Line 106 

 NAIMA/U.S. EPA 

Emissions Test Report 

Prepared for: 

Johns Manville International 

Winder Plant 

713 Bankhead Hwy 

Winder, GA 30680-3428 

BTEC Project No. 10-3990.09 

January 13, 2011 

BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. 

2615 Wolcott Street 

Ferndale, Michigan 48220 

(248) 548-8070 
Johns Manville International. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.09 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 13, 2011 

i

Executive Summary

U.S. EPA has agreed with the North American Insulation Manufacturer’s Association (NAIMA) 

and its members to a voluntary collection of residual risk-related data for the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Mineral Wool Production1 as well as for 

the NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing2. To assist in collecting the agreed upon data, 

BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. (BTEC) was retained by NAIMA to evaluate formaldehyde, 

methanol, and phenol emission rates from four exhaust stacks (641E, 642E, 653E, 654E) 

associated with Line 106 located at the Johns Manville International (Johns Manville) Plant in 

Winder, Georgia. 

Reference test methods used and test program methodologies were agreed upon by U.S. EPA and 

NAIMA prior to initiating test program fieldwork. Table I summarizes the overall results of the 

emissions test program.

Table I 

Overall Emissions Test Program Results Summary

Stack Pollutant Emission 

Rate 

(lbs/hr) 

Emission Rate

(lbs/ton glass)

Emission 

Rate 

(mg/dscm)

Formaldehyde 1.3 x 10-2 3.6 x 10-2

Methanol <1.2 x 10-3 <3.4 x 10-3 641 

Phenol <1.8 x 10-3 <5.1 x 10-3

Formaldehyde 1.5 x 10-2 3.5 x 10-2

Methanol <1.5 x 10-3 <3.7 x 10-3 642 

Phenol <2.3 x 10-3 <5.5 x 10-3

Formaldehyde 1.5 x 10-2 1.7 x 10-1

Methanol <3.0 x 10-4 <3.3 x 10-3 653 

Phenol <4.5 x 10-4 <5.0 x 10-3

Formaldehyde 2.1 x 10-2 6.0 x 10-1

Methanol <1.2 x 10-4 <3.3 x 10-3 654 

Phenol <1.8 x 10-4 <5.0 x 10-3

Notes: (1) Pollutant emission rates in terms of mg/dscm were not corrected to 7% O2 because exhaust from the 

process is essentially ambient (i.e., approximately 20.9% O2). 

(2) The “less than” symbol (<) included in the table 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. 

 

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 International. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.09 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 13, 2011 

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 2

2.1 PROCESS MONITORING ....................................................................................................... 2 

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

3.1 EXHAUST GAS VELOCITY, MOLECULAR WEIGHT, AND MOISTURE CONTENT .................... 2 

3.2 FORMALDEHYDE, METHANOL, AND PHENOL (USEPA METHOD 316)................................ 3 

4.0 TEST RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 4

TABLES

Table 1 – Test Personnel 

Table 2 – Overall Emissions Test Program Results Summary

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Forming and Collection 641 Exhaust Stack Traverse Point Diagram 

Figure 2 – Forming and Collection 642 Exhaust Stack Traverse Point Diagram 

Figure 3 – Cooling 653 Exhaust Stack Traverse Point Diagram 

Figure 4 – Curing 654 Exhaust Stack Traverse Point Diagram 

Figure 5 – Method 3A Sampling Train Schematic Drawing 

Figure 6 – Method 316 Sampling Train Schematic Drawing 

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Detailed Test Run Results 

Appendix B – Process Data 

Appendix C – Field and Computer-Generated Data Sheets and Notes 

Appendix D – Equipment Calibration Documents 

Appendix E – Laboratory Analytical Reports 
Johns Manville International. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.09 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report Janury 13, 2011 

1

1.0 Introduction 

U.S. EPA has agreed with the North American Insulation Manufacturer’s Association (NAIMA) 

and its members to a voluntary collection of residual risk-related data for the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Mineral Wool Production3 as well as for 

the NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing4. To assist in collecting the agreed upon data, 

BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. (BTEC) was retained by NAIMA to evaluate formaldehyde, 

methanol, and phenol emission rates from four exhaust stacks (641E, 642E, 653E, 654E) 

associated with Line 106 located at the Johns Manville International (Johns Manville) Plant in 

Winder, Georgia. 

Reference test methods used and test program methodologies were agreed upon by U.S. EPA and 

NAIMA prior to initiating test program fieldwork. The emissions test program was conducted on 

September 18 and 21, 2010. The test program consisted of triplicate emission tests at each 

location for each parameter. The field sampling portion of the emissions test program included 

the personnel summarized by Table 1. 

Table 1 

Emissions Test Program Personnel

Personnel Affiliation 

Matthew Smith BTEC 

Jeff Peitzsch BTEC 

Paul Molenda BTEC 

John Beach BTEC 

Thomas Snyder BTEC 

Patti Blevins Johns Manville 

 

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 International. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.09 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report Janury 13, 2011 

2

2.0 Process Description

Glass batch materials are fed into an electric melter and melted to form fiberglass. The glass 

then proceeds through the forming and collection process and then through a binder curing oven 

and then through a cooling process. 

2.1 Process Monitoring 

During the emissions test program, the electric melt furnaces were operated under normal 

conditions. In addition to production rate during each test run, process operating data recorded 

during the emissions test program included (1) melter temperature, (2) raw material feed rate 

(ton/hr), (3) baghouse pressure drop, (4) venturi (flow, pressure), (5) WESP (flow, voltage, 

amps), and (6) RTO (temp, pressure). Process production data is available in Appendix B. 

Control equipment data will be available to U.S. EPA on request. 

3.0 Sampling and Analytical Methodologies 

Sampling and analytical methodologies for the emissions test program can be separated into two 

categories as follows: 

(1) Measurement of exhaust gas velocity, molecular weight, and moisture content; and 

(2) Measurement of exhaust gas formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol concentrations and 

emission rates. 

Descriptions of sampling and analytical methodologies by category are summarized by Sections 

3.1 and 3.2. 

3.1 Exhaust Gas Velocity, Molecular Weight, and Moisture Content 

Measurement of exhaust gas velocity, molecular weight, 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 Concentrations in 

Emissions from Stationary Sources”(Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)

• Method 4 - “Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases”

These test methods were used to evaluate exhaust gas flowrates in conjunction with the 

isokinetic sampling methodologies used to evaluate pollutant emission rates. 

Stack gas velocity traverses were conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in 

Method 1 and Method 2 (see Figures 14- for a traverse location drawings). An S-type pitot tube 

with a thermocouple assembly, calibrated in accordance with Method 2, Section 4.1.1, was used 
Johns Manville International. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.09 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report Janury 13, 2011 

3

to measure exhaust gas velocity pressures (using a manometer) and temperatures at each location 

during testing. The S-type pitot tube dimensions will be within specified limits, therefore, a 

baseline pitot tube coefficient of 0.84 (dimensionless) will be assigned. 

Molecular weight was determined according to USEPA Method 3A. The O2 content of the 

exhaust gas was measured using a M&C Products PMA 100-L O2 gas analyzer (or equivalent) 

and the CO2 content of the exhaust gas was measured using a California Analytical Instruments 

(CAI0 600 Series CO2 gas analyzer (or equivalent). An integrated sample of the gas stream was 

drawn through an insulated stainless-steel probe with an in-line glass fiber filter to remove any 

particulate and into a tedlar sample bag utilizing an evacuated sample lung. At the completion of 

each test the gas sample was introduced to the analyzers. Data was recorded at 4-second 

intervals on a PC equipped with data acquisition software. A schematic drawing of the emission 

monitoring system is provided as Figure 5. 

Exhaust gas moisture content was evaluated using Method 4. Exhaust gas moisture content was 

be determined volumetrically (liquid impingers) and gravimetrically (silica gel impinger). 

3.2 Formaldehyde, Methanol, and Phenol (USEPA Method 316) 

40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 316, “Sampling and Analysis for Formaldehyde Emissions 

from Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries” with analysis by 

NCASI CI/WP-98.01 was used to measure formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol concentrations 

and calculate emission rates (see Figure 6 for a schematic of the sampling train). Triplicate 64-

minute or 72-minute test runs were conducted for each source.

BTEC’s Nutech® Model 2010 modular isokinetic stack sampling system consisted of (1) a 

glass nozzle, (2) a glass probe, (3) a set of four modified Greenburg-Smith (GS) impingers with 

the first two impingers each containing 100 ml of deionized ultrafiltered water, a third empty 

impinger, and a fourth impinger containing approximately 300 g 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. 

A sampling train leak test was conducted before and after each test run. After completion of the 

final leak test for each test run the nozzle, probe, and impingers were triple rinsed with 

ultrafiltered water which was collected in a pre-cleaned sample container. 
Johns Manville International. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.09 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report Janury 13, 2011 

4

4.0 Test Results 

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

Table 2 

Overall Emissions Test Program Results Summary

Stack Pollutant Emission 

Rate 

(lbs/hr) 

Emission Rate

(lbs/ton glass)

Emission 

Rate 

(mg/dscm)

Formaldehyde 1.3 x 10-2 3.6 x 10-2

Methanol <1.2 x 10-3 <3.4 x 10-3 641 

Phenol <1.8 x 10-3 <5.1 x 10-3

Formaldehyde 1.5 x 10-2 3.5 x 10-2

Methanol <1.5 x 10-3 <3.7 x 10-3 642 

Phenol <2.3 x 10-3 <5.5 x 10-3

Formaldehyde 1.5 x 10-2 1.7 x 10-1

Methanol <3.0 x 10-4 <3.3 x 10-3 653 

Phenol <4.5 x 10-4 <5.0 x 10-3

Formaldehyde 2.1 x 10-2 6.0 x 10-1

Methanol <1.2 x 10-4 <3.3 x 10-3 654 

Phenol <1.8 x 10-4 <5.0 x 10-3

Notes: (1) Pollutant emission rates in terms of mg/dscm were not corrected to 7% O2 because exhaust from the 

process is essentially ambient (i.e., approximately 20.9% O2). 

(2) The “less than” symbol (<) included in the table 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. 

