I . \ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

• 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Sr ick -t\i e Corr~alim 6f WlWV~l'IUVill~ 

..__-----------------. IO/z.o /woltJ 

TEST REPORT '" - J - ---- -

JUN - 9 2008 

for 

Brick and Tile Corporation 

Lawrenceville, VA 23868 

II 

II 

Prepared for: 

Brick end Tile Corporation 

16024 Governor Harrison Parkway 

P. 0. Box45 

Lawrenceville, VA 23868 

(804-848·3151) 

Prepared bt;: 

Air· Tech Environmental, LLC 

P. 0. Box 12353 

Research Triangle Park. NC 27709-2353 

(919) 544·6338 

Test Date: October 20. 2006 

II 

II 
• 

I 

I 

I 

I 

, I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Air-Tech Environmental, LLC 

Report Certification 

Air-Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report (AT06-0420-LBI) 

Test Date: October 20, 2006 - Page u 

This report has been reviewed by the following Air-Tech Environmental, LLC personnel 

and is a true representation of the results obtained from the sampling program for the Brick and 

Tile Corporation at their Lawrenceville, VA facility. Performance testing was conducted 

at Kiln No. 3 to demonstrate compliance with NESHAP Subparts A and JJJJJ and Title 

V permit requirements. Testing was conducted per requirements listed in a June 22, 

2005 construction permit (Registration #30872) and the Title V permit (Registration 

#30872, Permit #PR030872). The sampling and analytical methods were performed in 

accordance with procedures approved by the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Team Leader: 

Darrell H. Doerle, Senior Staff Scientist 

Reviewer: 

Michael W. Hartman, Principal Scientist 

II I 2_C/ (,., 

Date 

Date 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1.0 

2.0 

3.0 

4.0 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Air-Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report (AT06-0420-LBI) 

Test Date: October 20, 2006 - Page iii 

Page 

INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1 

RESULTS SUMMARY .................................................. 2 

2.1 HF and HCI Sampling Results ...................................... 2 

2.2 Particulate Matter Sampling Results ................................. 3 

2.3 Sulfur Dioxide (SO,) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Sampling Results ......... 4 

2.4 Visible Emissions ................................................ 4 

SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS ................................. 5 

3.1 HF and HCI Sampling ............................................ 5 

3.2 Particulate Sampling by Method 5/202 ................................ 6 

3.3 Continuous Emissions Monitoring .................................. 10 

QUALITY ASSURANCE/ QUALITY CONTROL ............................. 13 

Tables 

Table 1. 

Table 2. 

Table 3. 

Table 4. 

Table 5. 

Results Summary ................................................ 1 

HF and HCI Results Summary ...................................... 2 

Method 5/202 Results Summary .................................... 3 

SO, and CO Test Results Summary ................................. 4 

QA Measurements Results ....................................... 14 

Figure 1 

Figure 2 

Figure 3 

Figure 4. 

Figures 

Sampling Location Schematic, DLA Schematic and Point Location .......... 7 

Method 26A Sampling Train ........................................ 8 

Method 5/202 Sampling Train ...................................... 9 

CEM Sampling System .......................................... 12 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

t 

I 

t 

,. 

¥1 

Appendices 

Appendix A Test Data and Run Summaries- Outlet M5/202 

Appendix 8 HF/HCI Test Data and Run Summaries 

Appendix 8.1 Summary 

Appendix 8.2 Outlet M26A 

Appendix 8.3 Inlet Velocity 

Appendix 8.4 Inlet M26A 

Air-Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report {AT06-042D-LBI) 

Test Date: October 20, 2006 - Page iv 

Appendix C CEM Data Summaries, Test Log and Raw Data (on disc) 

Appendix D Opacity Data Sheets 

Appendix E Analytical Report 

Appendix F Meter Calibrations and CEM QC Summary 

Appendix G Process & Control Device Data Summary 

Appendix H. Test Notification and Protocol 
Air-Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report iATOG-0420-LBIJ 

Test Date: October 20, 2006 - Page 1 

~ 1.0 INTRODUCTION 

• 

1.0 Introduction 

Air-Tech Environmental was contracted by Brick and Tile Corporation to perform an 

emissions characterization program at their Lawrenceville, VA facility. Performance 

testing was conducted at Kiln No. 3 to demonstrate compliance with NESHAP Subparts 

A and JJJJJ and Title V permit requirements. Testing requirements for this plant (Plant 

3) are summarized in the table below as they are listed in a June 22, 2005 construction 

permit (Registration #30872) and the Title V permit (Registration #30872, Permit 

#PR030872). The results of the testing are summarized in this table as well. These 

results show that with the exception of opacity requirements Brick and Tile is in 

compliance with the pertinent permits. 

A more detailed presentation of the results of the sampling is presented in Section 2 of 

this report. Discussions of the sampling and analytical procedures employed in the 

testing are contained in Section 3. The data quality measures and results are 

contained in Section 4. Appended are the raw data and test summaries. A copy of the 

test protocol and letter submitted to the Va. DEQ describing the testing are appended 

as well. 

Table 1.Results Summary 

Pollutant Emissions Limit Test Results 

HF 0.057 #/ton or 90% ORE 0.013 #/ton and 98.7% ORE 

HCI 0.26 #/ton or 30% ORE 0.027 #/ton and 53.5% ORE 

PM' 0.42 #/ton 0.082 #/ton 

so, 9.9 lb/hr and 36.9 tpy 6.1 lb/hr and 26.7 tpy 

co 17.8 lb/hr and 66.0 tpy 3.54 lb/hr and 15.51 tpy 

VE None allowed Mean Value= 1% 

a Filterable PM only 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

2.0 Results Summary 

Air· Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report (AT06·0420-LBIJ 

Test Date: October 20,2006 - Page2 

Three test runs were conducted for the determination of emission rates for each of the 

compounds of interest. Test summaries grouped by test method are presented below. 

Brick production rates were maintained at 12.04 tons per hour (tph} during all testing. 

The DLA pressure drop averaged 0.41 for all testing. Limestone feed rates were 83.3 

lb/hr during testing with lime discharge approximately every 18 minutes. 

2.1 HF and HCI Sampling Results 

Samples were collected at the inlet to and outlet of the dry lime absorber (DLA) to 

determine mass rates and removal efficiencies for these two acid gases. Sampling was 

performed concurrently using the non-isokinetic sampling procedures of Method 26 at 

the inlet and the isokinetic procedures of Method 26A at the outlet. At both locations 

determinations were made for the acid halides only . 

