1

From: Fairchild.Susan@epamail.epa.gov

Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 8:52 AM

To: Hancy, Cindy Wang; Marinshaw, Richard

Subject: Fw: Inquiry from Susan Fairchild - EPA

Attachments: 10-3990.15 Final Thermafiber Wabash Indiana NAIMA EPA Test Report.pdf

Categories: Blue Category

Thermafiber test report ----- Forwarded by Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/24/2011 08:51 AM ----- From: Angus Crane <acrane@naima.org> To: Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/22/2011 10:46 AM Subject: FW: Inquiry from Susan Fairchild - EPA

 

 

Angus E. Crane 

Executive Vice President, General Counsel 

North American Insulation Manufacturers Association 

Ph: (703) 684‐0084 ext. 123 

Fax: (703) 684‐0427 

 

Visit NAIMA online at: 

www.NAIMA.org

www.PipeInsulation.org

 

From: Steve Edris [mailto:sedris@thermafiber.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:30 AM

To: Angus Crane

Cc: Kale Sparling

Subject: RE: Inquiry from Susan Fairchild - EPA 

Angus – Attached is the non‐confidential full report.   Please forward it to Mrs. Fairchild.  If Robert Morales needs the confidential full report,

advise. 

 

Best regards, 

Steve Edris President & CEO Thermafiber, Inc. Phone: (260) 563‐2111 ext. 214 Fax: (260) 563‐8979 www.thermafiber.com 

 

Attention:         The contents of this message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the

message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, retransmission, or other use of this

communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the message and any attachments from

your system. 

 Please consider the environment before printing this e‐mail. 

 
2

From: Angus Crane [mailto:acrane@naima.org] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:23 AM

To: Steve Edris; Kale Sparling

Subject: Inquiry from Susan Fairchild - EPA 

This morning I received an e‐mail message from Susan Fairchild.  According to Ms. Fairchild, Thermafiber only submitted a hard copy of the

ERT Printout.  EPA is requesting the electronic copies of the actual test reports with all appendices.  If this is correct, could you please forward

the electronic version of the report referenced above to me or Ms. Fairchild.  If you send it directly to Ms. Fairchild, would you please let me

know.  If you have indeed already provided that information, please let me know that, too.  Thank you.  Call me if you have any questions. 

 

Angus E. Crane 

Executive Vice President, General Counsel 

North American Insulation Manufacturers Association 

Ph: (703) 684‐0084 ext. 123 

Fax: (703) 684‐0427 

 

Visit NAIMA online at: 

www.NAIMA.org

www.PipeInsulation.org

 
Thermafiber, Inc. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.15 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 24, 2011 

i

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

of the following pollutants from the Cupola #4 exhaust stack located at the Thermafiber, Inc. 

(Thermafiber) site in Wabash, Indiana: 

• Particulate matter (PM) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) 

• Antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, and 

selenium 

• Mercury 

• Hexavalent chromium 

• Hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride 

• Carbon Monoxide and Carbonyl Sulfide 

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

NAIMA prior to initiating test program fieldwork. Table I on the following page summarizes the 

overall results of the emissions test program. 

 

1

 Codified at Title 40, Part 63, Subpart DDD of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 63, Subpart DDD) 

2

 Codified at 40 CFR 63, Subpart NNN 
Thermafiber, Inc. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.15 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 24, 2011 

ii

Table I 

Cupola #4 Emissions Test Program Results Summary

Test Date(s) Pollutant Emission 

Rate 

(lbs/hr) 

Emission Rate

(lbs/ton melt)

Emission 

Rate 

(mg/dscm)

Filterable PM2.5 0.23 5.2 

Organic Condensible PM2.5 0.02 0.36 

Inorganic Condensible PM2.5 0.37 8.2 

October 19 & 20, 

2010 

Total PM2.5 0.62 14.0 

Filterable Particulate 0.33 7.5 

Antimony < 4.5 x 10-5 < 1.0 x 10-3

Arsenic 8.2 x 10-5 8.2 x 10-5

Beryllium < 1.1 x 10-5 < 2.5 x 10-4

Cadmium 1.2 x 10-4 2.6 x 10-3

Chromium 4.8 x 10-5 1.1 x 10-3 

Cobalt 1.6 x 10-5 3.7 x 10-4

Lead 1.5 x 10-4 3.4 x 10-3

Manganese 1.1 x 10-3 2.6 x 10-2

Nickel < 7.6 x 10-5 < 1.7 x 10-3

October 20 & 21, 

2010 

Selenium 6.8 x 10-3 1.5 x 10-1

October 19, 2010 Mercury 1.5 x 10-6 3.5 x 10-5

October 20 & 21, 

2010 

Hexavalent Chromium < 4.4 x 10-6 < 9.7 x 10-5

Hydrogen Chloride 9.3 x 10-1 October 19 & 20, 23 

2010 Hydrogen Fluoride 5.7 x 10-1 14 

Carbon Monoxide 86.36 2,013.8 October 19, 2010 Carbonyl Sulfide < 1.00 < 22.5 

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

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

(2) The “less than” symbol (<) included in the table indicates that the emission rate was calculated using the method 

detection limit (MDL) value instead of zero because the analytical result was below the MDL for one or more of the 

sample fractions. 
Thermafiber, Inc. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.15 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 24, 2011 

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

3.2 PM AND PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES................................................... 3 

3.3 TOTAL SELECTED METALS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES................................ 3 

3.4 HG CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES..................................................................... 4 

3.5 HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES................................. 4 

3.6 HF AND HCL CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES..................................................... 4 

3.7 CO AND COS CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES .................................................... 5 

4.0 TEST RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 6

TABLES

Table 1 – Test Personnel 

Table 2 – Cupola #4 Emissions Test Program Summary 

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Exhaust Stack Traverse Point Diagram 

Figure 2 – Method 3A Sampling Train Schematic Drawing 

Figure 3 – OTM 27/OTM 28 Sampling Train Schematic Drawing 

Figure 4 – Method 29 Sampling Train Schematic Drawing 

Figure 5 – Method 30B Sampling Train Schematic Drawing 

Figure 6 – Method 0061 Sampling Train Schematic Drawing 

Figure 7 – Method 26A Sampling Train Schematic Drawing 

Figure 8 – Method 318 Sampling Train Schematic Diagram 

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Detailed Test Run Results 

Appendix B – Process Data 

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

Appendix D – Equipment Calibration Documents 

Appendix E – Laboratory Analytical Reports 

Appendix F – Method 320 Analytical Report 
Thermafiber, Inc. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.15 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 24, 2011 

1

1.0 Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

of the following pollutants from the Cupola #4 exhaust stack located at the Thermafiber, Inc. 

