ENTEC Serw es 

Pollution Control System Evaluation and Source. Emission• Te•stiiig 

Pine HaftBrick 

c•;...•.,., Georgia 

Initial Compliance 

Kiln No. 2 DLA Outlet 

July 20, 2005 

Entec Project No, 25144 

16 D Commerce Avenue Hueytown Alabama 205-491-6676" Toll Free 1-800-429-8445 www.Entecservices.com 
Entec Services, Inc. 

16 D Commerce Avenue 

Hueytown, Alabama 35023 

Results of the June 22, 2005 

Initial Compliance Testing for Emissions on the 

No. 2 Kiln DLA Outlet 

•...&•.J •1. 

Facility in Fairmount, Georgia 

GEPD Permit No. 3251-129-0073-S-01-1 

Submitted to: 

.Pine Hall Brick Company, Inc. 

P.O. Box 836 

Madison, North Carolina 27025 

Attention: Mr. Harold Newman 

Entec Project No. 25144 

Project Manager 

Report Submitted: July 14, 2005 

Reviewed By: 

John T. Sutton 

President 

hereby certify to the best of my knowledge all field sampling and laboratory analysis performed 

for this report is authentic and accurate. It has been checked for completeness, accuracy, and 

conducted in accordance with the applicable EPA test procedures as amended by the applicable 

subparts. 
Pine Hall Brick Company, Inc. 

Table of Contents 

Section 

Executive Summary wl Emissions Summary 

Detailed Test Results 

Cont.rol Roo.m._ p_r_nductinn Data 

Sampling Procedures 

Particulate Field Data Sheets 

Instrumen.tal Field Data Sheets 

Location •'•-Test Ports 

P"relin•in•ry Traverse & Cyclonic Flow Test Results 

"Quality Control I Quality Assurance Procedures 

Pa•ae No. 

1 

3 

7 

9 

18 

31 

44 

46 

49 

Analyzer Interference Checks 

Particulate and Flow Equipment Calibrations 

Instrumental Analyzer Calibrations 

Calibration Gas Certifications 

Laboratory Analysis 

Test Calculations and Nomenclature 

58 

67 

83 

88 

98 

118 
Executive Summar• 

Entec Services, Inc. was contracted by Pine Hall Brick Company, Inc. to perform 

emissions testing on the No. 2 Kiln DLA Outlet at the Fairmount, Georgia facility. Mr. 

Tommy Lotz, Jr., Mr. Lynn Beane, Mr. Tim Draheim, Mr. Joseph Lotz and Mr. Eddie 

Rudloff of Entec Services, Inc. conducted the testing on June 22, 2005. Representing 

Pine Hall Brick Company was Mr. Harold Newman who coordinated testing with the 

control room production activity. 

Particulate, Hydrogen Chloride, and Hydrogen Fluoride emissions testing was 

performed in accordance with EPA CFR 40 Part 60 Appendix "A" methods 1-5 and 26A. 

Instrumental analysis of stack gases was performed in accordance with EPA CFR 40 

Part 60 Appendix "A" methods 3A, 6C, and 10. Three sixty (60) minute test runs were 

performed on this source with the operations at approximately nin.ety (90) percent load. 

A method 6C interf_.er_.ence check was performed in conjunction with Method 6C 

because _the/,ana!yz•er used had not previously been checked when testing a Brick Kiln 

as'req•red for QA./QC procedures. 

; 

Entec Services, Inc. encountered no difficulties in the field collection of the samples or 

in the laboratory analysis of the samples. 

The emissions test summary on the following page gives a detailed summary of each 

test run compared to the maximum emission limits set forth by the Georgia 

Environmental Protection Department (GEPD). Tests results indicate that the 

emissions results are below the emission standards set forth by GEPD Permit No. 

3251-129-0073-S-01-1. 
Test Performed For: 

Source Tested: 

Test Condition: 

Test(s) Performed: 

Run Number 

Emissions Summary 

Pine Hall Brick 

Fairmount, Georgia 

Kiln No. 2 DLA Outlet 

Initial Compliance 

Particulate, HCI, HF, and Gas Testing 

Testing Performed By: 

Birmingham Division 

Project Manager'. 