A summary of the results of the HF and HCI testing is presented in Table 2. The 

destruction/removal efficiency (DRE) of the DLA averaged 98.7% and 53.5% for HF 

and HCI, respectively. Both of these values demonstrate compliance with Subpart JJJJJ 

for control of these emissions. Inlet mass rates show the facility to be in compliance 

with the emission limits specified for HCI without controls. 

Table 2. HF and HCI Results Summary 

Concentration Mass Rate DRE 

(ppm) (lblton)' (%) 

Flow 

Run# Time Rate HF HCI HF HCI HF HCI 

Inlet R1 0945-1045 14,054 257 8.5 0.93 0.057 

98.3 51.9 

Outlet R1 0945-1048 14,140 3.0 4.1 0.011 0.028 

Inlet R2 1115-1220 14,368 262 8.8 0.97 0.061 

98.7 55.1 

Outlet R2 1115-1231 14,409 3.4 4.0 0.013 0.027 

Inlet R3 1325-1425 14,174 251 8.2 0.92 0.056 

98.4 53.3 

Outlet R3 1326-1428 15,100 3.7 3.6 0.014 0.026 

Inlet Average 14,198 257 8.5 0.94 0.058 

98.7 53.5 

Outlet AveraQe 14,550 3.3 3.9 0.013 0.027 

' Based on 12.04 tons/hr production 
I 

I 

Air-Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report (AT06-0420--LBI) 

Test Date: October 20, 2006 - Page 3 

I 2.2 Particulate Sampling Results 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Particulate sampling was performed for the determination of both filterable and 

condensable PM at the DLA exhaust. Sampling was conducted according to the 

procedures of Methods 5 and 202, yielding three particulate fractions at the completion 

of analysis. These fractions are the filterable PM and two condensable PM fractions, 

one organic and one inorganic. 

A summary of the PM testing results is contained in Table 3. The analysis of these 

samples show extremely low results for the organic condensable fraction for all three 

tests. Blank corrections yielded negative results of approximately 0.1 mg. Therefore, 

the condensable organic fraction was deemed zero for all tests and results for that 

fraction have not been included in the results summary. 

The average emissions of total PM was found to be 0.154 lb/ton of dried brick 

produced. Nearly 50% of this emission is inorganic condensable matter. Comparison 

to the emission limit contained in Subpart JJJJJ made in the Introduction was, as 

required by the Subpart, based on only the filterable fraction. However, total PM 

emissions, inclusive of condensable PM,- are below the limit contained in Subpart JJJLJ. 

a 

b 

Table 3. Method 51202 Results Summary 

Flue Gas Concentrations 

Flow 

(gr/dscf) • 

Run# Time (dscfm) PM, PM0 , PM, 

1 

2 

3 

0901-1008 14,187 0.0059 0.0060 0.120 

1115-1231 14,634 0.0097 0.0059 0.0156 

1316-1438 15,074 0.0080 0.0086 0.0166 

Average 14,631 0.0079 0.0068 0.0147 

Based upon production of 12.04 tons dried brick/hour 

PMF = filterable particulate matter 

PMc1 = condensable inorganic particulate matter 

PMT = PMF + PMc1 

PM, 

0.0599 

0.1008 

0.0861 

0.0823 

Emission Rate 

(lblton) • 

PM c. PM, 

0.0611 0.121 

0.0616 0.1623 

0.0922 0.1783 

0.0716 0.1539 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Air· Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report (ATOS-0420-LBI) 

Test Date: October 20, 2006 Page' 

2.3 Sulfur Dioxide (SO:J and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Sampling Results 

Sampling for these two compounds of interest was performed instrumentally, 

incorporating a single sample collection, conditioning and delivery system. The results 

of this sampling are summarized jointly in this section. A tabulation of the results is 

contained in Table 4. 

The initial test run performed for S02 failed post-test QC measures. These data, 

though appended, have not been included in the compliance assessment for the facility. 

The summary of tests 2-4 contained in Table 4 show S02 emissions to range from 5.1 

to 7.31b/hr. The three-test average was calculated to be 6.1 lb/hr and 26.7 tons per 

year (tpy), values well below the Title V permit limits listed in the Introduction. 

Emissions of CO were similarly low relative to permit limits. Values ranged from 3.3 to 

3.9 lb/hr yielding averages of 3.5 lb/hr and 15.5 tpy. Results are presented for the last 

three test runs though there was no QC problem similar to that encountered with the 

S02 measurement during the initial test run. 

a 

b 

Table 4. 502 and CO Results Summary 

Concentration Emissions Rate 

(ppm) 

Flow' 502 co 502 co 

Run# Time (dscfm) soz co (/blhrJ (lblhr) (tpyj• (tpy) b 

2 1018-1119 14,163 52 54 7.3 3.3 31.9 14.6 

3 1134-1312 14,521 40 61 5.8 3.9 25.3 16.9 

4 1320-1424 15,087 34 52 5.1 3.4 22.5 15.0 

Average 14,591 42 55 6.1 3.5 26.7 15.5 

Flow is based on the average results of outlet M26 and M5 velocity traverses taken at the time of 

these tests. 

tpy = lb/hr X 24 X 365 I 2000 

2.4 Visible Emissions 

Brick and Tile is required to meet a no visible emissions limit as a result of the 

requirements contained in Subpart JJJJJ. Three 15-minute tests were performed 

according to the procedures of EPA Method 9. These tests show transitory periods of 

high opacity, averaging 20-50%, lasting 10 to 15 seconds. Thus, the average opacity 

for each 15 minute period, found to be 1%, is somewhat misleading. The brief periods 

of opacity are associated with the discharging of limestone from the DLA. 
Air~ Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report (AT06-0420-LBI) 

Test Date: October 20, 2006 - Page 5 

j 3.0 Sampling and Analytical Methods 

I 

!I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

rl 

Samples were collected from the exhaust ofthe brick kiln at Plant 3 during periods of 

steady operations. The production process was continuous, though brick cars enter 

and exit the kiln in a batch process like manner. 

Natural gas firing provided the heat for the operations. Hot gases pass from the heated 

section of the kiln to a preheating chamber and are then exhausted from the kiln. The 

flue gases then enter the DLA ductwork, pass through the DLA and are exhausted to 

the atmosphere via a fan and stack. 

Samples were collected at the DLA inlet and outlet for the determination of H F and HCI 

concentrations and mass rates used in removed efficiencies. Particulate matter, CO, 

and S02 emissions were determined at the DLA exhaust A schematic of the 

sampling locations is contained in Figure 1. This figure contains sampling point location 

used during the testing as well as providing a description of flow disturbances. 

