Compliance Test

Report rl,.,,,•..,ll.,._J n--; --I_ ,i,__ KFPlant South Windsor, Connecticut

Prepared for: Mr. Barry

Miller Redland Brick,

Inc.
Prepared by: Mr. Leigh

A. Gammie Gammie Air Monitoring,

LLC July 2005 Project No.: GamAir

547-0505Section Table of Contents

5.15.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.25.3 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Summary

of Test Program

•.. 1.2 Key Personnel 2.0 SOURCE

AND SAMLING

LOCATION

DESCRIPTION 2 2.1 Process Description 2 2.2 Flue Gas Sampling

Locations 2 3.0 SUMMARY

AND DISCUSION

OF RESULTS.,

................................................................................. 3 •t Ma,,•

.......................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Field Test Changes and Problems 3 3.3 Summary

of Test Results

.............................................................................................. 3 4.0 SAMPLING

AND ANALYTICAL

METHODOLOGY

...................................................................... 5 4.1 Volumetric

Flow Rate Tests

............................................................................................. 5 4.2 Sulfur Dioxide Outlet Tests

............................................................................................ 6 4.3 Hydrogen

Chloride/Hydrogen

Flu6ride Outlet Tests 6 5.0 QUALITY

ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

PROCEDURES 8 QC Procedures

.............................................................................................................................. 8 Equipment Calibrations

....,:

............................................................................................ 8 Analytical Quality Control Procedures 8 Calculations Quality Control Procedures 8 QA Audits 9 QA/QC Checks of Data Reduction.:!•

......................................................................................... 9 Appendix A Figures

and Diagrams Appendix B Results

and Calculations Appendix C Field Data Sheets Appendix D Process

Monitoring

Data Appendix E Laboratory

Analytical

Data Appendix F Equipment

Calibrations

54%0505 Redland Brick report -.i GamAir.comREPORT CER .T!F!CAT!O, !

I have personally

examined

and am familiar

with the information

submitted

in this document and all attachments

thereto, and I certify, based on reasonable

investigation,

including

my inquiry of those individuals

responsible

for obtaining

the information,

that the submitted information is true, accurate,

and complete

to the best of my knowledge

and belief.
Leigh A. Gammie Officer, Gammie

Air Monitoring,

LLC Date

547-0505 Redland Brick report ii IlamAir.¢om1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Summary

of Test Program Gammie Air Monitoring,

LLC (GamAir)

was retained

by.Redland

Brick, Inc. to perform

a compliance air emissions

testing program

on the brick kiln exhaust stack at the KF Plant located in South Windsor,

Connecticut.

Te•ting occurred

on the exhaust of the limestone absorber control device while firing natural gas. The purpose

of this test program

was to quantify the controlled

emissions

from the brick kiln at the KF facility.

This source is identified by the State of Connecticut,

Department

of Environmental

Protection

(CTDEP)

as Town No. 169, Premise

No. 005, Permit No.. 0032, and Stack No. 20. The emission

limits are as follows.Hydrogen

Chloride

less than 2.85 pounds per hour Hydrogen Fluoride

less than 2.35 pounds per hour Sulfur Dioxide

(expressed

as SO2) less than 13.2 pounds per hour Controlled air emissions

of hydrogen

chloride

(HC1), hydrogen

fluoride,

(HF), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) were measured

at the absorber

outlet stack. The air emission

tests were carried out in conformance

with the CTDEP

guidelines

for source emission testing and applicable

test methodologies

as published

in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Appendix

A (40CFR60).

This test program

was conducted

on 23 June 2005 and was observed

by Mr. Carl S. Ekro• of the CTDEP.

GamAir

was responsible

for sampling and analyzing

all air emissions.

Ki 7 personnel

were responsible

for operating

the brick manufacturing

line at normal load conditions

and collecting

all process data. 1.2 Key Personnel The following

is a list of key individuals

who were responsible

for the organization

of this test program.Mr. Barry Miller Mr. Rick Pirolli Mr. Carl Ekroth Ms. Ancy Sebastian Mr. Leigh Gammie

Redland

Brick, Inc. CTDEP CTDEP Maxxam Analytical,

Inc. GamAir

(301) 223-7700 (860) 424-4152 (860) 424-3894 (905) 332-8788 (860) 658-4929

547-0505 Redland Brick report GamAir.com2.0 SOURCE

AND SAMLING

LOCATION

DESCRIPTION 2.1 Process

Description Redland Brick Inc., KF Plant (KF) operated

a brick manufacturing

process utilizing

a natural gas-fired tunnel-kiln

to dry and fire the bricks. The kiln is permitted

to process 21.6 tons per hour of unfired bricks (green weight).

The maximum

fuel-firing

rate was 25 MMBtu/hr (25,000 cubic feet/hour).

The maximum

kiln temperature

was 2,100 degrees Fahrenheit

(°F). Unfired bricks vary in weight from 4 to 6.2 pounds each. The maximum

daily push rate through the kiln is fifteen (15) cars. For this test program

the push rate was 9.5 cars per day which equates to 11.49 green tons per hour. Emmslons generated

from the tunnel kiln were controlled

by a BACT Engineering, Inc./Hellmich GmbH & Co. dry cascade

absorber.

The absorber

pressure

drop operated

at a range between

2.5 to 3.0 inches of water column. 2.2 Flue Gas Sampling

Locations Outlet flue gas sampling

occurred

after the dry absorber

in a vertical steel stack with an inside diameter (ID) of 47 inches. Two test ports-were

located 90 degrees apart. The sample ports were 8.9 duct diameters

(420 inches) downstream

and 6.4 duct diameters

(300 inches) upstream to their respective

flow disturbances.

In accordance

with EPA Method

1, twelve traverse points (6 per port) were used for isokinetic

sampling.

The individual

traverse point locations and stack schematic

are shown in .:Appendix

A.

547-0505 Redland Brick report 2 ¢•am/•ir.com3.0 SUMMARY

AND DISCUSION

OF RESULTS 3.1 Objectives

and Test Matrix The purpose

of this test program

was to quantify

air emissions

from the KF brick manufacturing plant while firing natural gas and to compare

these emissions

data to applicable emission

limits as provided

for in the CTDEP

air permit.

Emission

testing was conducted in accordance

with the EPA approved

test procedures.

Three emissions

tests were conducted for each parameter,

with the average result of the three tests used to determine compliance. Table 3-1 lists the emission

limits from the parameters

measured,

the EPA reference methods

used, and the sampling

times for each test.

Parameter Natural Gas Sulfur Dioxide Hydrogen Fluoride Hydrogen Chloride Oxygen/ Carbon Dioxide lbs/hr pounds per hour

EPA Test Methods Method 8

Table 3-1 Air Emissions

Test Program Redland Brick, Inc. KF Plant South Windsor,

Connecticut

Method 3 Sample Time•(min.)60.

Emission Limits

60. 13.2 lbs/hr

Analytical Laboratory
Maxxam

Number

of Runs

GamAir Method 26

60i•

2.35 lbs/hr

Maxxam

3 + 1 blank Method 26

60

2.85 lbs/hr

Maxxam

3 + 1 blank NA 3

3.2 Field Test Changes

and Problems-. There were no changes

to the original

test protocol,

testing proceeded

without incident. 3.3 Summary

of Test Results Results from thi s compliance

test program

are summarized

in Table 3-2 and detailed

in Appendix B. The sulfur dioxide emissions,i(expressed as SO2), averaged

2.91 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) which are 22.0 percent of the permit limit and are in compliance

with the CTDEP regulations.

Hydrogen

chloride

(HC1) tests averaged

1.62 pounds per hour, are 56.8 percent of the permit limit, and also are in compliance

with CTDEP

regulations.

The hydrogen fluoride

(HF) runs averaged

0r059pounds

per hour, are 2.5 percent of the permit limit, and are in compliance

with CTDEP

regulations.

547-0505 Redland Brick report :3 Gam/•,ir.comTable 3-2 Summary of Results Redland Brick, Inc. KF Brick Plant SoUth Windsor,

CT 23 June 2005 Method/Component Units

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Method 2 Flowrate dscfm

19667

19875

19467

19669 Method 3A O2/CO2 o• O2

18.4

18.2

17.9

18.2 %CO2 1.4

1.5

1.8

1.6 Method 8 Sulfur Dioxide Method 26 HC1HF pounds per hour pounds per hgur pounds per hour

2.77
1,24 0.052 dscfm dry standard cubic feet per mintite (68°F and29.92

inches Hg)

3.08

1.800.065

2.89

1.830.059

2.91

1.62 0.059

547-0505 Redland Brick report GamAir.com4.0 SAMPLING

AND ANALYTICAL

METHODOLOGY

The following

EPA test methods

were utiliZed during this emissions

test program: EPA Method

1 EPA Method

2 EPA Method

3 EPA Method

4 EPA Method

8 Sample and velocity

traverses

for stationary

sources Determination of stack gas velocity

and volumetric

flow rate (type S Pitot tube) Determination

of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations

in• emissions from stationary

sources (Orsat analyzer

procedure) Determination of moisture

content in stack gases Determination of sulfur dioxide emissions

from stationary

sources EPA Method

26 Determination

of Hydrogen

Halide and Halogen

Emissions

from Stationary Sources

Non-Isokinetic

Method The following

sections

describe

the sampling

and analytical

procedures

utilized during the emissions testing.

All tests were performed

in triplicate.

All sampling

and analytical procedure followed

those outlined

in 40CF1•.60,

Appendix

A. 4.1 Volumetric

Flow Rate Tests The volumetric

flowrate

of the flue gas at the stack test location

was determined

using EPA Methods 1-4. In accordance

with EPA Method

.1 traverse

points were utilized for flue gas velocity measurements

and isokinetic

sampling.