(Thermafiber) site in Wabash, Indiana: 

• Particulate matter (PM) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) 

• Antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, and 

selenium 

• Mercury 

• Hexavalent chromium 

• Hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride 

• Carbon Monoxide and Carbonyl Sulfide 

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

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

October 19, 20, and 21, 2010. The test program consisted of triplicate emission tests at each 

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

the personnel summarized by Table 1. 

Table 1 

Emissions Test Program Personnel

Personnel Affiliation 

James Sharp BTEC 

Jeff Peitzsch BTEC 

Jeff Monache BTEC 

John Beach BTEC 

Matthew Young BTEC 

Lora Kralik Prism Analytical 

Kale Sparling Thermafiber 

 

3

 Codified at Title 40, Part 63, Subpart DDD of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 63, Subpart DDD) 

4

 Codified at 40 CFR 63, Subpart NNN 
Thermafiber, Inc. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.15 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 24, 2011 

2

2.0 Process Description

For the Granulated Mineral Wool Line, slag, rock, and coke are charged into Cupola #4 to be 

melted. Molten material from the cupola is spun into fibrous form and coated with dedusting oil. 

Fibers are collected in a forming chamber using a forming screen. Material is further processed 

into a loose form and conveyed to packaging equipment. Final packaged product is sent to 

customers. 

2.1 Process Monitoring 

During the emissions test program, Cupola #4 was operated under normal conditions. In 

addition to production rate during each test run, process operating data recorded during the 

emissions test program included raw material feed rates, baghouse pressure drop, and thermal 

oxidizer operating temperature. Process production data is available in Appendix B. Control 

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

3.0 Sampling and Analytical Methodologies 

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

seven categories as follows: 

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

(2) Measurement of exhaust gas PM and PM2.5 concentrations and emission rates; 

(3) Measurement of exhaust gas total selected metals concentrations and emission rates; 

(4) Measurement of exhaust gas Hg concentrations and emission rates; 

(5) Measurement of exhaust gas hexavalent chromium concentrations and emission rates; 

(6) Measurement of exhaust gas HF and HCl concentrations and emission rates; and, 

(7) Measurement of exhaust gas CO and COS concentrations and emission rates. 

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

3.1 through 3.7, respectively. 

3.1 Exhaust Gas Velocity, Molecular Weight, and Moisture Content 

Measurement of exhaust gas velocity, molecular weight, and moisture content was conducted 

using the following reference test methods codified at Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 60, Appendix A): 

• Method 1 - “Location of the Sampling Site and Sampling Points” 

• Method 2 - “Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flowrate” 

• Method 3A - “Determination of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in 

Emissions from Stationary Sources”(Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)

• Method 4 - “Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases”
Thermafiber, Inc. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.15 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 24, 2011 

3

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

isokinetic sampling methodologies used to evaluate pollutant emission rates. 

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

Method 1 and Method 2 (see Figure 1 for a traverse location drawing). An S-type pitot tube with 

a thermocouple assembly, calibrated in accordance with Method 2, Section 4.1.1, was used to 

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

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

baseline pitot tube coefficient of 0.84 (dimensionless) was assigned. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

monitoring system is provided as Figure 2. 

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

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

3.2 PM and PM2.5 Concentrations and Emission Rates 

PM/PM2.5 concentrations and emission rates were measured using U.S. EPA Other Test 

Methods (OTM) 27 and OTM 28. PM, PM2.5, and CPM concentrations and emission rates were 

measured using BTEC’s Nutech® Model 2010 modular isokinetic stack sampling system. This 

system consisted of (1) a tapered nozzle, (2) a PM10 particle sizer cyclone followed by a PM2.5

particle sizer cyclone, (3) a glass or quartz fiber filter assembly and heated probe, (4) a glass 

recirculating ice water condenser system, (5) a set of four GS impingers, (6) a length of sample 

line, and (7) a Nutech® control case equipped with a pump, dry gas meter, and calibrated 

orifice. Prior to each test, the second and third impingers were filled with 100 ml of HPLC 

water, the first and fourth impingers were empty, and the fifth impinger contained 

approximately 300 g of silica gel desiccant. A schematic drawing of the PM2.5/CPM sample 

train is provided as Figure 3. The total filterable PM fraction was collected on the front half of 

the M29 Metals sampling train as per the QAPP. 

3.3 Total Selected Metals Concentrations and Emission Rates

Total selected metals concentrations and emission rates were measured using the procedures of 

40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 29. Selected metals concentrations and emission rates were 

measured using BTEC’s Nutech® Model 2010 modular isokinetic stack sampling system. This 

system consisted of (1) a borosilicate glass or quartz nozzle, (2) a steel probe w/glass liner, (3) a 

heated quartz fiber filter assembly, (4) a set of six GS impingers, (5) a length of sample line, 
Thermafiber, Inc. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.15 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 24, 2011 

4

and (6) a Nutech® control case equipped with a pump, dry gas meter, and calibrated orifice. 

Prior to each test, the first two impingers were filled with 100 ml of a 5% nitric acid 

(HNO3)/10% hydrogen peroxide solution, the third impinger was empty, and the fourth 

contained approximately 300 g of silica gel desiccant. A schematic drawing of the metals 

sampling train is provided as Figure 4. 

3.4 Hg Concentrations and Emission Rates 

Hg concentrations and emission rates were measured using the procedures of 40 CFR 60, 

Appendix A, Method 30B and using BTEC’s Nutech® Model 2010 modular isokinetic stack 

sampling system. This system consisted of (1) a sorbent trap, (2) a steel probe, (3) Teflon 

tubing, (4) three GS impingers, (5) a length of sample line, and (6) a Nutech® control case 

equipped with a pump, dry gas meter, and calibrated orifice. The first impinger was left empty 

as a water knockout, and the remaining two impingers contained approximately 300 g of silica 

gel desiccant. A schematic drawing of the Hg sampling train is provided as Figure 5. 