Samples were collected according to sampling procedures contained in Appendix A of 

40 CFR part 60. Three one hour samples were collected for each compound of 

interest The sampling procedures employed during the testing are described in the 

following sections. 

3.1 HF and HCI Sampling 

Sampling was performed according to the sampling procedures of Method 26A at the 

DLA outlet These procedures entail isokinetic collection of a particulate sample 

followed by collection of acid gases in dilute solutions of sulfuric acid. A schematic of 

this sampling train is contained in Figure 2. Note that the caustic impingers used for the 

collection of diatomic halogens were not used. 

During operation of this sampling train flue gas was withdrawn from the gas stream 

through a glass nozzle and into a glass lined heated probe. The gas stream was 

filtered through a heated Teflon filter and passed to the impinger portion of the 

sampling train. This impinger portion consisted of four tared impingers. The first two 

contained 100 ml of 0.1 N sulfuric acid. These were followed by an empty impinger. A 

final impinger containing silica gel was used to remove any remaining non-condensed 

water from the gas stream prior to metering the gas by means of a calibrated meter for 

sample volume determinations. A type S pitot tube and type K thermocouple were used 

to measure velocity pressure and temperature at each sampling point. 

Inlet sampling was conducted in similar fashion following the non-isokinetic sampling 

procedures of Method 26. This sample was collected at a constant sample rate from 

three points on a single traverse plane. Velocity traverses were performed 

independently of sample collection following the procedures of Methods 1 and 2. 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

• 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Air-Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report (ATOS-0420-LBIJ 

Test Date: October 20, 2006 - Page 6 

Though the outlet sample was collected isokinetically, the particulate sample was not 

saved. Sample recovery was the same for both sets of samples and resulted in 

collection of a single sample for analysis. 

• 

• 

lmpingers were re-weighed to determine the volume of condensed flue gas 

water collected during the test for moisture content determination as per 

Method 4. 

The sulfuric acid impinger solutions and water rinses of all exposed glass 

surfaces downstream of the heated filter to the inlet of the silica gel impinger 

were collected in a single container. Sample volumes were noted. 

The silica gel and particulate fraction of the sampling train were discarded . 

The acid matrix samples were analyzed for fluoride and chloride ions following the ion 

chromatography procedures of Method 26A. These analyses yielded liquid 

concentrations for the ions of interest (ug/ml). Conversions of the ion concentration to 

acid concentration were made on a one-to-one molar basis yielding a weight 

concentration of acid in solution. Total mass of acid collected was determined by 

multiplication of the laboratory result (ug acid/ml sample) by the liquid sample volume. 

The total mass of acid was converted to flue gas concentration by dividing the total 

mass determined during analysis by the gas sample volume. The flue gas 

concentrations of the acid gases were then converted to mass rates by multiplying by 

the volumetric flow rate of the gas stream. ORE determinations were based on these 

calculated mass rates. Complete analytical summaries and example calculations have 

been appended. 

3.2 Particulate Sampling by Method 51202 

Particulate sampling was performed according to the sampling procedures of EPA 

Method 5 incorporating a Method 202 impinger train. The PM sampling train is shown 

in Figure 3. 

The sampling procedure directs that the sample be isokinetically withdrawn from the 

gas stream at a specified number of sampling points. The sample path was through a 

calibrated nozzle and into a glass lined probe, through a heated glass fiber filter and 

into the condenser train. The condenser train consisted of a series of chilled impingers 

used to condense both PM and water from the sample stream. Dry gas exiting the 

impinger train was directed, via umbilical and pump, through a calibrated gas meter for 

sample volume measurement. 

Sample recovery resulted in collection of 4 sample fractions. 

• Container 1 - Acetone rinses of the nozzle, probe, and front half of the 

filter holder. 

• Container 2 - The filter placed in a petri dish. 
II 

tl 

• 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

• 

I 

I 

I 

• 

Inlet duct= 44" diameter 

Point Number a Percent of Stack Diameter 

1 4.4 

2 14.6 

3 29.6 

4 70.4 

5 85.4 

6 95.6 

a Points for velocity traverses only 

Outlet duct= 36" diameter 

Point Number a Percent of Stack Diameter 

1 4.4 

2 14.6 

3 29.6 

4 70.4 

5 85.4 

6 95.6 

Air-Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report (AT06-0420-lBI) 

Test Date: October 20, 2006 - Page 7 

366' 

DLAFan 

+ 

Distance from Inside Wall (in.) 

1.9 

6.4 

13.0 

31.0 

37.6 

42.1 

Distance from Inside Wall (in.) 

1.6 

5.3 

10.7 

25.3 

30.7 

34.4 

Figure 1. DLA Sampling Location Schematic and Point Location 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Te~alllfe 

""""'---..... ~~ ' 

I Revefse Type PilOt Tube 

~ 

Healed Tflii'ISier Line 

"""""·~ 

-

Air~ Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report (AT06-0420-LBIJ 

Test Date: October 20, 2006 - Page a 

""'""'"" . """" 

Figure 2. Method 26A Sampling Train 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Air-Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report (AT06-0420-LBI) 

· Test Date: October 20, 2006 - Page 9 

Figure 3. Method 5/202 Sampling Train 

Vacuum 

Line 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

AirMTech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report (AT06-0420-LBI) 

• Container 3 - After nitrogen purges of the impinger train and weighing the 

impingers for moisture determinations as per Method 4 the 

impinger contents and water rinses of the impingers and 

connecting glassware from the back half of the filter holder 

through the inlet to the silica gel impinger were collected as 

a single sample. 

• Container 4- Methylene chloride rinses of the back half glassware. 

PM determinations were made by gravimetric analysis of the samples. As per Method 

5 procedures, acetone rinses were dried in tared beakers, desiccated with the filters, 

and weighed to constant weights. The back half water fractions (container 3) were 

placed in a separatory funnel and extracted with the methylene chloride rinses of the 

sample train (container 4) and two additional aliquots of methylene chloride. These two 

sample fractions were also dried in tared beakers, desiccated, and weighed to a 

constant weight. 

The results of the analysis of containers 1 and 2 were combined and reported as 

filterable PM. The results of analyses of fractions 3 and 4 were reported as inorganic 

and organic condensable PM, respectively. The sum of these four fractions comprised 

the total PM. 

3.3 Continuous Emissions Monitoring 

Flue gas concentrations of CO, S02, and fixed gases were determined instrumentally 

following the procedures of EPA Methods 10, 6C, and 3A, respectively. This testing 

was conducted using a single extractive sampling system that delivered a clean dry gas 

sample to a manifold for delivery to the various analyzers. A schematic of the sampling 

system used in depicted in Figure 4. 