The locations

of the traverse points, as determined by EPA Method

1, are listed in .Appendix

A. Flue gas velocity

measurements were taken at each traverse

point during each test run using an S-type Pitot tube and an inclined water manometer

in accordance

with EPA Method

2. Stack temperature measurements were taken at each traverse point using a Type-K

thermocouple

and digital temperature readout.

The stack static pressure

was also measured

during each test run using the Pitot tube and manometer

setup. Pitot tube leak checks were performed

before and after each test run in accordance

with EPA MethOd

2. The dry molecular

weight of the outlet flue gases was determined

by measuring

the oxygen (02) and carbon dioxide

(CO2) concentrations

using the integrated

bag sampling

method followed by analysis

with an Orsat analyze•:

An integrated

15 liter Tedlar bag was collected simultaneously with the EPA Method

8 sampling

train. Carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations were determined

from integrhted

gaseous

samples

collected

during each test run using the sample train described

in EPA Method

3. The flue gas moisture

content was determined from the back half moisture

catches of the isokinetic

sampling

train during the emissions testing in accordance

with EPA Method

4. The moisture

content of the flue gas was calculated

as the ratio of the moisture

c•tch corrected

to standard

conditions

to the sum of the dry sample,

volume and the moisture

cat•h, both corrected

to standard

conditions.

547-0505 Redland Brick report -•5 t•amAir.corn4.2 Sulfur Dioxide

Outlet Tests Triplicate isokinetic

sulfur dioxide tests were performed

on the absorber

outlet exhaust stack. Each test was 60 minutes

in duration

and w•s conducted

in accordance

with EPA Method

8. The EPA Method

8 sampling

train is depicted

in Appendix

A. The sampling

train was similar to the Method

5 train with the exception

of 1) a glass wool filter was placed between

the first and second impinger

2) the heated filter between

the probe and impingers

was removed,

and 3) the impinger

contents

were replaced

with isopropanol

(IPA) and hydrogen

peroxide.

The sample train probe and heater box were heated to 248°F +/-25°F degrees to prevent moisture condensation. The first impinger

contained

100ml of 80% isopropanol,

100 ml of 3% hydrogen peroxide

was contained

in both the second and third impingers,

while 250 grams of oa: 1o• in th•fourth

imping

ekom•any

iningmoistu •, v,,•,.,,.,,• cr to kno

a•ema

re before reaching the sampling

pump. The impinger

outlet temperature

was maintained

below 68°F during sampling. Before and after each test mn the sampling

train was leak checked

to ensure no leakage greater than 0.2 cubic feet per minute.

The sampling

train operating

parameters

was recorded at each traverse

point on preprinted

data sheets as shown in Appendix

C. After the post test leak check, the sampling

train was inspected

and then moved to the clean up area. A fifteen (15) purge of clean ambient

air was then mn at the average flow rate used during the test. Upon completion,

the sampling

train was recovered

as follows: Container No. 1 Weighed

the first impinger

contents

to the nearest 0.5 gram and recorded its weight and rinsed the nozzle and probe with deionized

distilled

water. Container No. 2 Weighed

second and third impingers

for moisture

gain to the nearest 0.5 grams. Transfer

solutions

from second and third impingers

to a 1000ml graduated cylinder.

All connecting

glassware

from the second impinger

to the third impinger are then rinsed twice with 0istilled

water. Dilute to a volume of 1000 ml with DI water, mark liquid level and label container. Container No. 3 Weighed

contents

of silica gel impinger

to nearest 0.5 grams and add figure to total moisture

gain, then discard. Container No. 1 did not get analyzed

as sulfuric acid was not a requirement

for this test program. Container

No. 2 was shipped

to a contract

laboratory

for sulfur dioxide analysis. Sulfur dioxide analysis

from container

No. 2 consisted

of using a titration

method with 2 to 4 drops of thorin indicator,

titrating

to a pink.endpoint

using 0.010 N barium perchlorate.

This analysis was duplicated

per the method.

A field blank was also provided

to the laboratory

for analysis.
4.3 Hydrogen

Chloride/Hydrogen Fluoride

Outlet Tests Triplicate hydrogen

chloride

(HC1) and hydrogen

fluoride

(HF) tests were performed

at the absorber outlet stack simultaneously

with the EPA Method

8 testing.

Each test was 60 minutes in duration

and was conducted

in accordance

with EPA Method

26. The HCI/HF

sampling

train consisted

of a flexible heated Teflon transfer line with an in-stack Teflon filter, a set of 5 glass mini impingers

connected

in series contained

in an ice bath, a leakless vacuum

pump, a calibrated

rotometer,

and a calibrated

dry gas meter. The sample
547-0505 Redland Brick report 6 GamAir.comprobe was maintained

at a temperature

betv•een

248°F and 275°F to prevent moisture condensation. A cyclone was not used with the GamAir

sampling

train. The first two impingers each contained

15 milliliters

(ml) of 0.1N H2SO4 for the collection

of HC1 and HF, the third and fourth impingers

each contained

].5 ml of 0..1N NaOH, and the fifth impinger contained a known quantity

of silica gel. The impinger

outlet temperature

was maintained below 68°F during sampling.

Sampling

wa• performed

at a constant

rate of 2.0 liters per minute. Before and after each test run the sampling

train was leak checked

to ensure no leakage greater than 40 cubic centimeters

per minute.

The sampling

train operating

parameters

were recorded at each traverse

point on preprinted

data sheets as shown in Appendix

C. The sampling train components

were then moved .to the clean up area. The following

is a description of the sample recovery

procedure. Container No. 1 emptied

contents

of impingers

i & 2 and saved. Duplicate deionized water rinses of impingers

! & 2. Container No. 2 measured

moisture

contained

in impinger

3, 4, and 5 then discarded. Container No. 3 rinse water added. Container No. 4 0.1 N I--I2SO 4 reagent blank (30 ml) with corresponding
deionized water reagent blank. Sample containers

1, 3 and 4 were shipped

tO a contract

laboratory

for HC1 and HF analysis. Sample preparation

and analysis

consisted

0'.f properly

preparing

the ion chromatograph

(IC). The IC conditions

depended

upon analyticalicolumn

type and whether

suppressed

or nonsuppressed IC was used. The three indivlidual

samples

(Containers

1, 3, & 4) were then analyzed separately.

The reagent blanks (COntainers

3 and 4) were also analyzed

separately. The reagent blank consisted

of those solutions

used in the collection

of HC1/HF,

these blanks did not come in Contact with any portion of the sampling

trains as associated

with a field train blank.

547-0505 Redland Brick report -7 GamAir.com5.0 QUALITY

ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

PROCEDURES 5.1 QC Procedures Specific quality control (QC) procedures

were followed

to ensure the continuous

production of useful and valid data throughout

the course of this test program.

The QC checks and procedures described

in this section represent

an integral part of the overall sampling

and analytical scheme.

Strict adherence

to prescribed

procedures

is quite often the most applicable QC check. A discussion

of boththe

sampling

and analytical

QC checks that were utilized during this program

are presented

below. S.i.i Eqmpment

Calibrations Prior to the start of the test program

the CTDEP

received

copies of all sampling

equipment calibrations as described

in their stack testing guidelines. Emissions sampling

equipment

requiring

calibration

includes

sampling

nozzles,

Pitot tubes, pressure gauges, thermometers,

dry gas meters, and barometer.

Post test calibration

of the dry gas meters were all within their acceptable

limit (Y 1.00 +/- 0.05). 5.1.2 Analytical

Quality

Control

Procedures All analyses

for this program

were performed

using accepted

laboratory

procedures

in accordance with the specified

analytical

protocols.

Adherence

to prescribed

QC procedures for the EPA methods

used for this test progra m ensured

data of consistent

and measurable quality. Analytical

QC focused

on the use Of control standards

to provide a measure

of analytical precision

and accuracy.

The SO2 samples

were analyzed

following

the procedures of EPA Method

8; HCI and HF samples

were analyzed

in accordance

with EPA Method

26. Field blanks and laboratory

blanks were used to check for contamination.

Also, specific acceptance criteria defined below for various analytical

operations,

including

calibrations, control standard

analyses,

drift checks, blanks, etc. were within the acceptable

limits of EPA Methods 8 and 26.

Test Method

and QC Sample EPA Method

8

Table 5-1 Quality, C..ontrol

Samples Criteria

QC Limits Met Duplicate Analysis less than 1•% or 0.2 ml Yes Blanks At or below detection

limit Yes Sampling Isokinetics 90% to 1i0% Yes Blanks At or below detection

limit Yes EPA Method

26

percent difference

less than 5% Duplicate Analysis Yes
5.1.3 Calculations

Quality

Control

Procedures Calculations for determining

flow rates, moisture

contents,

isokinetics,

particulate

and 547-0505 Redland Brick report -8 Garn/•ir.comgaseous concentrations

were made using, a •mputer

program

developed

by GamAir.

This program utilizes the calculation

procedures,and

equations

specified

in EPA Methods

2, 4, and 5. The program

has been successfully

usedfor

numerous

test efforts and has been validated by independent

performance

audits. Samplecalculations.were performed

by the software program and a definition

of terms is provide?d

in the final report. Field data was transported

to the software

directly

from the data sheets. All tests were performed

within the acceptable isokinetic range of 90% to 110%. 5.2 QA Audits There were no audits for this test program. •3 Q_AJQC

Check•

of D•ta Red•ction The project manager

ran an independent

check (using a validated

computer

program)

of the calculations with predetermined

data before.the

field test. This ensured

that calculations

done in the field were accurate.

The project manager

also conducted

a spot check onsite to assure that data was recorded

accurately.