Mr. Tommy Lotz, Jr. 

Run I Run 2 Run 3 Average 

Date of Run 

Start Time Stop time 

6/22/05 6122/05 6122/05 

0945-1058 1205-1314 1355-1500 

16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 

16.2 16.5 16.9 16.5 

2.4 2.2 2.0 2.2 

5.3 6.9 7.1 6.4 

66.7 60.0 53.2 60.0 

107.03 104.09 104.31 105.14 

367 369 370 369 

9.68 9.94 9.24 9.62 

40.84 40.09 43.16 41.36 

29,525 28,980 31,197 29,901 Permit 

16,699 16,301 17,649 16,883 Umits 

Control Room Data, Tons of Brick Produced 

Oxygen Concentration, % 

Carbon Dioxide Concentration, % 

Sulfur Dioxide Concentration, ppm 

Carbon Monoxide Concentration, ppmIsokinetic Sampling Rate, % 

Stack Temperature, °F 

Moisture Cpnte tr t•%-volu•e 

Stack Gas Velocity, F/S 

Stack Gas Flow, P•CFM" 

Volumetric Flow Rate, DSCFM 

Visual Emissions, highest SMA 

Particulate Emissions 

Particulate Emissions 

Particulate Emissions 

Sulfur Dioxide Emissions 

Sulfur Dioxide Emissions 

Sulfur Dioxide Emissions. 

Carbon Monoxide Emiss=ons 

Carbon Monoxide EmissiOns 

Hydrogen Chloride Emiss, ons 

Hydrogen Chloride Emiss=ons 

Hydrogen FI,ouddp Emissions 

Hydrogen Flouride Emiss=ons 

% 0.0 0.0 0.0 

grldscf 0.004 0.014 0.008 

Lbs/Hr 0.59 2.01 1.21 

Lbs/Ton of Brick 0.04 0.12 0.07 

Lbs/Hr 0.88 1.12 1.25 

Tons/Year 3.87 4.92 5.48 

Lbs/Ton of Brick 0.05 0.07 0.08 

Lbs/Hr 4.86 4.27 4.10 

Lbs/Ton of Brick .0.30 0.26 0.25 

grldecf 0.002. 0.002. 0.002 

Lbs/Hr 0.i06 0.311 0.325 

grldscf.'. 0.001 0.001. '.0J)01 

Lbs/Hr 0.180 0.183 0.182 

0.0 

0.009 

1.27 2.80 

0.08 

1.09 

4.75 

0.07 

4.41 

0.27 

0.002 

0.314 

0.001 

0.182 0.975 

The visible emissions from this source were below 

The Lbs/Hr particulate emissions from this source were below 

The Tons/Year sulfur dioxide emissions from this source were below 

The Lbs/Hr hydrogen chloride emissions from this source were below 

The Lbs/Hr hydrogen flouride emissions from this source were below 

the applicable standards. 

the applicable standards. 

the applicable standards. 

the applicable standards. 

the applicable standards. 
Detailed Test Results 
SOURCE OWNER: 

PLANT LOCATION: 

SOURCE(S) NAME(S): 

SOURCE(S) CONDITION: 

SOURCE(S) SHAPE: 

PROBE WASH CHEMICAL: 

SOURCE PERMIT NUMBER: 

TEST PERFORMED: 

REFERENCE METHOD TESTS:• 

PROJECT MANAGER 

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYST PROJECT LEADER 

ENVIRONMENTAL •AI•ALYST- ASSISTANT 

ENVIRONMENTAlly_SPECIALIST VE READERS 

OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: 

RULING AGENCY 

RULING AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: 

DATES TESTS CONDUCTED: 

ENTEC PROJECT NUMBER: 

Entec Services, inc. 