Flue gas was withdrawn from the stack through an in-stack filter and stainless steel 

probe. The gas was transported through a heated sample line via a heated head pump 

and delivered to a water knock out system. Clean dried gas exiting the water knock out 

was delivered to a sample manifold and directed, via rotameters, to the analytical 

instruments. A TECO Model 48 NDIR analyzer employing gas filter correlation 

techniques was used for the CO analysis and an Ametek Model 921 pulsed 

fluorescence analyzer was used for S02 determinations. Fixed gas analysis, used for 

flue gas molecular weight determination, was performed with a pair of Servomex 

analyzers. A Model 1440 paramagnetic analyzer was used for oxygen analysis and a 

1440 NDIR was employed in carbon dioxide determinations. 

The calibration and QC procedures for all analyzers was performed according to the 

procedures described in Method 6C. Instrument calibrations were initially performed by 

introducing gases to the sample manifold and distributing them to the various 

instruments. Measurements of calibration error were performed using these data. 

Calibration gases were then introduced at the sample probe and drawn through the 
Air-Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report (AT06-042Q..LB1) 

Test Date: October 20, 2006 - Page 11 

system as if it were sample. Assessments of sample system bias were made from 

these data. At the end of each test period the bias measurements were repeated to 

demonstrate the integrity of the sample system remained intact and instrument 

calibration remained valid. These data were assessed as drift measurements. 

Instrument responses were logged on a computer operated data acquisition system. 

Analog voltage outputs from the instrumentation were converted to digital signals and 

directed to the computer. An algorithm in the computer software converted the digital 

signals to the appropriate units (ppm or%) and logged the data to a data file. The 

assessment of results was made using this stored data. 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I STACK 

• 

I 

• 

• 

I 

I 

I 

• 

I 

I 

• 

I 

I 

heated sample line 

unheated gas transport 

•••••••••• slgnalllnes 

Air-Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report (AT06-0420·LBI) 

Test Date: October 20, 2006 

- Page 12 

Manifold with flow 

control 

CO 502 02 C02 

• • • • • • • • . : : : 

• • • • • • • • \ : : : . . . ' 

• • • • 

8 

• 

• 

8 

Excess 

Figure 4. CEM Sampling System 
• 

• 

• 

4.0 Quality Assurance 

Air-Tech Environmental, LLC 

Brick & Tile Test Report {AT06-0420-lBI) 

Test Date: October 20, 2006 - Page 13 

Method specific Quality Assurance (QA) procedures were adhered to during this test 

program to ensure the data produced were of acceptable quality. A summary of the 

results of the results of the QA measures taken during this test program is presented in 

Table 5. This tabulation includes a listing of the method prescribed control limit. 

All of the tests results reported in this document meet the required criteria for data 

quality. The initial sample collected for S02 concentration determination did fail the 

post test drift test, showing a bias that exceeded 3% of the initial bias test. The error in 

measurement was related to sampling system operation. After correcting the 

operational problem the analyzer was re-calibrated and the test rerun. The results of 

test 2 through 4 did meet method criteria and those are the tests reported herein . 
I 

~ 

~ 

I Criteria 

% isokinetics. M5/202 

Meter calibration - pretest 

M5/202 

M26A 

M26 Inlet 

Meter Calibration. post-test 

M5/202 

M26A 

M26 Inlet 

Leak Checks 

M5/202 

M26A 

M26 Inlet 

Analytical Results: M5/202 

Acetone blank 

Water blank 

MeCI2 blank 

Analytical Results: M26 

Duplicate Analyses 

HF 

HCI 

Spike Recovery 

HF 

HCI 

Blank H2S04 

HF 

HCI 

Calibration Linearity 

HF 

HCI 

Air~ Tech Environmental, LLC 

Blick & Tile Test Report (AT06-0420-LBI) 

Test Date: October 20, 2006 Page 14 

Table 5. QA Measurements Results 

I Control Limit I Result I 

100± 10% 100-102% 

yd = 1.00 ± 2% 

1.0046 

0.9968 

1.0226 

.95 yd -1.05 yd 

-3.7% 

1.03% 

-2.51% 

< 0.02 cfm 

0.00- 0.01 

0.00-0.00 

0.00-0.00 

< 0.01 wt% 0.0011% 

< 0.01 wt% 0.0001% 

< 0.01 wt% 0.0010% 

X± 5% a 

0.2%- 1.1% 

0.2%-2.9% 

90% <X< 110%' 

108% 

102% 

< 0.0313 >Jg/ml 

< 0.0421 >Jg/ml 

R' > 0.95' 

0.9986 

0.9996 

' Laboratory criteria; method does not specify. 
-

-

-

-

Method 51202 

10120106 -

PM Results 

-

Production 

Brick -and 

rata= 

Tile 

-

12.04 

-

TPH 

- - - - -· 

-

Front helf, filterable PM 

Run Number Filler Number T•~ Final Not Beakar# r,~ Final Not Volume (ml) Nat, Corrected gr/dscf Total Front ttl Flow (dscfm) Mater Volume (fl."3

1 0806-11 0.6175 0.6311 0.0138 9277 1.0207 1.0242 0.0035 .. 0.0027 0.0059 0.0163 14187.35 42.419 

2 0606-12 0.6171 0.6389 0.0216 9295 1.0171 1.0238 0.0067 122 0.0056 0.0097 0.0274 14633.83 43.896 

3 08()6..13 0.6161 0.6307 0.0146 9279 0.9942 1.0039 0.0097 123 0.0086 0.0080 0.0232 15073.55 44.558 

Blank 9299 1.0149 1.0159 0.001 109 0.0079 14631.5767 

Back Hat! Organic 

Run Number Beaker# r,,. Final Not Volume (m\) Net, Corractad gr/dsd 

1 9297 1.0163 1.0172 0.0009 202 -0.00009 -0.000032 

2 9273 0.9914 0.9926 0.0012 260 -0.00007 -0.000025 

3 9312 0.9796 0.9807 0.0011 250 -0.00012 -0.()1)()042 

9266 0.9834 0.9645 0.0011 225 -0.000033 

Bacl< Half Inorganic 

Run Number Baakar# T•~ Final Not Voluma (rr,l) Na1. Correctad gr/dscf Inorganic PM (lblto