547-0505 Redland Brick report GamAir.comAppendix A Fibres • Diagrams

•amAir.com).5 1.0

1.5

'" 2.0 SO

40

30 24 C•'25 40

20

10
0

34567$91012. 4.4

3.2

2.6

2.1 14.6 10.5 2•S•'" ).q.4

14.6

11.8 70,4 32.3

2•.6

17.7 85.4 67.7

34.3

•5,0 •S.6 80.6

6S.8

:35.6 89.5 77.4

64.4 •6.8 85.4

"75.0 91.8 82.3 9"/.4 88.29"•.9 6,7 25.0 75.093.3

56789101112 )2EEPA•Nethod 2S HydmmNorlo Acid Sampling

TrainA•ppendix B ] Resul• and Cal• atlons

547-0505 R•!and Brick report GamAir•comSummary of Sulphur Dioxide Emissions Redland Brick KF Brl©k Plant South Windsor, Connecticut

RUN NUMBER: DATE: TIME: M8-1

M8-2

M8-3 6/23/2005 6/23/2005

6/23/2005 0912-1018 1053-1214

1255-1403 REQUIRED INPUT DATA BAROMETRIC PRESSURE,

(" Hg) AREA OF STACK, (ft =) NOZZLE DIAMETER,

(inches) TOTAL SAbiPLE TIME, DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION

FACTOR PITOT "tUBE COEFFICIENT AVERAGE VELOCITY PRESSURE

(SQ. RT.), (" HzO) AVG. ORIFICE PRESSURE

DIFFERENTIAL,

(" H20)

29.94 12.040 0.280
0.992 O.84 0.6230 1.640 AVG. DRY GAS METER TEMPERATURE,

(°F) STACK STATIC PRESS., (" H20) AVERAGE STACK GAS TEMPERATURE,

(°F) VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED,

(ft •) TOTAL MOISTURE

COLLECTED,

(ml) CO= IN STACK GAS, (%) O= IN STACK GAS, (%) CO IN STACK GAS, (%) Nz IN STACK GAS, (%) 710.32351 40.80038.01.418.40.0 80.2

29.94 12.040 0.280 0,992 0.84 0.6340 1.690880.32354 42.58344.01.5 18.20.080.3
TOTAL SULPHUR DIOXIDE COLLECTED,

(mg)
HYDROGEN IN FUEL, (%) CARBON IN FUEL, (%) SULFUR IN FUEL, (%) NITROGEN IN FUEL, (%) OXYGEN IN FUEL, (%) GCV, (Btu/Ib) 29.94 12.040 0.28060 0.992 0.84 0.6230 1.630940.32357 42.18244.01,8 17.90.080.3
45.0

CALCULATED DATA VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLED,

(dsct)

40.43

40.90

40.07 MOISTURE IN STACK GAS, (%) 4.24

4,82

4.91 STACK GAS WET MOLECULAR

WEIGHT, (Ib/Ib-mole)

28.50

28.44

28.46 EXCESS AIR, (%) 663.6

606.8

542.6 STACK GAS VELOCITY,

(fpm) 2616.12

2669.88

2627.28 ACTUAL VOLUMETRIC

FLOWRATE,

(acfm)

31498

32145

31632 STANDARD VOLUMETRIC

FLOWRATE,

(dscfm)

19667

19875

19467 ISOKINETIC, (%) 96.5

96.6

96.6 grains/actual cubic feet 1.02E-02

1.12E-02

1.07E-02 micrograms/actual cubic meter 2.34E+04

2.56E+04

2.44E+04 grains/d•y standard cubic feet 1.64E-02

1.81 E-02 1.73E-02 milligrams/dry standard cubic meter at 7% O2 2.09E+02

2.14E+02

1.84E+02 pounds/hour 2.77E+00

3.08E+00

2.89E+00 grains/dry standard cubic feet at 12% CO2 1.41E-01

1.45E-01

1.16E-01 dry standard cubic feet/million Btu (F-Factor)

9190

9190

9190 pounds/million Btu 1.80E-01

1.84E-01

1.59E-01

Average

29.94 12.04 0.280
0.992 0.64 0.6271.65840.32364 41.855 42.001.6 18.20.0080.3
45.3

40.474.66 28.476O4 2638 31759 1966996.6 0.0107 24492 0.0173 202.352.910.13 91900.17

547-0505 M8 data summary SO2 GamAir.com 00'Summary of Hydrogen

Chloride Emissions Redland Brick KF Brick Plant South Windsor, Connecticut

RUN NUMBER: DATE: TIME:

REQUIRED

INPUT DATA TOTAL HCI COLLECTED,

(mg)
DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION

FACTOR TOTAL SAMPLE TIME, (minutes) VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED,

(ft 3) BAROMETRIC PRESSURE,

(" Hg) AVG. ORIFICE PRESSURE

DIFFERENTIAL,

(" H20) HCI MOLECULAR

WEIGHT
CARBON IN FUEL, (%) SULFUR IN FUEL, (%) NITROGEN IN FUEL, (%) OXYGEN IN FUEL, (%) GCV, (BTU/•b) 02 IN STACK GAS, (%) CO2 IN STACK GAS, (%) STANDARD VOLUMETRIC

FLOWRATE,

(dscfm)

M26-1

M26-2

M26-3 6/23/2005 6/23/2005

6/23/2005 0912.1018 1053-1159

1257-1403

AVERAGE

2.400 3.300

3.400

3.033 83 96

99

93 1.073 1.073

1.073

1.073 60 6O

6O

6O 4.830 4.740

4.730

4.767 29.94 29.94

29.94

29.94 0.00 0.00

0.00

0.00 36.45 36.45

36.45

36.45

18.4 18.2

17.9

18.2 1.4 1.5

1.8

1.6 19667 19875

19467

19670

CALCULATED DATA VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLED,

(dscf) SAMPLING RATE, (liters/minute) HCI CONCENTRATION,

(pounds/dscf) grams/dry standard cubic meters pads per million parts per million at 7% 02 pounds/hour

5.04

4.83

4.80

4.89 2.38 2,28

2.26

2.31 1.05E-06 1.51E-06

1.56E-06

1.37E-06 1.68E-02 2.41E-02

2.50E-02

2.20E-02 11.08 15.90

16.50

14.49 61.61 81.84

76.46

73.31 1.24E+00 1.80E+O0

1.83E+00

1.62E+00

547-0505 KF Brick HCI & HF data summa•/ HCI sample & la b GamAir.com

0O8Summary of Hydrogen

Fluoride Emissions Rediand Brick KF Brick Plant South Windsor, Connecticut

RUN NUMBER: DATE: TIME:

REQUIRED

INPUT DATA TOTAL HF COLLECTED,

(rag)
DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION

FACTOR TOTAL SAMPLE TIME, (minutes) VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED,

(ft 3) BAROMETRIC PRESSURE,

(" Hg) AVG. ORIFICE PRESSURE

DIFFERENTIAL,

(" H20) HF MOLECULAR

WEIGHT
CARBON IN FUEL, (%) SULFUR IN FUEL, (%) NITROGEN IN FUEL, (%) OXYGEN IN FUEL, (%) GCV, (BTU/Ib) O2 IN STACK GAS, (%) CO2 IN STACK GAS, (%) STANDARD VOLUMETRIC

FLOWRATE,

(dscfm)

M26-1

M26-2

M26-3 6/23/2005 6/23/2005

6/23/2005 0912-1018 1053-1159

1257.1403

AVERAGE

0.100 0.120

0.110

0.110 83 9_R

99

9R 1.073 1.073

1.073

1.073 6O 60

60

6O 4.830 4.740

4.730

4.767 29.94 29.94

29.94

29.94 0.00 0.00

0.00

0.00 20.00 20.00

20.00

20.00

18.4 18.2

17.9

18.2 1.4 1.5

1.8

1.6 19667 19875

19467

19670

CALCULATED DATA VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLED,

(dscf) SAMPLING RATE, (liters/minute) HF CONCENTRATION,

(pounds/dscf) grams/dry standard cubic meters parts per million pads per million at 7% O2 pounds/hour

5.04

4.83

4.80

4.89 2.38 2.28

2.26

2.31 4.37E-08 5.47E-08

5.06E-08

4.97E-08 7.00E-04 8.77E-04

8.10E-04

7.96E-04 0.84 1.05

0.97

0.96 4.68 5.42

4.51

4.87 5.16E-O2 6.53E-02

5.91E-02

5.86E-02

547-0505 KF Brick HCI & HF data summary HF sample & lab GamAir.comRun

Number:

M8-2

Example Calculations
Date: 6/2312005

Time: 1053-1214

Emission Calculation

Symbols Reouired Inm=t Data PB 29.94 AS 12.040 DN 0.280 TT 60 Y 0.992 CP 0.84 3C•T •,•

^,,.•v DH 1.69 TM 88 PS 0.32 TS 354 VM TOT

42.583 VI 44 CO2 1.5 02 18.20 CO 0 N2 80.30 MN 48.0000

barometric pressure, (" Hg)
area of stack, (•) nozzle diameter, (inches) total sampling time, (minutes) dry gas meter calibration factor pitot tube coefficient, dimensionless average orifice pressure differential, (" H20) average dry gas meter temperature,

(°F) stack stati• pressure, (" H20) average stack gas temperature,

(°F) volume of gas sampled, (ft =) total moisture collected, (ml) CO= in stack gas (dry basis), % 02 in stack gas (dry basis), % CO in stack gas (dry basis), % N= in stack gas (dry basis), % total analyte collected, (milligrams). •=uel Analysis Inout Data %H 0 %C 0 %S 0 %N 0 %0 0 GCV 0 percent by weight of hydrogen in fuel pement by weight of carbon in fuel percent by weight of sulfur in fuel pement by weight of nitrogen in fuel percent by weight of oxygen in fuel gross calodfi¢ value of fuel, Btu/Ib

T STD

68 P STD

29.92 LP 0.00 LA 0.02

standard temperature,

(OF) standard pressure, (" Hg) final leak rate of sampling train, (f(3/min) allowable leak rate of sampling traih, (ftZ/min)

1. Volume of Dry Gas Sampled (DSCF), dry standard cubic feet

DSCF (VMTOT) x (Y) x [(TSTD+480)/(TM+460)]

x [(PB+ (DH/13.6))/29.92]

DSCF 40.90 dry standard cubic feet

2. Moisture In Stack Gas (%H,O), percent

% H20

100 x [(0.04707 x VI)/[DSCF + (0.04707 x VI)]

%H20 4.82 percent

TypicaJ M5 ;•"

Method 53.