3.5 Hexavalent Chromium Concentrations and Emission Rates 

Hexavalent chromium concentrations and emission rates were measured using the procedures of 

Method 0061 with analysis by NCASI CI/WM-98.01. Hexavalent chromium concentrations and 

emission rates were measured using BTEC’s Nutech® Model 2010 modular isokinetic stack 

sampling system. This system consisted of (1) a glass nozzle, (2) a heated steel probe with a 

glass probe liner, (3) a Teflon tee with a recirculating pump, (4) five GS impingers, (5) a length 

of sample line, and (6) a Nutech® control case equipped with a pump, dry gas meter, and a 

calibrated orifice. Prior to each test, the first impinger was filled with 150 mL of 0.1N KOH, the 

next two were filled with 75 mL of 0.1 N KOH, the fourth was empty, and the last impinger 

contained approximately 300 g of silica gel desiccant. A schematic drawing of the Method 0061 

sampling train is provided as Figure 6. 

3.6 HF and HCl Concentrations and Emission Rates 

Measurement of hydrogen halide concentrations and emission rates were conducted using the 

procedures of 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 26A. The Method 26A sampling train consisted 

of: (1) a heated borosilicate or quartz probe liner; (2) a heated borosilicate or quartz glass filter 

holder containing a pre-weighed 110-mm diameter washed quartz filter with Teflon filter 

support; (3) a set of three Greensburg-Smith (GS) impingers each containing 100 ml of 0.1 

Normal Sulfuric Acid (0.1 N H2SO4), (4) a modified GS impinger containing a known weight of 

silica gel desiccant; (5) a length of sample line, and (7) a Nutech control case equipped with a 

pump, dry gas meter, and calibrated orifice. Figure 7 provides an illustration of the Method 26A 

sample train. 
Thermafiber, Inc. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.15 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 24, 2011 

5

3.7 CO and COS Concentrations and Emission Rates

Measurement of CO and COS concentrations and emission rates were conducted using the 

procedures of 40 CFR 63, Appendix A, Method 318. Stack exhaust gas was continually purging 

through the sampling system and the Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectrometer. The 

sample gas was extracted from the stack using a heated, stainless steel probe, maintained at 

191°C. A heated filter box (191°C) connects from the probe to the filter assembly to a heated 

transfer line. A 0.1μ glass filter was used for particulate matter removal. A heated, diaphragm 

pump was used to pull the sample from the stack. 

The heated transfer line, held at 191°C, connected the probe/filter assembly to the FTIR. The 

FTIR was equipped with a temperature-controlled, 5.11 meter multipass gas cell maintained at 

191°C. Gas flows and sampling system pressures were monitored using a rotometer and 

pressure transducer. 

FTIR data was collected using an MKS MultiGas 2030 FTIR spectrometer. All data was 

collected at 0.5cm-1 resolution. Each sample spectrum was derived from the co-addition of 60 

scans, with a new data point generated every one minute. Figure 8 provides an illustration of the 

Method 318 sample train. 
Thermafiber, Inc. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.15 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 24, 2011 

6

4.0 Test Results 

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

Table 2 

Cupola #4 Emissions Test Program Results Summary

Test Date(s) Pollutant Emission 

Rate 

(lbs/hr) 

Emission Rate

(lbs/ton melt)

Emission 

Rate 

(mg/dscm)

Filterable PM2.5 0.23 5.2 

Organic Condensible PM2.5 0.02 0.36 

Inorganic Condensible PM2.5 0.37 8.2 

October 19 & 20, 

2010 

Total PM2.5 0.62 14.0 

Filterable Particulate 0.33 7.5 

Antimony < 4.5 x 10-5 < 1.0 x 10-3

Arsenic 8.2 x 10-5 8.2 x 10-5

Beryllium < 1.1 x 10-5 < 2.5 x 10-4

Cadmium 1.2 x 10-4 2.6 x 10-3

Chromium 4.8 x 10-5 1.1 x 10-3 

Cobalt 1.6 x 10-5 3.7 x 10-4

Lead 1.5 x 10-4 3.4 x 10-3

Manganese 1.1 x 10-3 2.6 x 10-2

Nickel < 7.6 x 10-5 < 1.7 x 10-3

October 20 & 21, 

2010 

Selenium 6.8 x 10-3 1.5 x 10-1

October 19, 2010 Mercury 1.5 x 10-6 3.5 x 10-5

October 20 & 21, 

2010 

Hexavalent Chromium < 4.4 x 10-6 < 9.7 x 10-5

Hydrogen Chloride 9.3 x 10-1 October 19 & 20, 23 

2010 Hydrogen Fluoride 5.7 x 10-1 14 

Carbon Monoxide 86.36 2,013.8 October 19, 2010 Carbonyl Sulfide < 1.00 < 22.5 

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

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

(2) The “less than” symbol (<) included in the table indicates that the emission rate was calculated using the method 

detection limit (MDL) value instead of zero because the analytical result was below the MDL for one or more of the 

sample fractions. 

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

associated with the emissions test program is provided in Appendix B. Field and computergenerated data sheets are included in Appendix C. Appendix D includes calibration documents 

and Appendix E includes laboratory analytical reports. Appendix F includes the Method 318 

analytical report. 
Thermafiber, Inc. BTEC Project No. 10-3990.15 

NAIMA/U.S. EPA Emissions Test Report January 24, 2011 

7

Limitations

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

Thermafiber, Inc. BTEC will not distribute or publish this report without NAIMA’s consent 

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

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

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

damages. 

This report was prepared by: 

Brandon V. Chase 

Staff Environmental Engineer 

This report was reviewed by: 

Randal J. Tysar 

Senior Environmental Engineer 
Figures 
Diameter:

36.00 in

Points Distance "

12 0.8

11 2.4

10 4.2

9 6.4

8 9.0

7 12.8

6 23.2

5 27.0

4 29.6

3 31.8

2 33.6

1 35.2

Site:

Thermafiber

Wabash, Indiana

Cupola #4

BT Environmental Consulting, 

Inc.

2615 Wolcott Street

Ferndale, Michigan

Figure 1

Not to Scale

<0.5 diameters

 <2 diameters
Bags Samples

to analyzers

Figure 2

Site:

USEPA Method 3A

Thermafiber

Wabash, Indiana

BT Environmental Consulting, 

Inc.