SOURCE OVERVIEW 

Pine Hall Brick 

Fairmou•, Georgia 

Kiln No. 2 DLA Outlet 

Initial Compliance 

Circular 

Acetone 

3251-129-0073-S-01-1 

Particulate, HCI, HF, and Gas Testing 

Sample Location EPA Method 1 

Votumeldc Flow EPA Method 2 

Molecular Weight EPA Method 3A 

Moisture Content EPA Method 4 

Sulfur Dioxide EPA Method 6C 

Visible Emissions EPA Method 9 

Carbon Monoxide EPA Method 10 

Particulate EPA Method 26A 

Hydrogen Flouride EPA Method 26A 

Hydrogen Chloride EPA Method 26A 

Mr. Tommy Lotz, Jr. 

Mr. Tommy Lotz, Jr. 

Mr. Joseph Lotz 

Eddie Rudloff 

Mr.Harold Newman 

Georgia Environmental Protection Department 

None 

06f22/05 

25144 
ENTEC Services, Inc. 

16-D Commerce Ave. Alabama 35023 

INPUT DATA 

Client: 

Source: 

Run Number 

Test Date 

Pine Hall Brick 

Kiln No. 2 DLA Outlet 

Field Data Symbol 

Time Test Run Began Ended 

Sampling Time 

Stack Area 

Barometric Pressure 

Stack Static Pressure 

Pitot Tube Correction factor 

Meter Correction Factor 

Meter Delta H @ 

Nozzle Diameter 

Meter Volume,. 

Meter Temperature 

Avg. Orifice Delta H 

Impingers Weight Gain (Moisture) 

Silica Gel lmpinger Weight Gain ('Moisture) 

:)xygen Concentration, dr), basis 

;arbon Dioxide Concentration, dry basis 

;ulfur Dioxide Concentration, dry basis 

:arbon Monoxide Concentratio.•n, dry basis 

otal Hydrogen Chlodde Collected 

otal Hydrogen Flouride Coil•cted 

vg. Sq. Rt. of Delta P 

lack Temperature 

•tal particulate collectbd 

Job No,: 25144 

Pbar 

P9 

C= 

Y 

Dn 

W• 

COz 

SO2 

co 

HCl 

HF 

Units 

Bilitary Time 

Ft = 

inches 

dcf 

F 

in. HzO 

grams 

grams 

% 

% 

ppm 

ppm 

mg 

mg 

(in. HL, O) lrz 

°F 

Data Input By: Tommy Lotz, Jr. 

Data 

06122/05 

0945-1058 

29.36 

-0,23 

0.84 

0.985 

1.95! 

0.310 

48.500 

73.0 

1.99 

98,7 

7,5 

16,2 

2.4 

5.3 

66,7 

6.469 

3.809 

0.567 

366.6 

12.5 

06/22/O5 

1205-1314 

12.048 

29.36 

-0.24 

0.985 

1.95I 

0.310 

46,407 

77.1 

1.90 

95.3 

8.6 

16,5 

2,2 

6,9 

60.0 

6.394 

3.750 

'.0•555 

368.7 

41,2 

06122/05 

1355-1500 

12.048 

29.36 

-0.24 

0.84 

0.985 

1.951 

0.310 

50.365 

77.7 

2.21 

99,5 

2,0 

7,1 

53.2 

AVERAGE 

OU 

29.36 

-0.24 

0.84 

0.985 

1.951 

0.310 

48.424 

75.9 

2.03 

16.5 

2.2 

6.4 

60.0 

6.700 6.521 

3.755 3.771 

0.598 0.573 

370.3 

25.0 

368.5 

26.2 

5 
ENTEC Services, Inc. 

i.:ii•i-'-::!:•:•:•i•i:i:!::::::::: 16-D Commerce Ave. Hue own, Alabama 35023 

::":: 

.......,-:-.-.:-',-:.-:!!•i•i!ii•!ii 

CALCUEATED DATA 

Clienf• Pine Hall Brfck 

Job No,: 25144 

Source: Kiln No. 2 DLA Outlet Data Input By: TO,..,• Lotz, Jr. 