Detailed results for individual emission test run are summarized in Appendix A. Process 

production data is included in Appendix B. Field and computer-generated data sheets are 

included in Appendix C. Appendix D includes calibration documents and Appendix E includes 

laboratory analytical reports. 
Johns Manville International. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.09 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report Janury 13, 2011 

5

 Limitations

The information and opinions rendered in this report are exclusively for use by NAIMA and/or 

Johns Manville International. BTEC will not distribute or publish this report without NAIMA’s 

consent except as required by law or court order. BTEC accepts responsibility for the competent 

performance of its duties in executing the assignment and preparing reports in accordance with 

the normal standards of the profession, but disclaims any responsibility for consequential 

damages. 

This report was prepared by: 

Brandon V. Chase 

Staff Environmental Engineer 

This report was reviewed by: 

Randal J. Tysar 

Senior Environmental Engineer 
Figures 
diameter = 120 inches

Points Distance "

1 3.84

2 12.6

3 23.28

4 38.76

5 81.24

6 96.72

7 107.4

8 116.16

Figure No. 1

Site: Sampling Date:

Johns Manville Test Date: September 18, 2010

Winder, Georgia

Stack 641

BT Environmental Consulting, 

Inc.

2615 Wolcott Street

Ferndale, Michigan

Not to Scale

> 2 diamters

> 8 diamters
diameter = 120 inches

Points Distance "

1 3.84

2 12.6

3 23.28

4 38.76

5 81.24

6 96.72

7 107.4

8 116.16

Figure No. 2

Site: Sampling Date:

Johns Manville Test Date: September 18, 2010

Winder, Georgia

Stack 642

BT Environmental Consulting, 

Inc.

2615 Wolcott Street

Ferndale, Michigan

Not to Scale

> 2 diamters

> 8 diamters
diameter = 42"

Points Distance "

12 0.9

11 2.8

10 5.0

9 7.4

8 10.5

7 15.0

6 27.0

5 31.5

4 34.6

3 37.0

2 39.2

1 41.1

Figure 3

Site:

Johns Manville Test Date: September 21, 2010

Winder, Georgia

Stack 653

BT Environmental Consulting, 

Inc.

2615 Wolcott Street

Ferndale, Michigan

Not to Scale

> 2 diamters

> 8 diamters
diameter = 47.5"

Points Distance "

12 1.0

11 3.2

10 5.6

9 8.4

8 11.9

7 16.9

6 30.6

5 35.6

4 39.1

3 41.9

2 44.3

1 46.5

Figure 4

Site:

Johns Manville Test Date: September 21, 2010

Winder, Georgia

Stack 654

BT Environmental Consulting, 

Inc.

2615 Wolcott Street

Ferndale, Michigan

Not to Scale

> 2 diamters

> 8 diamters
Bags Samples

to analyzers

Figure 5

Site:

USEPA Method 3A Test Date: September 19 & 21, 2010

Johns Manville

Winder, Georgia

106 Line

BT Environmental Consulting, 

Inc.

2615 Wolcott Street

Ferndale, Michigan

Data Acquisition System

Calibration Gases 

(Fed to Probe Tip)

M&C Model 100-L

O2 Analyzer

CAI Series 600

CO2 Analyzer

pump

tedlar 

bag
Figure 6

Site:USEPA Method 316 Test Date: September 19 & 21, 2010Johns ManvilleWinder, Georgia106 Line

BT Environmental Consult

2615 Wolcott Michigan 48220

100 ml Ultrafiltered H Silica gel 2O

Heated Filter Box

S-Type Pitot w/ Thermocouple

Heated Probe w/ Glass Liner & Nozzle

Meter Rig

Temp.

ProbeFilter

On

Off

-

+

00:00

1 2 3 4 5
APPENDIX A 

DETAILED TEST RUN RESULTS 
Plant 641E F&C Stack Job #

Location Method 316 Test

 Copyright by Walter Smith

Run Number 1 2 3 Average

Date Test Date 9/18/2010 9/18/2010 9/18/2010

Start Run Start Time 8:55:00 10:28:00 12:01:00

Run Finish Time 10:06:00 11:39:00 13:13:00

Net Traversing Points 16 16 16

Θ Net Run Time, minutes 64 64 64 64

DN Nozzle Dianeter, inches 0.310 0.310 0.310 0.310

Cp Pitot Tube Coeficient 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84

Y Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013

PBr Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury 30.14 30.14 30.11 30.13

∆H Average orifice meter Differential, inches H2O 1.30 1.30 1.32 1.31

Vm Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet 40.925 41.118 41.675 41.239

tm Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F 75.13 81.91 86.84 81.29

Vmstd Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 41.336 41.012 41.153 41.167

Vlc Total Moisture Liquid collected, ml 45 44 46 45.0

Vwstd Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet 2.12 2.07 2.17 2.12

% H2O Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 4.9 4.8 5.0 4.9

Mfd Dry Mole Fraction 0.951 0.952 0.950 0.951

%CO2 Carbon Dioxide, % 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4

%O2 Oxygen, % 20.0 19.9 19.7 19.9

% CO+ N2 Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % 79.7 79.8 79.8 79.8

Md Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole 28.85 28.84 28.87 28.85

Ms Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole 28.32 28.32 28.32 28.32

Pg Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H2O 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77

Ps Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury 30.20 30.20 30.17 30.19

ts Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 94 94 96 95

∆Pavg Average Velocity Head, inches of H2O 0.148 0.146 0.148 0.148

vs Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second 22.2 22.1 22.3 22.2

As Stack Crossectional Area, square feet 78.5 78.5 78.5 78.5

Qsd Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 95,319 95,889 95,490 95,566

Qaw Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 104,171 104,785 105,050 104,669

%I Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 101.0 100.8 101.0 100.9

Wp Production, tons glass per hour

W Formaldehyde Catch Weight, μg 54.0 36.0 37.0 42.3

Cmg/dscm Formaldehyde Concentration, mg/dscm 4.6E-02 3.1E-02 3.2E-02 3.6E-02

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Formaldehyde Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Formaldehyde Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.7E-02 1.1E-02 1.1E-02 1.3E-02

Elb/ton product Formaldehyde Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

W Methanol Catch Weight, μg 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Cmg/dscm Methanol Concentration, mg/dscm 3.4E-03 3.4E-03 3.4E-03 3.4E-03

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Methanol Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Methanol Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.2E-03 1.2E-03 1.2E-03 1.2E-03

Elb/ton product Methanol Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

W Phenol Catch Weight, μg 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Cmg/dscm Phenol Concentration, mg/dscm 5.1E-03 5.2E-03 5.1E-03 5.1E-03

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Phenol Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Phenol Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.8E-03 1.8E-03 1.8E-03 1.8E-03

Elb/ton product Phenol Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

Johns Manville 10-3990.09

Winder, GA Personnel JP
Plant 642E F&C Stack Job #

Location Method 316 Test

 Copyright by Walter Smith

Run Number 1 2 3 Average

Date Test Date 9/18/2010 9/18/2010 9/18/2010

Start Run Start Time 8:55:00 10:28:00 12:01:00

Run Finish Time 10:07:00 11:41:00 13:14:00

Net Traversing Points 16 16 16

Θ Net Run Time, minutes 64 64 64 64

DN Nozzle Dianeter, inches 0.277 0.277 0.277 0.277

Cp Pitot Tube Coeficient 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84

Y Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003

PBr Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury 30.14 30.14 30.14 30.14

∆H Average orifice meter Differential, inches H2O 1.01 1.00 0.97 0.99

Vm Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet 39.240 39.220 39.020 39.160

tm Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F 77.44 86.41 93.94 85.93

Vmstd Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 39.047 38.385 37.668 38.367

Vlc Total Moisture Liquid collected, ml 38 35 35 36.0

Vwstd Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet 1.79 1.65 1.65 1.69

% H2O Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 4.4 4.1 4.2 4.2

Mfd Dry Mole Fraction 0.956 0.959 0.958 0.958

%CO2 Carbon Dioxide, % 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3

%O2 Oxygen, % 20.0 19.9 19.8 19.9

% CO+ N2 Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % 79.8 79.8 79.7 79.8

Md Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole 28.83 28.84 28.87 28.85

Ms Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole 28.36 28.40 28.42 28.39

Pg Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H2O 1.1 1.10 1.10 1.10

Ps Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury 30.22 30.22 30.22 30.22

ts Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 96 96 98 97

∆Pavg Average Velocity Head, inches of H2O 0.208 0.202 0.194 0.201

vs Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second 26.4 26.0 25.5 25.9

As Stack Crossectional Area, square feet 78.5 78.5 78.5 78.5

Qsd Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 112,571 114,066 109,909 112,182

Qaw Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 122,329 124,297 120,094 122,240

%I Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 100.4 100.1 100.6 100.4

Wp Production, tons glass per hour

W Formaldehyde Catch Weight, μg 47.0 44.0 23.0 38.0

Cmg/dscm Formaldehyde Concentration, mg/dscm 4.3E-02 4.0E-02 2.2E-02 3.5E-02

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Formaldehyde Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Formaldehyde Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.8E-02 1.7E-02 8.9E-03 1.5E-02

Elb/ton product Formaldehyde Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

W Methanol Catch Weight, μg 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Cmg/dscm Methanol Concentration, mg/dscm 3.6E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Methanol Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Methanol Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.5E-03 1.6E-03 1.5E-03 1.5E-03

Elb/ton product Methanol Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

W Phenol Catch Weight, μg 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Cmg/dscm Phenol Concentration, mg/dscm 5.4E-03 5.5E-03 5.6E-03 5.5E-03

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Phenol Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Phenol Emission Rate, pounds/hr 2.3E-03 2.3E-03 2.3E-03 2.3E-03

Elb/ton product Phenol Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

Johns Manville 10-3990.09

Winder, GA Personnel MS
Plant 653E Cooling Stack Job #

Location Method 316 Test

 Copyright by Walter Smith

Run Number 1 2 3 Average

Date Test Date 9/21/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010

Start Run Start Time 8:00:00 9:50:00 11:29:00

Run Finish Time 9:22:00 11:11:00 12:50:00

Net Traversing Points 24 24 24

Θ Net Run Time, minutes 72 72 72 72

DN Nozzle Dianeter, inches 0.208 0.208 0.208 0.208

Cp Pitot Tube Coeficient 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84

Y Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003

PBr Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury 30.10 30.10 30.05 30.08

∆H Average orifice meter Differential, inches H2O 0.97 0.99 1.03 1.00

Vm Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet 42.925 43.920 45.150 43.998

tm Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F 79.79 93.17 100.29 91.08

Vmstd Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 42.467 42.403 42.969 42.613

Vlc Total Moisture Liquid collected, ml 21 21 23 21.7

Vwstd Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet 0.99 0.99 1.08 1.02

% H2O Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.3

Mfd Dry Mole Fraction 0.977 0.977 0.975 0.977

%CO2 Carbon Dioxide, % 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2

%O2 Oxygen, % 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1

% CO+ N2 Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % 79.9 79.7 79.6 79.7