2615 Wolcott Street

Ferndale, Michigan

Data Acquisition System

Calibration Gases 

(Fed to Probe Tip)

Environics Gas 

Dilution System

M&C Model 100-L

O2 Analyzer

CAI Series 600

CO2 Analyzer

pump

tedlar 

bag
Figure 3

Site:USEPA OTM27/28ThermafiberWabash, Indiana

BT Environmental Consult

2615 Wolcott Michigan

Silica gel

Heated Filter Box

S-Type Pitot w/ Thermocouple

Heated Probe w/ Glass Liner & Nozzle

Meter Rig

Temp.

ProbeFilter

On

Off

-

+

00:00

1 2 3 4 5

45mm Filter Housing

Verticle Condenser Filter Holder W/ Tef

Pot Belly Impinger 100 mL DI H2O
Figure 4

Site:USEPA Method 29ThermafiberWabash, Indiana

BT Environmental Consult

2615 Wolcott Michigan 48220

Silica gel

100 mL 5% HNO3 / 10% H2O2 solution 

Heated Filter Box

S-Type Pitot w/ Thermocouple

Heated Probe w/ Glass Liner & Nozzle

Meter Rig

Temp.

ProbeFilter

On

Off

-

+

00:00

1 2 3 4 5
Figure 5

Site:USEPA Method 30B Sampling TrainThermafiberWabash, Indiana

BT Environmental Cons2615 Wolcott Ferndale, Michigan 482

Knock out

Temperature sensor

Meter Rig

Temp.

ProbeFilter

On

Off

-

+

00:00

1 2 3 4 5

Sample Line

MercuryT rap

Probe
Figure 6

Site:USEPA Method 0061ThermafiberWabash, Indiana

BT Environmental Cons2615 WolcottFerndale, Michigan

Meter Rig

Temp.

ProbeFilter

On

Off

-

+

00:00

1 2 3 4 5

150 mL 0.1 N KOH Empty Silica Gel

Perastaltic pump

Teflon tee

75 mL 0.1 N KOH
Empty

Figure 7

Site:USEPA Method 26A Sampling TrainThermafiberWabash, Indiana

BT Environmental Cons2615 Wolcott Michigan

Heated Filter Box

S-type pitot w/ thermocouple

Heated probe with glass liner

Meter Rig

Temp.

ProbeFilter

On

Off

-

+

00:00

1 2 3 4 5

Empty 100 mL 0.1N 
Figure 8

Site:

USEPA Method 318

Thermafiber

Wabash, Indiana

BT Environmental Consulting, Inc.

2615 Wolcott Street

Ferndale, Michigan

Data Acquisition System

Heated Sample Line

Filter

FTIR

Probe
APPENDIX A 

DETAILED TEST RUN RESULTS 
Plant Job #

Location OTM27/OTM 28 Testing

 Copyright by Walter Smith

Run Number 1 2 3 Average

Date Test Date 10/19/2010 10/19/2010 10/20/2010

Start Run Start Time 8:01:00 12:50:00 8:03:00

Run Finish Time 12:23:00 16:28:00 13:38:00

Net Traversing Points 12 12 12

Θ Net Run Time, minutes 253.84 236.28 252.08 247

DN Nozzle Diameter, inches 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200

Cp Pitot Tube Coeficient 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84

Y Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003

PBr Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury 29.99 29.99 29.88 29.95

∆H Average orifice meter Differential, inches H2O 0.41 0.43 0.46 0.43

Vm Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet 90.310 90.560 92.770 91.213

tm Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F 63.38 81.54 70.46 71.79

Vmstd Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 91.688 88.860 92.597 91.048

Vlc Total Moisture Liquid collected, ml 66 64 51 60.3

Vwstd Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet 3.11 3.01 2.40 2.84

% H2O Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 3.3 3.3 2.5 3.0

Mfd Dry Mole Fraction 0.967 0.967 0.975 0.970

%CO2 Carbon Dioxide, % 9.4 8.3 9.3 9.0

%O2 Oxygen, % 12.0 12.9 12.0 12.3

% CO+ N2 Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % 78.6 78.8 78.7 78.7

Md Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole 29.98 29.84 29.97 29.93

Ms Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole 29.59 29.46 29.67 29.57

Pg Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H2O -19.0 -19.0 -19.0 -19.0

Ps Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury 28.59 28.59 28.48 28.56

ts Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 293 294 288 291

∆Pavg Average Velocity Head, inches of H2O 0.428 0.370 0.422 0.406

vs Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second 44.1 41.2 43.7 43.0

As Stack Crossectional Area, square feet 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1

Qsd Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 11,305 12,126 12,135 11,855

Qaw Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 17,457 18,706 18,522 18,228

%I Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 96.6 107.9 98.2 100.9

Wp Production, tons melt per hour

W Filterable PM2.5 Catch Weight, mg 12.8 11.5 16.3 13.5

Cmg/dscm Filterable PM2.5 Concentration, mg/dscm 4.9E+00 4.6E+00 6.2E+00 5.2E+00

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Filterable PM2.5 Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Filterable PM2.5 Emission Rate, pounds/hr 2.2E-01 1.9E-01 2.8E-01 2.3E-01

Elb/ton product Filterable PM2.5 Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

W Organic Condensible PM2.5 Catch Weight, mg 2.0 0.5 0.3 0.9

Cmg/dscm Organic Condensible PM2.5 Concentration, mg/dscm 7.7E-01 2.0E-01 1.1E-01 3.6E-01

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Organic Condensible PM2.5 Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Organic Condensible PM2.5 Emission Rate, pounds/hr 3.5E-02 8.4E-03 5.2E-03 1.6E-02

Elb/ton product Organic Condensible PM2.5 Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

W Inorganic Condensible PM2.5 Catch Weight, mg 29.0 12.0 23.0 21.3

Cmg/dscm Inorganic Condensible PM2.5 Concentration, mg/dscm 1.1E+01 4.8E+00 8.8E+00 8.2E+00

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Inorganic Condensible PM2.5 Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Inorganic Condensible PM2.5 Emission Rate, pounds/hr 5.1E-01 2.0E-01 4.0E-01 3.7E-01

Elb/ton product Inorganic Condensible PM2.5 Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