Description S ,•bo; Units Ca-'-- •::--3=d Data 

•un Number 

Test Date 

Time Began-Ended 

1. Stack Pressure 

P• P•113,6 

2. Meter Pressure 

P•,. aZl 13.6 

3. Standard Meter Volume 17.•4" Y* (V,,,/T.,)* (p•, •-I 113.6) 

ta. Standard Volume of Water Vapor Condensed =0.0470•W•= 

4b. StanG=• Volume of Water Collected in Silica Get 

==:•,• "nm• 0945-105 8 

in. Hg 29.34 

in.Hg 29.51 

• 46.652 

5. MoF•iure Fraction 

9. Molecular Weight Of Stack Gas, dry basis 

10. Motecular Weight Of Stack Gas, wet basis 

0.32"(O•- O.44*(CO=)H).28*(100-(Oz)-(CGz)) 

1. Average Stack Gas Velocity 

12. Stack Gas Flow @ Stack Conditions 

1.4. Stack Gas FIo• @ D•_•Standard/Conditions 

15• Particulata concenb-ation @ Standard Conditions 

15. Hydrogen Chloride concentration @ Standard Conditions 

15. Hydrogen FIo udde co ncentration @ Standard C ondition s 

16. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Gas Cortcentmtion 

!6. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Gas Concentration 

21. Particulate emission s 

!t. Hydrogen Chlodde emissions 

21. Hydrogen Floudde emissions 

21. Suffur Dioxide (SO2) Gas Concentration 

21. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Gas Concentz-ation 

2 3 AVERAGE 

29.34 29.34 29.34 

29.50 29.52 29.51 

44.289 48.051 46.331 

29.032 29.012 

4.645 4.485 4.682 4.604 

0.354 0.405 0.212 0.324 

0.0994 0.0924 0.0962 

28.996 29.013 

g/g-mole 27.964 27.917 27.979 27.954 

'•-•*C•*(sqrt •P),•*SQRT((T=) (p,*M,,)) v. fUs 40.84 40.09 43.16 41.362 

SO*v=*A O• a•m 29,525 28,980 31,197 29,901 

Q'*(I"B")*(T==a/I', )*(PJP,=a| O,• ,•,;,, 16,699 16,301 17,649 16,883 

=0.01543"mJV.•,• ¢= •,-,'•,,• 0.0041 0.0144 0.0080 0.0088 

==O.01543*HCIm,/V•==• HCle, •,;,L•,; 0.0021 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 

=O.01.•I3*HFmJV,•,• HFe= g#dscf 0.0013 0.0013 0.0012 0.0013 

=C•,= MW 138•.1 10 c,== 8.82E-07 1.15E-06 1.18E-06 1.07E-06 

=C•, MW 138•.1 10 C• Ibs/dscf 4•85E-06 4.36E-06 3.87E-06 4.36E-06 

(60•000}*c=*Q• PMR Ib/hr 0.59 2.01 1.21 1.27 

(60/7000)*HCIc.*Q,• HCl PMR Ib/hr 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.31 

(60/7000)*HFc,*Q• HFPMR Ib/hr 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 

=Cso• Q== S0 sO, ._--•-•r Ib/hr 0.88 1.12 1.25 1.09 

=Coo Qsta 6• CO•b/hr Ib/hr 4.86 4.27 4.10 4.41 

22. Volume.=llectad through nozzle =TJP,'[o.na•'•z*-- V==+ v,.'Y*P.,rr, j v, aof 82.483 78.738 84.938 82.053 

•4. Isok;.• Sampting Rate, Percent 100*Vnl (60*v */•*e) •:•:•:•$•:•:•:•$•:•:•$•:•:•:•:•::•:::•:•::::•::•::•:::•:•:::::•::`:-:•.:.:`:•:•:•:•:•;•`•`:•::•'.`•'`•.-`-•.•.•-`.•.'•-`'•..`•``•':'`.`•`•`•:•" 107.03 104 09 104 31 105 14 

'est Meter Orifice Cal. (E,C ALT.009 yqa, "l Y= 0.9483 0.9733 0.9659 0.9625 
Control Room Production Data 
8 
Sampling Procedures 
Procedures 

The particulate emission rates were determined using EPA Methods 1-5, 3A, 6C, 10, 

and 26A CFR Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A. The calibration and quality assurance 

procedures of EPA CFR 40 Part 60 Appendix A for all methods, and the "Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement System" Volume I!i Stationary Source-Specific Methods were followed throughout the duration of the field and 

laboratory testing. 