Md Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole 28.80 28.84 28.85 28.83

Ms Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole 28.56 28.59 28.59 28.58

Pg Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H2O 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13

Ps Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury 30.11 30.11 30.06 30.09

ts Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 122 122 119 121

∆Pavg Average Velocity Head, inches of H2O 0.640 0.642 0.652 0.644

vs Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second 46.7 46.8 47.1 46.9

As Stack Crossectional Area, square feet 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6

Qsd Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 24,082 24,060 24,298 24,147

Qaw Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 26,996 26,958 27,192 27,049

%I Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 100.1 99.8 100.2 100.0

Wp Production, tons glass per hour

W Formaldehyde Catch Weight, μg 210.0 200.0 190.0 200.0

Cmg/dscm Formaldehyde Concentration, mg/dscm 1.7E-01 1.7E-01 1.6E-01 1.7E-01

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Formaldehyde Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Formaldehyde Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.6E-02 1.5E-02 1.4E-02 1.5E-02

Elb/ton product Formaldehyde Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

W Methanol Catch Weight, μg 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Cmg/dscm Methanol Concentration, mg/dscm 3.3E-03 3.3E-03 3.3E-03 3.3E-03

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Methanol Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Methanol Emission Rate, pounds/hr 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 3.0E-04

Elb/ton product Methanol Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

W Phenol Catch Weight, μg 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Cmg/dscm Phenol Concentration, mg/dscm 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 4.9E-03 5.0E-03

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Phenol Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Phenol Emission Rate, pounds/hr 4.5E-04 4.5E-04 4.5E-04 4.5E-04

Elb/ton product Phenol Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

Johns Manville 10-3990.09

Winder, GA Personnel JP
Plant 654E Oven Stack Job #

Location Method 316 Test

 Copyright by Walter Smith

Run Number 1 2 3 Average

Date Test Date 9/21/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010

Start Run Start Time 8:00:00 9:50:00 11:29:00

Run Finish Time 9:22:00 11:11:00 12:50:00

Net Traversing Points 24 24 24

Θ Net Run Time, minutes 72 72 72 72

DN Nozzle Dianeter, inches 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.371

Cp Pitot Tube Coeficient 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84

Y Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013

PBr Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury 30.05 30.05 30.05 30.05

∆H Average orifice meter Differential, inches H2O 1.10 1.17 1.09 1.12

Vm Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet 42.370 43.910 42.650 42.977

tm Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F 78.75 88.77 96.81 88.11

Vmstd Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 42.361 43.106 41.256 42.241

Vlc Total Moisture Liquid collected, ml 92 89 80 87.0

Vwstd Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet 4.33 4.19 3.77 4.10

% H2O Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 9.3 8.9 8.4 8.8

Mfd Dry Mole Fraction 0.907 0.911 0.916 0.912

%CO2 Carbon Dioxide, % 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.4

%O2 Oxygen, % 17.7 18.2 18.2 18.0

% CO+ N2 Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % 80.9 80.5 80.2 80.5

Md Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole 28.93 28.94 28.98 28.95

Ms Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole 27.92 27.97 28.07 27.98

Pg Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H2O -0.38 -0.38 -0.38 -0.38

Ps Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury 30.02 30.02 30.02 30.02

ts Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 497 498 499 498

∆Pavg Average Velocity Head, inches of H2O 0.110 0.114 0.104 0.109

vs Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second 25.3 25.7 24.6 25.2

As Stack Crossectional Area, square feet 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3

Qsd Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 9,590 9,383 9,207 9,393

Qaw Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 19,016 18,678 18,184 18,626

%I Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 103.0 102.5 102.2 102.5

Wp Production, tons glass per hour

W Formaldehyde Catch Weight, μg 710.0 750.0 700.0 720.0

Cmg/dscm Formaldehyde Concentration, mg/dscm 5.9E-01 6.1E-01 6.0E-01 6.0E-01

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Formaldehyde Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Formaldehyde Emission Rate, pounds/hr 2.1E-02 2.2E-02 2.1E-02 2.1E-02

Elb/ton product Formaldehyde Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

W Methanol Catch Weight, μg 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Cmg/dscm Methanol Concentration, mg/dscm 3.3E-03 3.3E-03 3.4E-03 3.3E-03

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Methanol Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Methanol Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.2E-04 1.2E-04 1.2E-04 1.2E-04

Elb/ton product Methanol Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

W Phenol Catch Weight, μg 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Cmg/dscm Phenol Concentration, mg/dscm 5.0E-03 4.9E-03 5.1E-03 5.0E-03

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Phenol Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Phenol Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.8E-04 1.8E-04 1.8E-04 1.8E-04

Elb/ton product Phenol Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

Johns Manville 10-3990.06

Winder, GA Personnel MS
APPENDIX B 

PROCESS DATA 
APPENDIX C 

FIELD AND COMPUTER-GENERATED DATA 

SHEETS 
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.09 Probe # 12A Pollutant Points/Port 8 Start Finish Pre PCompany Johns Manville DGM # MB 6 Method 316 Total Points 16Location Winder, GA Rate (cfm) Run # 1 Time/pt (min) 4.0

Source 641 Delta ∆H@ 1.77 Date 18-Sep-10 Time/reading 4.0

Operator JP Bws (%) 4.87 # of Ports 2 Total Run 64.0

Filter Number Condensate Volume 35 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 30.20

Barometric 30.14 Silica Gel Weight Gain 10 DGM Y 1.013 Pm (in Hg) 30.14 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) 0.77 Actual Dn (in) 0.31 O2 (%) 20 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 10.00 An (ft^2) 0.00052 CO2 (%) 0.3 Md 28.85 Stack Area (sf) 78.54

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 28.32 Act. Flow (cfm) 104,785 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 41.28 Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 0.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 100,802

Moisture % 4.88 Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 95,889

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

(24hr) DGM Vol. Delta P Stack Temp Meter In Meter Out

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

8 0.0 4.0 8:55 93.09 0.14 93 69 69 1.22 1.22 27 4.0 8.0 8:59 95.56 0.15 94 72 70 1.30 1.31 26 8.0 12.0 9:03 98.12 0.15 94 72 70 1.30 1.31 25 12.0 16.0 9:07 100.65 0.15 94 74 70 1.30 1.31 2

4 16.0 20.0 9:11 103.22 0.16 94 75 70 1.39 1.4 2

3 20.0 24.0 9:15 105.87 0.15 94 77 71 1.30 1.31 22 24.0 28.0 9:19 108.46 0.16 94 78 72 1.39 1.4 2

1 28.0 32.0 9:23 111.13 0.16 94 79 73 1.39 1.4 2

8 32.0 36.0 9:27 113.80 0.14 94 75 73 1.22 1.23 27 36.0 40.0 9:34 116.28 0.16 94 80 74 1.39 1.4 2

6 40.0 44.0 9:38 118.97 0.15 94 81 74 1.30 1.32 25 44.0 48.0 9:42 121.57 0.14 94 81 74 1.22 1.23 24 48.0 52.0 9:46 124.04 0.14 94 82 75 1.22 1.23 23 52.0 56.0 9:50 126.51 0.14 94 82 75 1.22 1.23 22 56.0 60.0 9:54 129.00 0.14 94 82 76 1.22 1.23 21 60.0 64.0 9:58 131.52 0.14 94 83 76 1.22 1.23 2

64.0 10:06 134.01

Average: 40.93 0.15 93.9 77.6 72.6 1.29 1.30 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.09 Probe # 12A Pollutant 0 Points/Port 8 Start Finish Pre PCompany Johns Manville DGM # MB 6 Method 316 Total Points 16Location Winder, GA Rate (cfm) Run # 2 Time/pt (min) 4.0

Source 641 Delta ∆H@ 1.77 Date 18-Sep-10 Time/reading 4.0

Operator JP Bws (%) 4.8 # of Ports 2 Total Run 64.0

Filter Number Condensate Volume 35 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 30.20

Barometric 30.14 Silica Gel Weight Gain 9 DGM Y 1.013 Pm (in Hg) 30.14 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) 0.77 Actual Dn (in) 0.31 O2 (%) 19.9 Ref Press 29.92Stack Dia (ft) 10.00 An (ft^2) 0.00052 CO2 (%) 0.3 Md 28.84 Stack Area (sf) 78.54

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 28.32 Act. Flow (cfm) 104,171 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 40.96 Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 0.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 100,133

Moisture % 4.81 Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 95,319

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

(24hr) DGM Vol. Delta P Stack Temp Meter In Meter Out

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

8 0.0 4.0 10:28 134.21 0.15 94 77 77 1.32 1.33 2

7 4.0 8.0 10:32 136.80 0.16 94 81 77 1.41 1.42 2

6 8.0 12.0 10:36 139.50 0.15 94 82 77 1.32 1.33 2

5 12.0 16.0 10:40 142.09 0.15 94 83 77 1.32 1.33 2

4 16.0 20.0 10:44 144.67 0.14 94 84 78 1.23 1.24 2

3 20.0 24.0 10:48 147.20 0.15 94 84 78 1.32 1.33 22 24.0 28.0 10:52 149.78 0.14 94 84 79 1.23 1.24 21 28.0 32.0 11:00 152.28 0.14 94 85 79 1.23 1.24 28 32.0 36.0 11:07 154.79 0.14 94 81 79 1.23 1.24 27 36.0 40.0 11:11 157.28 0.14 94 84 80 1.23 1.24 26 40.0 44.0 11:15 159.80 0.15 95 85 90 1.32 1.33 25 44.0 48.0 11:19 162.44 0.14 95 86 80 1.23 1.25 24 48.0 52.0 11:23 164.94 0.15 95 87 81 1.32 1.34 23 52.0 56.0 11:27 167.54 0.14 95 87 81 1.23 1.25 22 56.0 60.0 11:31 170.10 0.15 95 88 81 1.32 1.34 21 60.0 64.0 11:35 172.71 0.15 95 88 81 1.32 1.34 2

64.0 11:39 175.33

Average: 41.12 0.15 94.4 84.1 79.7 1.29 1.30 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.09 Probe # 12A Pollutant 0 Points/Port 8 Start Finish Pre PCompany Johns Manville DGM # MB 6 Method 316 Total Points 16Location Winder, GA Rate (cfm) Run # 3 Time/pt (min) 4.0

Source 641 Delta ∆H@ 1.77 Date 18-Sep-10 Time/reading 4.0

Operator JP Bws (%) 5.0 # of Ports 2 Total Run 64.0

Filter Number Condensate Volume 38 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 30.17