1 9319 0.9936 1.0104 0.0185 250 0.0166 0.0060 0.0611 

2 9274 1.0179 10348 0.0189 250 0.0167 0.0059 0.0616 

9278 0.9923 1.0172 0.0248 250 0.0248 0.0086 0.0922 

9278 1.007 1.0076 o.ooo8 588 0.0068 0.0716 

Totsl PM (g} tal Condensable (g) Totel PM (lblton) 

~ 

0.0060 0.1210 

0.0059 0.1623 

0.0166 0.0086 0.1783 

0.0147 0.0068 0.1539 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Facility: Lawrenceville Brick 

Date: 10/20/2004 

Location: Outlet 

Run Number: 1 

Sample Type: M5/202 

Total Sampling Time (min) 

Corrected Barometric Pressure (in Hg) 

Absolute Stack Pressure (in Hg) 

Stack Static Pressure (in H20) 

AveraQe Stack Temperature (•F) 

Stack Area (sq in) 

Actual Meter Volume ( cu ft) 

Average Meter Pressure (in H20) 

AveraQe Meter Temperature (•F) 

Moisture Collected (g) 

Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V) 

Oxygen Concentration (%V) 

Nitrogen Concentration (%V) 

Dry Gas Meter Factor 

Nozzle Diameter (in) 

Pilot Constant 

Average Sampling Rate (dscfm) 

Standard Metered Volume ( dscf) 

Standard Metered Volume (dscm) 

Stack Moisture (%V) 

Mole Fraction Dry Stack Gas 

Dry Molecular Weight 

Wet Molecular Weight 

Stack Gas Velocity (fpm) 

Stack Gas Velocity (mpm) 

Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 

Volumetric Flow Rate (acmm) 

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm) 

Percent lsokinetic 

Percent Excess Air 

Concentration (g/dscm) 

Concentration (kg/hr) 

Concentration (ppmv) 

Emissions (lb/hr) 

Start Time: 901 

End Time: 1008 

Initial Leak Check: 0.002@15" 

Final Leak Check: 0.000@5" 

60.0 

29.09 

29.18 

1.20 

393.42 

1017.88 

43.784 

1.74 

74.73 

112.50 

3.3 

14.0 

82.7 

1.0046 

0.252 

0.84 

0.707 

42.419 

1.201 

11.10 

0.889 

29.09 

27.86 

3742.06 

1140.58 

26451.04 

749.09 

14187.35 

401.79 

101.70 

178.36 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

-

0.00 
Facility: Lawrenceville Brick Start Time: 1115 

Date: 10/20/2004 End Time: 1231 

Location: Outlet Initial Leak Check: 0.003@15" 

Run Number: 2 Final Leak Check: 0.10@5" 

Sample Tvoo: M5/202 

Total Sampling Time (min) 60.0 

Corrected Barometric Pressure (in Hg) 29.09 

Absolute Stack Pressure (in Hg) 29.18 

Stack Static Pressure (in H20) 1.20 

Average Stack Temperature (•F) 393.38 

Stack Area (sq in) 1017.88 

Actual Meter Volume (cu ft) 44.974 

Average Meter Pressure (in H20) 1.82 

Average Meter Temperature (•F) 73.31 

Moisture Collected (g) 105.40 

Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V) 3.3 

Oxygen Concentration {%V) 14.0 

Nitrogen Concentration (o/oV) 82.7 

Dry Gas Meter Factor 1.0046 

Nozzle Diameter (in) 0.252 

Pilot Constant 0.84 

Average Sampling Rate (dscfm) 0.728 

Standard Metered Volume ( dscf) 43.696 

Standard Metered Volume {dscm) 1.237 

Stack Moisture (%V) 10.19 

Mole Fraction Dry Stack Gas 0.898 

Dry Molecular Weight 29.09 

Wet Molecular Weight 27.96 

Stack Gas Velocity (fpm) 3820.88 

Stack Gas Velocity (mpm) 1164.60 

Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 27008.21 

Volumetric Flow Rate (acmm) 764.87 

Volumetric Flow Rate {dscfm) 14633.83 

Volumetric Flow Rate {dscmm) 414.43 

Percent lsokinetic 101.56 

Percent Excess Air 178.36 

Concentration (g/dscm) 0.00 

Concentration {kg/hr) 0.00 

Concentration (ppmv) 0.00 

Emissions (lb/hr)_ 0.00 
Facility: Lawrenceville Brick Start Time: 1326 

Date: 10/20/2004 End Time: 1432 

Location: Outlet Initial Leak Check: 0.005@15" 

Run Number: 3 Final Leak Check: 0.000@5" 

Sample Type: M5/202 

Total Sampling Time (min) 60.0 

Corrected Barometric Pressure (in Hg) 29.09 

Absolute Stack Pressure (in Hg) 29.18 

Stack Static Pressure (in H20) 1.20 

Average Stack Temperature ('F) 390.54 

Stack Area (sq in) 

1017.88 

Actual Meter Volume (cu ft) 45.830 

Average Meter Pressure (in H20) 1.86 

Average Meter Temperature ('F) 73.00 

Moisture Collected (g) 86.20 

Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V) 3.3 

Oxygen Concentration (%V) 14.0 

Nitrogen Concentration (%V) 82.7 

Dry Gas Meter Factor 1.0046 

Nozzle Diameter (in) 

0.252 

Pilot Constant 

0.84 

Average Sampling Rate (dscfm) 0.743 

Standard Metered Volume (dscf) 44.558 

Standard Metered Volume (dscm) 1.262 

Stack Moisture (%V) 

8.34 

Mole Fraction Dry Stack Gas 0.917 

Dry Molecular Weight 

29.09 

Wet Molecular Weight 

28.16 

Stack Gas Velocity (fpm) 3843.44 

Stack Gas Velocity (mpm) 1171.48 

Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 27167.71 

Volumetric Flow Rate (acmm) 769.39 

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 15073.55 

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm) 426.88 

Percent lsokinetic 

100.55 

Percent Excess Air 

178.36 

Concentration (g/dscm) 0.00 

Concentration (kg/hr) 

0.00 

Concentration (ppmv) 

0.00 

Emissions (lb/hr) 