The most current revision revised as of July 1, 2004, of each method (as described in 

the Federal Register) was used. 

Stack Gas Volumetric Flow 

The velocity of the gas:stream was determined according to EPA Reference Method 1 

and 2 by Eead/ing ,the• instantaneous velocity head with an inclined manometer at each 

sam•01in• point with a calibrated S-type pitot tube attached adjacent to the sample 

nozzl.e: •, copy of the sample point / port for each source is located in the section 

"Location of Sample Ports". The stack pressure was measured with the static side of 

an S-type pitot tube. A calibrated pyrometer was used to measure stack temperature at 

each sampling point. The stack was tested for cyclonic flow according to EPP, 

Reference Method 1. 

Stack Gas Molecular Weight-Instrumental 

The carbon dioxide concentrations were determined using EPA Reference Method 3A. 

The molecular we•ight of the gas was calculated using the moisture, oxygen and carbon 

dioxide content and the measured stack gas temperature. 

Moisture Content 

The moisture content used for calculating the gas stream flow rate was determined by 

weighing the amount of condensed moisture collected in the impingers of the sampling train as described in EPA Reference Method 4. 
Particulate, Hydrogen Chloride, and Hydrogen Fluoride 

Preliminary data was used to determine stack temperature, pressure, and range of 

velocity heads, moisture content and stack gas dry molecular weight prior to sampling. 

The meter box was leak checked from the pump to the orifice. Initial and final leak 

checks of the sampling system and pitot lines were performed as outlined in Method 5 

and were recorded on the data sheets. The nozzle (glass with an angle of taper of 30 

degrees and of button hook design) was calibrated before and after the test using a 

micrometer and was also recorded on the data sheets. 

The sampling probe was placed at each sampling point to provide a total sampling time 

of 60 minutes. The gases were drawn through a glass nozzle attached to a heated 

glass lined probe. The probe was maintained at the proper setting to obtain an exit 

temperature of above. 2480 F. The gases then proceeded through borosilicate glass 

filter holder, with a •'l;eflon frit filter support through a glass fiber filter to remove 

particulate m•tter, The filter was maintained at a temperature of above 2480 F. These 

temperatures were .recorded at each point on the data sheets. 

; 

The gases were then scrubbed through a series of four impingers to capture hydrogen 

halides and halogens and moisture. (The optional first impinger for a knockout for 

moisture was not used.) The first and second impingers contained approximately 100 

ml of a 0.1N H2SO4 solution and the third and fourth impinger contained approximately 

100 ml of a 0.1 N NaOH solution. The fifth impinger contained pre weighed silica gel to 

remove any remaining moisture. The gases pass through the impinger series in an ice 

bath to maintain a maximum exit temperature of 68 0 F. This temperature was also 

recorded on the• data sheets. The clean and cool gases then entered the meter box 

where the gas flow and temperature were measured. 

After,the.•,ompletion of the test'the sampling train and. the probe nozzle assembly was 

transferred to the cleanup area making sure no particulate was lost. The cleanup data 

was recor•ied. 
Particulate catches were placed in sealed petri dishes. Each acetone rinse from the 

nozzle, probe, and filter holder was combined and placed in a sealed container. For the 

group of tests an acetone blank of approximately 200 milliliters was placed in a sealed 

container. The first and second impinger contents were transferred to its tared 

container, weighed and the rinsing from the glassware were added to this container. 

The third and fourth impinger was transferred to its respective tared container, weighed 

and the rinsing from the glassware was added to this container. The silica gel from the 

fifth impinger was transferred to its respective tared container and weighed. A blank of 

containers were clearly marked, logged in, and shipped to a State of Georgia approved 

certified laboratory for analysis. 

