# 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 

# TESTREPORT

'"
- J

- ---- - 

### JUN

- 

## 9 2008 

# for Brick and Tile Corporation Lawrenceville, VA 23868


# II

II Preparedfor:
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



### TestDate: October20. 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 ofthe results obtained from the sampling program for the Brick and Tile Corporation attheir Lawrenceville, VA facility. Performance testing was conducted
at Kiln No. 3 to demonstrate compliance with NESHAP SubpartsA 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 bythe Commonwealth ofVirginia.

Team Leader: Darrell H. Doerle, Senior Staff Scientist

Reviewer: Michael W. Hartman, Principal Scientist II

# I2_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
- Pageiv

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 ProtocolAir-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 attheir 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 forthis 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 ofthe testing are summarized in this table as well. These results show that with the exception ofopacity requirements Brick and Tile is in compliance with the pertinent permits.

A more detailed presentation ofthe results ofthe sampling is presented in Section 2 of this report. Discussions ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofemission rates for each ofthe compounds of interest. Test summaries grouped by test method are presented below. Brick production rates were maintained at 12.04tons per hour (tph} during all testing. The DLA pressure drop averaged 0.41 for all testing. Limestone feed rates were 83.3 lb/hrduring testing with lime discharge approximately every 18 minutes.


### 2.1 HFandHCI Sampling Results Sampleswere collected at the inletto and outlet ofthe dry lime absorber (DLA)to determine mass rates and removal efficiencies forthese 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 atthe outlet. At both locations determinations were made forthe acid halides only

. A summaryofthe results ofthe HF and HCI testing is presented in Table 2. The destruction/removal efficiency (DRE) ofthe DLA averaged 98.7% and 53.5% for HF and HCI, respectively. Both ofthese values demonstrate compliance with Subpart JJJJJ forcontrol ofthese emissions. Inlet mass rates showthe facilityto 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

InletAverage 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 forthe determination ofboth filterable and condensable PM atthe DLA exhaust. Sampling was conducted according to the procedures ofMethods 5 and 202, yielding three particulate fractions at the completion ofanalysis. These fractions are the filterable PM and two condensable PM fractions, one organic and one inorganic.
A summary ofthe PM testing results is contained in Table 3. The analysis ofthese samples show extremely low results forthe organic condensable fraction for all three tests. Blankcorrections yielded negative results ofapproximately 0.1 mg. Therefore, the condensable organicfraction was deemed zero for all tests and results forthat fraction have not been included in the results summary.
The average emissions oftotal PM was found 

## to be 0.154 lb/ton ofdried brick produced. Nearly 50% ofthis emission is inorganic condensable matter. Comparison to the emission limit contained in Subpart

### JJJJJ made in the Introduction was, as required bythe Subpart, based on onlythe filterable fraction. However, total PM emissions, inclusive ofcondensable 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, PM 0 , 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 SulfurDioxide (SO:J andCarbon Monoxide (CO) Sampling Results Sampling forthesetwo compounds of interest was performed instrumentally, incorporating a single sample collection, conditioning and delivery system. The results ofthis sampling are summarizedjointly in this section. A tabulation ofthe 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 assessmentforthe facility. The summary oftests 2-4 contained in Table 4 show S02 

### emissions to range from 5.1 to 7.31b/hr. Thethree-test average was calculated to 

### be 6.1 lb/hrand 26.7 tons per year (tpy), values well below the Title V permit limits listed in the Introduction.
Emissions ofCO were similarly low relative to permit limits. Values ranged from 3.3 to 3.9 lb/hryielding averages of3.5 lb/hrand 15.5tpy. Results are presented for the last three test runs though there was no QC problem similarto 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 ofoutlet M26 and M5 velocity traverses taken at the time of these tests. tpy = lb/hr X24 X365 I2000



### 2.4 Visible Emissions Brick and Tile is required to meet a no visible emissions limit as a result ofthe requirements contained in Subpart

### JJJJJ. Three 15-minutetests were performed according tothe procedures of EPA Method 9. Thesetests showtransitory 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 ofopacity 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
- Page5 

# j 3.0 Sampling and Analytical Methods



# I 

# !I
I
I 

# I I I 

# rl Sampleswere 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 exitthe kiln in a batch process like manner. Natural gasfiring provided the heatfor the operations. Hot gases pass from the heated section ofthe kiln to a preheating chamber and are then exhausted from the kiln. The flue gasesthen enterthe DLA ductwork, pass through the DLA and are exhausted to the atmospherevia afan and stack. Sampleswere collected at the DLA inlet and outletforthe determination of H F and HCI concentrations and mass rates used in removed efficiencies. Particulate matter, CO, and S02 