Stack Gas Wet Molecular Weight (MWS), Ib/Ib-mole

MWS [(0,44 x CO2) + (0.28 x CO) + (0.28 x N2) + (0.32 x O2)] x [1 (%H20/100)]

+ (0.18 x %Hz0)

MWS 28.44 Ib/Ib mole

4. Average Stack Gas Density (DST), poultds per cubic feet

DST (0.0458) x MWS x [(PB + (PS/13.6) (TS + 460)]

DST 0.0479 pounds per cubio feet

5. Excess Air (EA), percent

100 x [(02- (0.SxCO))/(0.264xN2)

(02- (0.5xCO))]

EA 606.8 percent

6. Stack Gas Velocity (FPM)• feet per minute

FPM 5129.4 x CP x SQRTDP x SQRT[(TS +460)/(PB + (PS/13.6)) x MSW]

FPM 2669.9 feet per minute

7. Actual Volumetric

Flow Rate (Q), actual cubic feet per minute

Q FPM x AS

Q 32145 actual cubic feet per minute

8. Standard Volumetric

Flow Rate (Q STD), dry standard cubic feet per minute
Q STD

O x [1 (%H20/100)]

x [(T STD + 460)/(TS + 460)] x [PB + (PS/13.6) / 29.92]

Q STD

19875 dry standard cubic feet per minute

Typical M5 Method 59.

Isoldnetic Factor OK), percent

IK [5.67 x (TS + 460) x DSCF]I[(PB+(PSI13.6))

x FPM x TI" x (1 (%H20/100))

x (DN 2 x 0.7854)/144]

IK 96.6 percent

10. Actual Analyte Concentration

(C), grains per actual cubic feet

C [•.•;54• x •v;.'; X {T C•T• + 4CC,) >: {• ÷

•, •. t•,nn• In•= •$ + •.•-O) _09.92

0.011197 grains per actuai cubic feet

11. Actual Analyte Concentration

Corrected To Stack Conditions

(Cd), micrograms

per actual cubic meter [1000 x MN x (TSTD+460)

x (PB+ (PS/13.6)) x-(1 -(%H20/100))]/(0.02832

x (TS+460) x 29.92)

25623.8 micrograms

per actual cubic meter

12. Analyte Concentration

Corrected To Dry Standard Conditions

(Csm), milligrams/dry

standard cubic meters Analyte Concentration

Corrected To Dry Standard Conditions

(Cs), grains/dry standard cubic feet

Csm (MN DSCF) x 35.31 C$

0.01543 x (MN DSCF)

Csm 41.4428 mg/dscm Cs

1.81E-02 grains/dscf

13. Analyte Emission Rate (ER), pounds per hour

ER 0.008571 x CS x Q STD

ER 3.08498 pounds per hour

Typical MS Method 5 GemAIr,14.

F -Factor (F), DSCF per million British thermal units

1000000 x [(3.64x%H)

+ (1.53x%C) + (0,57x%S) + (0.14x%N)-(0.46x%O)]/GCV

F #DIV/01 DSCF per million Btu

15. Analyte Emission Rate (EBI"U), pounds per million Btu

EBTU 0.0001429 x Cs x F x (20.9/(20.9-Oz))

EBTU #DIV/01 pounds/million

BTU

16. Analyte Concentration

Conc•tad to Dry Standard Collditions and 12% CO= (Cs 12%CO:), mg/dscm at 12% CO:

Csm12%CO2 Csm x (12/CO2) Cs12%CO•

Cs x (12/CO•)

Csm12%CO2 331.5421 mg/dscm @ 12% C02

Cs12%CO•

1.45E-01 gr/dscf @ 12% CO•

17. Analyta Concentration

Corrected to DW Standard Conditions and 7% O: (Cs @7%O•), mg/dacm at 7% O2 Csm7%02 Csm x [(20.9 7.0) (20.9 02)]
Csm7%02 213.3535 mg/dscm @ 7% 02

Typical M5 Method 5 GamA•r.©omGammie Air Monitoring, LLC 28 Canton Road West Simsbury,

CT 860-658-4929 06092 Fax 860-658-2223

18 July 2005 Mr. Carl S. Ekroth State of Connecticut Department of Environmental.

Protection Bureau of Air Management/E&E 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06i06-5i27 Re: Redland

Brick, Inc. KF Plant Air Emissions

Test Report GamAir Project No.: 547-0505
Dear Mr. Ekroth: Please find enclosed

a copy of the, "Compliance

Test Report, Redland

Brick, Inc., KF Plant, South Windsor,

Connecticut",

dated July 2005. This report summarizes

the testing conducted
on 23 June 2005. Please do not hesitate

to contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you, Gammie Air Monitoring,

LLC Leigh A. Gammie Program Manager

cc. Mr. B. Miller, Redland

cmd: 547-0505 KF Plant report RECEIVED
JUL

•, j• 2005 DEP•T....O.• ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTIO •UF]EAU

N OF AIR MANAGEMENT ww•LIANCE AND FIELD OPERATIONSCompliance Test

Report
KF Plant South Windsor, Connecticut

Prepared for: Mr. Barry

Miller Redland Brick,

Inc.
Prepared by:
Mr. Leigh

A. Gammie Gammie Air Monitoring,

LLC

GamAir July 2005 Project No.:

547-0505Table of Contents
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION

.................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Summary

of Test Program 1.2 Key Personnel

................................................................................................................................ 2.0 SOURCE

AND SAMLING

LOCATION

DESCRIPTION 2 2.1 Process Description

....................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Flue Gas Sampling

Locations 2 3.0 SUMMARY

AND DISCUSION

OF RESULTS 3 3.i Objectives

and Test Matrix 3 3.2 Field Test Changes and Problems 3 3.3 Summary

of Test Results 3 4.0 SAMPLING

AND ANALYTICAL

METHODOLOGY 5 4.1 Volumetric

Flow Rate Tests 5 4.2 Sulfur Dioxide Outlet Tests 6 4.3 Hydrogen

Chloride/Hydrogen

Fluoride Outlet Tests 6 5.0 QUALITY

ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

PROCEDURES 8 5.15.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.25.3 QC Procedures

.............................................................................................................................. 8 Equipment Calibrations 8 Analytical Quality Control Procedures 8 Calculations Quality Control Procedures 8 QA Audits

...................................................................................................................................... 9 QA/QC Checks of Data Reduction..•. 9 Appendix A Figures

and Diagrams Appendix B Results

and Calculations Appendix C Field Data Sheets Appendix D Process

Monitoring

Data Appendix E Laboratory

Analytical

Data Appendix F Equipment

Calibrations

547-0505 Redland Brick report (•amAir.comI

have personally

examined

and am familiar

with the information

submitted

in this document and all attachments

thereto,

and I certify, based on reasonable

investigation,

including

my inquiry of those individuals

responsible

for obtaining

the information,

that the submitted information is true, accurate,

and complete

to the best of my knowledge

and belief.
Leigh A. Ga(nmie Officer, Gammie

Air Monitoring,

LLC Date

tt

547-0505 Redland Brick report ii GamA|•-,¢om1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Summary

of Test Program Gammie Air Monitoring,

LLC (GamAir)

was retained

by Redland

Brick, Inc. to perform

a compliance air emissions

testing program

on the brick kiln exhaust stack at the KF Plant located in South Windsor,

Connecticut.

Testing occurred

on the exhaust of the limestone absorber control device while firing natural gas. The purpose

of this test program

was to quantify the controlled

emissions

from the brick kiln at the KF facility.

This source is identified by the State of Connecticut,

Department

of Environmental

Protection

(CTDEP)

as Town No. 169, Premise

No. 005, Permit No. 0032, and Stack No. 20. The emission

limits are
as follows.Hydrogen

Chloride

less than 2.85 pounds per hour Hydrogen Fluoride

less than 2.35 pounds per hour Sulfur Dioxide

(expressed

as SO2) less than 13.2 pounds per hour Controlled air emissions

of hydrogen

chloride

(HC1), hydrogen

fluoride,

(HF), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) were measured

at the absorber

outlet stack. The air emission

tests were carried out in conformance

with the CTDEP

guidelines

for source emission testing and applicable

test methodologies

as published

in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Appendix

A (40CFR60).

This test program

was conducted

on 23 June 2005 and was observed

by Mr. Carl S. Ekroth of the CTDEP.

GamAir

was responsible

for sampling and analyzing

all air emissions.

KF personnel

were responsible

for operating

the brick manufacturing

line at normal load conditions

and collecting

all process data.
1.2 Key Personnel The following

is a list of key individuals

who were responsible

for the organization

of this test program.Mr. Barry Miller Mr. Rick Pirolli Mr. Carl Ekroth Ms. Ancy Sebastian Mr. Leigh Gammie

Redland

Brick, Inc. CTDEP CTDEP Maxxam Analytical,

Inc. GamAir

(301) 223-7700 (860) 424-4152 (860) 424-3894 (905) 332-8788 (860) 658-4929

547-0505 Redland Brick report -1 6am/•ir.com2.0 SOURCE

AND SAMLING

LOCATION

DESCRIPTION 2.1 Process

Description Redland Brick Inc., KF Plant (KF) operated

a brick manufacturing

process utilizing

a natural gas-fired tunnel kiln to dry and fire the bricks. The kiln is permitted

to process 21.6 tons per hour of unfired bricks (green weight).

The maximum

fuel-firing

rate was 25 MMBtu/hr (25,000 cubic feet/hour).