Barometric 30.11 Silica Gel Weight Gain 8 DGM Y 1.013 Pm (in Hg) 30.11 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) 0.77 Actual Dn (in) 0.31 O2 (%) 19.7 Ref Press 29.92Stack Dia (ft) 10.00 An (ft^2) 0.00052 CO2 (%) 0.5 Md 28.87 Stack Area (sf) 78.54

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 28.32 Act. Flow (cfm) 105,050 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 41.10 Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 0.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 100,514

Moisture % 5.00 Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 95,490

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

(24hr) DGM Vol. Delta P Stack Temp Meter In Meter Out

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

8 0.0 4.0 12:01 175.57 0.14 96 83 83 1.23 1.25 2

7 4.0 8.0 12:05 178.07 0.15 96 86 83 1.32 1.34 2

6 8.0 12.0 12:09 180.66 0.15 96 88 83 1.32 1.34 2

5 12.0 16.0 12:13 183.27 0.15 96 88 83 1.32 1.34 2

4 16.0 20.0 12:17 185.88 0.15 96 89 83 1.32 1.34 2

3 20.0 24.0 12:21 188.53 0.16 96 90 84 1.41 1.43 22 24.0 28.0 12:25 191.22 0.17 96 90 84 1.50 1.52 21 28.0 32.0 12:33 194.01 0.16 96 91 84 1.41 1.43 28 32.0 36.0 12:41 196.71 0.14 96 87 85 1.23 1.25 27 36.0 40.0 12:45 199.27 0.14 96 90 85 1.23 1.25 26 40.0 44.0 12:49 201.79 0.15 97 90 86 1.32 1.34 25 44.0 48.0 12:53 204.40 0.14 97 90 86 1.23 1.25 24 48.0 52.0 12:57 206.92 0.14 97 91 86 1.23 1.25 23 52.0 56.0 13:01 209.48 0.14 97 91 86 1.23 1.25 22 56.0 60.0 13:05 212.06 0.15 97 91 86 1.32 1.34 21 60.0 64.0 13:09 214.69 0.14 97 91 86 1.23 1.25 2

64.0 13:13 217.24

Average: 41.68 0.15 96.4 89.1 84.6 1.31 1.32 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.09 Probe # 5ft D Pollutant Formaldehyd Points/Port 4 Start Finish Pre P

Company Johns Manville DGM # MB-5 Method 316 Total Points 16Location Winder, GA Rate (cfm) 0.75 Run # 1 Time/pt (min) 4.0Source 642 Delta ∆H@ 1.53 Date 18-Sep-10 Time/reading 4.0

Operator MS Bws (%) 4.38 # of Ports 4 Total Run 64.0

Filter Number NA Condensate Volume 30 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 30.22

Barometric 30.14 Silica Gel Weight Gain 8 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 30.14 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) 1.1 Actual Dn (in) 0.277 O2 (%) 20 Ref Press 29.92Stack Dia (ft) 10.00 An (ft^2) 0.00042 CO2 (%) 0.2 Md 28.83 Stack Area (sf) 78.54

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 28.36 Act. Flow (cfm) 124,297 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 39.06 Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 48.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 119,291

Moisture % 4.38 Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 114,066

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

(24hr) DGM Vol. Delta P Stack Temp Meter In Meter Out

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

4 0.0 4.0 8:55 337.20 0.21 95 71 71 1.02 1.01 2

3 4.0 8.0 8:59 339.68 0.21 95 73 72 1.02 1.01 2

2 8.0 12.0 9:03 342.15 0.21 96 75 72 1.02 1.01 2

1 12.0 16.0 9:07 344.59 0.21 96 76 73 1.02 1.01 2

4 16.0 20.0 9:13 347.04 0.20 95 75 73 0.97 0.97 2

3 20.0 24.0 9:17 349.43 0.20 96 78 74 0.97 0.97 22 24.0 28.0 9:21 351.82 0.20 96 80 75 0.97 0.97 21 28.0 32.0 9:25 354.22 0.20 95 81 75 0.97 0.97 24 32.0 36.0 9:34 356.65 0.20 96 79 76 0.97 0.97 23 36.0 40.0 9:38 359.05 0.21 96 82 77 1.02 1.02 22 40.0 44.0 9:42 361.50 0.21 96 82 77 1.02 1.02 21 44.0 48.0 9:46 364.00 0.20 96 83 78 0.97 0.97 24 48.0 52.0 9:51 366.41 0.22 95 82 78 1.06 1.07 23 52.0 56.0 9:55 368.93 0.22 96 84 79 1.06 1.07 22 56.0 60.0 9:59 371.41 0.22 96 84 79 1.06 1.07 21 60.0 64.0 10:03 373.95 0.21 96 85 79 1.02 1.02 2

64.0 10:07 376.44

Average: 39.24 0.21 95.7 79.4 75.5 1.01 1.01 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.09 Probe # 5ft D Pollutant Formaldehyd Points/Port 4 Start Finish Pre P

Company Johns Manville DGM # MB-5 Method 316 Total Points 16Location Winder, GA Rate (cfm) Run # 2 Time/pt (min) 4.0

Source 642 Delta ∆H@ 1.53 Date 18-Sep-10 Time/reading 4.0

Operator MS Bws (%) 4.1 # of Ports 4 Total Run 64.0

Filter Number NA Condensate Volume 27 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 30.22

Barometric 30.14 Silica Gel Weight Gain 8 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 30.14 Ref Temp 68Static (in H2O) 1.1 Actual Dn (in) 0.277 O2 (%) 19.9 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 10.00 An (ft^2) 0.00042 CO2 (%) 0.3 Md 28.84 Stack Area (sf) 78.54

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 28.40 Act. Flow (cfm) 122,329 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 38.39 Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 0.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 117,403

Moisture % 4.11 Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 112,571

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

(24hr) DGM Vol. Delta P Stack Temp Meter In Meter Out

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

4 0.0 4.0 10:28 376.45 0.20 96 82 80 0.99 0.98 2

3 4.0 8.0 10:32 378.90 0.21 97 84 81 1.04 1.03 2

2 8.0 12.0 10:36 381.33 0.21 97 85 81 1.04 1.03 2

1 12.0 16.0 10:40 383.78 0.20 89 86 82 0.99 0.99 2

4 16.0 20.0 10:44 386.22 0.20 95 86 82 0.99 0.99 2

3 20.0 24.0 10:48 388.70 0.19 95 87 83 0.94 0.94 22 24.0 28.0 10:52 391.10 0.20 95 88 83 0.99 0.99 21 28.0 32.0 10:56 393.54 0.19 96 89 84 0.94 0.94 24 32.0 36.0 11:07 395.92 0.19 95 88 84 0.94 0.94 23 36.0 40.0 11:11 398.32 0.21 96 91 85 1.04 1.04 22 40.0 44.0 11:15 400.80 0.20 96 91 85 0.99 0.99 21 44.0 48.0 11:19 403.22 0.20 97 92 85 0.99 0.99 24 48.0 52.0 11:25 405.65 0.21 96 91 86 1.04 1.04 23 52.0 56.0 11:29 408.12 0.21 97 93 87 1.04 1.04 22 56.0 60.0 11:33 410.64 0.21 97 94 87 1.04 1.04 21 60.0 64.0 11:37 413.16 0.20 97 95 88 0.99 0.99 2

64.0 11:41 415.67

Average: 39.22 0.20 95.7 88.9 83.9 1.00 1.00 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.09 Probe # 5ft D Pollutant Formaldehyd Points/Port 4 Start Finish Pre P

Company Johns Manville DGM # MB-5 Method 316 Total Points 16Location Winder, GA Rate (cfm) Run # 3 Time/pt (min) 4.0

Source 642 Delta ∆H@ 1.53 Date 18-Sep-10 Time/reading 4.0

Operator MS Bws (%) 4.2 # of Ports 4 Total Run 64.0

Filter Number NA Condensate Volume 26 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 30.22

Barometric 30.14 Silica Gel Weight Gain 9 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 30.14 Ref Temp 68Static (in H2O) 1.1 Actual Dn (in) 0.277 O2 (%) 19.8 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 10.00 An (ft^2) 0.00042 CO2 (%) 0.5 Md 28.87 Stack Area (sf) 78.54

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 28.42 Act. Flow (cfm) 120,094 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 37.68 Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 0.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 114,716

Moisture % 4.19 Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 109,909

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

(24hr) DGM Vol. Delta P Stack Temp Meter In Meter Out

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

4 0.0 4.0 12:01 415.78 0.20 97 92 90 1.00 1 23 4.0 8.0 12:05 418.20 0.20 98 95 90 1.00 1 22 8.0 12.0 12:09 420.67 0.20 98 95 91 1.00 1 21 12.0 16.0 12:13 423.20 0.20 98 96 91 1.00 1 2

4 16.0 20.0 12:22 425.64 0.19 98 96 91 0.95 0.95 2

3 20.0 24.0 12:26 428.10 0.19 98 96 91 0.95 0.95 22 24.0 28.0 12:30 430.51 0.19 98 96 92 0.95 0.95 21 28.0 32.0 12:34 432.92 0.19 98 97 92 0.95 0.95 24 32.0 36.0 12:40 435.38 0.19 99 96 92 0.95 0.95 23 36.0 40.0 12:44 437.74 0.19 98 97 93 0.95 0.95 22 40.0 44.0 12:48 440.17 0.19 99 97 93 0.95 0.95 21 44.0 48.0 12:52 442.61 0.19 99 97 93 0.95 0.95 24 48.0 52.0 12:58 445.04 0.20 98 95 93 1.00 1 23 52.0 56.0 13:02 447.50 0.20 99 96 93 1.00 1 22 56.0 60.0 13:06 450.00 0.19 99 97 93 0.95 0.95 21 60.0 64.0 13:10 452.41 0.19 99 97 93 0.95 0.95 2

64.0 13:14 454.80

Average: 39.02 0.19 98.3 95.9 91.9 0.97 0.97 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.09 Probe # 5ftB Pollutant Formaldehyd Points/Port 12 Start Finish Pre P

Company Johns Manville DGM # MB5 Method 316 Total Points 24Location Winder, GA Rate (cfm) Run # 1 Time/pt (min) 3.0

Source 653E Cooling Delta ∆H@ 1.53 Date 21-Sep-10 Time/reading 3.0

Operator JP Bws (%) 2.27 # of Ports 2 Total Run 72.0

Filter Number NA Condensate Volume 13 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 30.11