### emissionswere determined atthe DLA exhaust A schematic ofthe sampling locations is contained in Figure 1. This figure contains sampling point location used during the testing as well as providing a description offlow disturbances. Sampleswere 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 HFandHCISampling Sampling was performed according to the sampling procedures of Method 26A atthe DLA outlet These procedures entail isokinetic collection ofa particulate sample followed by collection ofacid gases in dilute solutions ofsulfuric acid. A schematic of this sampling train is contained in Figure 2. Note that the caustic impingers used for the collection ofdiatomic halogenswere not used. During operation ofthis sampling train flue gaswas withdrawn from the gas stream through a glass nozzle and into aglass lined heated probe. The gas stream was filtered through a heated Teflon filter and passed tothe impinger portion ofthe sampling train. This impinger portion consisted offour tared impingers. Thefirst two contained 100 ml of0.1 N sulfuric acid. Thesewerefollowed by an empty impinger. A final impinger containing silica gel was used to remove any remaining non-condensed waterfrom the gas stream prior to metering the gas by means ofa calibrated meterfor samplevolume determinations. Atype S pitot tube and type Kthermocouple were used to measurevelocity pressure and temperature at each sampling point.
Inletsampling was conducted in similarfashion 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 independentlyofsample 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 ofsamples and resulted in collection ofa single sample for analysis.

•



### • lmpingers were re-weighed to determine the volume ofcondensed flue gas water collected duringthe test for moisture contentdetermination as per Method 4. The sulfuric acid impinger solutions and water rinses ofall exposed glass surfaces downstream ofthe heated filtertothe inlet ofthe silica gel impinger were collected in a single container. Samplevolumes were noted. The silica gel and particulate fraction ofthe sampling train were discarded

. The acid matrix samples were analyzed forfluoride and chloride ions following the ion chromatography procedures ofMethod 26A. These analyses yielded liquid concentrations forthe ions ofinterest (ug/ml). Conversions ofthe ion concentration to acid concentration were made on a one-to-one molar basis yielding a weight concentration ofacid in solution. Total mass ofacid collected was determined by multiplication ofthe laboratory result (ug acid/ml sample) by the liquid sample volume. The total mass ofacid was converted to flue gas concentration by dividing the total mass determined during analysis bythe gas samplevolume. The flue gas concentrations ofthe acid gases were then converted to mass rates by multiplying by the volumetric flow rate ofthe gas stream. ORE determinationswere 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 impingertrain. The PM sampling train is shown in Figure 3. The sampling procedure directs that the sample be isokineticallywithdrawn from the gas stream at a specified numberofsampling points. The sample path was through a calibrated nozzle and into a glass lined probe, through a heated glass fiberfilter and intothe condensertrain. The condenser train consisted ofa series ofchilled impingers used to condense both PM and waterfrom the sample stream. Dry gas exiting the impingertrain was directed, via umbilical and pump, through a calibrated gas meter for samplevolume measurement. Sample recovery resulted in collection of4 sample fractions.

• Container 1
- Acetone rinses ofthe nozzle, probe, and front half ofthe filter holder. • Container 2
- Thefilter 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 ofStack 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 

# +

Distancefrom 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



# ~ RevefseType PilOt Tube HealedTflii'ISier Line

**"""""·~**



# - **Air~**Tech Environmental, LLC Brick &Tile Test Report (AT06-0420-LBIJ Test Date: October 20, 2006
- Pagea



### ""'""'""

.

## """"

Figure 2. Method 26ASamplingTrain

# I

I I I I
I I I I I 

# I 

# • • • • • Air-Tech Environmental, LLC Brick & Tile Test Report (AT06-0420-LBI)

·Test Date: October20, 2006
- Page 9



### Figure 3. Method 5/202 SamplingTrain 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 ofthe impingertrain and weighing the impingersfor moisture determinations as per Method 4 the impinger contents and water rinses ofthe impingers and connecting glasswarefrom the back halfofthe filter holder through the inletto the silica gel impingerwere collected as a single sample. • Container4- Methylene chloride rinses ofthe back halfglassware.
PM determinations were made by gravimetric analysis ofthe samples. As per Method 5 procedures, acetone rinses were dried in tared beakers, desiccated with the filters, and weighed to constantweights. The back halfwater fractions (container 3) were placed in a separatory funnel and extracted with the methylene chloride rinses ofthe sample train (container 4) and two additional aliquots of methylene chloride. These two samplefractions were also dried in tared beakers, desiccated, and weighed to a constantweight. The results ofthe analysis ofcontainers 1 and 2were combined and reported as filterable PM. The results ofanalyses offractions 3 and 4 were reported as inorganic and organic condensable PM, respectively. The sum ofthese four fractions comprised the total PM.



