromium concentrations and emission rat es were measured using the procedures of Method 0061 with analysis by NCASI CI/WM-98.01. He xavalent chromium concentrations and emission rates were measured using BTEC’s Nutech ® Model 2010 modular isokinetic stack sampling system. This system consisted of (1) a gl ass nozzle, (2) a heated steel probe with a glass probe liner, (3) a Teflon tee with a recircul ating pump, (4) five GS impingers, (5) a length of sample line, and (6) a Nutech ® control case equipped with a pump, dry gas meter, and a calibrated orifice. Prior to each test, the first impinger was filled with 150 mL of 0.1N KOH, the next two were filled with 75 mL of 0.1 N KOH, the f ourth was empty, and the last impinger contained approximately 300 g of silica gel desicca nt. A schematic drawing of the Method 0061 sampling train is provided as Figure 6.

3.6 HF and HCl Concentrations and Emission Rates

Measurement of hydrogen halide concentrations and e mission rates were conducted using the procedures of 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 26A. T he Method 26A sampling train consisted of: (1) a heated borosilicate or quartz probe liner ; (2) a heated borosilicate or quartz glass filter holder containing a pre-weighed 110-mm diameter was hed quartz filter with Teflon filter support; (3) a set of three Greensburg-Smith (GS) i mpingers each containing 100 ml of 0.1 Normal Sulfuric Acid (0.1 N H 2 

## SO 4 

## ), (4) a modified GS impinger containing a known we ight of silica gel desiccant; (5) a length of sample line, and (6) a Nutech control case equipped with a pump, dry gas meter, and calibrated orifice. Figur e 7 provides an illustration of the Method 26A sample train.

### Johns Manville Waterville, Ohio BTEC P roject No. 10-3990.22

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 12, 2010 5 

## 4.0 Test Results

The overall results of the emissions test program a re summarized by Table 2.

Table 2 Emissions Test Program Results Summary

Source Test

Date(s) Pollutant MDL used Emission

Rate (lbs/hour) Emission

Rate (lbs/ton) Emission

Rate (mg/dscm)

Filterable PM 2.5 

## 7.0 x 10 -1 

## 4.4 x 10 0


## Organic Condensible PM 2.5 

## 6.8 x 10 -2 

## 4.2 x 10 -1



## Inorganic Condensible PM 2.5 

## < 8.7 x 10 -2 

## 5.4 x 10 -1 

## November 16-18, 2010

Total PM 2.5 

## < 8.6 x 10 -1 

## 5.4 x 10 0



## Filterable Particulate 8.8 x 10 -1 

## 5.9 x 10 0



## Antimony < 6.9 x 10 -5 

## 4.6 x 10 -4



## Arsenic < 6.9 x 10 -5 

## 4.6 x 10 -4 

## Beryllium < 1.7 x 10 -5 

## 1.1 x 10 -4



## Cadmium < 2.2 x 10 -5 

## 1.4 x 10 -4


## Chromium < 6.4 x 10 -5 

## 4.2 x 10 -4



## Cobalt < 4.2 x 10 -5 

## 2.7 x 10 -4


## Lead 2.0 x 10 -4 

## 1.3 x 10 -3 

## Manganese < 1.2 x 10 -4 

## 7.7 x 10 -4



## Nickel < 9.6 x 10 -5 

## 6.4 x 10 -4 

## November 16-18, 2010

Selenium < 1.7 x 10 -4 

## 1.1 x 10 -3



## November 16-17, 2010 Mercury 2.2 x 10 -5 

## 1.4 x 10 -4



## November 16-18, 2010 Hexavalent

Chromium 1.7 x 10 -4 

## 1.1 x 10 -3



## Hydrogen Chloride < 2.2 x 10 -2 

## 1.5 x 10 -1 

## Pot and Marble Unit 29, 30

November 17-18, 2010 Hydrogen Fluoride 3.8 x 10 -2 

## 2.6 x 10 -1


### Notes: (1) Pollutant emission rates in terms of m g/dscm were not corrected to 7% O 2 

### because exhaust from the process is essentially ambient (i.e., approximately 20.9% O 2 

### ). (2) The “less than” symbol (<) included in the tab le indicates that the emission rate was calculated using the method detection limit (MDL) value instead of zero because the analytical result was below the MDL for one or more of the sample fractions.

### Johns Manville Waterville, Ohio BTEC P roject No. 10-3990.22

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 12, 2010 1 

## Detailed results for individual emission test run a re summarized in Appendix A. Process production data is included in Appendix B. Field a nd computer-generated data sheets are included in Appendix C. Appendix D includes calibr ation documents and Appendix E includes laboratory analytical reports.

Limitations

The information and opinions rendered in this repor t are exclusively for use by NAIMA and/or Isolatek International. BTEC will not distribute o r publish this report without NAIMA’s consent except as required by law or court order. BTEC acc epts responsibility for the competent performance of its duties in executing the assignme nt and preparing reports in accordance with the normal standards of the profession, but disclai ms any responsibility for consequential damages.

This report was prepared by: David Center Staff Environmental Engineer

This report was reviewed by: Randal J. Tysar Senior Environmental Engineer

# FIGURES

### diameter = 83"

Points Distance "
12 1.7
11 5.6 10 9.8 9 14.7 8 20.8 7 29.5 6 53.5 5 62.3 4 68.3 3 73.2 2 77.4 1 81.3



## Figure 1
Site: Johns Manville Waterville, Ohio Osprey Unit 29, 30 BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2615 Wolcott Street Ferndale, Michigan Not to Scale > 42"

> 166"

### Bags Samples to analyzers



## Figure 2
Site: USEPA Method 3A Johns Manville Lakeland, Florida Electric Melt Furnace BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2615 Wolcott Street Ferndale, Michigan

Data Acquisition System



### Calibration Gases (Fed to Probe Tip) Environics Gas Dilution System M&C Model 100-L O 2 

### Analyzer CAI Series 600 CO 2 

### Analyzer pump tedlar bagSite:USEPA OTM27/28Johns ManvilleWaterville, OhioOsprey Units 29, 30BT Environmental Consulting, Inc.2615 WolcottFerndale, MichiganFigure 3**Pump Silica gel** **Heated Filter Box S-Type Pitot w/ Thermocouple** **Heated Probe w/ Glass Liner & Nozzle Meter Rig** **Temp. Probe** **Filter On** **Off -** **+ 00:00** **1 2 3 4 5 45mm Filter Housing** **Filter Holder W/ Teflon Filter Verticle Condenser** **Pot Belly Impinger 100 mL DI H** **2 O** Figure 4Site:USEPA Method 5/29Johns ManvilleWaterville, OhioOsprey Units 29,30BT Environmental Consulting, Inc.2615 WolcottFerndale, MichiganPumpHeated Filter BoxS-type pitot w/ thermocoupleHeated probe with glass liner & nozzleMeter RigTemp.ProbeFilterOnOff-+00:001 2 3 4 5100 mL 5% HNO3 / 10% H2O2 solutionEmptySilica GelFigure 5Site:USEPA Method 30B Sampling TrainJohns ManvilleWaterville, OhioOsprey Units 29,30BT Environmental Consulting, Inc.2615 WolcottFerndale, Michigan 48220Knock outPumpTemperature sensorMeter RigTemp.ProbeFilterOnOff-+00:001 2 3 4 5Sample LineDessicantMercuryTrapProbeFigure 6Site:USEPA Method 0061Johns ManvilleWaterville, OhioOsprey Units 29, 30BT Environmental Consulting, Inc.2615 Wolcott St.Ferndale, MichiganPumpMeter RigTemp.ProbeFilterOnOff-+00:001 2 3 4 5150 mL 0.1 N KOHEmptySilica GelPerastaltic pumpTeflon tee75 mL 0.1 N KOHEmptyFigure 7Site:USEPA Method 26A Sampling TrainJohns ManvilleWaterville, OhioOsprey Units 29, 30BT Environmental Consulting, Inc.2615 WolcottFerndale, MichiganPumpHeated Filter BoxS-type pitot w/ thermocoupleHeated probe with glass linerMeter RigTemp.ProbeFilterOnOff-+00:001 2 3 4 5Empty100 mL 0.1N H2SO4Silica Gel

# APPENDIX A Detailed Test Run Results

### Plant Job #

Location OTM27/OTM 28 Testing

**Copyright by Walter Smith Run Number**  1 2 3 Average

**Date Test Date** 11/16/2010 11/17/2010 11/18/2010 **Start Run Start Time** 7:54:00 8:33:00 10:29:00

**Run Finish Time** 12:03:10 12:53:39 14:08:41 **Net Traversing Points** 11 12 12 

### Θ **Net Run Time, minutes** 236.37 227.05 215.49 226 

### D N **Nozzle Diameter, inches** 0.261 0.261 0.261 0.261


### C p **Pitot Tube Coeficient** 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 

### Y **Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor** 0.991 0.991 1.013 0.998 

### P Br **Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury** 29.77 29.82 30.17 29.92 

### ∆ H **Average orifice meter Differential, inches H 2**  **O** 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.47


### V m **Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet** 88.900 87.162 80.400 85.487


### t m **Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F** 55.91 68.83 68.13 64.29


### V mstd **Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf** 89.815 86.054 82.200 86.023


### V lc **Total Moisture Liquid collected, ml** 40 41 34 38.3


### V wstd **Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet** 1.88 1.93 1.60 1.80 

### % H 2 

### O **Moisture Content of Stack Gas, %** 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.1


### M fd **Dry Mole Fraction** 0.979 0.978 0.981 0.979 

### %CO 2 **Carbon Dioxide, %** 0.91 1.01 0.85 0.92 

### %O 2 **Oxygen, %** 19.62 19.66 19.53 19.60 

### % CO+ N 2 **Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, %** 79.47 79.33 79.62 79.5


### M d **Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole** 28.93 28.95 28.92 28.93


### M s **Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole** 28.71 28.71 28.71 28.71


### P g **Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H 2**  **O** -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 -0.25