Barometric 30.10 Silica Gel Weight Gain 8 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 30.10 Ref Temp 68Static (in H2O) 0.13 Actual Dn (in) 0.208 O2 (%) 20.1 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.50 An (ft^2) 0.00024 CO2 (%) 0.0 Md 28.80 Stack Area (sf) 9.62

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 28.56 Act. Flow (cfm) 26,958 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 42.38 Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 0.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 24,621

Moisture % 2.28 Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 24,060

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

(24hr) DGM Vol. Delta P Stack Temp Meter In Meter Out

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

12 0.0 3.0 8:00 477.66 0.40 120 73 73 0.61 0.6 211 3.0 6.0 8:03 479.07 0.50 120 73 73 0.76 0.75 2

10 6.0 9.0 8:06 480.66 0.65 122 74 73 0.99 0.98 2

9 9.0 12.0 8:09 482.45 0.69 122 74 73 1.05 1.04 2

8 12.0 15.0 8:12 484.31 0.76 121 75 73 1.16 1.14 2

7 15.0 18.0 8:15 486.26 0.82 122 76 74 1.25 1.23 26 18.0 21.0 8:18 488.27 0.85 122 78 74 1.30 1.28 25 21.0 24.0 8:21 490.34 0.82 122 79 74 1.25 1.23 24 24.0 27.0 8:24 492.40 0.73 122 80 75 1.11 1.1 2

3 27.0 30.0 8:27 494.30 0.65 122 81 75 0.99 0.98 22 30.0 33.0 8:30 496.10 0.47 122 82 76 0.72 0.71 21 33.0 36.0 8:33 497.67 0.32 122 83 76 0.49 0.48 2

12 36.0 39.0 8:46 498.97 0.25 122 80 79 0.38 0.38 2

11 39.0 42.0 8:49 500.11 0.37 122 83 79 0.56 0.56 210 42.0 45.0 8:52 501.51 0.50 122 84 80 0.76 0.75 2

9 45.0 48.0 8:55 503.10 0.57 122 85 80 0.87 0.86 28 48.0 51.0 8:58 504.80 0.61 122 86 81 0.93 0.92 27 51.0 54.0 9:01 506.58 0.76 122 86 81 1.16 1.15 26 54.0 57.0 9:04 508.54 0.85 122 87 82 1.30 1.29 25 57.0 60.0 9:07 510.66 0.87 122 88 82 1.33 1.32 24 60.0 63.0 9:10 512.78 0.85 122 89 83 1.30 1.29 23 63.0 66.0 9:13 514.89 0.81 122 89 83 1.24 1.23 22 66.0 69.0 9:16 516.94 0.65 122 89 84 0.99 0.99 21 69.0 72.0 9:19 518.80 0.60 122 89 84 0.92 0.91 2

72.0 9:22 520.58

Average: 42.93 0.64 121.8 81.8 77.8 0.98 0.97 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.09 Probe # 5ftB Pollutant Formaldehyd Points/Port 12 Start Finish Pre P

Company Johns Manville DGM # MB 5 Method 316 Total Points 24Location Winder, GA Rate (cfm) Run # 2 Time/pt (min) 3.0

Source 653E Cooling Delta ∆H@ 1.53 Date 21-Sep-10 Time/reading 3.0

Operator JP Bws (%) 2.3 # of Ports 2 Total Run 72.0

Filter Number NA Condensate Volume 13 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 30.11

Barometric 30.10 Silica Gel Weight Gain 8 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 30.10 Ref Temp 68Static (in H2O) 0.13 Actual Dn (in) 0.208 O2 (%) 20.1 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.50 An (ft^2) 0.00024 CO2 (%) 0.2 Md 28.84 Stack Area (sf) 9.62

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 28.59 Act. Flow (cfm) 26,996 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 42.31 Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 0.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 24,643

Moisture % 2.28 Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 24,082

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

(24hr) DGM Vol. Delta P Stack Temp Meter In Meter Out

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

12 0.0 3.0 9:50 521.22 0.30 123 87 87 0.47 0.46 2

11 3.0 6.0 9:53 522.48 0.38 123 89 87 0.59 0.58 2

10 6.0 9.0 9:56 523.91 0.47 123 89 87 0.73 0.72 2

9 9.0 12.0 9:59 525.46 0.56 123 90 88 0.88 0.86 28 12.0 15.0 10:02 527.18 0.66 123 91 88 1.03 1.02 2

7 15.0 18.0 10:05 529.06 0.77 123 92 88 1.20 1.19 26 18.0 21.0 10:08 531.06 0.84 123 93 89 1.31 1.29 25 21.0 24.0 10:11 533.18 0.82 123 94 89 1.28 1.26 24 24.0 27.0 10:14 535.27 0.83 123 95 89 1.30 1.28 23 27.0 30.0 10:17 537.35 0.80 123 96 90 1.25 1.23 22 30.0 33.0 10:20 539.44 0.65 123 96 90 1.02 1.00 21 33.0 36.0 10:23 541.31 0.58 123 96 91 0.91 0.90 2

12 36.0 39.0 10:35 543.06 0.43 123 93 92 0.67 0.66 2

11 39.0 42.0 10:38 544.56 0.55 124 95 92 0.86 0.85 2

10 42.0 45.0 10:41 546.28 0.66 124 96 92 1.03 1.02 2

9 45.0 48.0 10:44 548.15 0.71 124 97 93 1.11 1.10 28 48.0 51.0 10:47 550.10 0.85 125 98 93 1.33 1.32 27 51.0 54.0 10:50 552.26 0.88 125 99 94 1.38 1.36 26 54.0 57.0 10:53 554.42 0.86 125 99 94 1.34 1.33 25 57.0 60.0 10:56 556.56 0.82 119 100 94 1.28 1.27 24 60.0 63.0 10:59 558.66 0.70 117 100 95 1.09 1.09 23 63.0 66.0 11:02 560.60 0.56 116 100 95 0.88 0.87 22 66.0 69.0 11:05 562.33 0.45 116 100 95 0.70 0.70 21 69.0 72.0 11:08 563.91 0.27 116 100 95 0.42 0.42 2

72.0 11:11 565.14

Average: 43.92 0.64 122.1 95.2 91.1 1.00 0.99 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.09 Probe # 5ftB Pollutant Formaldehyd Points/Port 12 Start Finish Pre P

Company Johns Manville DGM # MB 6 Method 316 Total Points 24Location Winder, GA Rate (cfm) Run # 3 Time/pt (min) 3.0

Source 653E Cooling Delta ∆H@ 1.53 Date 21-Sep-10 Time/reading 3.0

Operator JP Bws (%) 2.5 # of Ports 2 Total Run 72.0

Filter Number NA Condensate Volume 16 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 30.06

Barometric 30.05 Silica Gel Weight Gain 7 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 30.05 Ref Temp 68Static (in H2O) 0.13 Actual Dn (in) 0.208 O2 (%) 20.1 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.50 An (ft^2) 0.00024 CO2 (%) 0.3 Md 28.85 Stack Area (sf) 9.62

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 28.59 Act. Flow (cfm) 27,192 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 42.87 Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 0.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 24,910

Moisture % 2.46 Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 24,298

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

(24hr) DGM Vol. Delta P Stack Temp Meter In Meter Out

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

12 0.0 3.0 11:29 565.35 0.38 117 96 96 0.60 0.6 211 3.0 6.0 11:32 566.80 0.47 116 98 96 0.75 0.74 2

10 6.0 9.0 11:35 568.41 0.66 117 98 97 1.05 1.04 2

9 9.0 12.0 11:38 570.30 0.73 118 99 97 1.16 1.15 2

8 12.0 15.0 11:41 572.31 0.82 118 99 97 1.30 1.3 2

7 15.0 18.0 11:44 574.44 0.86 118 99 97 1.36 1.36 26 18.0 21.0 11:47 576.59 0.83 118 100 97 1.32 1.31 25 21.0 24.0 11:50 578.75 0.81 118 101 97 1.28 1.28 24 24.0 27.0 11:53 580.86 0.72 119 101 97 1.14 1.14 23 27.0 30.0 11:56 582.83 0.56 119 101 98 0.89 0.89 22 30.0 33.0 11:59 584.60 0.46 119 102 98 0.73 0.73 21 33.0 36.0 12:05 586.20 0.34 119 102 98 0.54 0.54 2

12 36.0 39.0 12:14 587.59 0.33 120 100 99 0.52 0.52 211 39.0 42.0 12:17 588.95 0.41 120 102 99 0.65 0.65 2

10 42.0 45.0 12:20 590.44 0.53 120 102 99 0.84 0.84 2

9 45.0 48.0 12:23 592.16 0.63 120 103 100 1.00 1 28 48.0 51.0 12:26 594.05 0.70 120 103 100 1.11 1.11 27 51.0 54.0 12:29 596.00 0.81 120 104 100 1.28 1.28 26 54.0 57.0 12:32 598.13 0.85 120 105 100 1.35 1.34 25 57.0 60.0 12:35 600.30 0.87 120 105 101 1.38 1.38 24 60.0 63.0 12:38 602.51 0.85 120 106 101 1.35 1.34 23 63.0 66.0 12:41 604.68 0.80 121 106 101 1.27 1.27 22 66.0 69.0 12:44 606.80 0.64 120 106 102 1.02 1.01 21 69.0 72.0 12:47 608.70 0.58 120 107 102 0.92 0.92 2

72.0 12:50 610.50

Average: 45.15 0.65 119.0 101.9 98.7 1.03 1.03 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.06 Probe # 5 ft. D Pollutant Points/Port 12 Start Finish Pre PCompany Johns Manville DGM # MB-6 Method 316 Total Points 24Location Winder, GA Rate (cfm) 0.75 Run # 1 Time/pt (min) 3.0Source 654E RTO Delta ∆H@ 1.77 Date 21-Sep-10 Time/reading 3.0

Operator MS Bws (%) 9.27 # of Ports 2 Total Run 72.0

Filter Number NA Condensate Volume 83 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 30.02

Barometric 30.05 Silica Gel Weight Gain 9 DGM Y 1.013 Pm (in Hg) 30.05 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -0.38 Actual Dn (in) 0.371 O2 (%) 17.7 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.96 An (ft^2) 0.00075 CO2 (%) 1.4 Md 28.93 Stack Area (sf) 12.32

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 27.92 Act. Flow (cfm) 18,678 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 42.21 Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 54.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 10,342