0.00 
.. ... ... ... -. -. -. -. - - - - - - - 

10/20/06 

Method 26 HCI and HF results summary 

Brick and Tile 12.0 ton brick per hour 

Run# Time Flow Rate Meter Volu HF HCI HFppm HCippm HF HCI HF H

dscfm ftA3 Total ug Total ug lblhr lb/hr lb/ton lb

Inlet 1 14053.68 40.649 245822.0 15058.0 257.0 8.5 11.2421 0.6886 0.9337 

Outlet 1 14139.55 41.679 2924.0 7377.0 3.0 4.1 0.1312 0.3310 0.0109 

Inlet 2 14367.8 40.778 251600.0 15676.0 262.2 8.8 11.7263 0.7306 0.9739 

Outlet 2 14409.02 42.498 3364.0 7310.0 3.4 4.0 0.1509 0.3278 0.0125 

Inlet 3 14173.55 40.574 239273.0 14569.0 250.6 8.2 11.0564 0.6732 0.9183 

Outlet 3 15100.98 43.97 3802.0 6917.0 3.7 3.6 0.1727 0.3142 0.0143 

Inlet Average 14198.3 245565.0 15101.0 256.6 8.5 11.3416 0.6975 0.9420 

Outlet Average 14549.9 3363.3 7201.3 3.3 3.9 0.1516 0.3244 0.0126 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Facility: Lawrenceville Brick 

Date: 10/20/2004 

Location: Outlet 

Run Number: 1 

Sample Type: HCI 

Total Sampling Time (min) 

Corrected Barometric Pressure (in Hg) 

Absolute Stack Pressure (in Hg) 

Stack Static Pressure (in H20) 

Average Stack Temperature (•F) 

Stack Area (sq in) 

. Actual Meter Volume (cu ft} 

Average Meter Pressure (in H20) 

Average Meter Temperature CF) 

Moisture Collected (g) 

Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V) 

Oxygen Concentration (%V) 

Nitrogen Concentration (% V) 

Dry Gas Meter Factor 

Nozzle Diameter (in) 

Pilot Constant 

Average Sampling Rate (dscfm) 

Standard Metered Volume ( dscf) 

Standard Metered Volume (dscm) 

Stack Moisture (% V) 

Mole Fraction Dry Stack Gas 

Dry Molecular Weight 

Wet Molecular Weight 

Stack Gas Velocity (fpm) 

Stack Gas Velocity (mpm} 

Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 

Volumetric Flow Rate (acmm) 

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm) 

Percent lsokinetic 

Percent Excess Air 

Concentration (g/dscm) 

Concentration (kg/hr} 

Concentration (ppmv) 

Emissions (lb/hr) 

Start Time: 945 

End Time: 1048 

Initial Leak Check: 0.000@7" 

Final Leak Check: 0.00@14" 

60.0 

29.11 

29.20 

1.20 

394.88 

1017.88 

42.986 

1.71 

70.48 

112.10 

3.3 

14.0 

82.7 

0.9968 

0.252 

0.84 

0.695 

41.679 

1.180 

11.24 

0.888 

29.09 

27.84 

3739.09 

1139.68 

26430.09 

748.50 

14139.55 

40Q.43 

100.26 

178.36 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 
Facility: Lawrenceville Brick Start Time: 1115 

Date: 10/20/2004 End Time: 1231 

Location: Outlet Initial Leak Check: 0.000@7'' 

Run Number: 2 Final Leak Check: 0.00@14" 

Sample Type: HCI 

Total Samj>ling Time (min) 60.0 

Corrected Barometric Pressure (in Hg) 29.11 

Absolute Stack Pressure (in Hg) 29.20 

Stack Static Pressure (in H20) 1.20 

Average Stack Temperature ("F) 394.67 

Stack Area ( sq in) 1017.88 

Actual Meter Volume (cu ft) 43.731 

Averag_e Meter Pressure (in H20) 1.78 

Average Meter Temperature ("F) 69.38 

Moisture Collected (g) 109.40 

Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V) 3.3 

Oxygen Concentration (%V) 14.0 

Nitrogen Concentration (% V) 82.7 

Dry Gas Meter Factor 0.9968 

Nozzle Diameter (in) 0.252 

Pilot Constant 0.84 

Average Sampling Rate {dscfm) 0.708 

Standard Metered Volume (dscf) 42.498 

Standard Metered Volume (dscm) 1.204 

Stack Moisture (%V) 10.81 

Mole Fraction Dry Stack Gas 0.892 

Dry Molecular Weight 29.09 

Wet Molecular Weight 27.89 

Stack Gas Velocity (fpm) 3791.08 

Stack Gas Velocity (mpm) 1155.52 

Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 26797.54 

Volumetric Flow Rate (acmm) 758.91 

Volumetric Flow Rate {dscfm) 14409.02 

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm) 408.06 

Percent lsokinetic 100.32 

Percent Excess PJr 178.36 

Concentration (g/dscm) 0.00 

Concentration (kg/hr) 0.00 

Concentration (ppmv) 0.00 

Emissions_(lb/hr) 

0.00 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

t 

Facility: Lawrenceville Brick 

Date: 10/20/2004 

Location: Outlet 

Run Number: 3 

Sample Type: HCI 

Total SampJing Time (min) 

Corrected Barometric Pressure (in Hg) 

Absolute Stack Pressure (in Hg) 

Stack Static Pressure (in H20) 

Average Stack Temperature ('F) 

Stack Area (sq in) 

Actual Meter Volume (cu ft) 

Averag_e Meter Pressure (in H20) 

AveraQe Meter Temperature ('F) 

Moisture Collected _(g} 

Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%V) 

Oxygen Concentration (%V) 

Nitrogen Concentration (%V) 

Dry Gas Meter Factor 

Nozzle Diameter (in) 

Pilot Constant 

Average Sampling Rate (dscfm) 

Standard Metered Volume (dscf) 

Standard Metered Volume (dscm) 

Stack Moisture (%V) 

Mole Fraction Dry Stack Gas 

Dry Molecular Weight 

Wet Molecular Weight 

Stack Gas Velocity (fpm) 

Stack Gas Velocity (mpm) 

Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 

Volumetric Flow Rate (acmm) 

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm) 

Percent lsokinetic 

Percent Excess Air 

Concentration (g/dscm) 

Concentration (kg/hr) 

Concentration (ppmv) 

Emissions (lb/hr) 

Start Time: 1326 

End Time: 1428.5 

Initial Leak Check: 0.000@5" 

Final Leak Check: 0.00@16" 

60.0 

29.11 

29.20 

1.20 

391.46 

1017.88 

45.458 

1.89 

72.00 

99.20 

3.3 

14.0 

82.7 

0.9968 

0.252 

0.84 

0.733 

43.970 

1.245 

9.60 

0.904 

29.09 

28.02 

3905.35 

1190.35 

27605.29 

781.78 

15100.98 

427.66 

99.04 

178.36 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

J 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

• 

I 

• 

Volumetric Flow Spreadsheet 

Plant Lawrenceville Brick 

Date 

Sampling Location 

Run Number 

Ambient Temperature (°F) 