W Total PM2.5 Catch Weight, mg 43.8 24.0 39.6 35.8

Cmg/dscm Total PM2.5 Concentration, mg/dscm 1.7E+01 9.5E+00 1.5E+01 1.4E+01

Cmg/dscm@7%O2 Total PM2.5 Concentration, mg/dscm @ 7% O2 N/A N/A N/A

Elb/hr Total PM2.5 Emission Rate, pounds/hr 7.7E-01 4.0E-01 6.9E-01 6.2E-01

Elb/ton product Total PM2.5 Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

Thermafiber 10-3990.15

Wabash

Address

Personnel MY
Plant Job #

Location Method 29 Metals

 Copyright by Walter Smith

Run Number 1 2 3 Average

Date Test Date 10/20/2010 10/21/2010 10/21/2010

Start Run Start Time 14:21:00 7:28:00 10:35:00

Run Finish Time 17:08:00 10:15:00 13:22:00

Net Traversing Points 24 24 24

Θ Net Run Time, minutes 160 160 160 160

DN Nozzle Dianeter, inches 0.311 0.311 0.311 0.311

Cp Pitot Tube Coeficient 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84

Y Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003

PBr Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury 29.88 29.83 29.83 29.85

∆H Average orifice meter Differential, inches H2O 2.36 2.29 2.20 2.28

Vm Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet 150.425 146.239 144.211 146.958

tm Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F 99.44 84.55 90.61 91.53

Vmstd Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 143.033 142.592 139.037 141.554

Vlc Total Moisture Liquid collected, ml 96 95 101 97.3

Vwstd Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet 4.52 4.47 4.75 4.58

% H2O Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.1

Mfd Dry Mole Fraction 0.969 0.970 0.967 0.969

%CO2 Carbon Dioxide, % 8.3 7.6 7.0 7.6

%O2 Oxygen, % 13.2 13.9 14.4 13.8

% CO+ N2 Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % 78.5 78.5 78.6 78.5

Md Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole 29.86 29.77 29.70 29.77

Ms Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole 29.49 29.41 29.31 29.41

Pg Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H2O -19.0 -19.0 -19.0 -19.0

Ps Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury 28.48 28.43 28.43 28.45

ts Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 295 301 302 299

∆Pavg Average Velocity Head, inches of H2O 0.421 0.424 0.400 0.415

vs Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second 44.1 44.6 43.3 44.0

As Stack Crossectional Area, square feet 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1

Qsd Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 12,077 12,056 11,703 11,945

Qaw Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 18,896 18,688 18,376 18,653

%I Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 99.5 99.0 99.6 99.4

Wp Production, tons melt per hour

W Particulate Method 5 Catch Weight, mg 32.6 32.6 24.7 30.0

Cmg/dscm Particulate Concentration, mg/dscm 8.0 8.1 6.3 7.5

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

Elb/hr Particulate Emission Rate, pounds/hr 0.36 0.37 0.28 0.33

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

W Antimony Catch Weight, μg 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Cmg/dscm Antimony Concentration, mg/dscm 9.9E-04 9.9E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-03

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

Elb/hr Antimony Emission Rate, pounds/hr 4.5E-05 4.5E-05 4.5E-05 4.5E-05

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

W Arsenic Catch Weight, μg 8.1 7.5 6.2 7.3

Cmg/dscm Arsenic Concentration, mg/dscm 2.0E-03 1.9E-03 1.6E-03 1.8E-03

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

Elb/hr Arsenic Emission Rate, pounds/hr 9.1E-05 8.4E-05 6.9E-05 8.2E-05

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

W Beryllium Catch Weight, μg 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Cmg/dscm Beryllium Concentration, mg/dscm 2.5E-04 2.5E-04 2.5E-04 2.5E-04

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

Elb/hr Beryllium Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.1E-05 1.1E-05 1.1E-05 1.1E-05

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

W Cadmium Catch Weight, μg 9.5 13.3 9.1 10.6

Cmg/dscm Cadmium Concentration, mg/dscm 2.3E-03 3.3E-03 2.3E-03 2.6E-03

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

Elb/hr Cadmium Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.1E-04 1.5E-04 1.0E-04 1.2E-04

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

W Chromium Catch Weight, μg 3.0 7.0 3.0 4.3

Cmg/dscm Chromium Concentration, mg/dscm 7.4E-04 1.7E-03 7.6E-04 1.1E-03

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

Elb/hr Chromium Emission Rate, pounds/hr 3.3E-05 7.8E-05 3.3E-05 4.8E-05

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

W Cobalt Catch Weight, μg 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.5

Cmg/dscm Cobalt Concentration, mg/dscm 3.7E-04 3.2E-04 4.1E-04 3.7E-04

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

Elb/hr Cobalt Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.7E-05 1.5E-05 1.8E-05 1.6E-05

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

W Lead Catch Weight, μg 15.6 12.0 12.9 13.5

Cmg/dscm Lead Concentration, mg/dscm 3.8E-03 3.0E-03 3.3E-03 3.4E-03

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

Elb/hr Lead Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.7E-04 1.3E-04 1.4E-04 1.5E-04

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

W Manganese Catch Weight, μg 115.8 105.8 85.6 102.4

Cmg/dscm Manganese Concentration, mg/dscm 2.9E-02 2.6E-02 2.2E-02 2.6E-02

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

Elb/hr Manganese Emission Rate, pounds/hr 1.3E-03 1.2E-03 9.5E-04 1.1E-03

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

W Nickel Catch Weight, μg 7.6 7.9 5.0 6.8

Cmg/dscm Nickel Concentration, mg/dscm 1.9E-03 2.0E-03 1.3E-03 1.7E-03

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

Elb/hr Nickel Emission Rate, pounds/hr 8.5E-05 8.9E-05 5.6E-05 7.6E-05

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

W Selenium Catch Weight, μg 751.5 592.5 479.0 607.7

Cmg/dscm Selenium Concentration, mg/dscm 1.9E-01 1.5E-01 1.2E-01 1.5E-01

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

Elb/hr Selenium Emission Rate, pounds/hr 8.4E-03 6.6E-03 5.3E-03 6.8E-03

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

Thermafiber 10-3990.15

Wabash

Address

Personnel JB/JP
M30B Mercury Testing

Company Name Plant Location City Plant Location State Source Name Source IDThermafiber Wabash Indiana Cupola 4 Cupola 4 Please note QA/QC documentation starting in Column "S"