The maximum

kiln temperature

was 2,100 degrees Fahrenheit

(°F). Unfired bricks vary in weight from 4 to 6.2 pounds each. The maximum

daily push rate through the kiln is fifteen (15) cars. For this test program

the push rate was 9.5 cars per day which equates to 11.49 green tons per hour. Emissions generated

from the tunnel kiln were controlled

by a BACT Engineering, Inc./Hellmich GmbH & Co. dry cascade

absorber.

The absorber

pressure

drop operated

at a range between

2.5 to 3.0 inches of water column. 2.2 Flue Gas Sampling

Locations Outlet flue gas sampling

occurred

after the dry absorber

in a vertical

steel stack with an inside diameter (ID) of 47 inches. Two test ports were located 90 degrees

apart. The sample ports

were 8.9 duct diameters

(420 inches) downstream

and 6.4 duct diameters

(300 inches) upstream to their respective

flow disturbances.

In accordance

with EPA Method

1, twelve traverse points (6 per port) were used for isokinetic

sampling.

The individual

traverse

point locations and stack schematic

are shown in Appendix

A.

547-0505 Redland Brick report 2 6am,O, ir.©om3.0 SUMMARY

AND DISCUSION

OF RESULTS 3.1 Objectives

and Test Matrix The purpose

of this test program

was to quantify

air emissions

from the KF brick manufacturing plant while firing natural gas and to compare

these emissions

data to applicable emission

limits as provided

for in the CTDEP

air permit.

Emission

testing was conducted in accordance

with the EPA approved

test procedures.

Three emissions

tests were conducted for each parameter,

with the average

result of the three tests used to determine compliance. Table 3-1 lists the emission

limits from the parameters

measured,

the EPA reference methods

used, and the sampling

times for each test.

Parameter EPA Natural Gas

Test Methods Sulfur Dioxide

Method 8 Method 26 Method 26 Method 3 Carbon Dioxide lbs/hr pounds per hour Hydrogen Fluoride Hydrogen Chloride Oxygen/ Table 3-1 Air Emissions

Test Program Redland Brick, Inc. KF Plant South Windsor,

Connecticut Sample Times (min.)60 Emission Limits

60 13.2 lbs/hr 60 2.35 ibs/hr 60. 2.85 lbs/hr NA

Analytical Laboratory
Maxxam

Number

of Runs

Maxxam 3 + 1 blank Maxxam 3 + 1 blank GamAir 3

3.2 Field Test Changes

and Problems There were no changes

to the original

test protocol,

testing proceeded

without

incident. 3.3 Summary

of Test Results Results from this compliance

test program

are summarized

in Table 3-2 and detailed

in Appendix B. The sulfur dioxide emissions,

(expressed

as SO2), averaged

2.91 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) which are 22.0 percent of the permit limit and are in compliance

with the CTDEP regulations.

Hydrogen

chloride

(HC1) tests averaged

1.62 pounds per hour, are 56.8 percent of the permit limit, and also are in compliance,

with CTDEP

regulations.

The hydrogen fluoride

(HF) runs averaged

0.05• pounds per hour, are 2.5 percent of the permit limit, and are in compliance

with CTDEP

regulations.

547-0505 Redland Brick report 3 Gam•,|r.comMethod/Component Method 2 Flowrate
IV/•LIIUU D./-•
Method 8 Sulfur Dioxide Method 26 HC1HF Table 3-2 Summary of Results Redland Brick, Inc. KF Brick Plant South Windsor,

CT 23 June 2005 Units dscfm
%C02 pounds per hour pounds per hour pounds per hour

Run 1 19667

1.4

2.77

1.24 0.052 dscfm dry standard cubic feet per minute (68°F and 29.92 inches Hg)

Run 2 19875 18.21.5

3.08

1.80 0.065 Run 3 19467 I'/Q1.8

2.89

1.830.059 Average 19669 1R_21.6

2.91

1.62 0.059

547-0505 Redland Brick report 4 GamAir.com4.0 SAMPLING

AND ANALYTICAL

METHODOLOGY

The following

EPA test methods

were utilized during this emissions

test program:
EPA Method

1 EPA Method

2 EPA Method

3 EPA Method

4 EPA Method

8 EPA Method

26 Sample and velocity

traverses

for stationary

sources Determination of stack gas velocity

and volumetric

flow rate (type S Pitot tube) Determination

of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations

in emissions from stationary

sources

(Orsat analyzer

procedure) Determination of moisture

content in stack gases Determination of sulfur dioxide emissions

from stationary

sources Determination of Hydrogen

Halide and Halogen

Emissions

from Stationary Sources

Non-Isokinetic

Method
The following

sections

describe

the sampling

and analytical

procedures

utilized

during the emissions testing.

All tests were performed

in triplicate.

All sampling

and analytical procedure followed

those outlined

in 40CFR60,

Appendix

A. 4.1 Volumetric

Flow Rate Tests The volumetric

flowrate

of the flue gas at the stack test location

was determined

using EPA Methods 1-4. In accordance

with EPA Method

1 traverse

points were utilized for flue gas velocity measurements

and isokinetic

sampling.

The locations

of the traverse

points, as determined by EPA Method

1, are listed in Appendix

A. Flue gas velocity

measurements

were taken at each traverse

point during each test run using an S-type Pitot tube and an inclined water manometer

in accordance

with EPA Method

2. Stack temperature measurements were taken at each traverse

point using a Type-K

thermocouple

and digital temperature readout.

The stack static pressure

was also measured

during each test run using the Pitot tube and manometer

setup. Pitot tube leak checks were performed

before and after each test run in accordance

with EPA Method

2. The dry molecular

weight of the outlet flue gases was determined

by measuring

the oxygen (02) and carbon dioxide

(CO2) concentrations

using the integrated

bag sampling

method followed by analysis

with an Orsat analyzerJ

An integrated

15 liter Tedlar bag was collected simultaneously with the EPA Method

8 samPling

train. Carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations were determined

from integthted

gaseous

samples

collected

during each test

run using the sample train described

in EPA Method

3. The flue gas moisture

content was determined from the back half moisture

catches of the isokinetic

sampling

train during the emissions testing in accordance

with EPA Method

4. The moisture

content of the flue gas
was calculated

as the ratio of the moisture

catch corrected

to standard

conditions

to the sum of the dry sample, volume and the moisture

catch, both corrected

to standard

conditions.

547-0505 Redland Brick report 5 6arnAir.¢om4.2 Sulfur Dioxide

Outlet Tests Triplicate isokinetic

sulfur dioxide tests were performed

on the absorber

outlet exhaust stack. Each test was 60 minutes

in duration

and was conducted

in accordance

with EPA Method

8. The EPA Method

8 sampling

train is depicted

in Appendix

A. The sampling

train was similar to the Method

5 train with the exception

of 1) a glass wool filter was placed between

the first and second impinger

2) the heated filter between

the probe and impingers

was removed,

and 3) the impinger

contents

were replaced

with isopropanol

(IPA) and hydrogen

peroxide.

The sample train probe and heater box were heated to 248°F +/-25°F degrees

to prevent moisture condensation. The first impinger

contained

100ml of 80% isopropanol,

100 ml of 3% hydrogen peroxide

was contained

in both the second and third impingers,

while 250 grams of silicageiwas placed•in

the-fourth

impinge•to

knock out any remaining

moisturcbefore reaching the sampling

pump. The impinger

outlet temperature

was maintained

below 68°F during sampling. Before and after each test run the sampling

train was leak checked

to ensure no leakage greater than 0.2 cubic feet per minute.

The sampling

train operating

parameters

was recorded at each traverse

point on preprinted

data sheets as shown in Appendix

C. After the post test leak check, the sampling

train was inspected

and then moved to the clean up area. A fifteen (15) purge of clean ambient

air was then run at the average

flow rate used during the test. Upon completion,

the sampling

train was recovered

as follows: Container No. 1 Weighed

the first impinger

contents

to the nearest 0.5 gram and recorded its weight and rinsed the nozzle and probe with deionized

distilled

water. Container No. 2 Weighed

second and third impingers

for moisture

gain to the nearest 0.5 grams. Transfer

solutions

from second and third impingers

to a 1000ml graduated cylinder.

All connecting

glassware

from the second impinger

to the third impinger are then rinsed twice with distilled

water. Dilute to a volume of 1000 ml with DI water, mark liquid level and label container. Container No. 3 Weighed

contents

of silica gel impinger

to nearest 0.5 grams and add figure to total moisture

gain, then discard. Container No. 1 did not get analyzed

as sulfuric acid was not a requirement

for this test program. Container

No. 2 was shipped

to a contract

laboratory

for sulfur dioxide analysis. Sulfur dioxide analysis

from container

No. 2 consisted

of using a titration

method with 2 to 4 drops of thorin indicator,

titrating

to a pink endpoint

using 0.010 N barium perchlorate.

This analysis was duplicated

per the method.

Afield blank was also provided

to the laboratory

for analysis.
4.3 Hydrogen

Chloride/Hydrogen Fluoride

Outlet Tests Triplicate hydrogen

chloride

(HC1) and hydrogen

fluoride

(HF) tests were performed

at the absorber outlet stack simultaneously

with th• EPA Method

8 testing.

Each test was 60 minutes in duration

and was conducted

in accordance

with EPA Method

26. The HC1/HF

sampling

train consisted

of a flexible heated Teflon transfer line with an in-stack Teflon filter, a set of 5 glass mini impingers

connected

in series contained

in an ice bath, a leakless vacuum

pump, a calibrated

rotometer,

and a calibrated

dry gas meter. The sample
547-0505 Redland Brick report 6 GamAir.comprobe was maintained

at a temperature

between

248°F and 275°F to prevent moisture condensation. A cyclone was not used witti•he

GamAir

sampling

train. The first two impingers each contained

15 milliliters

(ml) of 0.1N H2SO4 for the collection

of HCI and HF, the third and fourth impingers

each contained

15 ml of 0.1N NaOH, and the fifth impinger contained a known quantity

of silica gel. The impinger

outlet temperature

was maintained below 68°F during sampling.