### P s **Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury** 29.75 29.80 30.15 29.90


### t s **Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F** 294 290 295 293


### ∆ P avg **Average Velocity Head, inches of H 2**  **O** 0.168 0.170 0.168 0.169



### v s **Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second** 27.6 27.7 27.5 27.6


### A s **Stack Crossectional Area, square feet** 37.6 37.6 37.6 37.6 

### Q sd **Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm** 42,424 42,771

42,852

42,682 

### Q aw **Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm** 62,210 62,377

61,995

62,194 

### %I **Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, %** 90.7 89.6 90.1 90.1



### W p **Production, tons glass per hour** 

### W **Filterable PM 2.5**  **Catch Weight, mg** 10.50 9.91 11.57 10.66 

### C mg/dscm **Filterable PM 2.5**  **Concentration, mg/dscm** 4.1E+00 4.1E+00 5.0E+00 4.4E+00 

### C mg/dscm@7%O2 **Filterable PM 2.5**  **Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2**  N/A N/A N/A


### E lb/hr **Filterable PM 2.5**  **Emission Rate, pounds/hr** 6.6E-01 6.5E-01 8.0E-01 7.0E-01 

### E lb/ton product **Filterable PM 2.5**  **Emission Rate, pounds/ton product**


### W **Organic Condensible PM 2.5**  **Catch Weight, mg** 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 

### C mg/dscm **Organic Condensible PM 2.5**  **Concentration, mg/dscm** 4.3E-01 4.1E-01 4.3E-01 4.2E-01 

### C mg/dscm@7%O2 **Organic Condensible PM 2.5**  **Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2**  N/A N/A N/A


### E lb/hr **Organic Condensible PM 2.5**  **Emission Rate, pounds/hr** 6.9E-02 6.6E-02 6.9E-02 6.8E-02 

### E lb/ton product **Organic Condensible PM 2.5**  **Emission Rate, pounds/ton product**


### W **Inorganic Condensible PM 2.5**  **Catch Weight, mg** 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 

### C mg/dscm **Inorganic Condensible PM 2.5**  **Concentration, mg/dscm** 7.9E-01 4.1E-01 4.3E-01 5.4E-01 

### C mg/dscm@7%O2 **Inorganic Condensible PM 2.5**  **Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2**  N/A N/A N/A


### E lb/hr **Inorganic Condensible PM 2.5**  **Emission Rate, pounds/hr** 1.2E-01 6.6E-02 6.9E-02 8.7E-02 

### E lb/ton product **Inorganic Condensible PM 2.5**  **Emission Rate, pounds/ton product**


### W **Total PM 2.5**  **Catch Weight, mg** 13.6 11.9 13.6 13.0 

### C mg/dscm **Total PM 2.5**  **Concentration, mg/dscm** 5.3E+00 4.9E+00 5.8E+00 5.4E+00 

### C mg/dscm@7%O2 **Total PM 2.5**  **Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2**  N/A N/A N/A


### E lb/hr **Total PM 2.5**  **Emission Rate, pounds/hr** 8.5E-01 7.8E-01 9.4E-01 8.6E-01 

### E lb/ton product **Total PM 2.5**  **Emission Rate, pounds/ton product** 

### 10-3990.22

Johns Manville Waterville, Ohio Osprey Source TW, JB PersonnelPlant Job # Location Method 29 Metals

Copyright by Walter Smith Run Number 1 2 3 Average

Date Test Date 11/16/2010 11/17/2010 11/18/2010 Start Run Start Time 13:12:00 14:08:00 14:42:00

Run Finish Time 16:44:00 17:31:00 18:01:00 Net Traversing Points 24 24 24 Θ Net Run Time, minutes 192 192 192 192 D N Nozzle Diameter, inches 0.374 0.373 0.373 0.373 C p Pitot Tube Coeficient 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Y Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor 1.013 0.991 0.991 0.998 P Br Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury 29.77 29.82 30.17 29.92 ∆ H Average orifice meter Differential, inches H 2 O 2.25 1.99 1.95 2.06 V m Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet 162.188 152.306 152.525 155.673 t m Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F 72.47 73.05 73.31 72.94 V mstd Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 163.002 149.737 151.615 154.785 V lc Total Moisture Liquid collected, ml 78 71 60 69.7 V wstd Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet 3.67 3.34 2.82 3.28 % H 2 O Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 2.2 2.2 1.8 2.1 M fd Dry Mole Fraction 0.978 0.978 0.982 0.979 %CO 2 Carbon Dioxide, % 0.64 0.71 0.81 0.7 %O 2 Oxygen, % 19.8 19.77 19.55 19.7 % CO+ N 2 Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % 79.55 79.52 79.64 79.6 M d Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole 28.89 28.90 28.91 28.90 M s Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole 28.65 28.67 28.71 28.68 P g Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H 2 O -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 P s Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury 29.75 29.80 30.15 29.90 t s Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 286 298 300 295
∆ P avg Average Velocity Head, inches of H 2 O 0.163 0.146 0.144 0.151

v s Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second 27.1 25.7 25.5 26.1 A s Stack Crossectional Area, square feet 37.6 37.6 37.6 37.6 Q sd Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 42,056 39,246

39,547

40,283 Q aw Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 61,106 57,829

57,523

58,820 %I Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 99.5 98.5 98.9 99.0

W p Production, tons glass per hour W Particulate Method 5 Catch Weight, mg 17.8 19.5 39.6 25.6 C mg/dscm Particulate Concentration, mg/dscm 3.9 4.6 9.2 5.9 C mg/dscm@7%O2 Particulate Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2 N/A N/A N/A E lb/hr Particulate Emission Rate, pounds/hr 0.61 0.68 1.37 0.88 E lb/ton product Particulate Emission Rate, pounds/ton product W Antimony Catch Weight, μg 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 C mg/dscm Antimony Concentration, mg/dscm 4.3E-04 4.7E-04 4.7E-04 4.6E-04 C mg/dscm@7%O2 Antimony Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2 N/A N/A N/A E lb/hr Antimony Emission Rate, pounds/hr 6.8E-05 6.9E-05 6.9E-05 6.9E-05 E lb/ton product Antimony Emission Rate, pounds/ton product W Arsenic Catch Weight, μg 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 C mg/dscm Arsenic Concentration, mg/dscm 4.3E-04 4.7E-04 4.7E-04 4.6E-04 C mg/dscm@7%O2 Arsenic Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2 N/A N/A N/A E lb/hr Arsenic Emission Rate, pounds/hr 6.8E-05 6.9E-05 6.9E-05 6.9E-05 E lb/ton product Arsenic Emission Rate, pounds/ton product W Beryllium Catch Weight, μg 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 C mg/dscm Beryllium Concentration, mg/dscm 1.1E-04 1.2E-04 1.2E-04 1.1E-04 C mg/dscm@7%O2 Beryllium Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2 N/A N/A N/A E lb/hr Beryllium Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.7E-05 1.7E-05 1.7E-05 1.7E-05 E lb/ton product Beryllium Emission Rate, pounds/ton product W Cadmium Catch Weight, μg 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 C mg/dscm Cadmium Concentration, mg/dscm 1.7E-04 1.2E-04 1.4E-04 1.4E-04 C mg/dscm@7%O2 Cadmium Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2 N/A N/A N/A E lb/hr Cadmium Emission Rate, pounds/hr 2.7E-05 1.7E-05 2.0E-05 2.2E-05 E lb/ton product Cadmium Emission Rate, pounds/ton product W Chromium Catch Weight, μg 2.6 1.5 1.5 1.9 C mg/dscm Chromium Concentration, mg/dscm 5.6E-04 3.5E-04 3.5E-04 4.2E-04 C mg/dscm@7%O2 Chromium Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2 N/A N/A N/A E lb/hr Chromium Emission Rate, pounds/hr 8.9E-05 5.2E-05 5.2E-05 6.4E-05 E lb/ton product Chromium Emission Rate, pounds/ton product W Cobalt Catch Weight, μg 2.58 0.56 0.50 1.21 C mg/dscm Cobalt Concentration, mg/dscm 5.6E-04 1.3E-04 1.2E-04 2.7E-04 C mg/dscm@7%O2 Cobalt Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2 N/A N/A N/A E lb/hr Cobalt Emission Rate, pounds/hr 8.8E-05 1.9E-05 1.7E-05 4.2E-05 E lb/ton product Cobalt Emission Rate, pounds/ton product W Lead Catch Weight, μg 12.2 2.8 2.5 5.8 C mg/dscm Lead Concentration, mg/dscm 2.6E-03 6.6E-04 5.8E-04 1.3E-03 C mg/dscm@7%O2 Lead Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2 N/A N/A N/A E lb/hr Lead Emission Rate, pounds/hr 4.2E-04 9.7E-05 8.6E-05 2.0E-04 E lb/ton product Lead Emission Rate, pounds/ton product W Manganese Catch Weight, μg 3.8 3.8 2.6 3.4 C mg/dscm Manganese Concentration, mg/dscm 8.2E-04 9.0E-04 6.1E-04 7.7E-04 C mg/dscm@7%O2 Manganese Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2 N/A N/A N/A E lb/hr Manganese Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.3E-04 1.3E-04 9.0E-05 1.2E-04 E lb/ton product Manganese Emission Rate, pounds/ton product W Nickel Catch Weight, μg 3.3 2.5 2.6 2.8 C mg/dscm Nickel Concentration, mg/dscm 7.1E-04 5.9E-04 6.1E-04 6.4E-04 C mg/dscm@7%O2 Nickel Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2 N/A N/A N/A E lb/hr Nickel Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.1E-04 8.7E-05 9.0E-05 9.6E-05 E lb/ton product Nickel Emission Rate, pounds/ton product W Selenium Catch Weight, μg 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 C mg/dscm Selenium Concentration, mg/dscm 1.1E-03 1.2E-03 1.2E-03 1.1E-03 C mg/dscm@7%O2 Selenium Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2 N/A N/A N/A E lb/hr Selenium Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.7E-04 1.7E-04 1.7E-04 1.7E-04 E lb/ton product Selenium Emission Rate, pounds/ton product 10-3990.22