Measured Value 

(mg/dscm)

Corrected 

Concentration 

(mg/dscm at 7% O2)

Basis (Wet or Dry) Test Method Used (EPA Method 30B) Data Flag (ADL, BDL, DDL) Test Me

Comm

1 10/19/2010 8:00 10/19/2010 10:00 3.70E-05 N/A Wet EPA Method 30B 2 10/19/2010 10:21 10/19/2010 12:21 3.88E-05 N/A Wet EPA Method 30B 3 10/19/2010 12:59 10/19/2010 14:59 2.77E-05 N/A Wet EPA Method 30B 

Run Number Test Start Date Test Start Time Test End Date Test End Time

Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emission Test Results

Page 1 of 3 
M30B Mercury Testing

 QA/QC Documentation

Trap ID Section 1 Mass (ng) Section 2 Mass (ng) Total Mass (ng) Initial Spike (ng) Total Non- Spike (ng) Sample Volume (dscm) Volume Difference (%) Volume Diff. Limit Breaktrough (%) Breaktrough Limit C

3.3 9.4 12 18706 12126 293

Stack information is from OTM 27/28 Run 1 (8:01-12:23) R1, A 4.83 0.44 5.27 0 5.27 0.14 5% 9

3.3 9.4 12 18706 12126 293

Stack information is from OTM 27/28 Run 1 (8:01-12:23) R2, A 4.7 0.95 5.65 0 5.65 0.15 0% 20

3.3 8.3 12.9 17457 11305 294

Stack information is from OTM 27/28 Run 2 (12:50-16:51) R3, A 3.95 0 3.95 0 3.95 0.14 0% 0

Flue Gas 

Temperature (F) Other Supporting Information

Flue Gas 

Moisture 

(%)

Flue Gas 

O2 (%)

Flue Gas 

CO2 (%)

Flue Gas Flow 

Rate (dscfm)

Flue Gas 

Flow Rate 

(acfm)

Trap #1

≤20% of field 

recovery test

≤ 10% of Section 

1 Hg mass for 

Hg conc. >1 

μg/dscm: or ≤ 

20% of Section 

1 for Hg conc.≤1 

μg/dscm

Page 2 of 3 
M30B Mercury Testing

Trap ID Section 1 Mass Section 2 Mass Total Mass Initial Spike Total Non- Spike Sample Volume Volume Difference (%) Volume Diff. Limit Breaktrough (%) Breaktrough Limit Concentration (μg/dscm) Abs. diff. RD (%) Limit Crec R (%) by Run Ravg (%) 

R1, B 22.1 0.00 22.10 20 2.1 0.15 5% 0

0.01

0.02 45 0.1106 83

R2, B 22.9 0.45 23.35 20 3.35 0.15 0% 2

0.02

0.02 25 0.1222 89

R3, B 23.8 0.94 24.74 20 4.74 0.14 0% 4

0.03

0.01 9 0.1456 104

92

Trap #2 Paired Trap Agreement (RD) Measured Spike Recovery ( R )

≤20% of field 

recovery test

≤ 10% of Section 

1 Hg mass for Hg 

conc. >1 

μg/dscm: or ≤ 

20% of Section 1 

for Hg conc.≤1 

μg/dscm

≥10 % RD mass 

for Hg conc. >1 

μg/dscm: or 

≤20% RD or ≤0.2 

μg/dscm abs.diff. 

for Hg conc. ≤1 

μg/dscm

Page 3 of 3 
Plant Job #

Location Hex Chrome Testing

 Copyright by Walter Smith

Run Number 1 2 3 Average

Date Test Date 10/20/2010 10/21/2010 10/21/2010

Start Run Start Time 14:21:00 7:28:00 10:35:00

Run Finish Time 17:10:00 10:16:00 13:21:00

Net Traversing Points 24 24 24

Θ Net Run Time, minutes 160 160 160 160

DN Nozzle Dianeter, inches 0.310 0.310 0.310 0.310

Cp Pitot Tube Coeficient 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84

Y Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003

PBr Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury 29.88 29.83 29.83 29.85

∆H Average orifice meter Differential, inches H2O 2.77 2.82 2.80 2.79

Vm Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet 148.220 148.240 149.450 148.637

tm Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F 89.61 80.69 85.63 85.31

Vmstd Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 143.599 145.766 145.617 144.994

Vlc Total Moisture Liquid collected, ml 110 164 170 148.0

Vwstd Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet 5.18 7.72 8.00 6.97

% H2O Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 3.5 5.0 5.2 4.6

Mfd Dry Mole Fraction 0.965 0.950 0.948 0.954

%CO2 Carbon Dioxide, % 8.3 7.6 7 7.6

%O2 Oxygen, % 13.2 13.9 14.4 13.8

% CO+ N2 Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % 78.5 78.5 78.6 78.5

Md Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole 29.86 29.77 29.70 29.77

Ms Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole 29.44 29.18 29.09 29.24

Pg Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H2O -19.0 -19.0 -19.0 -19.0

Ps Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury 28.48 28.43 28.43 28.45

ts Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 297 303 305 301

∆Pavg Average Velocity Head, inches of H2O 0.430 0.448 0.441 0.440

vs Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second 44.7 46.0 45.8 45.5

As Stack Crossectional Area, square feet 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1

Qsd Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 12,196 12,147 12,078 12,141

Qaw Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 19,530 18,950 19,416 19,299

%I Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 99.7 100.8 101.7 100.7

Wp Production, tons melt per hour

W Hexavalent Chromium Catch Weight, μg 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Cmg/dscm Hexavalent Chromium Concentration, mg/dscm 9.8E-05 9.7E-05 9.7E-05 9.7E-05

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

Elb/hr Hexavalent Chromium Emission Rate, pounds/hr 4.5E-06 4.4E-06 4.4E-06 4.4E-06

Elb/ton product Hexavalent Chromium Emission Rate, pounds/ton product

Thermafiber 10-3990.15

Wabash

Address

Personnel MY
Plant Job #

Location HCl and HF Testing

 Copyright by Walter Smith

Run Number 1 2 3 Average

Date Test Date 10/19/2010 10/20/2010 10/20/2010

Start Run Start Time 16:06:00 7:29:00 12:40:00

Run Finish Time 17:18:00 9:56:00 13:50:00

Net Traversing Points 24 24 24

Θ Net Run Time, minutes 64 64 64 64

DN Nozzle Dianeter, inches 0.311 0.311 0.311 0.311

Cp Pitot Tube Coeficient 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84

Y Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003

PBr Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury 29.99 29.88 29.88 29.92