Barometric Pressure (in Hg) 

Static Pressure (in H20) 

Operator 

Time 

Traverse 

Point 

Number 

A-1 

A-2 

A-3 

A-4 

A-5 

A-6 

A-7 

A-8 

B-1 

B-2 

B-3 

B-4 

B-5 

B-6 

B-7 

B-8 

Averages 

1012012006 

Inlet 

Pre-1 

75 

29.21 

-0.8 

MWH 

0945-1045 

Velocity Stack Square 

HeaddP Ts Root of 

(In H20) ('F) dP 

0.33 448 0.57 

0.32 441 0.57 

0.30 439 0.55 

0.31 436 0.56 

0.38 438 0.62 

0.30 441 0.55 

0.28 434 0.53 

0.28 430 0.53 

0.31 426 0.56 

0.34 425 0.58 

0.35 428 0.59 

0.34 428 0.58 

0.37 429 0.61 

0.38 433 0.62 

0.39 435 0.62 

0.38 435 0.62 

434.13 0.58 

Actual Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 

Standard Volumetric Flow Rate (scfm) 

Dry Standard Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 

02 Percent 

C02 Percent 

N2 Percent 

Stack Moisture (%) 

Mole Fraction (dry) 

Molecular Weight (dry) 

Molecular Weight (wet) 

Stack ID (in) 

Stack Area (sq ft) 

Stack Gas 

Velocity 

(fps) 

43.65114 

42.81861 

41.41288 

42.02712 

46.58272 

41.45894 

39.89719 

39.80781 

41.79185 

43.74263 

44.45843 

43.81673 

45.73471 

46.45281 

47.11275 

46.50482 

43.58 

27609.88 

15885.25 

14053.68 

Stack Gas 

Velocity 

(fpm) 

2619.06857 

2569.11841 

2484.77292 

2521.62693 

2794.96334 

2487.53627 

2393.83156 

2388.46837 

2507.51097 

2624.55780 

2667.38565 

2629.00400 

2744.08230 

2787.16871 

2826.76509 

2790.28917 

2614.76 

14 

3.3 

82.7 

11.53 

0.8847 

29.088 

27.8095536 

44 

10.55924197 
Volumetric Flow Spreadsheet 

Plant 

Date 

Sampling Location 

Run Number 

Ambient Temperature ("F) 

Barometric Pressure (in Hg) 

Static Pressure (in H20) 

Operator 

Time 

Traverse 

Point 

Number 

A-1 

A-2 

A-3 

A-4 

A-5 

A-6 

A-7 

A-8 

B-1 

B-2 

B-3 

B-4 

B-5 

B-6 

B-7 

B-8 

Averages 

Lawrenceville Brick 

10/20/2006 

Inlet 

Pre-2 

75 

29.21 

-0.8 

MWH 

0945-1045 

Velocity 

HeaddP 

(in H20) 

0.37 

0.37 

0.37 

0.35 

0.35 

0.36 

0.33 

0.32 

0.33 

0.31 

0.33 

0.31 

0.38 

0.40 

0.36 

0.36 

Stack 

Ts 

("F) 

441 

440 

439 

437 

436 

437 

433 

433 

439 

439 

440 

442 

443 

444 

443 

445 

439.44 

Actual Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 

Standard Volumetric Flow Rate (scfm) 

Square 

Root of 

dP 

0.61 

0.61 

0.61 

0.59 

0.59 

0.60 

0.57 

0.57 

0.57 

0.56 

0.57 

0.56 

0.62 

0.63 

0.60 

0.60 

0.59 

Dry Standard Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 

02 Percent 

C02 Percent 

N2 Percent 

Stack Moisture (%) 

Mole Fraction (dry) 

Molecular Weight (dry) 

Molecular Weight (wet) 

Stack ID (in) 

Stack Area (sq ft) 

Stack Gas 

Velocity 

(fps) 

46.01952 

45.99396 

45.96840 

44.65897 

44.63406 

45.29246 

43.26740 

42.60679 

43.41257 

42.07647 

43.43671 

42.14664 

46.68901 

47.92844 

45.44374 

45.49406 

44.69 

28314.71 

16194.55 

14367.80 

Stack Gas 

Velocity 

(fpm) 

2761.17108 

2759.63785 

2758.10376 

2679.53830 

2678.04376 

2717.54783 

2596.04424 

2556.40765 

2604.75397 

2524.58842 

2606.20276 

2528.79869 

2801.34048 

2875.70623 

2726.62461 

2729.64349 

2681.51 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

I 

I 

Volumetric Flow Spreadsheet 

Plant 

Date 

Sampling Location 

Run Number 

Ambient Temperature (°F) 

Barometric Pressure (in Hg) 

Static Pressure (in H20) 

Operator 

Time 

Traverse 

Point 

Number 

A-1 

A-2 

A-3 

A-4 

A-5 

A-6 

A-7 

A-8 

B-1 

B-2 

B-3 

B-4 

B-5 

B-6 

B-7 

B-8 

Averages 

Lawrenceville Brick 

10/20/2006 

Inlet 

Pre-3 

75 

29.21 

-0.8 

MWH 

0945-1045 

Velocity 

HeaddP 

(in H20) 

0.34 

0.33 

0.30 

0.31 

0.37 

0.41 

0.36 

0.36 

0.35 

0.37 

0.34 

0.33 

0.30 

0.29 

0.30 

0.30 

Stack 

Ts 

("F) 

450 

449 

447 

440 

440 

445 

446 

447 

434 

438 

441 

441 

442 

439 

432 

433 

441.50 

Actual Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 

Standard Volumetric Flow Rate (scfm) 

Square 

Root of 

dP 

0.58 

0.57 

0.55 

0.56 

0.61 

0.64 

0.60 

0.60 

0.59 

0.61 

0.58 

0.57 

0.55 

0.54 

0.55 

0.55 

0.58 

Dry Standard Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 

02 Percent 

C02 Percent 

N2 Percent 

Stack Moisture (%) 

Mole Fraction (dry) 

Molecular Weight (dry) 

Molecular Weight (wet) 

Stack 10 (in) 

Stack Area (sq ft) 

Stack Gas 

Velocity 

(fps) 

44.23923 

43.55964 

41.48694 

42.00962 

45.89535 

48.44659 

45.42160 

45.44667 

44.48861 

45.64431 

44.01985 

43.36767 

41.37240 

40.60929 

41.14234 

41.16540 

43.66 

27659.24 

15783.46 

14173.55 

Stack Gas 

Velocity 

(fpm) 

2654.35394 

2613.59029 

2489.21668 

2520.57693 

2753.72122 

2906.79555 

2725.29613 

2726.80026 

2669.31689 

2750.65878 

2641.19090 

2602.05998 

2482.34372 

2436.55723 

2468.54040 

2469.92420 

2619.43 

14 

3.3 

82.7 

10.2 

0.898 

29.088 

27.957024 

44 

10.55924197 457 
Air-Tech Environmental, LLC 

3216 S. Alston Ave 

Durham, NC 27713 

Lawrenceville Brick - DLA Stack 

Analytical Report 

(1006-96) 

EPA Method 26 

Hydrogen chloride 

Hydrogen fluoride 

EPA Method 202 

Condensible particulate matter 

EPA Method 5 

Particulate matter 

Enthalpy Analytical, Inc. 