Sampling

was performed

at a constant

rate of 2.0 liters per minute. Before and after each test mn the sampling

train was leak checked

to ensure no leakage greater than 40 cubic centimeters

per minute.

The sampling

train operating

parameters

were recorded at each traverse

point on preprinted

data sheets as shown in Appendix

C. The sampling train components

were then moved to the clean up area. The following

is a description of the sample recovery

procedure.
Container No. 1 emptied

contents

of impingers

1 & 2 and saved. Duplicate deionized water rinses of impingers

1 & 2. Container No. 2 discarded. measured

moisture

contained

in impinger

3, 4, and 5 then
Container No. 3 rinse water added.

0.1 N H2SO4 •eagent blank (30 ml) with corresponding

Container No. 4 deionized

water reagent blank. Sample containers

1, 3 and 4 were shipped to a contract

laboratory

for HC1 and HF analysis. Sample preparation

and analysis

consisted

0f properly

preparing

the ion chromatograph

(IC). The IC conditions

depended

upon analytical

column type and whether

suppressed

or nonsuppressed IC was used. The three individual

samples

(Containers

1, 3, & 4) were then analyzed separately.

The reagent blanks (Containers

3 and 4) were also analyzed

separately. The reagent blank consisted

of those solutions

used in the collection

of HC1/I-IF,

these blanks did not come in contact with any portion of the sampling

trains as associated

with a field train blank.

547-0505 Redland Brick report • Gam/•ir.com5.0 QUALITY

ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

PROCEDURES 5.1 QC Procedures Specific quality control (QC) procedures

were followed

to ensure the continuous

production of useful and valid data throughout

the course of this test program.

The QC checks and procedures described

in this section represent

an integral part of the overall sampling

and analytical scheme.

Strict adherence

to prescribed

procedures

is quite often the most applicable QC check. A discussion

of both the sampling

and analytical

QC checks that were utilized during this program

are presented

below.
5.1.1 Equipment

Calibrations Prior to the start of the test program

the CTDEP

received

copies of all sampling

equipment calibrations as described

in their stack testing guidelines. Emissions sampling

equipment

requiring

calibration

includes

sampling

nozzles,

Pitot tubes, pressure gauges,

thermometers,

dry gas meters, and barometer.

Post test calibration

of the dry gas meters were all within their acceptable

limit (Y 1.00 +/- 0.05).
5.1.2 Analytical

Quality

Control

Procedures All analyses

for this program

were performed

using accepted

laboratory

procedures

in accordance with the specified

analytical

protocols.

Adherence

to prescribed

QC procedures for the EPA methods

used for this test program

ensured

data of consistent

and measurable quality. Analytical

QC focused

on the use of control standards

to provide

a measure

of analytical precision

and accuracy.

The SO2 .samples

were analyzed

following

the procedures of EPA Method

8; HC1 and HF samples

were analyzed

in accordance

with EPA Method

26. Field blanks and laboratory

blanks were used .to check for contamination.

Also, specific acceptance criteria defined below for various analytical

operations,

including

calibrations, control standard

analyses,

drift checks, blanks, etc. were within the acceptable

limits of EPA Methods 8 and 26.

Test Method

and QC Sample EPA Method

8 Duplicate Analysis Blanks Sampling Isokinetics Blanks EPA Method

26 Duplicate Analysis Table 5-1 Quality, Control

Samples Criteria less than 1% or 0.2 ml

QC Limits Met
Yes At or below detection

limit Yes 90% to 1•0% Yes At or below detection

limit Yes percent difference

less than

Yes 5% 5.1.3 Calculations

Quality

Control

Procedures Calculations for determining

flow rates, moisture

contents,

isokinetics,

particulate

and
547-0505 Redland Brick report 8 GamAir.comgaseous concentrations

were made using a computer

program

developed

by GamAir.

This program utilizes the calculation

procedures

and equations

specified

in EPA Methods

2, 4, and 5. The program

has been successfully

used .for numerous

test efforts and has been validated by independent

performance

audits. Sampl• calculations

were performed

by the software program and a definition

of terms is provided

in the final report. Field data was transported

to the software

directly

from the data sheets. All tests were performed

within the acceptable isokinetic range of 90% to 110%. 5.2 QA Audits There were no audits for this test program.

• a ¢•.•J¢•

•h,•,.k• of Data l•ednction The project manager

ran an independent

check (using a validated

computer

program)

of the calculations with predetermined

data before the field test. This ensured

that calculations

done in the field were accurate.

The project manager

also conducted

a spot check onsite to assure that data was recorded

accurately.

547-0505 Redland Brick report 9 I]amAir.comAppendix A Figures and Diagrams

547-0505 Redland Brick report24

ar 25

16

20 40 A

I23456$9101112. 4

6

8

10

12 4.4 3.2

2,6

2.1 14.G 10.5

8.2

6.7 2•11• 19.4

14.6

11.8 7e,4 32.3

22.6

17.7 85,4 67.7

34.2

25,0 95.6 80.6

65.8

35.6 89.5 77.4

64.4 96.8 85.4

75.0 91.8 82.3 97.4 88.293.397.9 6.7•.•.0 75.093,3

234567891011•03Ep .AMethod

S6 Hydroddodo• Add Sampling

Train547-0505 Redland Brick report GamAir.comSummary of Sulphur Dioxide Emissions Redland Brick KF Brick Plant South Windsor, Connecticut

RUN NUMBER: DATE: TIME: M8-1

M8-2

M8-3

Average 6/23/2005 6/23/2005

6/23/2005 0912-1018 1053-1214

1255-1403 REQUIRED INPUT DATA_ BAROMETRIC PRESSURE,

(" Hg) AREA OF STACK, (•) NOZZLE DIAMETER,

(inches)

•u I•AL SAMPLE- TIME, (•;•utes) DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION

FACTOR PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT AVERAGE VELOCITY PRESSURE

(SQ. RT.), (" HzO) AVG. ORIFICE PRESSURE

DIFFERENTIAL,

(" H20)

29.94 12.040 0.28060 0.9920.84 0.6230 1,640 AVG, DRY GAS METER TEMPERATURE,

(°F) STACK STATIC PRESS.,

HzO) AVERAGE STACK GAS TEMPERATURE,

(OF) VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED,

(ft 3) TOTAL MOISTURE

COLLECTED,

(ml) CO2 IN STACK GAS, (%) 02 IN STACK GAS, (%) CO IN STACK GAS, (%) N2 IN STACK GAS, (%) 710.32351 40.80038.01.4 18.40.080.2

TOTAL SULPHUR DIOXIDE COLLECTED,

(rag) 29.94

29,94

29.94 12.040 12.040

12.04 0.280 0.280

0.280 60 60

60 0.992 0.992

0.992 0,84 0.84

0,84 0.6340 0.6230

0.627 1.690 1.630

1.65 88 94

84 0,32 0.32

0,32 354 357

354 42.583 42.182

41.855 44.0 44.0

42.00 1.5 1.8

1.6 18.2 17.9

18.2 0.0 0.0

0.00 80.3 80.3

80.3
43,0 48,0

45.0

45.3

HYDROGEN IN FUEL, (%) CARBON iN FUEL, (%) SULFUR IN FUEL, (%) NITROGEN IN FUEL, (%) OXYGEN IN FUEL, (%) GCV, (Btu/Ib)
CALCULATED

DATA VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLED,

(dsc0

40.43 MOISTURE IN STACK GAS, (%) 4.24 STACK GAS WET MOLECULAR

WEIGHT, (Ib/Ib-mole)

28.50 EXCESS AIR, (%) 663.6 STACK GAS VELOCITY,

(fpm) 2616.12 ACTUAL VOLUMETRIC

FLOWRATE,

(acfm)

31498 STANDARD VOLUMETRIC

FLOWRATE,

(dscfm)

19667 ISOKINETIC, (%) 96.5 grains/actual cubic feet 1.02E-02 micrograms/actuai cubic meter 2.34E+04 grains/dry standard cubic feet 1,64E-02 milligrams/dry standard cubic meter at 7% O2 2.09E+02 pounds/hour 2,77E+00 grains/dry standard cubic feet at 12% CO2 1.41E-01 dry standard cubic feet/million Btu (F-Factor)

9190 pounds/million Btu 1.80E-01

40.90

40.07

40.47 4.82 4.91

4.66 28.44 28.46

28,47 606.8 542.6

604 2669.88 2627.28

2638 32145 31632

31759 19875 19467

19669 96.6 96.6

96.6 1.12E-02 1.07E-02

0.0107 2.56E+04 2.44E+04

24492 1.81E-02 1.73E-02

0.0173 2.14E+02 1.84E+02

202.35 3.08E+00 2.89E+00

2.91V/ 1.45E-01 1.16E-01

0.13 9190 9190

9190 1.84E-01 1.59E-01

0.17

547-0505 M8 data summary SO2 GamAir.cornSummary of Hydrogen

Chloride Emissions Redland Brick KF Brick Plant South Windsor, Connecticut

RUN NUMBER: DATE: TIME: M26-1

M26-2

M26-3 6/23/2005 6/23/2005

6/23/2005 0912-1018 1053.1159

1257.1403 REQUIRED INPUT DATA. TOTAL HCI COLLECTED,

(mg) AVERAGE DRY GAS METER TEMPERATURE, DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION

FACTOR TOTAL SAMPLE TIME, (minutes) VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED,

(ft 3) BAROMETRIC PRESSURE,

(" Hg) AVG. ORIFICE PRESSURE

DIFFERENTIAL,

(" HCI MOLECULAR

WEIGHT AVERAGE

CARBON IN FUEL, (%) SULFUR IN FUEL, (%) NITROGEN IN FUEL, (%) OXYGEN IN FUEL, (%) GCV, (BTU/Ib) 02 IN STACK GAS, (%) CO2 IN STACK GAS, (%) STANDARD VOLUMETRIC