Oxv_•en 

The oxygen content in the flue gas was determined using a Siemens Ultramat 23 

oxyg•e.n •.,n•llyz_/er. The Ultramat 23 uses an electrochemical cell that consumes oxygen 

from the .atmos•)her• surrounding the cell. The consumption of the oxygen generates a 

proportional electrical current. This current is then amplified and provides a signal 

output of 4-20ma signals, which corresponds to a full-scale range of 0-25% oxygen. 

Carbon Dioxide 

Carbon dioxide concentrations were continuously measured with a Siemens Ultramat 

23 non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) analyzer. The theory of operation for this analyzer is 

based on the principle that CO2 has a unique absorption line spectrum in the infrared 

region. The instrument consists of an infrared light source, a chopper, a measurement 

cell, and a detector. The infrared tight beam emitted by the source passes through the 

measuring cell,_which is filled with a continuously flowing gas sample. The light beam is 

partially absorbed or attenuated by the gas species of interest in this cell before 

reachihg the front.chamber of tl•e detector. Both the front •l•t•i rear chambers of the 

sealed detector are filled with a reference gas. The difference in the amount of light 

absorbed between the front and rear chambers are dependent on the concentration of 

the gas species of interest within the sample measurement cell; a pressure differential 

is thus created between the two chambers. This pressure difference is then observed 

12 
as gas flow by the micro-flow sensor located in a channel connecting the two chambers. 

The resulting AC signal from the micro-flow sensor is rectified, amplified and linearized 

into a 4-20ma signal for output that corresponds to a full-scale 0-25% measurement 

range. 

Sulfur Dioxide 

A Western Research Model 721M SO2 analyzer provided continuous analysis of SO2 in 

the gas stream. The basic analytical principle involves quantitative measurement of the 

absorption of UV radiation by •..•u2 

which em•s an appropriate wavelen•h, illuminating the sample cell through which the 

sample is continuously passed. Na•ow-band opti•l filters are rotated through the 

beam, and the radiation passed through the optical filtem and sample cell is detected 

by a single photodetector. The signal pulses from the photodetector are separated by 

a multiplexor into a measuring channel and a reference channel. A log ratio amplifier 

compu•th• Iogbri•hm of the input signal ration, producing a signal that is pmpo•ional 

to the SQ• concentration. The dual-range analyzer has a digital readout, as well as 0- 

10.0"V DC output te•inals. The full s•le of the instrument was set at 100 ppm. 

Carbon Monoxide 

The CO emissions were measured using a Siemens Ultramat 23 analyzer. This monitor 

is a selective non-dispersive infrared radiation (NDIR) gas analyzer that operates on the 

infrared double-beam alternating light principle. The full range for the CO component of 

this instrument throughout the test pedod was 1000 ppm. 

Total Hydrocarbon (VOC's) 

Total hydrocarbons were continuously measured using a California Analytical Model 

300 flame ionization detector. A sample was extracted from the source being tested 

through i'a heated sample line ahd pumped into a flank6, ionization detector. An 

electrometer coupled with a potentiometer recorder detected the increase in ion 

intensity resulting from the introduction into a hydrogen flame of a sample of air 

containing organic compounds. The analyzer was calibrated using propane. The 

analyzer has a digital readout, as well as 0-10 volt output terminals. The full scale of the 
instrument was set at 100 ppm throughout the duration of the test period. Test results 

were reported as carbon. 

Sam=}lina System 

Samples were extracted from the gas stream by a heated stainless steel probe 

maintained at a set temperature of 250 degrees Fahrenheit, through a ten (10) foot 

heated sample line that was heated to a temperature between 225 and 250 degrees, 

through a chilled sample conditioner to remove the moisture in the gas stream and 

Data Acquisition 

Concentration values were collected using a Baldwin Environmental RM Plus 

Parametrics data acquisition system. The data was recorded every fifteen-seconds and 

then averaged for e•'•h sixty-second interval. Each minute average was then averaged 

for the d0ration of •ach test run. 

; 

During all testing, the unit was operating within normal operating parameters; at a range 

appropriate in accordance with applicable permits.