Moisture % 9.31 Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 9,383

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

(24hr) DGM Vol. Delta P Stack Temp Meter In Meter Out

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

12 0.0 3.0 8:00 243.56 0.07 493 70 70 0.67 0.7 2

11 3.0 6.0 8:03 244.98 0.08 496 71 70 0.77 0.8 210 6.0 9.0 8:06 246.50 0.08 493 72 71 0.77 0.8 2

9 9.0 12.0 8:09 247.97 0.10 501 73 71 0.96 1 28 12.0 15.0 8:12 249.64 0.11 499 73 71 1.05 1.1 2

7 15.0 18.0 8:15 251.40 0.12 496 75 72 1.15 1.2 2

6 18.0 21.0 8:18 253.24 0.13 498 77 72 1.25 1.3 2

5 21.0 24.0 8:21 255.16 0.14 502 78 73 1.34 1.4 2

4 24.0 27.0 8:24 257.13 0.15 500 79 73 1.44 1.5 2

3 27.0 30.0 8:27 259.17 0.13 499 81 74 1.25 1.3 2

2 30.0 33.0 8:30 261.09 0.12 494 83 74 1.15 1.2 2

1 33.0 36.0 8:33 262.95 0.09 494 84 75 0.86 0.9 2

12 36.0 39.0 8:46 264.56 0.07 498 79 77 0.67 0.7 2

11 39.0 42.0 8:49 266.00 0.08 495 83 78 0.77 0.8 2

10 42.0 45.0 8:52 267.52 0.08 494 83 78 0.77 0.8 2

9 45.0 48.0 8:55 269.05 0.11 498 84 79 1.05 1.11 28 48.0 51.0 8:58 270.80 0.14 495 85 79 1.34 1.4 2

7 51.0 54.0 9:01 272.80 0.14 496 87 80 1.34 1.4 2

6 54.0 57.0 9:04 274.82 0.14 503 88 80 1.34 1.4 2

5 57.0 60.0 9:07 276.83 0.13 496 89 81 1.25 1.3 2

4 60.0 63.0 9:10 278.82 0.13 500 90 81 1.25 1.3 2

3 63.0 66.0 9:13 280.80 0.12 495 90 81 1.15 1.22 22 66.0 69.0 9:16 282.65 0.09 493 91 82 0.86 0.9 2

1 69.0 72.0 9:19 284.30 0.09 496 91 82 0.86 0.9 2

72.0 9:22 285.93

Average: 42.37 0.11 496.8 81.5 76.0 1.05 1.10 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.06 Probe # Pollutant 0 Points/Port 12 Start Finish Pre PCompany Johns Manville DGM # MB-6 Method 316 Total Points 24Location Winder, GA Rate (cfm) 0.75 Run # 2 Time/pt (min) 3.0Source 654E RTO Delta ∆H@ 1.77 Date 21-Sep-10 Time/reading 3.0

Operator Bws (%) 8.9 # of Ports 2 Total Run 72.0

Filter Number NA Condensate Volume 78 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 30.02

Barometric 30.05 Silica Gel Weight Gain 11 DGM Y 1.013 Pm (in Hg) 30.05 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -0.38 Actual Dn (in) 0.371 O2 (%) 18.2 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.96 An (ft^2) 0.00075 CO2 (%) 1.3 Md 28.94 Stack Area (sf) 12.32

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 27.97 Act. Flow (cfm) 19,016 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 42.94 Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 54.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 10,522

Moisture % 8.89 Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 9,590

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

(24hr) DGM Vol. Delta P Stack Temp Meter In Meter Out

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

12 0.0 3.0 9:50 286.14 0.09 499 85 83 0.88 0.92 2

11 3.0 6.0 9:53 287.76 0.09 497 87 84 0.88 0.92 2

10 6.0 9.0 9:56 289.39 0.09 498 88 84 0.88 0.92 2

9 9.0 12.0 9:59 291.00 0.11 498 88 84 1.08 1.13 2

8 12.0 15.0 10:02 292.83 0.13 495 88 84 1.28 1.33 2

7 15.0 18.0 10:05 294.80 0.14 502 89 84 1.38 1.44 26 18.0 21.0 10:08 296.80 0.15 496 90 84 1.47 1.54 25 21.0 24.0 10:11 298.91 0.14 499 91 85 1.38 1.44 24 24.0 27.0 10:14 300.97 0.13 501 92 85 1.28 1.34 23 27.0 30.0 10:17 302.95 0.12 498 92 85 1.18 1.23 22 30.0 33.0 10:20 304.83 0.11 500 93 85 1.08 1.13 21 33.0 36.0 10:23 306.63 0.10 495 93 86 0.98 1.03 2

12 36.0 39.0 10:35 308.34 0.07 495 88 86 0.69 0.72 2

11 39.0 42.0 10:38 309.78 0.07 498 91 86 0.69 0.72 2

10 42.0 45.0 10:41 311.22 0.10 495 91 86 0.98 1.03 2

9 45.0 48.0 10:44 312.98 0.11 495 91 86 1.08 1.13 28 48.0 51.0 10:47 314.75 0.12 497 92 87 1.18 1.24 27 51.0 54.0 10:50 316.61 0.13 496 93 87 1.28 1.34 26 54.0 57.0 10:53 318.58 0.14 497 95 88 1.38 1.44 25 57.0 60.0 10:56 320.63 0.14 503 96 88 1.38 1.44 24 60.0 63.0 10:59 322.70 0.14 496 96 88 1.38 1.44 23 63.0 66.0 11:02 324.71 0.11 499 97 89 1.08 1.14 22 66.0 69.0 11:05 326.58 0.10 498 97 89 0.98 1.03 21 69.0 72.0 11:08 328.30 0.10 493 96 89 0.98 1.03 2

72.0 11:11 330.05

Average: 43.91 0.11 497.5 91.6 85.9 1.12 1.17 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.06 Probe # 5ft.D Pollutant 0 Points/Port 12 Start Finish Pre PCompany Johns Manville DGM # MB-6 Method 316 Total Points 24Location Winder, GA Rate (cfm) 0.75 Run # 3 Time/pt (min) 3.0Source 654E RTO Delta ∆H@ 1.77 Date 21-Sep-10 Time/reading 3.0

Operator MS Bws (%) 8.4 # of Ports 2 Total Run 72.0

Filter Number NA Condensate Volume 72 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 30.02

Barometric 30.05 Silica Gel Weight Gain 8 DGM Y 1.013 Pm (in Hg) 30.05 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -0.38 Actual Dn (in) 0.371 O2 (%) 18.2 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.96 An (ft^2) 0.00075 CO2 (%) 1.6 Md 28.98 Stack Area (sf) 12.32

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 28.07 Act. Flow (cfm) 18,184 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 41.11 Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 54.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 10,048

Moisture % 8.39 Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 9,207

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

(24hr) DGM Vol. Delta P Stack Temp Meter In Meter Out

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

12 0.0 3.0 11:29 330.32 0.07 495 91 89 0.70 0.73 2

11 3.0 6.0 11:32 331.79 0.07 495 94 90 0.70 0.73 2

10 6.0 9.0 11:35 333.22 0.09 496 94 90 0.90 0.94 2

9 9.0 12.0 11:38 334.88 0.10 503 95 91 1.01 1.04 2

8 12.0 15.0 11:41 336.61 0.11 498 96 91 1.11 1.14 2

7 15.0 18.0 11:44 338.43 0.12 503 98 92 1.21 1.25 26 18.0 21.0 11:47 340.37 0.14 498 99 92 1.41 1.46 25 21.0 24.0 11:50 342.42 0.14 500 99 92 1.41 1.46 24 24.0 27.0 11:53 344.48 0.13 503 100 93 1.31 1.35 23 27.0 30.0 11:56 346.47 0.11 502 101 93 1.11 1.14 22 30.0 33.0 11:59 348.29 0.09 498 101 94 0.90 0.94 21 33.0 36.0 12:02 350.00 0.09 495 102 94 0.90 0.94 2

12 36.0 39.0 12:14 351.66 0.08 497 96 93 0.80 0.83 2

11 39.0 42.0 12:17 353.21 0.08 498 100 94 0.80 0.84 2

10 42.0 45.0 12:20 354.78 0.09 498 100 95 0.90 0.94 2

9 45.0 48.0 12:23 356.40 0.11 498 101 95 1.11 1.15 28 48.0 51.0 12:26 358.22 0.13 499 101 95 1.31 1.36 27 51.0 54.0 12:29 360.22 0.13 506 103 95 1.31 1.36 26 54.0 57.0 12:32 362.22 0.12 500 104 96 1.21 1.25 25 57.0 60.0 12:35 364.15 0.11 500 105 96 1.11 1.15 24 60.0 63.0 12:38 366.02 0.11 501 105 96 1.11 1.15 23 63.0 66.0 12:41 367.90 0.10 498 105 97 1.01 1.05 22 66.0 69.0 12:44 369.62 0.09 496 105 97 0.90 0.94 21 69.0 72.0 12:47 371.30 0.09 495 105 97 0.91 0.94 2

72.0 12:50 372.97

Average: 42.65 0.10 498.8 100.0 93.6 1.05 1.09 2

Leak Check
























APPENDIX D 

EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION DOCUMENTS 
Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration Results Summary

Johns Manville - Winder, Georgia

BTEC Project No. 10-3990.09

Sampling Dates: September 18, 2010

Forming and Collection 641

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Test Run Date 9/18/2010 9/18/2010 9/18/2010Test Time 11:54 12:07 14:06Oxygen concentration (%) 20.5 20.4 20.4 20.5Oxygen concentration (%) (corrected as per USEPA 3A) 20.0 19.9 19.7 19.9Carbon Dioxide concentration (%) 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3Carbon Dioxide concentration (%) (corrected as per USEPA 3A) 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3

CO2 Correction O2 Correction

1 2 3 

Co -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 Co 0Cma 10.10 10.10 10.10 Cma 9Cm 9.9 9.9 9.92 Cm 1

Co= Average of initial and final zero gasesCma=Actual concentration of the calibration gasCm= Average of initial and final calibration gases
Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration Results Summary

Johns Manville - Winder, Georgia

BTEC Project No. 10-3990.09

Sampling Dates: September 18, 2010

Forming and Collection 642

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Test Run Date 9/18/2010 9/18/2010 9/18/2010Test Time 11:57 12:09 14:09Oxygen concentration (%) 20.5 20.4 20.6 20.5Oxygen concentration (%) (corrected as per USEPA 3A) 20.0 19.9 19.8 19.9Carbon Dioxide concentration (%) 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3Carbon Dioxide concentration (%) (corrected as per USEPA 3A) 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3