Johns-Manville Waterville, Ohio Osprey, Unit 29, 30 Source TW PersonnelM30B Mercury TestingCompany NamePlant Location CityPlant Location StateSource NameSource IDJohns Manville Waterville Ohio Units 29+30 Pot and Marble OspreyPlease note QA/QC documentation starting in Column "S"Measured Value(mg/dscm)CorrectedConcentration(mg/dscm at 7% O2)Basis (Wet or Dry)Test Method Used(EPA Method 30B)Data Flag (ADL,BDL, DDL)Test MethodCommentsCalculatedEmission Rate(lb/hr)1 11/16/2010 7:50 11/16/2010 9:50 1.44E-04 N/A Wet EPA Method 30B2.29E-052 11/16/2010 10:20 11/16/2010 12:20 1.51E-04 N/A Wet EPA Method 30B2.40E-053 11/17/2010 8:48 11/17/2010 10:48 1.23E-04 N/A Wet EPA Method 30B1.96E-05Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emission Test ResultsTest End TimeRun Number Test Start Date Test Start Time Test End DatePage 1 of 31/12/2011M30B Mercury TestingQA/QC DocumentationProcessProduction Rate(tons glass/hr)CalculatedEmission Rate(lb/ton)Trap IDSection 1Mass (ng)Section 2Mass (ng)TotalMass (ng)InitialSpike(ng)Total Non-Spike (ng)SampleVolume(dscm)VolumeDifference (%)Volume Diff.LimitBreaktrough(%)BreaktroughLimit2.1 0.9 19.62 62,210 42,424 293.36OTM27/28 run 1 for flow andmoisture; 11-16-2010 - 7:54-12:03R1, A 0.7 0.64 1.34 0 1.34 0.14 0% 912.1 0.9 19.62 62,210 42,424 293.44OTM27/28 run 1 for flow andmoisture; 11-16-2010 - 7:54-12:03R2, A 1.02 0 1.02 0 1.02 0.15 0% 02.2 0.6 19.81 62,378 42,771 288.8OTM27/28 run 2 for flow andmoisture; 11-17-2010 - 8:33-12:53R3, A 0.51 0 0.51 0 0.51 0.12 0% 0Trap #1≤20% of fieldrecovery test≤10% of Section1 Hg mass forHg conc. >1μg/dscm: or≤20% of Section1 for Hg conc.≤1μg/dscmFlue GasTemperature (F)Other Supporting InformationFlue GasMoisture(%)Flue GasO2(%)Flue GasCO2(%)Flue Gas FlowRate (dscfm)Flue GasFlow Rate(acfm)Page 2 of 31/12/2011M30B Mercury TestingConcentration(μg/dscm)Trap IDSection 1MassSection 2MassTotalMassInitialSpikeTotal Non-SpikeSampleVolumeVolumeDifference (%)Volume Diff.LimitBreaktrough (%)BreaktroughLimitConcentration(μg/dscm)Abs. diff. RD (%) LimitCrecR (%) by RunRavg(%)Limit0.01R1, B 20.0 0.79 20.79 20 0.79 0.14 0% 40.00.00 260.1348 970.01R2, B 21.3 0.26 21.56 20 1.56 0.15 0% 10.00.00 210.1356 1030.00R3, B 20.5 0.06 20.56 20 0.56 0.13 0% 00.00.00 10.1508 100AverageRecovery,between 85 and115%Trap #2Paired Trap Agreement (RD) Measured Spike Recovery ( R )≤20% of fieldrecovery test≤10% of Section1 Hg mass for Hgconc. >1μg/dscm: or≤20% of Section 1for Hg conc.≤1μg/dscm≥10 % RD massfor Hg conc. >1μg/dscm: or≤20% RD or≤0.2μg/dscm abs.diff.for Hg conc.≤1μg/dscm100Page 3 of 31/12/2011

## Plant Job #

Location Hex Chrome Testing - 0061

Copyright by Walter Smith Run Number 1 2 3 Average

Date Test Date 11/16/2010 11/17/2010 11/18/2010 Start Run Start Time 13:12:00 14:08:00 14:42:00

Run Finish Time 16:44:00 17:31:00 18:01:00 Net Traversing Points 24 24 24 

### Θ Net Run Time, minutes 192 192 192 192 

### D N Nozzle Diameter, inches 0.373 0.373 0.373 0.373


### C p Pitot Tube Coeficient 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 

### Y Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor 0.991 1.013 1.013 1.006 

### P Br Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury 29.77 29.82 30.17 29.92 

### ∆ H Average orifice meter Differential, inches H 2 O 2.29 2.17 2.00 2.16 

### V m Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet 166.643 155.339 149.237 157.073


### t m Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F 73.35 70.41 73.92 72.56 

### V mstd Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 163.587 156.955 151.487 157.343 

### V lc Total Moisture Liquid collected, ml 52 53 57 54.0 

### V wstd Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet 2.45 2.49 2.68 2.54 

### % H 2 

### O Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 

### M fd Dry Mole Fraction 0.985 0.984 0.983 0.984 

### %CO 2 Carbon Dioxide, % 0.64 0.71 0.81 0.72 

### %O 2 Oxygen, % 19.81 19.77 19.55 19.71 

### % CO+ N 2 Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % 79.55 79.52 79.64 79.6 

### M d Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole 28.89 28.90 28.91 28.90 

### M s Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole 28.73 28.73 28.72 28.73 

### P g Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H 2 O -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 

### P s Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury 29.75 29.80 30.15 29.90


### t s Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 282 298 298 293


### ∆ P avg Average Velocity Head, inches of H 2 O 0.168 0.158 0.146 0.157



### v s Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second 27.4 26.8 25.7 26.6 

### A s Stack Crossectional Area, square feet 37.6 37.6 37.6 37.6 

### Q sd Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 43,037 41,235

39,909

41,393 

### Q aw Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 61,756 60,367

57,835

59,986 

### %I Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 98.1 98.3 97.9 98.1



### W p Production, tons glass per hour 

### W Hexavalent Chromium Catch Weight, μg 10.8 2.74 1.04 4.9 

### C mg/dscm Hexavalent Chromium Concentration, mg/dscm 2.3E-03 6.2E-04 2.4E-04 1.1E-03 

### C mg/dscm@7%O2 Hexavalent Chromium Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2 N/A N/A N/A 

### E lb/hr Hexavalent Chromium Emission Rate, pounds/hr 3.8E-04 9.5E-05 3.6E-05 1.7E-04 

### E lb/ton product Hexavalent Chromium Emission Rate, pounds/ton product 

## 10-3990.22

Johns-Manville Waterville, Ohio Unit 2930 Osprey Source Matt Snyder Personnel

## Plant Job #

Location HCl and HF Testing - 26A

Copyright by Walter Smith Run Number 1 2 3 Average

Date Test Date 11/17/2010 11/18/2010 11/18/2010 Start Run Start Time 11:22:00 8:46:00 10:56:00

Run Finish Time 13:33:00 10:45:30 12:57:00 Net Traversing Points 24 24 24 

### Θ Net Run Time, minutes 60 60 60 60 

### D N Nozzle Diameter, inches 0.374 0.373 0.373 0.373


### C p Pitot Tube Coeficient 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 

### Y Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor 1.013 0.991 0.991 0.998 

### P Br Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury 29.82 30.17 30.17 30.05 

### ∆ H Average orifice meter Differential, inches H 2 O 1.95 1.99 2.01 1.98


### V m Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet 47.022 47.495 48.270 47.596


### t m Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F 75.35 61.85 71.67 69.63


### V mstd Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 47.047 48.253 48.137 47.812


### V lc Total Moisture Liquid collected, ml 22 24 23 23.0


### V wstd Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet 1.04 1.13 1.08 1.08 

### % H 2 

### O Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2


### M fd Dry Mole Fraction 0.978 0.977 0.978 0.978 

### %CO 2 Carbon Dioxide, % 0.71 0.86 0.85 0.8 

### %O 2 Oxygen, % 19.77 19.59 19.53 19.6 

### % CO+ N 2 Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % 79.52 79.55 79.62 79.6


### M d Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole 28.90 28.92 28.92 28.91


### M s Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole 28.67 28.67 28.68 28.67


### P g Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H 2 O -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 -0.25


### P s Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury 29.80 30.15 30.15 30.03


### t s Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 299 298 295 297


### ∆ P avg Average Velocity Head, inches of H 2 O 0.144 0.153 0.149 0.149



### v s Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second 25.7 26.2 25.9 25.9


### A s Stack Crossectional Area, square feet 37.6 37.6 37.6 37.6 

### Q sd Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 39,259 40,582

40,254

40,032 

### Q aw Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 57,916 59,143

58,399

58,486 

### %I Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 98.4 98.2 98.8 98.5



### W p Production, tons glass per hour 

### W HCl Catch Weight, μg 200 200 200 200 

### C mg/dscm HCl Concentration, mg/dscm 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 

### C mg/dscm@7%O2 HCl Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2 N/A N/A N/A


### E lb/hr HCl Emission Rate, pounds/hr 2.2E-02 2.2E-02 2.2E-02 2.2E-02 

### E lb/ton product HCl Emission Rate, pounds/ton product 

### W HF Catch Weight, μg 380 390 270 347 

### C mg/dscm HF Concentration, mg/dscm 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.0E-01 2.6E-01 

### C mg/dscm@7%O2 HF Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O 2 N/A N/A N/A


### E lb/hr HF Emission Rate, pounds/hr 4.2E-02 4.3E-02 3.0E-02 3.8E-02 

### E lb/ton product HF Emission Rate, pounds/ton product 

## 10-3990.22

Johns Manville Waterville, Ohio Units 29,30 Osprey Source JB Personnel

# APPENDIX B

Production Data

# APPENDIX C

Field and ComputerGenerated Data Sheets and

Notes

# APPENDIX D Equipment Calibration Documents

### Method Run Date Nozzle MB TC PT **Moistures 1 11/15/2010 N/A 2 N/A N/A 29 1 11/16/2010 0.374 6 7 ft A 7 ft A**  **29 2 11/17/2010 0.373 2 7 ft B 7 ft B 29 3 11/18/2010 0.373 2 7 ft A 7 ft A**  **0061 1 11/16/2010 0.373 2 7 ft B 7 ft B 0061 2 11/17/2010 0.373 6 7 ft A 7 ft A**  **0061 3 11/18/2010 0.373 6 7 ft B 7 ft B 26A 1 11/17/2010 0.374 6 7 ft A 7 ft A**  **26A 2 11/18/2010 0.373 2 7 ft A 7 ft A 26A 3 11/18/2010 0.373 2 7 ft A 7 ft A**  **30B 1 11/16/2010 N/A Clean Air 6ft - Hg 6ft - Hg 30B 2 11/16/2010 N/A Clean Air 6ft - Hg 6ft - Hg**  **30B 3 11/17/2010 N/A Clean Air 6ft - Hg 6ft - Hg OTM27/28 1 11/16/2010 0.261 2 8 ft A 8 ft A**  **OTM27/28 2 11/17/2010 0.261 2 8 ft A 8 ft A OTM27/28**  **3 11/18/2010**  **0.261 6**  **8 ft A 8 ft A** 