∆H Average orifice meter Differential, inches H2O 1.77 1.69 2.10 1.85

Vm Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet 51.258 49.462 56.061 52.260

tm Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F 86.94 66.28 89.06 80.76

Vmstd Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 49.964 49.913 54.278 51.385

Vlc Total Moisture Liquid collected, ml 37 32 25 31.3

Vwstd Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet 1.74 1.51 1.18 1.47

% H2O Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 3.4 2.9 2.1 2.8

Mfd Dry Mole Fraction 0.966 0.971 0.979 0.972

%CO2 Carbon Dioxide, % 8.3 9.3 9.3 9.0

%O2 Oxygen, % 12.9 12 12.0 12.3

% CO+ N2 Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % 78.8 78.7 78.7 78.7

Md Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole 29.84 29.97 29.97 29.93

Ms Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole 29.45 29.62 29.71 29.59

Pg Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H2O -19.0 -19.0 -19.0 -19.0

Ps Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury 28.59 28.48 28.48 28.52

ts Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 296 288 287 291

∆Pavg Average Velocity Head, inches of H2O 0.335 0.319 0.376 0.344

vs Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second 39.4 38.2 41.3 39.6

As Stack Crossectional Area, square feet 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1

Qsd Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 10,553 10,760 11,542 10,952

Qaw Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 16,183 16,693 17,534 16,803

%I Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 97.3 99.0 98.5 98.3

Wp Production, tons melt per hour

W HCl Catch Weight, μg 30,000 37,000 32,000 33,000

Cmg/dscm HCl Concentration, mg/dscm 2.1E+01 2.6E+01 2.1E+01 2.3E+01

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

Elb/hr HCl Emission Rate, pounds/hr 8.5E-01 1.0E+00 9.0E-01 9.3E-01

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

W HF Catch Weight, μg 14,000 21,000 26,000 20,333

Cmg/dscm HF Concentration, mg/dscm 9.9E+00 1.5E+01 1.7E+01 1.4E+01

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

Elb/hr HF Emission Rate, pounds/hr 4.0E-01 5.9E-01 7.3E-01 5.7E-01

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

Thermafiber 10-3990.15

Wabash

Address

Personnel JP
Company Name Plant Location City Plant Location State Source Name Source ID

Thermafiber Wabash Indiana Cupola 4 Cupola 4

Measured Value 

(ppm)

Corrected 

Concentration 

(ppmvd at 7% O2)

Basis (Wet or Dry) Test Method Used (EPA Method 318) Data Flag (ADL, BDL, DDL) Test Method Comments

Run 1 10/19/2010 9:47 10/19/2010 10:47 2819 NA wet Method 318 ADL 148.58 3.3 9.4 11.9 1Run 2 10/19/2010 12:01 10/19/2010 13:01 1307 NA wet Method 318 ADL 66.56 3.3 8.85 12.4 1

Run 3 10/19/2010 13:28 10/19/2010 14:28 894 NA wet Method 318 ADL 43.93 3.3 8.3 12.9 1

Process 

Production 

Rate

(tons melt/hr)

Test End Time

Carbon Monoxide Emission Test Results

Run Number Test Start Date Test Start Time Test End Date

Calculated 

Emission Rate 

(lb/ton)

Calculated 

Emission Rate 

(lb/hr)

Flue Gas 

Moisture (%)

Flue Gas 

O2 (%)

Flu

Flow 

(a

Flue Gas 

CO2 (%)

Method 318 Sheet.xls CO Emission Data-318 
APPENDIX B 

PROCESS DATA 
APPENDIX C 

FIELD AND COMPUTER-GENERATED DATA 

SHEETS 
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # 5 ft ptf Pollutant HCl Points/Port 8 Start Finish Pre PCompany Thermafiber DGM # MB 5 Method 26A Total Points 16Location Wabash Rate (cfm) Run # 1 Time/pt (min) 4.0

Source Cupola #4 Delta ∆H@ 1.53 Date 19-Oct-10 Time/reading 4.0

Operator JP Bws (%) 3.37 # of Ports 2 Total Run 64.0

Filter Number Condensate Volume 23 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 28.59

Barometric 29.99 Silica Gel Weight Gain 14 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 29.99 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) 0.311 O2 (%) 12.9 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) 0.00053 CO2 (%) 8.3 Md 29.84 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 29.45 Act. Flow (cfm) 16,693 Must delete extra z

Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 0.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 11,135

Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 10,760Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

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

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

8 0.0 4.0 16:06 81.97 0.32 302 80 80 1.78 1.67 27 4.0 8.0 16:10 84.96 0.35 300 83 81 1.94 1.83 26 8.0 12.0 16:14 88.17 0.36 294 85 81 2.00 1.89 25 12.0 16.0 16:18 91.46 0.37 297 86 81 2.06 1.94 24 16.0 20.0 16:22 94.79 0.37 293 88 81 2.06 1.95 23 20.0 24.0 16:26 98.13 0.39 293 90 82 2.17 2.06 2

2 24.0 28.0 16:30 101.57 0.31 295 91 82 1.72 1.64 2

1 28.0 32.0 16:38 104.72 0.30 298 92 83 1.67 1.59 2

8 32.0 36.0 16:46 107.80 0.30 300 93 83 1.67 1.59 2

7 36.0 40.0 16:50 110.82 0.33 304 93 84 1.83 1.75 2

6 40.0 44.0 16:54 113.98 0.37 301 94 85 2.06 1.96 2

5 44.0 48.0 16:58 117.34 0.34 294 94 85 1.89 1.8 2

4 48.0 52.0 17:02 120.59 0.32 293 95 85 1.78 1.7 2

3 52.0 56.0 17:06 123.73 0.31 294 95 85 1.72 1.64 2

2 56.0 60.0 17:10 126.85 0.33 293 96 86 1.83 1.75 2

1 60.0 64.0 17:14 130.08 0.29 292 97 86 1.61 1.54 2

64.0 17:18 133.23

Average: 51.26 0.34 296.4 90.8 83.1 1.86 1.77 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # 5 ft ptf Pollutant HCl Points/Port 8 Start Finish Pre PCompany Thermafiber DGM # MB 5 Method 26A Total Points 16Location Wabash Rate (cfm) Run # 2 Time/pt (min) 4.0