### 3.3 Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Flue gas concentrations ofCO, S02, 

### and fixed gaseswere determined instrumentally following the procedures of EPA Methods 

### 10, 6C, and 3A, respectively. Thistesting was conducted using a single extractive sampling system that delivered a clean dry gas sample to a manifold for deliveryto the various analyzers. A schematic ofthe sampling system used in depicted in Figure 4.
Flue gaswaswithdrawn from the stack through an in-stackfilter and stainless steel probe. The gaswas 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 techniqueswas used for the CO analysis and an Ametek Model 921 pulsed fluorescence analyzerwas used for S02

### determinations. Fixed gas analysis, used for flue gas molecularweight determination, was performed with a pairofServomex analyzers. A Model 

### 1440 paramagnetic analyzerwas used for oxygen analysis and a 

### 1440 NDIRwas employed in carbon dioxide determinations.
The calibration and QC proceduresfor all analyzerswas performed according to the procedures described in Method 6C. Instrument calibrations were initially performed by introducing gasesto the sample manifold and distributing them to the various instruments. Measurements ofcalibration errorwere performed using these data. Calibration gases were then introduced atthe sample probe and drawn through theAir-Tech Environmental, LLC Brick & Tile Test Report (AT06-042Q..LB1)
Test Date: October 20, 2006 - Page 11 

### system as if it were sample. Assessments ofsample system bias were madefrom these data. Atthe end ofeach test period the bias measurements were repeated to demonstrate the integrity ofthe sample system remained intact and instrument calibration remained valid. These data were assessed as drift measurements.
Instrument responseswere logged on a computer operated data acquisition system. Analog voltage outputsfrom 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
unheatedgastransport

•••••••••• slgnalllnes Air-Tech Environmental, LLC Brick & Tile Test Report (AT06-0420·LBI) Test Date: October 20, 2006
- Page 12

Manifoldwithflow 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) procedureswere adhered to during this test program to ensure the data produced were ofacceptable quality. A summary ofthe results ofthe results ofthe QA measures taken during this test program is presented in Table 5. This tabulation includes a listing ofthe method prescribed control limit.
All ofthe 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 drifttest, showing a biasthat exceeded 3% ofthe initial bias test. The error in measurementwas related to sampling system operation. After correcting the operational problem the analyzerwas 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 MeterCalibration. 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 ControlLimit 

# I Result 

# I

100± 10% 100-102% yd

## =1.00 ± 2% 1.0046 0.9968 1.0226 .95 yd -1.05yd -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.- - - - - 10120106 - - - - - - - - -· - - ---.......-

Brick and Tile

Method 51202 PM Results Production rata= 12.04 TPH

Front helf, filterable PM Filtarabla 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) Emission Rate (lbll1r) miSSion Rata (lb!ton)

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 0.7217 0.0599

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 1.2130 0.1008

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 1.0370 0.0661

Blank 9299 1.0149 1.0159 0.001 109 0.0079 14631.5767 0.9906 0.0823

Back Hat! Organic

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

1 9297 1.0163 1.0172 0.0009 202 -0.00009 -0.000032 -0.0039

2 9273 0.9914 0.9926 0.0012 260 -0.00007 -0.000025 -0.0032

3 9312 0.9796 0.9807 0.0011 250 -0.00012 -0.()1)()042 -0.0055

9266 0.9834 0.9645 0.0011 225 -0.000033 -0.0042

Bacl< Half Inorganic

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

1 9319 0.9936 1.0104 0.0185 250 0.0166 0.0060 0.0611 0.7357

2 9274 1.0179 10348 0.0189 250 0.0167 0.0059 0.0616 0.7411

9278 0.9923 1.0172 0.0248 250 0.0248 0.0086 0.0922 1.1102

9278 1.007 1.0076 o.ooo8 588 0.0068 0.0716 0.8524

Totsl PM (g} tal Condensable (g) Totel PM (lblton) Total PM (lblhr) ndansable PM (lbihr)