**O2 CO2**

**22.5 18.2 9.95 10.1**  **0.00 0.00**  **high-range mid-range**  **low-range Cylinder ID** 

**EB0021914 EB0023130**  **CC308758 Johns-Manville; Waterville Ohio - Pot & Marble** 

**BTEC Job# 10-3990.22** CALIBRATION SHEETS

**CEM cal value**METHOD 5 DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION USING CRITICAL ORIFICES1) Select three critical orifices to calibrate the dry gas meter which bracket the expected operating range.2) Record barometric pressure before and after calibration procedure.3) Run at tested vacuum (from Orifice Calibration Report), for a period of timenecessary to achieve a minimum total volume of 5 cubic feet.4) Record data and information in theGREENcells, YELLOW cells are calculated.INITIAL FINAL AVG (Pbar)DATE: 8/30/2010 METER SERIAL #: NT-2 BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (in Hg): 30.33 30.25 30.29 IF Y VARIATION EXCEEDS 2.00%,METER PART #: MB2 CRITICAL ORIFICE SET SERIAL #: 1447ORIFICE SHOULD BE RECALIBRATEDK' TESTEDTEMPERATURES °F ELAPSEDFACTOR VACUUM DGM READINGS (FT3) AMBIENT DGM INLET DGM OUTLET DGM TIME (MIN) DGM∆H(1)(2)(3)YORIFICE # RUN # (AVG) (in Hg) INITIAL FINALNET (Vm)INITIAL FINAL INITIAL FINAL AVGθ(in H2O) Vm(STD) Vcr(STD)YVARIATION (%)∆H@1 0.5057 16 874.890 880.880 5.990 81 80 83 79 80 80.5 9.00 1.4 5.94505.92870.9971.802 0.5057 16 880.880 886.870 5.990 81 83 86 80 81 82.5 9.00 1.4 5.92315.92871.0011.793 0.5057 16 886.870 892.885 6.015 82 86 87 81 83 84.25 9.00 1.4 5.92875.92320.9991.79AVG = 0.9990.791 0.8778 16 928.850 934.590 5.740 81 82 82 81 81 81.5 5.00 4.2 5.72495.71730.9991.802 0.8778 16 934.590 940.360 5.770 81 82 83 81 81 81.75 5.00 4.2 5.75215.71730.9941.803 0.8778 16 940.360 946.120 5.760 81 83 84 81 81 82.25 5.00 4.2 5.73695.71730.9971.80AVG = 0.9960.511 0.3367 16 912.130 917.630 5.50 83 90 90 87 87 88.5 12.00 0.6 5.36865.25350.9791.722 0.3367 16 917.630 923.140 5.510 80 90 92 87 89 89.5 12.00 0.6 5.36865.26810.9811.713 0.3367 16 923.140 928.680 5.540 83 92 93 89 89 90.75 12.00 0.6 5.38555.25350.9751.71AVG = 0.978-1.30AVERAGE DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION FACTOR, Y =0.991AVERAGE∆H@=1.77(1)=Net volume of gas sample passed through DGM, corrected to standard conditionsK1=17.64oR/in. Hg (English), 0.3858oK/mm Hg (Metric)Tm=Absolute DGM avg. temperature (oR - English,oK - Metric)∆H@=0.75θ∆H Vm(std)Vcr(std)Vm(2)=Volume of gas sample passed through the critical orifice, corrected to standard conditionsTamb=Absolute ambient temperature (oR - English,oK - Metric)K' = Average K' factor from Critical Orifice Calibration(3)=DGM calibration factor183212ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLY COMPANYUSING THE CRITICAL ORIFICES AS CALIBRATION STANDARDS:The following equations are used to calculate the standard volumes of air passed through the DGM, Vm(std), and the criticalorifice, Vcr(std), and the DGM calibration factor, Y. These equations are automatically calculated in the spreadsheet above.()2()TmHPbarVmKVmstd)6.13/(1)(∆+∗∗=TambPbarKVcrstdΘ∗∗=')()()(stdstdVmVcrY=Meter box 2 calsMETHOD 5 DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION USING CRITICAL ORIFICES1) Select three critical orifices to calibrate the dry gas meter which bracket the expected operating range.2) Record barometric pressure before and after calibration procedure.3) Run at tested vacuum (from Orifice Calibration Report), for a period of timenecessary to achieve a minimum total volume of 5 cubic feet.4) Record data and information in theGREENcells, YELLOW cells are calculated.INITIAL FINAL AVG (Pbar)DATE:11/24/2010METER SERIAL #: NT-2 BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (in Hg): 30.36 30.38 30.37 IF Y VARIATION EXCEEDS 2.00%,METER PART #: MB2 CRITICAL ORIFICE SET SERIAL #: 1447ORIFICE SHOULD BE RECALIBRATEDK' TESTEDTEMPERATURES °F ELAPSEDFACTOR VACUUM DGM READINGS (FT3) AMBIENT DGM INLET DGM OUTLET DGM TIME (MIN) DGM∆H(1)(2)(3)YORIFICE # RUN # (AVG) (in Hg) INITIAL FINALNET (Vm)INITIAL FINAL INITIAL FINAL AVGθ(in H2O) Vm(STD) Vcr(STD)YVARIATION (%)∆H@1 0.3367 16 40.880 47.10 6.220 61 67 68 66 67 67 14.00 0.59 6.33586.27370.9901.682 0.3367 16 47.10 55.090 7.990 61 68 69 67 67 67.75 18.00 0.59 8.12718.06620.9931.683 0.3367 16 55.090 59.990 4.90 61 69 69 67 67 68 11.00 0.59 4.98174.92940.9891.68AVG = 0.991-1.431 0.8778 16 60.210 66.970 6.760 62 69 71 66 68 68.5 6.00 4.4 6.92957.00301.0111.862 0.8778 16 66.970 73.750 6.780 62 71 73 68 68 70 6.00 4.4 6.93037.00301.0101.863 0.8778 16 73.750 80.520 6.770 62 73 73 68 69 70.75 6.00 4.4 6.91037.00301.0131.85AVG = 1.0120.631 0.5057 16 80.640 85.870 5.230 62 72 72 69 69 70.5 8.00 1.4 5.30255.37921.0141.772 0.5057 16 85.870 91.115 5.245 62 72 72 69 69 70.5 8.00 1.4 5.31775.37921.0121.773 0.5057 16 91.115 96.350 5.235 62 72 72 69 69 70.5 8.00 1.4 5.30765.37921.0131.77AVG = 1.0130.80AVERAGE DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION FACTOR, Y =1.005AVERAGE∆H@=1.77(1)=Net volume of gas sample passed through DGM, corrected to standard conditionsK1=17.64oR/in. Hg (English), 0.3858oK/mm Hg (Metric)Tm=Absolute DGM avg. temperature (oR - English,oK - Metric)∆H@=0.75θ∆H Vm(std)Vcr(std)Vm(2)=Volume of gas sample passed through the critical orifice, corrected to standard conditionsTamb=Absolute ambient temperature (oR - English,oK - Metric)K' = Average K' factor from Critical Orifice Calibration(3)=DGM calibration factor123218ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLY COMPANYUSING THE CRITICAL ORIFICES AS CALIBRATION STANDARDS:The following equations are used to calculate the standard volumes of air passed through the DGM, Vm(std), and the criticalorifice, Vcr(std), and the DGM calibration factor, Y. These equations are automatically calculated in the spreadsheet above.()2()TmHPbarVmKVmstd)6.13/(1)(∆+∗∗=TambPbarKVcrstdΘ∗∗=')()()(stdstdVmVcrY=Meter box 2 calsMETHOD 5 DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION USING CRITICAL ORIFICES1) Select three critical orifices to calibrate the dry gas meter which bracket the expected operating range.2) Record barometric pressure before and after calibration procedure.3) Run at tested vacuum (from Orifice Calibration Report), for a period of timenecessary to achieve a minimum total volume of 5 cubic feet.4) Record data and information in theGREENcells, YELLOW cells are calculated.INITIAL FINAL AVG (Pbar)DATE: 8/12/2010 METER SERIAL #: 1817 BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (in Hg): 29.8 29.8 29.8 IF Y VARIATION EXCEEDS 2.00%,METER PART #: MB 6 CRITICAL ORIFICE SET SERIAL #: 1447ORIFICE SHOULD BE RECALIBRATEDK' TESTEDTEMPERATURES °F ELAPSEDFACTOR VACUUMDGM READINGS (FT3)AMBIENT DGM INLET DGM OUTLET DGM TIME (MIN)DGM∆H(1) (2) (3)YORIFICE # RUN # (AVG) (in Hg) INITIAL FINALNET (Vm)INITIAL FINAL INITIAL FINAL AVGθ(in H2O) Vm(STD) Vcr(STD)YVARIATION (%)∆H@1 0.8778 15 570.245 575.950 5.705 85 86 88 85 85 86 5.00 4.175 5.55235.60411.0091.822 0.8778 15 575.950 581.730 5.780 85 88 86 85 85 86 5.00 4.175 5.62535.60410.9961.823 0.8778 15 581.730 587.441 5.711 85 86 87 85 86 86 5.00 4.175 5.55825.60411.0081.82AVG = 1.005-0.811 0.5057 16 587.441 596.625 9.184 85 87 90 86 87 87.5 14.00 1.325 8.85179.03991.0211.722 0.5057 16 596.625 612.380 15.755 85 90 94 87 88 89.75 24.00 1.325 15.122715.49691.0251.723 0.5057 16 612.380 618.290 5.910 85 94 94 88 89 91.25 9.00 1.325 5.65745.81131.0271.71AVG = 1.0241.141 0.3367 16 618.290 623.635 5.345 85 93 93 89 89 91 12.00 0.61 5.10995.15901.0101.772 0.3367 16 623.635 628.985 5.350 85 93 93 89 89 91 12.00 0.61 5.11465.15901.0091.773 0.3367 16 628.985 635.664 6.679 85 93 93 89 90 91.25 15.00 0.61 6.38236.44881.0101.77AVG = 1.010-0.32(1)=Net volume of gas sample passed through DGM, corrected to standard conditionsK1=17.64oR/in. Hg (English), 0.3858oK/mm Hg (Metric)AVERAGE DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION FACTOR, Y =1.013Tm=Absolute DGM avg. temperature (oR - English,oK - Metric)∆H@=0.75θ∆H Vm(std) AVERAGE∆H@=1.77(2)=Volume of gas sample passed through the critical orifice, corrected to standard conditionsVcr(std)VmTamb=Absolute ambient temperature (oR - English,oK - Metric)K' = Average K' factor from Critical Orifice Calibration(3)=DGM calibration factor321812METHOD 5 DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION USING CRITICAL ORIFICES1) Select three critical orifices to calibrate the dry gas meter which bracket the expected operating range.2) Record barometric pressure before and after calibration procedure.3) Run at tested vacuum (from Orifice Calibration Report), for a period of timenecessary to achieve a minimum total volume of 5 cubic feet.4) Record data and information in theGREENcells, YELLOW cells are calculated.INITIAL FINAL AVG (Pbar)DATE:11/22/2010METER SERIAL #: 1817 BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (in Hg): 29.97 29.92 29.945 IF Y VARIATION EXCEEDS 2.00%,METER PART #: MB 6 CRITICAL ORIFICE SET SERIAL #: 1447ORIFICE SHOULD BE RECALIBRATEDK' TESTEDTEMPERATURES °F ELAPSEDFACTOR VACUUMDGM READINGS (FT3)AMBIENT DGM INLET DGM OUTLET DGM TIME (MIN)DGM∆H(1) (2) (3)YORIFICE # RUN # (AVG) (in Hg) INITIAL FINALNET (Vm)INITIAL FINAL INITIAL FINAL AVGθ(in H2O) Vm(STD) Vcr(STD)YVARIATION (%)∆H@1 0.8778 16 757.820 767.990 10.170 66 69 74 68 69 70 9.00 4.2 10.246610.31801.0071.812 0.8778 16 767.990 777.0 9.010 66 74 77 69 70 72.5 8.00 4.2 9.03529.17161.0151.803 0.8778 16 777.0 783.870 6.870 66 77 79 70 70 74 6.00 4.2 6.86986.87871.0011.80AVG = 1.008-0.101 0.5057 16 742.20 747.360 5.160 65 66 69 66 66 66.75 8.00 1.4 5.19535.28881.0181.812 0.5057 16 747.360 752.520 5.160 65 69 71 66 67 68.25 8.00 1.4 5.18065.28881.0211.813 0.5057 16 752.520 757.770 5.250 65 71 73 67 67 69.5 8.00 1.4 5.25855.28881.0061.80AVG = 1.0150.601 0.3367 16 783.80 788.640 4.840 66 70 72 70 70 70.5 11.00 0.61 4.82934.83721.0021.772 0.3367 16 788.640 793.890 5.250 66 69 70 69 69 69.25 12.00 0.61 5.25085.27701.0051.773 0.3367 16 793.890 798.710 4.820 66 70 72 69 69 70 11.00 0.61 4.81394.83721.0051.77AVG = 1.004-0.50(1)=Net volume of gas sample passed through DGM, corrected to standard conditionsK1=17.64oR/in. Hg (English), 0.3858oK/mm Hg (Metric)AVERAGE DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION FACTOR, Y =1.009Tm=Absolute DGM avg. temperature (oR - English,oK - Metric)∆H@=0.75θ∆H Vm(std) AVERAGE∆H@=1.80(2)=Volume of gas sample passed through the critical orifice, corrected to standard conditionsVcr(std)VmTamb=Absolute ambient temperature (oR - English,oK - Metric)K' = Average K' factor from Critical Orifice Calibration(3)=DGM calibration factor321812