FLOWRATE,

(dscfm) 2.400

3.300

3.400

3.033 83 96

99

93 1.073 ,073

! .07•

1.073 60 60

60

60 4.830 4.740

4.730

4.767 29.94 29.94

29.94

29.94 0.00 0.00

0.00

0.00 36.45 36.45

36.45

36.45

18.4 18.2

17.9

18.2 1.4 1.5

1.8

1.5 19667 19875

19467

19670

CALCULATED DATA VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLED,

(dscf) SAMPLING RATE, (liters/minute) HCI CONCENTRATION,

(pounds/dsc0 grams/dry standard cubic meters parts per million parts per million at 7% 02 pounds/hour

5.04

4,83

4.80

4.89 2.38 2.28

2,26

2.31 1.05E-06 1.51E-06

1.56E-06

1.37E-06 1.68E-02 2.41E-02

2.50E-02

2.20E-02 11.08 15.90

16.50

14.49 61.61 81.84

76.46

73,31 1.24E+00 1.80E+00

1.83E+00

1.62E+00

547.0505 KF Brick HCI & HF data summary HCI sample & lab GamAir.¢omSummary of Hydrogen

Fluoride Emissions Redlsnd Brick KF Brick Plant South Windsor,

Connecticut

RUN NUMBER: DATE: TIME:

REQUIRED

INPUT DATA TOTAL HF COLLECTED,

(mg) AVERAGE DRY •A$ METER TEMPERATURE,

(°F) DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION

FACTOR TOTAL SAMPLE TIME, (minutes) VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED,

(ft •) BAROMETRIC PRESSURE,

(" Hg) AVG. ORIFICE PRESSURE

DIFFERENTIAL,

(" H20) HF MOLECULAR

WEIGHT
CARBON IN FUEL, (%) SULFUR IN FUEL, (%) NITROGEN IN FUEL, (%) OXYGEN IN FUEL, (%) GCV, (BTU/Ib) O z IN STACK GAS, (%) CO2 IN STACK GAS, (%) STANDARD VOLUMETRIC

FLOWRATE,

(dscfm)

M26-1

M26-2

M26-3 6/23/2005 6/23/2005

6/23/2005 0912-1018 1053-1159

1257-1403

AVERAGE

0.100 0,120

0,110

0,110 83 96

99

93 1.073 1.073

1,073

.073 60 60

60

60 4.830 4.740

4,730 •"

4.767 29.94 29.94

29.94

29.94 0.00 0.00

0.00

0.00 20.00 20.00

20.00

20.00

18.4 18.2

17.9

18.2 1.4 1.5

1.8

1.6 19667 19875

19467

19670

CALCULATED DATA, VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLED,

(dsct• SAMPLING RATE, (liters/minute) HF CONCENTRATION,

(pounds/dscf) grams/dry standard cubic meters parts per million parts per million at 7% O2 pounds/hour

5.04

4.83

4.80

4,89 2.38 2.28

2.26

2,31 4.37E-08 5.47E-08

5.06E-08

4,97E-08 7,00Eo04 8.77E-04

8.10E-04

7.96E-04 0.84 1.05

0.97

0.96 4.68 5.42

4.51

4.87 5.16E-02 6.53E-02

5.91 E-02

5.86E-02

547-0505 KF Brick HCI & HF data summary HF sample & lab G•mAir.comRun

Number:

M8-2

Example Calculations
Date: 6/23/2005

Time: 1053-1214

Emission Calculation

Symbols

PB 29.94 AS 12.040 DN 0.280 TT 60 y 0.992 CP 0.84 •QnT DP

0.6340 DH 1.69 TM 88 PS 0.32 TS 354 VM TOT

42.583 Vl 44 CO2 1.5 02 18.20 CO 0 N2 80.30 MN 48.0000

barometric pressure, (" Hg)

area of stack, (ft 2) nozzle diameter, (inches) total sampling time, (minutes) dry gas meter calibration factor pitot tube coefficient, dimensionless average velocity pressure (square root), (" HzO) average orifice pressure differential, (" H=O) average dry gas meter temperature,

(°F) stack static pressure, (" H20) average stack gas temperature,

(OF) volume of gas sampled, total moisture collected, (ml) CO2 in stack gas (dry basis), % Oz in stack gas (dry basis), % CO in stack gas (dry basis), % Nz in stack gas (dry basis), % total analyte collected, (milligrams)

Fuel Analysis Im)ut Da• %H 0 %C 0 %S 0 %N 0 %0 0 GCV 0 percent by weight of hydrogen in fuel percent by weight of carbon in fuel percent by weight of sulfur in fuel percent by weight of nitrogen in fuel percent by weight of oxygen In fuel gross calodflc value of fuel, Btu/Ib

T STD

68 P STD

29.92 LP 0,00 LA 0.02

standard temperature,

(OF) standard pressure, (" Hg) final leak rate of sampling train, (ft3/min) allowable leak rate of sampling train, (ftZ/min)

1. Volume of Dry Gas Sampled (DSCF), dry standard cubic feet

DSCF (VMTOT) x (Y) x [(TSTD+460)/(TM+460)]

x [(pB+ (DH/13.6))/29.92]

DSCF 40.90 dry standard cubic feet

2. Moisture In Stack Gas (%H=O), percent

% Hz O

100 x [(0.04707 x VI)/[DSCF + (0.04707 x. Vl)]

%H20 4.82 percent

Typical M5 Method 5 GamAir.eom3.

Stack Gas Wet Molecular Weight (MWS), Ib/Ib-mole

MWS [(0.44 x CO2) + (0.28 x CO) + (0.28 x N•) + (0.32 x Oz)] x [1. (%H•O/100)]

+ (0.18 x %H20)

MWS 28.44 Ib/Ib mole

4. Average Stack Gas Density (DST), pounds per cubic feet

DST (0.0458) x MWS x [(PB + (PS/13.6) (TS + 460)]

DST 0.0479 pounds per cubio feet

5. Excess Air (EA), percent

EA 100 x [(Oz- (0.5xCO))l(0.264xN2)'(O2-(0'5xCO))]

EA 606.8 percent

6. Stack Gas Velocity (FPM), feet per minute

FPM 5129.4 x CP x SQRT DP x SQRT [(TS +460)/(PB + (PS/13.6)) x MSW]

FPM 2669.9 feet per minute

7. Actual Volumetric

Flow Rate (Q), actual cubic, feet per minute

Q FPM x AS

Q 32145 a•ual cubic feet per minute

8. Standard Volumetric

Flow Rate (Q STD), dry standard cubic feet per minute

Q STD

Q x [1 (%H20/100)]

x [(T STD + 460)/(TS + 460)] x [PB + (PS/13.6) [29.92J

Q STD

19875 dry standard cubic feet per minute

Typical M5 Method 5 G,,mAir.¢om9.

Isokinetic Factor (IK), percent

IK [5.67 x (TS+460) x DSCF]/[(PB÷

(PS/13.6)) x FPM x TT x (1 (%H20/100))

x (DN z x 0.7854)/144]

IK 96.6 percent

10. Actual Analyte Concentration

(C), grains per actual cubic feet

C [0.0•._r,•_3 x MN X (T STD + 460) x (PB + (PS/13.6)) x (1 -(%H20/100)]/(DSCF

x (TS + 460) x 29.92)

C 0.011197 grains per actual cubic feet

11. Actual Analyta Concentration

Corrected To Stack Conditions

(Cd), micrograms

per actual cubic meter

Cd [1000 x aN x (3" STD + 460) x (PB + (PS/13.6)) x (1 -(%H20/100))]/(0.02832

x •S + 460) x 29.92)

Cd 25623.8 micrograms

per actual cubic meter

12. Analyte Concentration

Corrected To Dry Standard Conditions

(Csm), milligrams/dry

standard cubic meters Analyfe Concentration

Corrected To Dry Standard Conditions

(Cs), grains/dry standard cubic feet

Csm (MN DSCF) x 35.31

Csm 41.4428 mg/dscm Cs

0.01543 x (MN/DSCF)

Cs 1.81 E.02 grains/dscf

13. Analyfe Emission Rate (ER), pounds per hour

ER 0.008571 x Cs x Q STD

ER 3°08498 pounds per hour

Typiaal M5 Method 5 GamAJr,¢orn14.

F Factor (F), DSCF per million British thermal units

F 1000000 x [(3.64 x %H) + (1.53 x %C) + (0.57 x %8) + (0.14 x %N) (0.46 x %0)] GCV

F #DIV/0i DSCF per million Btu

15. Analyte Emission Rate (EBTU), pounds per million Btu

EBTLI 0.0001429 x Cs x F x (20.9/(20.9•O•))

EBTU #DIV/0! pounds/million

BTU

16, Analyte Concentration

Corrected to Dry Standard Conditions and 12%C0= (Cs 12%C0=), mg/dscm at 12% COz

Csm12%CO2 Csm x (12/CO2)

Csm12%CO2 331.5421 mg/dscm @ 12% CO•

Cs12%CO•

Cs x (12/COz)

Cs12%CO= 1.45E-01 gr/dscf @ 12% CO2

17. Analyte Concentration

Corrected to Dry standard Conditions and 7% O: (Cs @7%0=), mg/dscm at 7% 02
Csm7%Oz Csm x [(20.9 7.0) (20.9 O•)]

Csm7%C• 213.3535 mg/dscm @ 7% O•

Typioal M5 Method 5•pendix C Field Da• Sheets

547-0505 RedlandBrlck

report GamAir.comEAppendix D
•ocess Monitoring

Data

$47•0505 R•land Brick GamAir,

com

019Appendix E 1 Laboratory Aualyttca

Data

547,0505 Redl•d Brick report

..• .... :, GamAir,comGammie Air Monitoring

LLC 28 Canton Rd West Sirnsbury,

CT USA 6092

Attention: Leieh Gammie,_ Report Date: 2005/07/1

Your P.O. #: 547-0505-02 Your Project #: 547-0505 Site: REDLAND ANALYTICAL

_•RPORT
MAXXAM JOB #: A558886 Received: 2005/06/25,

12:00 Sample Matrix: Impinger Solution # Samples Received:

7 Analyses Hydrog©n Halides by IC $ Sulphur Dioxide in Impingers Titration • Date

Date Ext•-ot- °A Anal]/z¢,d 2005/07/04 2005/07/04 2005/06/30 2005/06/30 (1) This test was performed

by Maxxam Analytios Burlington Laboratory Method SOP ING 211 NCASI-EPA 8a

Method Refereno© EPA CFR PTM 26

MAXXAM ANALYTICS

INC,

JIM POWER JP2/jp2 end.

