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 

GamAir Project No.: 547-0505 
Section 

Table of Contents 

5.1 

5.1.1 

5.1.2 

5.1.3 

5.2 

5.3 

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.com 
REPORT 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.¢om 
1.0 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.com 
2.0 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.com 
3.0 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.com 
Table 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 

HC1 

HF 

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 

1.80 

0.065 

2.89 

1.83 

0.059 

2.91 

1.62 

0.059 

547-0505 Redland Brick report GamAir.com 
4.0 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.corn 
4.2 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.com 
probe 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.com 
5.0 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.com 
gaseous 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.com 
Appendix A 

Fibres • Diagrams 

•amAir.com 
).5 1.0 1.5 '" 2.0 

SO 

40 

30 

24 C•'25 

40 

20 

10 

0 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

$ 

9 

10 

12. 

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 88.2 

9"•.9 

6,7 

25.0 

75.0 

93.3 5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 )2 
E 
EPA•Nethod 2S 

HydmmNorlo Acid Sampling Train 

A•ppendix B 

Resul• and Cal• ] atlons 

547-0505 R•!and Brick report GamAir•com 
Summary 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, (%) 

71 

0.32 

351 

40.800 

38.0 

1.4 

18.4 

0.0 

80.2 

29.94 

12.040 

0.280 

0,992 

0.84 

0.6340 

1.690 

88 

0.32 

354 

42.583 

44.0 

1.5 

18.2 

0.0 

80.3 

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 

0.280 

60 

0.992 

0.84 

0.6230 

1.630 

94 

0.32 

357 

42.182 

44.0 

1,8 

17.9 

0.0 

80.3 

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 

0.627 

1.65 

84 

0.32 

364 

41.855 

42.00 

1.6 

18.2 

0.00 

80.3 

45.3 

40.47 

4.66 

28.47 

6O4 

2638 

31759 

19669 

96.6 

0.0107 

24492 

0.0173 

202.35 

2.91 

0.13 

9190 

0.17 

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 

0O8 
Summary 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.com 
Run 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 5 
3. 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 5 
9. 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.©om 
Gammie 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 OF N AIR MANAGEMENT ww•LIANCE AND FIELD OPERATIONS 
Compliance 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.: 547-0505 
Table 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 

5.1 

5.1.1 

5.1.2 

5.1.3 

5.2 

5.3 

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.com 
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. Ga(nmie 

Officer, Gammie Air Monitoring, LLC 

Date 

tt 

547-0505 Redland Brick report ii GamA|•-,¢om 
1.0 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.com 
2.0 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.©om 
3.0 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.com 
Method/Component 

Method 2 Flowrate 

IV/•LIIUU D./-• 

Method 8 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Method 26 

HC1 

HF 

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 

18.2 

1.5 

3.08 

1.80 

0.065 

Run 3 

19467 

I'/Q 

1.8 

2.89 

1.83 

0.059 

Average 

19669 

1R_2 

1.6 

2.91 

1.62 

0.059 

547-0505 Redland Brick report 4 GamAir.com 
4.0 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.¢om 
4.2 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.com 
probe 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.com 
5.0 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.com 
gaseous 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.com 
Appendix A 

Figures and Diagrams 

547-0505 Redland Brick report 
24 ar 25 

16 

20 

40 

A 

I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

$ 

9 

10 

11 

12. 

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 88.2 

93.3 

97.9 

6.7 

•.•.0 

75.0 

93,3 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 
•03 
Ep .AMethod S6 

Hydroddodo• Add Sampling Train 

547-0505 Redland Brick report 

GamAir.com 
Summary 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 

0.280 

60 

0.992 

0.84 

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, (%) 

71 

0.32 

351 

40.800 

38.0 

1.4 

18.4 

0.0 

80.2 

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.corn 
Summary 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.¢om 
Summary 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.com 
Run 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.eom 
3. 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.¢om 
9. 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,¢orn 
14. 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.com 



E 
Appendix D 

•ocess Monitoring Data 

$47•0505 R•land Brick GamAir, com 

019 

Appendix E 

Laboratory Aualyttca 1 Data 

547,0505 Redl•d Brick report ..• .... :, 

GamAir,com 
Gammie 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 4 
Maxxam 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 

023 
Gammie 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 

024 
Gammie 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: GA558886 

Date 

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 

80-120 

20 

80-120 

20 

80-120 

20 

90-110 

20 

90-110 

20 

2O 

2O 

20 

20 

2O 

20 

2O 

20 

2O 

20 

Page 4 of 4 

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

To: 

From: 

Date: 

Item 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

•7 

!8 

i9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

Maxxam Analytical, Inc. 

Leigh A. Gammie 

24-Jun-05 

Sample Identification 

M8-1 

V18-2 

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.com 
547-0505 Redland Brick report 

027 
Nozzle Set: Glass 

Nozzle Calibration Data 

Date: 21.FelP2005 

I.D. #1 I.D. #2 I.D. #3 • 

JSG 

GLASS 5 

5-1 

5-2 

5-3 

6-4 

5-5 

5-7 

GLASS 6 

6-1 

6-2 

6-3 

6-4 

6-5 

6-6 

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 

501 

502. 

503- 

5O4 

505 

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 

O28 
S-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.oom 
Probe 

Page t d2 

030 
TRC 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 

9 

12 

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 

14 

12 

0.02496 

!293.2! 1903.88 

20 

11 

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) 

03/1 
032 
033