**~** 0.0060 0.1210 1.4574 0.7357

0.0059 0.1623 1.9542 0.7411

0.0166 0.0086 0.1783 2.1472 1.1102

0.0147 0.0068 0.1539 1.6529 0.6624

# 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 SampleType: M5/202
Total Sampling Time (min) Corrected Barometric Pressure (in Hg) Absolute Stack Pressure (in Hg) Stack Static Pressure (in H20) AveraQe StackTemperature (•F) Stack Area (sq in) Actual MeterVolume (cu ft) Average Meter Pressure (in H20) AveraQe MeterTemperature (•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) StartTime: 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

- 0.00Facility: Lawrenceville Brick StartTime: 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 StackArea (sq in) 1017.88 Actual MeterVolume (cu ft) 44.974 Average Meter Pressure (in H20) 1.82 Average MeterTemperature (•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 MolecularWeight 29.09 Wet MolecularWeight 27.96 Stack GasVelocity (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)_ 0.00Facility: Lawrenceville Brick StartTime: 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" SampleType: 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 StackTemperature ('F) 390.54 StackArea (sq in) 1017.88 Actual MeterVolume (cuft) 45.830 Average Meter Pressure (in H20) 1.86 Average MeterTemperature ('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 MeteredVolume (dscf) 44.558 Standard MeteredVolume (dscm) 1.262 Stack Moisture (%V) 8.34 Mole Fraction Dry StackGas 0.917 Dry MolecularWeight 29.09 Wet MolecularWeight 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 ExcessAir 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 HCI HFDRE HCI ORE

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

Inlet 1 14053.68 40.649 245822.0 15058.0 257.0 8.5 11.2421 0.6886 0.9337 0.0572

Outlet 1 14139.55 41.679 2924.0 7377.0 3.0 4.1 0.1312 0.3310 0.0109 0.0275 98.83 51.93

Inlet 2 14367.8 40.778 251600.0 15676.0 262.2 8.8 11.7263 0.7306 0.9739 0.0607

Outlet 2 14409.02 42.498 3364.0 7310.0 3.4 4.0 0.1509 0.3278 0.0125 0.0272 98.71 55.13

Inlet 3 14173.55 40.574 239273.0 14569.0 250.6 8.2 11.0564 0.6732 0.9183 0.0559

Outlet 3 15100.98 43.97 3802.0 6917.0 3.7 3.6 0.1727 0.3142 0.0143 0.0261 98.44 53.32

Inlet Average 14198.3 245565.0 15101.0 256.6 8.5 11.3416 0.6975 0.9420 0.0579

Outlet Average 14549.9 3363.3 7201.3 3.3 3.9 0.1516 0.3244 0.0126 0.0269 98.6613 53.4593

# 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 StackTemperature (•F) Stack Area (sq in)

. Actual MeterVolume (cu 

### ft}

Average Meter Pressure (in H20) Average MeterTemperature 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 MolecularWeight Wet MolecularWeight Stack Gas Velocity (fpm) Stack GasVelocity (mpm} Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) Volumetric Flow Rate (acmm) Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) Volumetric Flow Rate (dscmm) Percent lsokinetic Percent ExcessAir Concentration (g/dscm) Concentration (kg/hr} Concentration (ppmv) Emissions (lb/hr) StartTime: 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 0.00Facility: Lawrenceville Brick StartTime: 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 StackTemperature ("F) 394.67 Stack Area (sq in) 1017.88 Actual MeterVolume (cuft) 43.731 Averag_e Meter Pressure (in H20) 1.78 Average MeterTemperature ("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 MeteredVolume (dscf) 42.498 Standard Metered Volume (dscm) 1.204 Stack Moisture (%V) 10.81 Mole Fraction Dry Stack Gas 0.892 Dry MolecularWeight 29.09 Wet MolecularWeight 27.89 Stack Gas Velocity (fpm) 3791.08 Stack GasVelocity (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 StackTemperature ('F) StackArea (sq in) Actual MeterVolume (cu ft) Averag_e Meter Pressure (in H20) AveraQe MeterTemperature ('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 MeteredVolume (dscf) Standard MeteredVolume (dscm) Stack Moisture (%V) Mole Fraction Dry Stack Gas Dry MolecularWeight Wet MolecularWeight Stack GasVelocity (fpm) Stack GasVelocity (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) StartTime: 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 AmbientTemperature (°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

ActualVolumetric 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) MolecularWeight (dry) MolecularWeight (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 Rootof

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) MolecularWeight (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) 02Percent C02 Percent N2 Percent Stack Moisture (%) Mole Fraction (dry) MolecularWeight (dry) MolecularWeight (wet) Stack 10 (in) StackArea (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 StackGas 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 10.55924197457