Total cover pages: 1 Burlington:5555 North Service Road, Burlington,

Ontario L7L 5H7 Telephone(905)

332-8788 Fax(905) 332-9169

This document is in electronic format, hard copy is available on request. Page of 4Maxxam

Job #: A558886 Report Date: 2005/07/11 Gammie Air Monitoring

LLC Client Project #: 547-0505 Project name: REDLAND Your P,O. #: 547-0505-02 Sampler Initials:

Dr.•w b.•" ,$en, i¢'•" and .•'1e•8c¢

RESULTS OF ANALYSES

OF IMPINGER

SOLUTION

Batch Quality ConVol Batch
se check for attached comments

QC Batch Quality Control Batch =lease check for attached comments

Maxxam

ID

.G86555

G86555 Samplin• Date

2005106/23

2005/06123 Inits M26-4

M26-4 H2SO4 H2SO4 IV=30ML IV=30ML Dup

drofluodc Acid Iug

<20

<20
C Batch Quality Control Batch
ease check for attached cotangents DL QC Batch

20 772751 20 772751

Page 2 of 4 023Gammie Air Monitoring

LLC Maxxam Job #: A558886 Report Date: 2005/07/1 Client Project #: 547-0505 Project name: REDLAND Your P.O. #: 547-0505-02 Sampler Initials:

Sample G86546-01:

MPVOL=28ML IMPCHARG=30ML VOL ADJUST=300ML Sample G86553-01:

MPVOL=37ML IMPCHARG=30ML VOL ADJUST =300ML GENERAL COMMENTS

Sample G86554-01:

MPVOL=40ML IMPCHARG=30ML VOL ADJUST=300ML Sample G86555-01:

MPVOL=28ML IMPCHARG=30ML VOL ADJUST=300ML
Results relate only to the ;te•s tested.

Page 3 of 4 024Gammie Air Monitoring

LLC Attention: Leigh Gammie Client Project #: 547-0505 P.O. #: 547-0505-02 Project name: REDLAND

Driven by ,•en, i¢'e and ,•ci¢,nce

Quality Assurance

Report Maxxam Job Number: GA558886Date QNQC Batch Num Init 770951 BAT
772751A_S QC Type

Parameter MATRIX SPIKE [G86531-01] Sulphur dioxide Method Blank

Sulphur dioxide RPD Sulphur dioxide MATRIX SPIKE Hydrochloric

Acid RPD Hydrochloric

Acid MATRIX ..'sPIKE Hydrofluoric

Acid RPD Hydrofluoric

Acid Spiked Blank

Hydrochloric

Acid RPD Hydrochloric

Acid Spiked Blank

Hydrofluoric

Acid RPD Hydrofluoric

Acid Method Blank

Hydrochloric

Acid RPD Hydrochloric

Acid Method Blank

Hydrofluoric

Acid RPD Hydrofluoric

Acid Hydrochloric Acid Hydrofluoric Acid Hydrochloric Acid Hydrofluoric Acid Hydrochloric Acid Hydrofluoric Acid Hydrochloric Acid Hydmfluodc Acid Analyzed yyw/mm/dd

Value Recovery

Units 2005106/30 99 % 2005106/30 <2

mg 2005106/30 1.3 2005107104

106 % 2005107104 NC

% •005/07/04 112 2005107104 NC

% 2005107104 99 % 2005107104 NC

% 20O5/07/04 100 % 2005107104 NC

% 2005107104 <20

ug 2005107/04 NC

% 2005/07/04 <20

ug 2005107104 NC

% 2005107104 0.3

% 2005107104 NC

% 2005107104 2.3

% 2005107104 NC

% 2005107104 1.7

% 2005107104 NC

% 2005107104 NC

% 2005/07/04 NC

%

NC Non-calculable PD Relative Percent Difference PIKE Fortified sample Burlington:5555

North Service Road, Burlington,

Ontario L7L 5H7 Telephone(905)

332-8788 Fax(905)332-9169

QC Limits 80-12020 80-12020 80-12020 90-11020 90-110202O2O20202O202O202O20

Page 4 of 4 This document is in electronic format, hard copy is available on request.GamAir Laboratory Submittal

Form

To:From: Date:
Item
123456•7!8i91011121314151617181920212223242526272829 Maxxam Analytical,

Inc. Leigh A. Gammie 24-Jun-05 Sample Identification
M8-1V18-2 Collection

Date 23-Jun-05 23-Jun-05 23-Jura05

9126-1 23-Jun-05 M26-2 23-Jun-05 23-Jun-05 M26-3 M26-4 23-Jun-05

Comments:

GamAir Project No.: 547-0505 PO # 547-0505-02 Client: Redland Sample Volume initial volume 200 ml

initial volume 30 ml

Analysis

Requested
Sulfur dioxide only per EPA Method 8
Analyze each sample for HCI and HF via EPA Method 26 (ion chromatography)

Lab Submittal Form EPA M8 GamAir.com547-0505 Redland Brick report 027Nozzle Set: Glass Nozzle

Calibration

Data
Date: 21.FelP2005

I.D. #1 I.D. #2 I.D. #3

•

JSG

GLASS 5 5-15-25-36-45-55-7 GLASS 6 6-16-26-36-46-56-6

0.189

0.188

0.189 0.189 0.226 0.228

0.227 0.228 0.256 0.258

0.257 0.257 0.28 0.28

0.28 0.280 #DIV/0! 0.310 0.310

0.309 0.310 0.426 0.426

0.424 0.425

0.185 0.1:85

0.186 0.185 0.253 0.253

0.253 0.253 0.218 0.218

0.218 0.218 0.280 0.281

0.283 0.281 0.324 0.325

0.326 0.325 0.379 0.3•6

0.377 0.377

501502. 503- 5O4505 0.250

0.250

0.249 0.250 0.259 0.259

0.259 0.259 0.283 0.283

0.283 0.283 0.220 0.222

0.222 0.221 0.300 0.300

0.302 0.301

Each individual

measurement

must be within 0.003 inches from average

:Glass Pyrex O28S-TYPE PITOT GEOMETRIC

CALIBRATION PART 2 PITOT ALIGNMENT

Probe Identifical•)n

510 Technician JSG

Pitot Identification

510 probe

A Tra1•m Tube A•s

(f<1/8') 1/8' =0.125°

f a 0.978. 1.078 0.383 1.070 2ad

cos(•) cos(•')

¢• 94.3

80° < e < 100") e' 93.-'-"•"

(80" < e' < 100")

a 0.978 b 0.458
c 1.052 d 0.46 e, 1.02
¢• 86.3 e' 81..._.._•8

a^2 + b•2 c'2

cos(e) 2ab a•2 + d•2 e'2

cos(e') 2ad (85" < e <95") (85" < e' < 95")

(0<1/32") 1/32"=0.03125

NOTE: Values in parentheses

are EPA Method 2 speoifications. PRO.BE THE,,•.JOCOUPLE

C ALIBRATIC•N
•R Expected Stack Temperature

(Ts)

R Mercury Thermometer

(Tret)

"o R Therrnocouple Readout Probe Iden'drcation

510 probe Technician JSG Date

(Ts_+ 10%) ( Tref + 1.5% 12/22/2004

Pitut Cal (All) 2004 Pitot Alignment

611 Gam.Nr.oomProbe

Page t d2 030TRC Environmental

Corporation Critical Orifice Calibration

Date: 3/19/2003

Metering System Indentification:

WV-1

Critical Orifice Id No.: Critical Vacuum K' factor Run Number DGM Final Readin•l 912 0.01055

DGM Initial Reading

liters

1304.8 Difference, Vm

liters

4.53 Inlet/Outlet Temp. DGM Initial

°C 32 29 32 29 DGM Final

°C 32 29 32 29 Average Temp., Tm

30.5

30.5 Time min.

10

10 Delta H

in. H2 O 1.4

1.4 Pbar in. Hg

30.28

30.28 Ambient Temp.

°F

74

74 Pump Vacuum

in. Hg

14

14

1412 0.02496
!293.2! 1903.88 2011 0.05057
1259.71 1309.33 1282.5 4.41 10.710

1293.21

1239 10.670 20.710

1280.62 1259.71 20.910

32 29 32 29 32 29 32 29 32 29 32 29 32 29 32 29 30.5 30.5

30.5

30.5 10 10

10

10 2.3 2.3

5

5 30.28 30.28

30,28

30.28 74 74

74

74 14 14

13

13 Vm(std) liters

4.44

4.32

10.52

10.48

20.48

20.68 Vcr(std) item

4.71

4.71

11.15

11.15

22.59

22.59

DGM Cal. Factor, Y

1.061

1.090

1.059

1.063

1.103

1.092 Y Average 1.075 1.061 1.098 Y Dev. from avg. 1.34% 0.19% 0.48% IAverage Y

1.0781

Y at each of the flow rates should not differ by more than +/- 2.0% from the average Vm(std) 0.3858 Vm (Pbar x 25.4+ deltaH x 1,868) / (Tin + 273.2) Vcr(std) K' Pbar x 25.4 x Time / SQRT((Tamb

32) x 5/9 + 273.2)) Y Vcr(std) / Vm(std)

03/1032033