CO2 Correction O2 Correction

1 2 3 

Co -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 Co 0Cma 10.10 10.10 10.10 Cma 9Cm 9.9 9.9 9.92 Cm 1

Co= Average of initial and final zero gasesCma=Actual concentration of the calibration gasCm= Average of initial and final calibration gases
Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration Results Summary

Johns Manville - Winder, Georgia

BTEC Project No. 10-3990.09

Sampling Dates: September 21, 2010

653 - Cooling

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Test Run Date 9/21/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010Test Time 10:42 12:07 13:37Oxygen concentration (%) 20.6 20.5 20.5 20.6Oxygen concentration (%) (corrected as per USEPA 3A) 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1Carbon Dioxide concentration (%) 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2Carbon Dioxide concentration (%) (corrected as per USEPA 3A) -0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1

CO2 Correction O2 Correction

1 2 3 

Co 0.01 0.02 0.03 Co -0Cma 10.10 10.10 10.10 Cma 9Cm 10.0 10.0 9.98 Cm 1

Co= Average of initial and final zero gasesCma=Actual concentration of the calibration gasCm= Average of initial and final calibration gases
Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration Results Summary

Johns Manville - Winder, Georgia

BTEC Project No. 10-3990.09

Sampling Dates: September 21, 2010

654 - Curing

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Test Run Date 9/21/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010Test Time 10:45 12:11 13:39Oxygen concentration (%) 18.1 18.5 18.7 18.4Oxygen concentration (%) (corrected as per USEPA 3A) 17.7 18.2 18.2 18.0Carbon Dioxide concentration (%) 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.4Carbon Dioxide concentration (%) (corrected as per USEPA 3A) 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.5

CO2 Correction O2 Correction

1 2 3 

Co 0.01 0.02 0.03 Co -0Cma 10.10 10.10 10.10 Cma 9Cm 10.0 10.0 9.98 Cm 1

Co= Average of initial and final zero gasesCma=Actual concentration of the calibration gasCm= Average of initial and final calibration gases
METHOD 5 DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION USING CRITICAL ORIFICES

1) 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 time

necessary to achieve a minimum total volume of 5 cubic feet.

4) Record data and information in the GREEN cells, 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 

METER PART #: MB 6 CRITICAL ORIFICE SET SERIAL #: 1447 

K' TESTED TEMPERATURES °F ELAPSED

FACTOR VACUUM DGM READINGS (FT3

) AMBIENT DGM INLET DGM OUTLET DGM TIME (MIN) DGM ΔH (1) 

ORIFICE # RUN # (AVG) (in Hg) INITIAL FINAL NET (Vm) INITIAL FINAL INITIAL FINAL AVG θ (in H2O) Vm (STD) V

1 0.8778 15 570.245 575.950 5.705 85 86 88 85 85 86 5.00 4.175 5.5523 2 0.8778 15 575.950 581.730 5.780 85 88 86 85 85 86 5.00 4.175 5.6253 3 0.8778 15 581.730 587.441 5.711 85 86 87 85 86 86 5.00 4.175 5.5582 1 0.5057 16 587.441 596.625 9.184 85 87 90 86 87 87.5 14.00 1.325 8.8517 2 0.5057 16 596.625 612.380 15.755 85 90 94 87 88 89.75 24.00 1.325 15.1227 13 0.5057 16 612.380 618.290 5.910 85 94 94 88 89 91.25 9.00 1.325 5.6574 1 0.3367 16 618.290 623.635 5.345 85 93 93 89 89 91 12.00 0.61 5.1099 2 0.3367 16 623.635 628.985 5.350 85 93 93 89 89 91 12.00 0.61 5.1146 3 0.3367 16 628.985 635.664 6.679 85 93 93 89 90 91.25 15.00 0.61 6.3823 

(1) = Net volume of gas sample passed through DGM, corrected to standard conditions

K1 = 17.64 oR/in. Hg (English), 0.3858 oK/mm Hg (Metric) AVERAGE DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION FAC

Tm = Absolute DGM avg. temperature (oR - English, oK - Metric)

ΔH@ = 0.75 θ ΔH Vm(std) AVERA

(2) = Volume of gas sample passed through the critical orifice, corrected to standard con

Vcr(std) Vm

Tamb = Absolute ambient temperature (oR - English, oK - Metric)

K' = Average K' factor from Critical Orifice Calibration

(3) = DGM calibration factor

321812
METHOD 5 DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION USING CRITICAL ORIFICES

1) 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 time

necessary to achieve a minimum total volume of 5 cubic feet.

4) Record data and information in the GREEN cells, YELLOW cells are calculated.

INITIAL FINAL AVG (Pbar)

DATE: 9/8/2010 METER SERIAL #: 1672 BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (in Hg): 30.67 30.67 30.67 

METER PART #: MB5 CRITICAL ORIFICE SET SERIAL #: 1447 

K' TESTED TEMPERATURES °F ELAPSED

FACTOR VACUUM DGM READINGS (FT3) AMBIENT DGM INLET DGM OUTLET DGM TIME (MIN) DGM ΔH (1) 

ORIFICE # RUN # (AVG) (in Hg) INITIAL FINAL NET (Vm) INITIAL FINAL INITIAL FINAL AVG θ (in H2O) Vm (STD) Vcr 

1 0.8778 16 546.40 553.240 6.840 78 78 78 78 78 78 6.00 3.75 6.9442 6.2 0.8778 16 553.240 560.090 6.850 78 78 78 78 78 78 6.00 3.75 6.9544 6.3 0.8778 16 560.090 566.890 6.80 78 78 79 78 79 78.5 6.00 3.75 6.8972 6.1 0.5057 16 564.640 570.560 5.920 78 79 81 79 79 79.5 9.00 1.2 5.9572 6.2 0.5057 16 570.560 576.480 5.920 78 81 82 79 79 80.25 9.00 1.2 5.9489 6.3 0.5057 16 576.480 582.420 5.940 79 82 84 79 80 81.25 9.00 1.2 5.9580 6.1 0.3367 16 582.420 587.790 5.370 79 83 83 80 80 81.5 12.00 0.52 5.3750 5.2 0.3367 16 587.790 593.160 5.370 79 83 83 80 81 81.75 12.00 0.52 5.3725 5.3 0.3367 16 593.160 598.530 5.370 79 83 83 81 81 82 12.00 0.52 5.370 5.

AVERAGE DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION FACT

AVERAG

(1) = Net volume of gas sample passed through DGM, corrected to standard conditions

K1 = 17.64 oR/in. Hg (English), 0.3858 oK/mm Hg (Metric)

Tm = Absolute DGM avg. temperature (oR - English, oK - Metric) ΔH@ = 0.

Vcr

(2) = Volume of gas sample passed through the critical orifice, corrected to standard conditions

Tamb = Absolute ambient temperature (oR - English, oK - Metric)

K' = Average K' factor from Critical Orifice Calibration

(3) = DGM calibration factor

321812

ENVIRONMENTAL 

USING 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 critical 

orifice, Vcr (std), and the DGM calibration factor, Y. These equations are automatically calculated in the spreadsheet above.

(

Tm

Pbar

H Vm std

K Vm ( /13.6) ( ) 1

+ Δ = ∗ ∗

Tamb

Pbar Vcr std

K ∗ Θ ( ) = '∗

( )

( )

std

std

Vm

Vcr

Y =










APPENDIX E 

LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS 
Your Project #: 10-3990.09 

 Site: JM WINDER

Attention: Barry Boulianne

BT Environmental Consulting

2615 Wolcott St.

Ferndale, MI

USA 48220

Report Date: 2010/10/08

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

MAXXAM JOB #: B0D3266

Received: 2010/09/23, 14:00

Sample Matrix: Stack Sampling Train

# Samples Received: 26

Date Date Method

Analyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method Reference

Formaldehylde (M316) 13 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 BRL SOP-00113 EPA 316 

Final Volume of Impinger 13 N/A 2010/10/01 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) (1 ) 13 N/A 2010/09/28 BRL SOP-00211 NCASI WP99.01mod 

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

(1) C

Encryption Key

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

LINA BARRETO, Project Manager

Email: Lina.Barreto@maxxamanalytics.com

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 10
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0D3266 Client Project #: 10-3990.09

Report Date: 2010/10/08 Project name: JM WINDER

RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF STACK SAMPLING TRAIN

Maxxam ID H G 4 5 1 8 H G 4 5 1 9 H G 4 5 1 9 H G 4 5 2 1 H G 4 5 2 2

Sampling Date 2010/09/18 2010/09/18 2010/09/18 2010/09/18 2010/09/18

 U n i t s BLANK-DI RDL R1-641-M316 R1-641-M316 RDL R2-641-M316 RDL R3-641-M316 RDL QC Batch

H2O-M316 Lab-Dup

Formaldehyde ug ND 15 54 54 14 36 16 37 15 2284706

Volume ml 590 1 560 1 640 1 600 1 2288290

ND = Not detected

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Maxxam ID H G 4 5 2 3 H G 4 5 2 5 H G 4 5 2 6 H G 4 5 2 7

Sampling Date 2010/09/18 2010/09/18 2010/09/18 2010/09/21

 U n i t s R1-642-M316 R2-642-M316 RDL R3-642-M316 RDL R1-COOLING-653-M316 RDL QC Batch

Formaldehyde ug 47 44 13 23 14 210 16 2284706

Volume ml 540 520 1 570 1 620 1 2288290

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Maxxam ID H G 4 5 2 9 H G 4 5 3 0 H G 4 5 3 1

Sampling Date 2010/09/21 2010/09/21 2010/09/21

 U n i t s R2-COOLING-653-M316 RDL R3-COOLING-653-M316 RDL R1-OVEN-654-M316 RDL QC Batch

Formaldehyde ug 200 14 190 13 710 17 2284706

Volume ml 570 1 510 1 680 1 2288290

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Maxxam ID H G 4 5 3 3 H G 4 5 3 4

Sampling Date 2010/09/21 2010/09/21

 U n i t s R2-OVEN-654-M316 RDL R3-OVEN-654-M316 RDL QC Batch

Formaldehyde ug 750 16 700 15 2284706

Volume ml 640 1 590 1 2288290

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 2 of 10
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0D3266 Client Project #: 10-3990.09