# APPENDIX E Laboratory Analytical ReportsParameterAverageTest Run DateTime Analyzed 13:30 16:44 9:49 13:29 9:03 13:47 18:57bag 1 bag 2 bag 1 bag 2 bag 1 bag 2 bag 3Oxygen concentration (%)19.58 19.77 19.64 19.75 19.57 19.54 19.56 19.68Oxygen concentration (%)(corrected as per USEPA 3A)19.62 19.81 19.66 19.77 19.59 19.53 19.55 19.71Carbon Dioxide concentration (%)0.92 0.65 1.04 0.74 0.90 0.91 0.88 0.79Carbon Dioxide concentration (%)(corrected as per USEPA 3A)0.91 0.64 1.01 0.71 0.86 0.85 0.81 0.78CO2CorrectionCo0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.08Cma10.10 10.10 10.10 10.10 10.10 10.10 10.10Cm10.12 10.12 10.21 10.22 10.23 10.11 10.04O2CorrectionCo0.05 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01Cma9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95Cm10.0 10.0 10.0 9.9 9.9 10.0 10.0Co= Average of initial and final zero gasesCma=Actual concentration of the calibration gasCm= Average of initial and final calibration gasesBTEC Project No. 10-3990.22Johns Manville - Waterville, OhioOsprey Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration Results Summary11/16/2010 11/17/2010 11/18/2010Sampling Dates: November 16 - 18, 2010AcetoneRinseVolume(mL)ParticulateWeight inAcetone(mg)ParticulateWeight onFilter(mg)Organic(mg)Inorganic(mg)FilterablePM2.5 CatchWeight (mg)OrganicPM2.5 CatchWeight (mg)InorganicPM2.5 CatchWeight (mg)Run 1981.010.02.13.010.501.12.0Run 2731.29.402.01.49.911.01.0Run 3462.89.202.01.311.571.01.0Blank:530.50ND2.72.7RDL:10.50.301.00.50CorrectedOTM 27/28 PM2.5Lab Results Blank CorrectionJohns-ManvilleWaterville, Ohio - OspreyBTEC job # 10-3990.22Sampling Dates: October 16-18, 2010OTM28OTM27AcetoneRinseVolume(mL)ParticulateWeight inAcetoneRinse (mg)ParticulateWeight onFilter (mg)ParticulateWeight inAcetoneRinse (mg)CombinedParticulateWeight (mg)Run 1100 4.1 13.70 4.117.8Run 2100 4.6 14.90 4.619.5Run 38822.217.4022.239.6Blank100 ND 0.50RDL1 0.5 0.30Method 5 PM Lab Results Blank CorrectionCorrectedSampling Dates: November 16 - 18, 2010BTEC job # 10-3990.22Waterville, Ohio - OspreyJohns-ManvilleCompound/FractionBlankFilterResult(μg)FilterRDL(μg)R1Result(μg)R2Result(μg)R3Result(μg)Test RunDetectionLimit (RDL)(μg)R1(μg)R2(μg)R3(μg)MDLusedAntimony ND 0.40 ND ND ND 2.02.0 2.0 2.0<Arsenic 0.71 0.40 ND ND ND 2.02.0 2.0 2.0<Berylium ND 0.10 ND ND ND 0.500.50 0.50 0.50<Cadmium ND 0.10 0.80 ND 0.59 0.500.80 0.50 0.59<Chromium 1.19 0.30 3.8 2.3 2.6 1.52.6 1.5 1.5<Cobalt ND 0.10 2.58 0.56 ND 0.502.58 0.56 0.50<Lead 0.74 0.20 12.9 3.5 3.20 1.012.2 2.8 2.5Manganese 2.73 0.75 4.5 ND 6.7 3.83.8 3.8 4.0<Nickel ND 0.50 3.3 ND 2.6 2.53.3 2.5 2.6<Selenium ND 1.0 ND ND ND 5.05.0 5.0 5.0<Johns-ManvilleMethod 29 Lab Results Blank CorrectionCorrectedSampling Dates: November 16 - 18, 2010BTEC job # 10-3990.22Waterville, Ohio - OspreyCorrectedTotal Volume(ml)ImpingerKOH (ml)HexavalentChromium,Cr6+ [μg] RDLHexavalentChromium,Cr6+ [μg]MDLusedRun 187030011.0 0.410.84Run 28703002.9 0.42.74Run 38703001.20.41.04Blank H2O210 NDBlank KOH130 0.07Method 0061 Lab Results Blank CorrectionSampling Dates: November 16 - 18, 2010BTEC job # 10-3990.22Waterville, Ohio - OspreyJohns-ManvilleVolume (mL)HydrochloricAcid (μg)HydrofluoricAcid (μg)HydrochloricAcid (μg)HydrofluoricAcid (μg)Run 1410ND380200380Run 2390ND390200390Run 3410ND270200270Blank H20220NDNDBlank H2SO4140 ND NDRDL1200200CorrectedMethod 26A Lab Results Blank CorrectionJohns-ManvilleWaterville, Ohio - OspreyBTEC job # 10-3990.22Sampling Dates: November 17 & 18, 2010

### Your Project #: 10-3990.02 Site: JM WATERVILLE Your C.O.C. #: 0698

Attention: Barry

Boulianne BT Environmental Consulting 2615 Wolcott St. Ferndale, MI USA 48220

Report Date: 2010/12/03



## CERTIFICATE

OF ANALYSIS

MAXXAM JOB #: B0G8038 Received: 2010/11/22, 14:00

Sample Matrix: Stack

Sampling Train # Samples Received: 8

Date Date Method Analyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method Reference Organic Condensable PM (OTM28) ( 1 ) 4 2010/11/29 2010/11/29 BRL SOP-00120 EPA OTM 28 Inorganic Condensable PM (OTM28) ( 1 ) 4 2010/12/01 2010/12/01 BRL SOP-00120 EPA OTM 28 2.5 um Particulates on Filter (OTM-027) ( 2 ) 4 N/A 2010/11/25 BRL SOP-00109 EPA OTM - 027 <2.5um Particulates in Rinse(OTM-027) ( 2 ) 4 2010/11/23 2010/11/25 BRL SOP-00109 EPA OTM - 027 Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 4 N/A 2010/12/01 Weight of DCM Received 4 N/A 2010/11/26 Weight of Water from Impingers 4 N/A 2010/11/26

* RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference.

(1) This is a non-accredited test. (2) This test was performed in Maxxam Mississauga under Maxxam Burlington SCC Accreditation



### Encryption

Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.

LINA BARRETO, Project Manager Email: LBarreto@maxxam.ca Phone# (905) 817-5700

==================================================================== Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Total cover pages: 1

Page 1 of 6

### BT Environmental Consulting Maxxam Job #: B0G8038 Client Project #: 10-3990.02 Report Date: 2010/12/03 Project name: JM WATERVILLE



### RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF STACK SAMPLING TRAIN

Maxxam ID H X 9 3 8 7 H

X 9 3 8 8 H

X 9 3 8 9 H

X 9 3 9 0 H

X 9 3 9 3 Sampling Date 2010/11/15 2010/11/16 2010/11/17 2010/11/18 2010/11/15 COC Number 0698 0698 0698 0698 U n i t s TRAIN R1-OTM28 R2-OTM28 R3-OTM28 TRAIN RDL QC Batch BLANK-OTM28 BLANK-OTM27

< 2.5 Particulate Weight in Acetone Rinse mg 0.5 0.5 2338103

< 2.5 Particulate Weight on Filter mg ND 0.30 2339906

Acetone Rinse Volume (2.5) ml 53 1 2338105 Weight g 340 310 400 210 0.1 2342114

DCM Weight g 340 310 340 340 0.1 2342113 Inorganic Condensible PM mg 2.7 3.0 1.4 1.3 0.50 2346181 Organic Condensible PM mg 2.7 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.0 2342111

ND = Not detected RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Maxxam ID H X 9 3 9 4 H

X 9 3 9 5 H

X 9 3 9 6 Sampling Date 2010/11/16 2010/11/17 2010/11/18 COC Number U n i t s R1-OTM27 R2-OTM27 R3-OTM27 RDL QC Batch