Phone: (919) 850-4392 I Fax: {919) 850- 9012 I www.enthalpy.com 

2202 Ellis Road Durham, NC 27703- 5518 
Summary of Results 
'' 

EPA Method 202- Condensible Particulate Determination- Data Analysis 

Company Air-Tech Environmental 

Analyst SLG 

Parameters EPA Method 202 

# Samples 3 Runs and 1 Blank 

Client # Lawrenceville Brick 

Job# 1006-96 

PO# Verbal 

Report Date 11/6/06 

Analysis of Particulate Recovery 

Sample ID Number Run-1 Run-2 Run-3 

Organic 

Beaker Number 9297 9273 9312 

Final Weight, g 1.0173 0.9926 0.9808 

Reweigh, Final, g 1.0172 0.9926 0.9807 

Beaker Tare Weight, g 1.0162 0.9913 0.9798 

Beaker Tare Reweigh, Initial, g 1.0163 0.9914 0.9796 

Solvent Blank, g 0.0014 0.0021 0.0020 

MeC12FV,mL 202 260 250 

Net Organic Catch, mg -0.5 -0.9 -0.9 

Inorganic 

Beaker Number 9319 9274 9278 

Final Weight, g 1.0107 1.0349 1.0172 

Reweigh, Final, g 1.0104 1.0348 1.0172 

Beaker Tare Weight, g 0.9934 1.0!79 0.9924 

Beaker Tare Reweigh, Initial, g 0.9936 1.0179 0.9923 

Water Blank, g 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 

Samole Final Volume, mL 560 664 652 

Charge and Rinse Vol, mL 250 250 250 

Sulfate aliquot, mL 5.00 5.00 5.00 

Sulfate aliquot CF 1.01 1.01 1.0! 

Net Inorganic CF 1.09 1.09 1.09 

Net Inorganic, mg_ 18.2 18.2 27.0 

Condensible Particulate, mg 18.2 18.2 27.0 

Blank Analysis 

Sample ID Number MeCl Blank Sample ID Number H20 Blank 

Beaker Number 9313 Beaker Number 9276 

Final Weight, g 0.9906 Final Weight, g 1.0079 

Reweigh, Final. g 0.9906 Reweigh, Final, g 1.0078 

Initial Weight, g 0.9896 Initial Weigllt,_£ 1.0070 

Reweigh, Initial, g 0.9896 Reweigh, Initial, g 1.0070 

MeCI2 Residue, g 0.0010 Water Residue, g 0.0008 

MeC12 Volume, mL 78.0 Water Volume mL 588 

Max. MeC12 Residue, g 0.0010 Max. Water Residue, g 0.0059 

In-House Blank Analysis 

Sample ID Number MeCl Blank Sample lD Number H20 Blank 

Beaker Number 9286 Beaker Number 9314 

Final Weight, g 0.9844 Final Weight, g 0.9711 

Reweigh, Final, g 0.9845 Reweigh, Final. g 0.9712 

Initial Weigllt,_g 0.9834 Initial Weight, g 0.9708 

Reweigh, Initial, g 0.9834 Reweigh, Initial, g 0.9707 

MeCI2 Residue, g 0.0011 Water Residue, g 0.0005 

MeC12 Volume, mL 225 Water Volume, mL 250 

Max. MeC12 Residue, g 0.0030 Max. Water Residue, g 0.0025 
Company Air-Tech Environmental 

Analyst KEH 

Parameters EPA Method 26A 

# Samples 6 Runs & 1 blank 

Client # DLA Stack 

Job # 1 006-96 

PO# Verbal 

Report Date 11/2/2006 

Compound Sample ID I Catch WeiQht (ug) 

Hydrogen fluoride 

Hydrogen chloride 

Hydrogen fluoride 

Hydrogen chloride 

Hydrogen fluoride 

Hydrogen chloride 

Inlet Run 1 

245,822 

15,058 

Stack Run 1 

2,924 

7,377 

H2S04 Blank 

63.7 ND 

85.6 ND 

Inlet Run 2 

251,600 

15,676 

Stack Run 2 

3,364 

7,310 

1 006-96-m26-res 

Inlet Run 3 

239,273 

14,569 

Stack Run 3 

3,802 

6,917 

11/6/2006 
_ :s~::~~."5 Login f VIEW PRIORITY ALARMS I _M~ Temperatures j Historical~~ Kiln Dryer Holding Room I Transfer Cars I Controllers j Misc. 

Chart Select 

~ I Kiln Pusher 

JEG F 

2 ~,-~ 

o .. 

' 

( 

~ 

I 

Push 1 on tirre 

Chart Duration 

1 Day 

Axis Title 

t'v.<~""e...' Pes·, t.·to~'>' j'lot:.c....l-\·.ln ru.s\...e_\~\of'h sr.ac.US Pu.~~ht:d'f'l~$\ 

C\\•d-.. ~\e..SSu\ ~ o 0 t< ·,10 yUSh~r 

21 .45 !!.twS PU. 7)ftli 

X 4-, Z7t, pyJAJDS 

~ 2.4-,07~, {~ foiJ,JDS/ J+ook. 

-:::-') j 2.. , 0 4- TO tJ S / H·o tJ R M- J: l fd~:J.:> 
Differential Pressure 3 Hour Averages 

Date Reported: November 1, 2006 

Date of Report Data: October 20, 2006 

Values Samples 

0:00 3:00 0.40060 10800 

3:00 6:00 0.40086 10800 

6:00 9:00 0.40077 10800 

9:00 12:00 0.40603 7111 

12:00 15:00 0.40983 10800 

15:00 18:00 0.39620 10800 

18:00 21:00 0.39171 10800 

21:00 0:00 0.39268 10800