Report Date: 2010/10/08 Project name: JM WINDER

MISCELLANEOUS (STACK SAMPLING TRAIN)

Maxxam ID H G 4 4 9 4 H G 4 4 9 4 H G 4 4 9 6 H G 4 4 9 7 H G 4 4 9 8 H G 4 5 0 0 H G 4 5 0 1

Sampling Date 2010/09/18 2010/09/18 2010/09/18 2010/09/18 2010/09/18 2010/09/18 2010/09/18

 U n i t s R1-641 R1-641 R2-641 R3-641 R1-642 R2-642 R3-642 RDL QC Batch

ALIQUOT ALIQUOT ALIQUOT ALIQUOT ALIQUOT ALIQUOT ALIQUOT

Lab-Dup

Methanol ug ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 4 2278862

Phenol ug ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 6 2278862

ND = Not detected

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Maxxam ID H G 4 5 0 2 H G 4 5 0 4 H G 4 5 0 5 H G 4 5 0 6 H G 4 5 0 8 H G 4 5 0 9

Sampling Date 2010/09/21 2010/09/21 2010/09/21 2010/09/21 2010/09/21 2010/09/21

 U n i t s R1-COOLING-653 R2-COOLING-653 R3-COOLING-653 R1-OVEN-654 R2-OVEN-654 R3-OVEN-654 RDL QC Batch

ALIQUOT ALIQUOT ALIQUOT ALIQUOT ALIQUOT ALIQUOT

Methanol ug ND ND ND ND ND ND 4 2278862

Phenol ug ND ND ND ND ND ND 6 2278862

ND = Not detected

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Maxxam ID H G 6 4 9 1

Sampling Date 2010/09/21

 U n i t s BLANK-DI RDL QC Batch

H20-NCASI98.01

Methanol ug ND 4 2278862

Phenol ug ND 6 2278862

ND = Not detected

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 3 of 10
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0D3266 Client Project #: 10-3990.09

Report Date: 2010/10/08 Project name: JM WINDER

Test Summary

Maxxam ID HG4494 Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID R1-641 ALIQUOT Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) GC/FID 2278862 N/A 2010/09/28 LTO

Maxxam ID HG4494 D u p Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID R1-641 ALIQUOT Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) GC/FID 2278862 N/A 2010/09/28 LTO

Maxxam ID HG4496 Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID R2-641 ALIQUOT Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) GC/FID 2278862 N/A 2010/09/28 LTO

Maxxam ID HG4497 Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID R3-641 ALIQUOT Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) GC/FID 2278862 N/A 2010/09/28 LTO

Maxxam ID HG4498 Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID R1-642 ALIQUOT Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) GC/FID 2278862 N/A 2010/09/28 LTO

Maxxam ID HG4500 Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID R2-642 ALIQUOT Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) GC/FID 2278862 N/A 2010/09/28 LTO

Maxxam ID HG4501 Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID R3-642 ALIQUOT Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) GC/FID 2278862 N/A 2010/09/28 LTO

Page 4 of 10
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0D3266 Client Project #: 10-3990.09

Report Date: 2010/10/08 Project name: JM WINDER

Test Summary

Maxxam ID HG4502 Collected 2010/09/21

Sample ID R1-COOLING-653 ALIQUOT Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) GC/FID 2278862 N/A 2010/09/28 LTO

Maxxam ID HG4504 Collected 2010/09/21

Sample ID R2-COOLING-653 ALIQUOT Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) GC/FID 2278862 N/A 2010/09/28 LTO

Maxxam ID HG4505 Collected 2010/09/21

Sample ID R3-COOLING-653 ALIQUOT Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) GC/FID 2278862 N/A 2010/09/28 LTO

Maxxam ID HG4506 Collected 2010/09/21

Sample ID R1-OVEN-654 ALIQUOT Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) GC/FID 2278862 N/A 2010/09/28 LTO

Maxxam ID HG4508 Collected 2010/09/21

Sample ID R2-OVEN-654 ALIQUOT Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) GC/FID 2278862 N/A 2010/09/28 LTO

Maxxam ID HG4509 Collected 2010/09/21

Sample ID R3-OVEN-654 ALIQUOT Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) GC/FID 2278862 N/A 2010/09/28 LTO

Maxxam ID HG4518 Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID BLANK-DI H2O-M316 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Formaldehylde (M316) /SPEC 2284706 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 LLE

Final Volume of Impinger 2288290 N/A 2010/10/01 FMO

Page 5 of 10
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0D3266 Client Project #: 10-3990.09

Report Date: 2010/10/08 Project name: JM WINDER

Test Summary

Maxxam ID HG4519 Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID R1-641-M316 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Formaldehylde (M316) /SPEC 2284706 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 LLE

Final Volume of Impinger 2288290 N/A 2010/10/01 FMO

Maxxam ID HG4519 D u p Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID R1-641-M316 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Formaldehylde (M316) /SPEC 2284706 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 LLE

Maxxam ID HG4521 Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID R2-641-M316 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Formaldehylde (M316) /SPEC 2284706 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 LLE

Final Volume of Impinger 2288290 N/A 2010/10/01 FMO

Maxxam ID HG4522 Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID R3-641-M316 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Formaldehylde (M316) /SPEC 2284706 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 LLE

Final Volume of Impinger 2288290 N/A 2010/10/01 FMO

Maxxam ID HG4523 Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID R1-642-M316 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Formaldehylde (M316) /SPEC 2284706 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 LLE

Final Volume of Impinger 2288290 N/A 2010/10/01 FMO

Maxxam ID HG4525 Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID R2-642-M316 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Formaldehylde (M316) /SPEC 2284706 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 LLE

Final Volume of Impinger 2288290 N/A 2010/10/01 FMO

Page 6 of 10
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0D3266 Client Project #: 10-3990.09

Report Date: 2010/10/08 Project name: JM WINDER

Test Summary

Maxxam ID HG4526 Collected 2010/09/18

Sample ID R3-642-M316 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Formaldehylde (M316) /SPEC 2284706 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 LLE

Final Volume of Impinger 2288290 N/A 2010/10/01 FMO

Maxxam ID HG4527 Collected 2010/09/21

Sample ID R1-COOLING-653-M316 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Formaldehylde (M316) /SPEC 2284706 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 LLE

Final Volume of Impinger 2288290 N/A 2010/10/01 FMO

Maxxam ID HG4529 Collected 2010/09/21

Sample ID R2-COOLING-653-M316 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Formaldehylde (M316) /SPEC 2284706 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 LLE

Final Volume of Impinger 2288290 N/A 2010/10/01 FMO

Maxxam ID HG4530 Collected 2010/09/21

Sample ID R3-COOLING-653-M316 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Formaldehylde (M316) /SPEC 2284706 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 LLE

Final Volume of Impinger 2288290 N/A 2010/10/01 FMO

Maxxam ID HG4531 Collected 2010/09/21

Sample ID R1-OVEN-654-M316 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Formaldehylde (M316) /SPEC 2284706 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 LLE

Final Volume of Impinger 2288290 N/A 2010/10/01 FMO

Maxxam ID HG4533 Collected 2010/09/21

Sample ID R2-OVEN-654-M316 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Formaldehylde (M316) /SPEC 2284706 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 LLE

Final Volume of Impinger 2288290 N/A 2010/10/01 FMO

Page 7 of 10
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0D3266 Client Project #: 10-3990.09

Report Date: 2010/10/08 Project name: JM WINDER

Test Summary

Maxxam ID HG4534 Collected 2010/09/21

Sample ID R3-OVEN-654-M316 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Formaldehylde (M316) /SPEC 2284706 2010/10/01 2010/10/01 LLE

Final Volume of Impinger 2288290 N/A 2010/10/01 FMO

Maxxam ID HG6491 Collected 2010/09/21

Sample ID BLANK-DI H20-NCASI98.01 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/09/23

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NCASI WP99.01) GC/FID 2278862 N/A 2010/09/28 LTO

Page 8 of 10
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0D3266 Client Project #: 10-3990.09

Report Date: 2010/10/08 Project name: JM WINDER

GENERAL COMMENTS

Sample HG4494-01: MDL's adjusted for volume received and for dilution. Volume=43 ml

Sample HG4496-01: MDL's adjusted for volume received and for dilution. Volume=43 ml

Sample HG4497-01: MDL's adjusted for volume received and for dilution. Volume=43 ml

Sample HG4498-01: MDL's adjusted for volume received and for dilution. Volume=43 ml

Sample HG4500-01: MDL's adjusted for volume received and for dilution. Volume=43 ml

Sample HG4501-01: MDL's adjusted for volume received and for dilution. Volume=43 ml

Sample HG4502-01: MDL's adjusted for volume received and for dilution. Volume=43 ml

Sample HG4504-01: MDL's adjusted for volume received and for dilution. Volume=43 ml

Sample HG4505-01: MDL's adjusted for volume received and for dilution. Volume=43 ml

Sample HG4506-01: MDL's adjusted for volume received and for dilution. Volume=43 ml

Sample HG4508-01: MDL's adjusted for volume received and for dilution. Volume=43 ml

Sample HG4509-01: MDL's adjusted for volume received and for dilution. Volume=43 ml

Sample HG6491-01: MDL's adjusted for volume received and for dilution. Volume=43 ml

Results relate only to the items tested.

Page 9 of 10
BT Environmental Consulting

Attention: Barry Boulianne 

Client Project #: 10-3990.09

P.O. #:

Project name: JM WINDER

Quality Assurance Report

Maxxam Job Number: GB0D3266

QA/QC Date

Batch Analyzed

Num Init QC Type Parameter yyyy/mm/dd Value %Recovery Units QC Limits

2278862 LTO Matrix Spike Methanol 2010/09/28 113 % N/A

Phenol 2010/09/28 92 % N/A

Spiked Blank Methanol 2010/09/28 93 % N/A

Phenol 2010/09/28 104 % N/A

Method Blank Methanol 2010/09/28 ND, RDL=50 ug

Phenol 2010/09/28 ND, RDL=6 ug

RPD -

Sample/Sample

Dup Methanol 2010/09/28 NC % N/A

Phenol 2010/09/28 NC % 50

2284706 LLE Matrix Spike

(HG4519) Formaldehyde 2010/10/01 101 % 80 - 120

Spiked Blank Formaldehyde 2010/10/01 100 % 91 - 107

Method Blank Formaldehyde 2010/10/01 ND, RDL=5 ug

RPD -

Sample/Sample

Dup Formaldehyde 2010/10/01 NC % 20

N/A = Not Applicable

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 10 of 10