< 2.5 Particulate Weight in Acetone Rinse mg 1.0 1.2 2.8 0.5 2338103

< 2.5 Particulate Weight on Filter mg 10.0 9.40 9.20 0.30 2339906

Acetone Rinse Volume (2.5) ml 98 73 46 1 2338105

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 2 of 6

### BT Environmental Consulting Maxxam Job #: B0G8038 Client Project #: 10-3990.02 Report Date: 2010/12/03 Project name: JM WATERVILLE



### Test Summary

Maxxam ID HX9387 Collected 2010/11/15 Sample ID TRAIN BLANK-OTM28 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Organic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2342111 2010/11/29 2010/11/29 MGE Inorganic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2346181 2010/12/01 2010/12/01 BLM Weight of DCM Received 2342113 N/A 2010/11/26 FMO Weight of Water from Impingers 2342114 N/A 2010/11/26 BLM

Maxxam ID HX9388 Collected 2010/11/16 Sample ID R1-OTM28 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Organic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2342111 2010/11/29 2010/11/29 MGE Inorganic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2346181 2010/12/01 2010/12/01 BLM Weight of DCM Received 2342113 N/A 2010/11/26 FMO Weight of Water from Impingers 2342114 N/A 2010/11/26 BLM

Maxxam ID HX9389 Collected 2010/11/17 Sample ID R2-OTM28 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Organic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2342111 2010/11/29 2010/11/29 MGE Inorganic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2346181 2010/12/01 2010/12/01 BLM Weight of DCM Received 2342113 N/A 2010/11/26 FMO Weight of Water from Impingers 2342114 N/A 2010/11/26 BLM

Maxxam ID HX9390 Collected 2010/11/18 Sample ID R3-OTM28 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Organic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2342111 2010/11/29 2010/11/29 MGE Inorganic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2346181 2010/12/01 2010/12/01 BLM Weight of DCM Received 2342113 N/A 2010/11/26 FMO Weight of Water from Impingers 2342114 N/A 2010/11/26 BLM

Maxxam ID HX9393 Collected 2010/11/15 Sample ID TRAIN BLANK-OTM27 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst 2.5 um Particulates on Filter (OTM-027) BAL 2339906 N/A 2010/11/25 BLM <2.5um Particulates in Rinse(OTM-027) BAL 2338103 2010/11/23 2010/11/25 NUA Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2338105 N/A 2010/12/01 NUA

Page 3 of 6

### BT Environmental Consulting Maxxam Job #: B0G8038 Client Project #: 10-3990.02 Report Date: 2010/12/03 Project name: JM WATERVILLE



### Test Summary

Maxxam ID HX9394 Collected 2010/11/16 Sample ID R1-OTM27 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst 2.5 um Particulates on Filter (OTM-027) BAL 2339906 N/A 2010/11/25 BLM <2.5um Particulates in Rinse(OTM-027) BAL 2338103 2010/11/23 2010/11/25 NUA Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2338105 N/A 2010/12/01 NUA

Maxxam ID HX9395 Collected 2010/11/17 Sample ID R2-OTM27 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst 2.5 um Particulates on Filter (OTM-027) BAL 2339906 N/A 2010/11/25 BLM <2.5um Particulates in Rinse(OTM-027) BAL 2338103 2010/11/23 2010/11/25 NUA Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2338105 N/A 2010/12/01 NUA

Maxxam ID HX9396 Collected 2010/11/18 Sample ID R3-OTM27 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst 2.5 um Particulates on Filter (OTM-027) BAL 2339906 N/A 2010/11/25 BLM <2.5um Particulates in Rinse(OTM-027) BAL 2338103 2010/11/23 2010/11/25 NUA Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2338105 N/A 2010/12/01 NUA

Page 4 of 6

### BT Environmental Consulting Maxxam Job #: B0G8038 Client Project #: 10-3990.02 Report Date: 2010/12/03 Project name: JM WATERVILLE

GENERAL COMMENTS

Sample HX9387-01: ORGANIC EXTRACTION : Brownish oily material found in vial. INORGANIC EXTRACTION : Whitish residue found in aluminum dish.

Sample HX9388-01: ORGANIC EXTRACTION : Brownish oily material found in vial. INORGANIC EXTRACTION : Whitish residue found in aluminum dish.

Sample HX9389-01: ORGANIC EXTRACTION : Whitish oily material found in vial. INORGANIC EXTRACTION : Whitish residue found in aluminum dish.

Sample HX9390-01: ORGANIC EXTRACTION : Whitish oily material found in vial. INORGANIC EXTRACTION : Whitish residue found in aluminum dish.

Results relate only to the items tested.

Page 5 of 6

### BT Environmental Consulting Attention: Barry Boulianne Client Project #: 10-3990.02 P.O. #: Project name: JM WATERVILLE



### Quality Assurance Report

Maxxam Job Number: GB0G8038

QA/QC Date Batch Analyzed Num Init QC Type Parameter yyyy/mm/dd Value %Recovery Units QC Limits 2338103 NUA Method Blank < 2.5 Particulate Weight in Acetone Rinse 2010/12/01 ND, RDL=0.5 mg 2342111 MGE Spiked Blank Organic Condensible PM 2010/11/29 95 % 70 - 130

Spiked Blank DUP Organic Condensible PM 2010/11/29 93 % 70 - 130 RPD Organic Condensible PM 2010/11/29 2.1 % 20 Method Blank Organic Condensible PM 2010/11/29 ND, RDL=1.0 mg 2346181 MGE Method Blank Inorganic Condensible PM 2010/12/01 ND, RDL=0.50 mg

Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement. Spiked Blank: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery. Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.

Page 6 of 6

### Your Project #: 10-3990.02 Site: JM WATERVILLE

Attention: Barry

Boulianne BT Environmental Consulting 2615 Wolcott St. Ferndale, MI USA 48220

Report Date: 2010/12/06



## CERTIFICATE

OF ANALYSIS

MAXXAM JOB #: B0G8077 Received: 2010/11/22, 14:00

Sample Matrix: Stack

Sampling Train # Samples Received: 4

Date Date Method Analyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method Reference Metals in Combined Train (6020) ( 1 ) 4 2010/12/02 2010/12/03 BRL SOP-00103/ BRL EPA 6020 / M29 SOP-00102 Particulates/Acetone Rinse (M5/315/M201) ( 1 ) 4 2010/11/23 2010/11/30 BRL SOP-00109 EPA 5/315 Particulates/Filter (M5/315/NJATM1/M201) ( 1 ) 4 N/A 2010/11/26 BRL SOP-00109 EPA 5/315/NJATM1 Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 4 N/A 2010/11/25

* RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference.

(1) This test was performed in Maxxam Mississauga under Maxxam Burlington SCC Accreditation



### Encryption

Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.

LINA BARRETO, Project Manager Email: LBarreto@maxxam.ca Phone# (905) 817-5700

==================================================================== Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Total cover pages: 1

Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Burlington:5555 North Service Road, Burlington, Ontario L7L 5H7 Telephone(905) 332-8788 Fax(905) 332-9169
Page 1 of 8

### BT Environmental Consulting Maxxam Job #: B0G8077 Client Project #: 10-3990.02 Report Date: 2010/12/06 Project name: JM WATERVILLE



### RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF STACK SAMPLING TRAIN

Maxxam ID H X 9 5 6 2 H

X 9 5 6 3 H

X 9 5 6 4 H

X 9 5 6 5 Sampling Date 2010/11/18 2010/11/16 2010/11/17 2010/11/18 U n i t s BLANK-M5/29 RUN RUN RUN RDL QC Batch 1-M5/29 2-M5/29 3-M5/29

Acetone Rinse Particulate Weight in Acetone Rinse mg ND 4.1 4.6 22.2 0.5 2338106

Front Half Particulate Weight on Filter mg 0.50 13.7 14.9 17.4 0.30 2339931

Acetone Rinse Volume ml 100 100 100 88 1 2338109

ND = Not detected RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 2 of 8

### BT Environmental Consulting Maxxam Job #: B0G8077 Client Project #: 10-3990.02 Report Date: 2010/12/06 Project name: JM WATERVILLE



### ELEMENTS BY ICP/MS (STACK SAMPLING TRAIN)

Maxxam ID H X 9 5 6 2 H

X 9 5 6 3 H

X 9 5 6 3 H

X 9 5 6 4 H

X 9 5 6 5 Sampling Date 2010/11/18 2010/11/16 2010/11/16 2010/11/17 2010/11/18 U n i t s BLANK-M5/29 RDL RUN RUN RUN RUN RDL QC Batch 1-M5/29 1-M5/29 2-M5/29 3-M5/29

Lab-Dup

Total Antimony (Sb) ug ND 0.40 ND ND ND ND 2.0 2347966

Total Arsenic (As) ug 0.71 0.40 ND ND ND ND 2.0 2347966

Total Beryllium (Be) ug ND 0.10 ND ND ND ND 0.50 2347966

Total Cadmium (Cd) ug ND 0.10 0.80 0.86 ND 0.59 0.50 2347966

Total Chromium (Cr) ug 1.19 0.30 3.8 3.8 2.3 2.6 1.5 2347966

Total Cobalt (Co) ug ND 0.10 2.58 2.52 0.56 ND 0.50 2347966

Total Lead (Pb) ug 0.74 0.20 12.9 13.1 3.5 3.2 1.0 2347966

Total Manganese (Mn) ug 2.73 0.75 4.5 4.6 ND 6.7 3.8 2347966

Total Nickel (Ni) ug ND 0.50 3.3 3.6 ND 2.6 2.5 2347966

Total Selenium (Se) ug ND 1.0 ND ND ND ND 5.0 2347966

ND = Not detected RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 3 of 8

### BT Environmental Consulting Maxxam Job #: B0G8077 Client Project #: 10-3990.02 Report Date: 2010/12/06 Project name: JM WATERVILLE



### Test Summary

Maxxam ID HX9562 Collected 2010/11/18 Sample ID BLANK-M5/29 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Metals in Combined Train (6020) ICP1 /MS 2347966 2010/12/02 2010/12/03 N_R Particulates/Acetone Rinse (M5/315/M201) BAL 2338106 2010/11/23 2010/11/30 NUA Particulates/Filter (M5/315/NJATM1/M201) BAL 2339931 N/A 2010/11/26 BLM Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2338109 N/A 2010/11/25 NUA

Maxxam ID HX9563 Collected 2010/11/16 Sample ID RUN 1-M5/29 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Metals in Combined Train (6020) ICP1 /MS 2347966 2010/12/02 2010/12/03 N_R Particulates/Acetone Rinse (M5/315/M201) BAL 2338106 2010/11/23 2010/11/30 NUA Particulates/Filter (M5/315/NJATM1/M201) BAL 2339931 N/A 2010/11/26 BLM Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2338109 N/A 2010/11/25 NUA