# Air-TechEnvironmental,LLC 3216 S. AlstonAve Durham, NC 27713



# LawrencevilleBrick
- DLA Stack
Analytical Report 

# (1006-96)



# EPAMethod26 Hydrogen chloride Hydrogen fluoride 

# EPAMethod202 Condensibleparticulatematter 

# EPAMethod5 Particulatematter 

# EnthalpyAnalytical, Inc. Phone: (919) 850-4392 I Fax: {919) 850- 9012 I www.enthalpy.com 2202 Ellis Road Durham, NC 27703- 5518

# SummaryofResults'' 

### EPAMethod202- CondensibleParticulateDetermination- DataAnalysis
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 

### Analysisof ParticulateRecovery
Sample ID Number Run-1 Run-2 Run-3 Organic BeakerNumber 9297 9273 9312 FinalWeight, g 1.0173 0.9926 0.9808 Reweigh, Final, g 1.0172 0.9926 0.9807 BeakerTareWeight, g 1.0162 0.9913 0.9798 BeakerTare Reweigh, Initial, g 1.0163 0.9914 0.9796 SolventBlank,g 0.0014 0.0021 0.0020 MeC12FV,mL 202 260 250 NetOrganic Catch, mg -0.5 -0.9 -0.9 Inorganic BeakerNumber 9319 9274 9278 FinalWeight, g 1.0107 1.0349 1.0172 Reweigh, Final, g 1.0104 1.0348 1.0172 BeakerTare Weight,g 0.9934 1.0!79 0.9924 BeakerTare Reweigh, Initial, g 0.9936 1.0179 0.9923 WaterBlank, g 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 SamoleFinalVolume, mL 560 664 652 ChargeandRinseVol,mL 250 250 250 Sulfatealiquot, mL 5.00 5.00 5.00 Sulfatealiquot CF 1.01 1.01 1.0! NetInorganic CF 1.09 1.09 1.09 NetInorganic,mg_ 18.2 18.2 27.0
Condensible Particulate, mg 18.2 18.2 27.0 

### BlankAnalysis SampleIDNumber MeCl Blank SampleIDNumber H20 Blank

BeakerNumber 9313 BeakerNumber 9276 FinalWeight, g 0.9906 FinalWeight, g 1.0079 Reweigh, Final. g 0.9906 Reweigh, Final, g 1.0078 Initial Weight, g 0.9896 InitialWeigllt,_£ 1.0070 Reweigh, Initial, g 0.9896 Reweigh, Initial, g 1.0070 MeCI2Residue, g 0.0010 WaterResidue, g 0.0008 MeC12 Volume, mL 78.0 WaterVolume mL 588 Max. MeC12 Residue, g 0.0010 Max. WaterResidue, g 0.0059 

### In-HouseBlankAnalysis Sample ID Number MeCl Blank Sample lDNumber H20 Blank

BeakerNumber 9286 BeakerNumber 9314 FinalWeight, g 0.9844 FinalWeight, g 0.9711 Reweigh, Final, g 0.9845 Reweigh, Final. g 0.9712 Initial Weigllt,_g 0.9834 InitialWeight, g 0.9708 Reweigh, Initial, g 0.9834 Reweigh, Initial, g 0.9707 MeCI2 Residue, g 0.0011 Water Residue, g 0.0005 MeC12Volume,mL 225 WaterVolume, mL 250 Max. MeC12 Residue, g 0.0030 Max. WaterResidue, g 0.0025Company Air-Tech Environmental Analyst KEH Parameters EPA Method 26A

# Samples 6 Runs & 1 blank Client # DLA Stack Job # 1006-96 PO# Verbal Report Date 11/2/2006



### Compound Sample ID 

### ICatch WeiQht (ug)

Hydrogenfluoride Hydrogen chloride

Hydrogen fluoride Hydrogen chloride

Hydrogenfluoride Hydrogen chloride InletRun 1 

### 245,822

15,058

StackRun 1 

### 2,924 7,377

H2S04 Blank 

### 63.7 ND 

### 85.6 ND InletRun 2 

### 251,600

15,676

StackRun 2 

### 3,364 7,310

1

006-96-m26-res 

### InletRun 3 

### 239,273

14,569

StackRun 3 

### 3,802 6,917

11/6/2006

# _ **:s~::~~." 5**  Login f 

### VIEW PRIORITYALARMS 

# 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

AxisTitle



### 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- TOtJS/ 

# H·otJ

## R 

# M- J: l



## fd~:J.:>

### Differential Pressure 3 HourAverages
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