Maxxam ID HX9563 D u p Collected 2010/11/16 Sample ID RUN 1-M5/29 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Metals in Combined Train (6020) ICP1 /MS 2347966 2010/12/06 2010/12/03 N_R

Maxxam ID HX9564 Collected 2010/11/17 Sample ID RUN 2-M5/29 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Metals in Combined Train (6020) ICP1 /MS 2347966 2010/12/02 2010/12/03 N_R Particulates/Acetone Rinse (M5/315/M201) BAL 2338106 2010/11/23 2010/11/30 NUA Particulates/Filter (M5/315/NJATM1/M201) BAL 2339931 N/A 2010/11/26 BLM Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2338109 N/A 2010/11/25 NUA

Maxxam ID HX9565 Collected 2010/11/18 Sample ID RUN 3-M5/29 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Metals in Combined Train (6020) ICP1 /MS 2347966 2010/12/02 2010/12/03 N_R Particulates/Acetone Rinse (M5/315/M201) BAL 2338106 2010/11/23 2010/11/30 NUA Particulates/Filter (M5/315/NJATM1/M201) BAL 2339931 N/A 2010/11/26 BLM Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2338109 N/A 2010/11/25 NUA

Page 4 of 8

### BT Environmental Consulting Maxxam Job #: B0G8077 Client Project #: 10-3990.02 Report Date: 2010/12/06 Project name: JM WATERVILLE

RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF STACK SAMPLING TRAIN

Particulates/Acetone Rinse (M5/315/M201): Sample vials HX9563-02R to HX9565-02R were found to contain a white residue after evaporation.

Particulates/Filter (M5/315/NJATM1/M201): Maxxam # Filter Condition

HX9562-01R Normal HX9563-01R Normal HX9564-01R Normal HX9565-01R DE/LFT

Normal Filters received in normal condition LFT Loose filter material in the petri dish DE Edges of the filter are frayed

ELEMENTS BY ICP/MS (STACK SAMPLING TRAIN)

Metals in Combined Train (6020): Extra 5x dilution was required for all samples except HX9562, due to the matrix. Post digestion duplicate and spike was done on sample HX9563. Trace level As was observed in the Processed Blank.

Results relate only to the items tested.

Page 5 of 8

### BT Environmental Consulting Attention: Barry Boulianne Client Project #: 10-3990.02 P.O. #: Project name: JM WATERVILLE



### Quality Assurance Report

Maxxam Job Number: GB0G8077

QA/QC Date Batch Analyzed Num Init QC Type Parameter yyyy/mm/dd Value %Recovery Units QC Limits 2338106 NUA Method Blank Acetone Rinse Particulate Weight in Acetone 2010/11/30 ND, RDL=0.5 mg 2347966 N_R Matrix Spike

(HX9563) Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/12/03 100 % 70 - 130 Matrix Spike DUP (HX9563) Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/12/03 101 % 70 - 130 MS/MSD RPD Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/12/03 1 % 20 Matrix Spike (HX9563) Total Arsenic (As) 2010/12/03 97 % 70 - 130 Matrix Spike DUP (HX9563) Total Arsenic (As) 2010/12/03 97 % 70 - 130 MS/MSD RPD Total Arsenic (As) 2010/12/03 0 % 20 Matrix Spike (HX9563) Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/12/03 98 % 70 - 130 Matrix Spike DUP (HX9563) Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/12/03 96 % 70 - 130 MS/MSD RPD Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/12/03 2.1 % 20 Matrix Spike (HX9563) Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/12/03 97 % 70 - 130 Matrix Spike DUP (HX9563) Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/12/03 97 % 70 - 130 MS/MSD RPD Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/12/03 0 % 20 Matrix Spike (HX9563) Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/12/03 104 % 70 - 130 Matrix Spike DUP (HX9563) Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/12/03 104 % 70 - 130 MS/MSD RPD Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/12/03 0 % 20 Matrix Spike (HX9563) Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/12/03 104 % 70 - 130 Matrix Spike DUP (HX9563) Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/12/03 104 % 70 - 130 MS/MSD RPD Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/12/03 0 % 20 Matrix Spike (HX9563) Total Lead (Pb) 2010/12/03 104 % 70 - 130 Matrix Spike DUP (HX9563) Total Lead (Pb) 2010/12/03 106 % 70 - 130 MS/MSD RPD Total Lead (Pb) 2010/12/03 1.9 % 20 Matrix Spike (HX9563) Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/12/03 106 % 70 - 130 Matrix Spike DUP (HX9563) Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/12/03 109 % 70 - 130 MS/MSD RPD Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/12/03 2.8 % 20 Matrix Spike (HX9563) Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/12/03 103 % 70 - 130 Matrix Spike DUP (HX9563) Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/12/03 103 % 70 - 130 MS/MSD RPD Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/12/03 0 % 20 Matrix Spike (HX9563) Total Selenium (Se) 2010/12/03 95 % 70 - 130 Matrix Spike DUP (HX9563) Total Selenium (Se) 2010/12/03 96 % 70 - 130 MS/MSD RPD Total Selenium (Se) 2010/12/03 1.0 % 20 Spiked Blank Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/12/03 98 % 85 - 115 Spiked Blank DUP Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/12/03 97 % 85 - 115 RPD Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/12/03 0.7 % 20 Spiked Blank Total Arsenic (As) 2010/12/03 97 % 85 - 115

Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Burlington:5555 North Service Road, Burlington, Ontario L7L 5H7 Telephone(905) 332-8788 Fax(905) 332-9169

Page 6 of 8

### BT Environmental Consulting Attention: Barry Boulianne Client Project #: 10-3990.02 P.O. #: Project name: JM WATERVILLE



### Quality Assurance Report

(Continued)

Maxxam Job Number: GB0G8077

QA/QC Date Batch Analyzed Num Init QC Type Parameter yyyy/mm/dd Value %Recovery Units QC Limits 2347966 N_R Spiked Blank DUP Total Arsenic (As) 2010/12/03 97 % 85 - 115

RPD Total Arsenic (As) 2010/12/03 0.7 % 20 Spiked Blank Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/12/03 98 % 85 - 115 Spiked Blank DUP Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/12/03 98 % 85 - 115 RPD Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/12/03 0.7 % 20 Spiked Blank Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/12/03 96 % 85 - 115 Spiked Blank DUP Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/12/03 95 % 85 - 115 RPD Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/12/03 1.2 % 20 Spiked Blank Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/12/03 96 % 85 - 115 Spiked Blank DUP Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/12/03 100 % 85 - 115 RPD Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/12/03 3.9 % 20 Spiked Blank Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/12/03 101 % 85 - 115 Spiked Blank DUP Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/12/03 101 % 85 - 115 RPD Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/12/03 0.6 % 20 Spiked Blank Total Lead (Pb) 2010/12/03 102 % 85 - 115 Spiked Blank DUP Total Lead (Pb) 2010/12/03 100 % 85 - 115 RPD Total Lead (Pb) 2010/12/03 1.8 % 20 Spiked Blank Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/12/03 99 % 85 - 115 Spiked Blank DUP Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/12/03 100 % 85 - 115 RPD Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/12/03 0.9 % 20 Spiked Blank Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/12/03 99 % 85 - 115 Spiked Blank DUP Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/12/03 99 % 85 - 115 RPD Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/12/03 0.7 % 20 Spiked Blank Total Selenium (Se) 2010/12/03 97 % 85 - 115 Spiked Blank DUP Total Selenium (Se) 2010/12/03 98 % 85 - 115 RPD Total Selenium (Se) 2010/12/03 1.5 % 20 Method Blank Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.40 ug Method Blank DUP Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.40 ug RPD Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Method Blank Total Arsenic (As) 2010/12/03 0.86, RDL=0.40 ug Method Blank DUP Total Arsenic (As) 2010/12/03 0.84, RDL=0.40 ug RPD Total Arsenic (As) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Method Blank Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.10 ug Method Blank DUP Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.10 ug RPD Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Method Blank Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.10 ug Method Blank DUP Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.10 ug RPD Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Method Blank Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.30 ug Method Blank DUP Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.30 ug RPD Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Method Blank Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.10 ug Method Blank DUP Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.10 ug RPD Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Method Blank Total Lead (Pb) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.20 ug Method Blank DUP Total Lead (Pb) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.20 ug RPD Total Lead (Pb) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Method Blank Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.75 ug Method Blank DUP Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.75 ug RPD Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Method Blank Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=0.50 ug Method Blank DUP Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/12/03 0.84, RDL=0.50 ug RPD Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Method Blank Total Selenium (Se) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=1.0 ug Method Blank DUP Total Selenium (Se) 2010/12/03 ND, RDL=1.0 ug

Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Burlington:5555 North Service Road, Burlington, Ontario L7L 5H7 Telephone(905) 332-8788 Fax(905) 332-9169

Page 7 of 8

### BT Environmental Consulting Attention: Barry Boulianne Client Project #: 10-3990.02 P.O. #: Project name: JM WATERVILLE



### Quality Assurance Report

(Continued)

Maxxam Job Number: GB0G8077

QA/QC Date Batch Analyzed Num Init QC Type Parameter yyyy/mm/dd Value %Recovery Units QC Limits 2347966 N_R RPD Total Selenium (Se) 2010/12/03 NC % 20

RPD - Sample/Sample Dup Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/12/03 NC % 20

Total Arsenic (As) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/12/03 2.4 % 20 Total Lead (Pb) 2010/12/03 1.6 % 20 Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/12/03 NC % 20 Total Selenium (Se) 2010/12/03 NC % 20

Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement. Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference. Spiked Blank: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery. Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination. NC (RPD): The RPD was not calculated. The level of analyte detected in the parent sample and its duplicate was not sufficiently significant to permit a reliable calculation.

Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Burlington:5555 North Service Road, Burlington, Ontario L7L 5H7 Telephone(905) 332-8788 Fax(905) 332-9169

Page 8 of 8

### Ohio Lumex Co., Inc. 9263 Ravenna Rd., Unit A-3 Twinsburg, OH 44087 Phone: (330) 405-0837 Fax: (330) 405-0847 www.ohiolumex.com Other



## Client Name 

# BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. Report Number BTEnvironmental120310 Report 1 of 3



## Date 

# 12/3/2010

Contact Name Phone (248)-548-8072

**Trap I.D. Test Location**  **Date Analyzed Scientist**  **Mass ng Sect.1**  **Mass ng Sect.2**  **Spike Level**  **Date(s) in Stack**  **Comments**
82389 Waterville, OH 12/2/2010 Matt Carhart 0.70 0.64 11/16/2010 Units 29&30 Osprey, Run 1, Trap A 80399 Waterville, OH 12/2/2010 Matt Carhart 20.0 0.79 20 11/16/2010 Units 29&30 Osprey, Run 1, Trap B 80333 Waterville, OH 12/2/2010 Matt Carhart 1.02 0 11/16/2010 Units 29&30 Osprey, Run 2, Trap A 70845 Waterville, OH 12/2/2010 Matt Carhart 21.3 0.26 20 11/16/2010 Units 29&30 Osprey, Run 2, Trap B 80302 Waterville, OH 12/2/2010 Matt Carhart 0.51 0 11/17/2010 Units 29&30 Osprey, Run 3, Trap A 82423 Waterville, OH 12/2/2010 Matt Carhart 20.5 0.06 20 11/17/2010 Units 29&30 Osprey, Run 3, Trap B 82355 Waterville, OH 12/2/2010 Matt Carhart 0.44 0.82 11/17/2010 Units 29&30 Osprey, Blank, Trap A 82420 Waterville, OH 12/2/2010 Matt Carhart 21.1 0 20 11/17/2010 Units 29&30 Osprey, Blank, Trap B

Variability +- 10% Turn - Around Time

Standard

48 hour rush

Less than .257 ng is considered "< LDL." Which is less than the lowest detection limit. 

## Plant/Source 

# Sorbent Trap Analysis Report

Calibration Report Available Barry Boulianne bboulianne@sbcglobal.net Matthew Smith msmith@btecinc.com 

# Johns Manville

### Your Project #: 10-3990.02 Site: JM WATERVILLE Your C.O.C. #: N/A

Attention: Barry

Boulianne BT Environmental Consulting 2615 Wolcott St. Ferndale, MI USA 48220

Report Date: 2010/12/06



## CERTIFICATE

OF ANALYSIS

MAXXAM JOB #: B0G8054 Received: 2010/11/22, 14:00

Sample Matrix: Stack

Sampling Train # Samples Received: 10

Date Date Method Analyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method Reference Hexavalent Chromium (M0061) 5 2010/11/25 2010/11/26 BRL SOP-00106 EPA 7199 (M0061) Hydrogen Halides in H2SO4 Imp. ( 1 ) 5 2010/11/30 2010/11/30 BRL SOP-00108 EPA Method 26A Volume of Sulfuric Acid Impinger 5 N/A 2010/11/30 Final Volume of KOH Impinger 5 N/A 2010/11/26

* RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference.

(1) This test was performed in Maxxam Mississauga under Maxxam Burlington SCC Accreditation



### Encryption

Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.

LINA BARRETO, Project Manager Email: LBarreto@maxxam.ca Phone# (905) 817-5700

==================================================================== Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Total cover pages: 1

Page 1 of 6

### BT Environmental Consulting Maxxam Job #: B0G8054 Client Project #: 10-3990.02 Report Date: 2010/12/06 Project name: JM WATERVILLE



### RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF STACK SAMPLING TRAIN

Maxxam ID H X 9 4 3 7 H

X 9 4 3 8 H

X 9 4 3 9 H

X 9 4 3 9 Sampling Date 2010/11/18 2010/11/18 2010/11/17 2010/11/17 COC Number N/A N/A N/A N/A U n i t s BLANK-H2O-M26A BLANK-H2SO4-M26A RUN RUN RDL QC Batch 1-M26A-H2SO4 1-M26A-H2SO4

Lab-Dup

Volume ml 220 140 410 1 2345550 Hydrochloric Acid ug ND ND ND ND 200 2345566 Hydrofluoric Acid ug ND ND 380 380 200 2345566

ND = Not detected N/A = Not Applicable RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Maxxam ID H X 9 4 4 0 H

X 9 4 4 1 H X 9 4 4 2 Sampling Date 2010/11/18 2010/11/18 2010/11/18 COC Number N/A N/A U n i t s RUN RUN QC Batch BLANK-H2O-M0061 RDL QC Batch 2-M26A-H2SO4 3-M26A-H2SO4

Volume ml 390 410 2345550 210 1 2340672

Hexavalent Chromium (Cr 6+) ug ND 0.1 2340666 Hydrochloric Acid ug ND ND 2345566 200 Hydrofluoric Acid ug 390 270 2345566 200

ND = Not detected N/A = Not Applicable RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Maxxam ID H X 9 4 4 3 H

X 9 4 4 4 H

X 9 4 4 4 H

X 9 4 4 5 H

X 9 4 4 6 Sampling Date 2010/11/18 2010/11/17 2010/11/17 2010/11/17 2010/11/18 COC Number U n i t s BLANK-KOH-M0061 RDL RUN RUN RUN RUN RDL QC Batch 1-M0061 1-M0061 2-M0061 3-M0061

Lab-Dup

Volume ml 130 1 870 870 870 1 2340672

Hexavalent Chromium (Cr 6+) ug 0.07 0.06 11 11 2.9 1.2 0.4 2340666

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 2 of 6

### BT Environmental Consulting Maxxam Job #: B0G8054 Client Project #: 10-3990.02 Report Date: 2010/12/06 Project name: JM WATERVILLE



### Test Summary

Maxxam ID HX9437 Collected 2010/11/18 Sample ID BLANK-H2O-M26A Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hydrogen Halides in H2SO4 Imp. IC /SPEC 2345566 2010/11/30 2010/11/30 A_S Volume of Sulfuric Acid Impinger 2345550 N/A 2010/11/30 A_S

Maxxam ID HX9438 Collected 2010/11/18 Sample ID BLANK-H2SO4-M26A Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hydrogen Halides in H2SO4 Imp. IC /SPEC 2345566 2010/11/30 2010/11/30 A_S Volume of Sulfuric Acid Impinger 2345550 N/A 2010/11/30 A_S

Maxxam ID HX9439 Collected 2010/11/17 Sample ID RUN 1-M26A-H2SO4 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hydrogen Halides in H2SO4 Imp. IC /SPEC 2345566 2010/11/30 2010/11/30 A_S Volume of Sulfuric Acid Impinger 2345550 N/A 2010/11/30 A_S

Maxxam ID HX9439 D u p Collected 2010/11/17 Sample ID RUN 1-M26A-H2SO4 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hydrogen Halides in H2SO4 Imp. IC /SPEC 2345566 2010/11/30 2010/11/30 A_S

Maxxam ID HX9440 Collected 2010/11/18 Sample ID RUN 2-M26A-H2SO4 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hydrogen Halides in H2SO4 Imp. IC /SPEC 2345566 2010/11/30 2010/11/30 A_S Volume of Sulfuric Acid Impinger 2345550 N/A 2010/11/30 A_S

Maxxam ID HX9441 Collected 2010/11/18 Sample ID RUN 3-M26A-H2SO4 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hydrogen Halides in H2SO4 Imp. IC /SPEC 2345566 2010/11/30 2010/11/30 A_S Volume of Sulfuric Acid Impinger 2345550 N/A 2010/11/30 A_S

Page 3 of 6

### BT Environmental Consulting Maxxam Job #: B0G8054 Client Project #: 10-3990.02 Report Date: 2010/12/06 Project name: JM WATERVILLE



### Test Summary

Maxxam ID HX9442 Collected 2010/11/18 Sample ID BLANK-H2O-M0061 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hexavalent Chromium (M0061) IC /SPEC 2340666 2010/11/25 2010/11/26 LLE Final Volume of KOH Impinger 2340672 N/A 2010/11/26 FMO

Maxxam ID HX9443 Collected 2010/11/18 Sample ID BLANK-KOH-M0061 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hexavalent Chromium (M0061) IC /SPEC 2340666 2010/11/25 2010/11/26 LLE Final Volume of KOH Impinger 2340672 N/A 2010/11/26 FMO

Maxxam ID HX9444 Collected 2010/11/17 Sample ID RUN 1-M0061 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hexavalent Chromium (M0061) IC /SPEC 2340666 2010/11/25 2010/11/26 LLE Final Volume of KOH Impinger 2340672 N/A 2010/11/26 FMO

Maxxam ID HX9444 D u p Collected 2010/11/17 Sample ID RUN 1-M0061 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hexavalent Chromium (M0061) IC /SPEC 2340666 2010/11/25 2010/11/26 LLE

Maxxam ID HX9445 Collected 2010/11/17 Sample ID RUN 2-M0061 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hexavalent Chromium (M0061) IC /SPEC 2340666 2010/11/25 2010/11/26 LLE Final Volume of KOH Impinger 2340672 N/A 2010/11/26 FMO

Maxxam ID HX9446 Collected 2010/11/18 Sample ID RUN 3-M0061 Shipped Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/11/22

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hexavalent Chromium (M0061) IC /SPEC 2340666 2010/11/25 2010/11/26 LLE Final Volume of KOH Impinger 2340672 N/A 2010/11/26 FMO

Page 4 of 6

### BT Environmental Consulting Maxxam Job #: B0G8054 Client Project #: 10-3990.02 Report Date: 2010/12/06 Project name: JM WATERVILLE

GENERAL COMMENTS

Results relate only to the items tested.

Page 5 of 6

### BT Environmental Consulting Attention: Barry Boulianne Client Project #: 10-3990.02 P.O. #: Project name: JM WATERVILLE



### Quality Assurance Report

Maxxam Job Number: GB0G8054

QA/QC Date Batch Analyzed Num Init QC Type Parameter yyyy/mm/dd Value %Recovery Units QC Limits 2340666 LLE Matrix Spike

(HX9444) Hexavalent Chromium (Cr 6+) 2010/11/26 116 % 80 - 120 Spiked Blank Hexavalent Chromium (Cr 6+) 2010/11/26 107 % 90 - 110 Method Blank Hexavalent Chromium (Cr 6+) 2010/11/26 ND, RDL=0.2 ug RPD - Sample/Sample Dup Hexavalent Chromium (Cr 6+) 2010/11/26 0.5 % 20 2345566 A_S Matrix Spike

(HX9439) Hydrochloric Acid 2010/11/30 96 % 80 - 120

Hydrofluoric Acid 2010/11/30 99 % 80 - 120 Spiked Blank Hydrochloric Acid 2010/11/30 98 % 90 - 110

Hydrofluoric Acid 2010/11/30 101 % 90 - 110 Method Blank Hydrochloric Acid 2010/11/30 ND, RDL=200 ug

Hydrofluoric Acid 2010/11/30 ND, RDL=200 ug RPD - Sample/Sample Dup Hydrochloric Acid 2010/11/30 NC % 20

Hydrofluoric Acid 2010/11/30 NC % 20

Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference. Spiked Blank: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery. Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination. NC (RPD): The RPD was not calculated. The level of analyte detected in the parent sample and its duplicate was not sufficiently significant to permit a reliable calculation.

Page 6 of 6