Source Cupola #4 Delta ∆H@ 1.53 Date 20-Oct-10 Time/reading 4.0

Operator JP Bws (%) 2.93 # of Ports 2 Total Run 64.0

Filter Number Condensate Volume 14 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 28.48

Barometric 29.88 Silica Gel Weight Gain 18 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 29.88 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) 0.311 O2 (%) 12 Ref Press 29.92Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) 0.00053 CO2 (%) 9.3 Md 29.97 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 29.62 Act. Flow (cfm) 16,183 Must delete extra z

Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 0.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 10,872

Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 10,553Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

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

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

8 0.0 4.0 7:29 133.60 0.32 298 57 57 1.74 1.66 2

7 4.0 8.0 7:33 136.68 0.25 293 59 57 1.36 1.30 2

6 8.0 12.0 7:37 139.35 0.24 294 62 58 1.31 1.25 2

5 12.0 16.0 7:41 141.97 0.29 288 65 58 1.58 1.52 2

4 16.0 20.0 7:45 144.87 0.33 282 68 59 1.80 1.74 2

3 20.0 24.0 7:49 147.98 0.36 287 70 60 1.96 1.90 2

2 24.0 28.0 7:53 151.27 0.36 289 72 61 1.96 1.90 2

1 28.0 32.0 8:01 154.55 0.35 288 73 61 1.91 1.85 2

8 32.0 36.0 8:06 157.81 0.35 289 71 63 1.91 1.86 2

7 36.0 40.0 8:10 161.01 0.33 290 73 63 1.80 1.75 2

6 40.0 44.0 8:14 164.21 0.32 289 75 64 1.74 1.70 2

5 44.0 48.0 8:18 167.33 0.30 288 76 65 1.63 1.60 2

4 48.0 52.0 8:22 170.37 0.32 283 76 66 1.74 1.71 2

3 52.0 56.0 8:26 173.47 0.31 284 77 66 1.69 1.65 2

2 56.0 60.0 8:32/9:50 176.57 0.32 280 77 67 1.74 1.71 2

1 60.0 64.0 9:52 179.72 0.36 289 74 71 1.96 1.93 2

64.0 9:56 183.06

Average: 49.46 0.32 288.2 70.3 62.3 1.74 1.69 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # 5FT F Pollutant HCl Points/Port 8 Start Finish Pre PCompany Thermafiber DGM # MB5 Method 26A Total Points 16Location Wabash Rate (cfm) Run # 3 Time/pt (min) 4.0

Source Cupola #4 Delta ∆H@ 1.53 Date 20-Oct-10 Time/reading 4.0

Operator JB/JP Bws (%) 2.12 # of Ports 2 Total Run 64.0

Filter Number Condensate Volume 12 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 28.48

Barometric 29.88 Silica Gel Weight Gain 13 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 30.10 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) 0.311 O2 (%) 12 Ref Press 29.92Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) 0.00053 CO2 (%) 9.3 Md 29.97 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) 3.00 Ms 29.71 Act. Flow (cfm) 17,534 Must delete extra z

Preliminary dP (in H20) 0.36 Total Vol.(cf) 0.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 11,792

Preliminary Ts (oF) 125 Est. Us (ft/s) 35.8 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 11,542Preliminary Tm (oF) 85 Theor Dn (in) 0.2649 Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

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

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

8 0.0 4.0 12:40 183.32 0.32 283 84 84 1.84 1.78 2

7 4.0 8.0 12:44 186.47 0.39 290 85 84 2.25 2.16 2

6 8.0 12.0 12:48 190.15 0.41 285 85 84 2.36 2.27 2

5 12.0 16.0 12:52 193.91 0.43 284 86 84 2.48 2.39 2

4 16.0 20.0 12:56 197.57 0.37 281 88 84 2.13 2.06 2

3 20.0 24.0 13:00 200.92 0.33 286 89 84 1.90 1.84 2

2 24.0 28.0 13:04 204.18 0.38 291 91 84 2.19 2.11 2

1 28.0 32.0 13:08 207.68 0.31 286 93 85 1.78 1.73 2

8 32.0 36.0 13:18 210.90 0.32 287 94 85 1.84 1.78 2

7 36.0 40.0 13:22 214.17 0.40 288 95 86 2.30 2.23 2

6 40.0 44.0 13:26 217.72 0.38 291 96 86 2.19 2.12 2

5 44.0 48.0 13:30 221.22 0.38 291 98 89 2.19 2.12 2

4 48.0 52.0 13:34 224.75 0.42 293 98 87 2.42 2.34 2

3 52.0 56.0 13:38 228.45 0.41 292 99 88 2.36 2.29 2

2 56.0 60.0 13:42 232.18 0.41 284 99 88 2.36 2.29 2

1 60.0 64.0 13:46 235.85 0.36 286 99 89 2.07 2.01 2

64.0 13:50 239.38

Average: 56.06 0.38 287.4 92.4 85.7 2.17 2.10 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # 5ft A Pollutant PM2.5 Points/Port 6 Start Finish Pre PCompany Thermafiber DGM # MB-3 Method OTM27/28 Total Points 12Location Wabash Rate (cfm) 0.75 Run # 1 Time/pt (min) 21.2Source Cupola 61 Delta ∆H@ 1.83 Date 19-Oct-10 Time/reading 21.2

Operator MY Bws (%) 3.28 # of Ports 2 Total Run 253.8

Filter Number 10090240 Condensate Volume 45 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 28.59

Barometric 29.99 Silica Gel Weight Gain 21 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 29.99 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) 0.2 O2 (%) 12.00 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) 0.00022 CO2 (%) 9.4 Md 29.98 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 29.59 Act. Flow (cfm) 18,706 Must delete extra z

Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 190.4 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 12,536

Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 12,126Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments:

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

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

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

6 0.0 21.2 8:01 747.82 0.56 297 55 55 0.61 0.403 2

5 21.2 42.3 8:22 756.28 0.57 302 58 56 0.63 0.403 2

4 42.3 63.5 8:43 764.90 0.49 291 62 58 0.54 0.399 2

3 63.5 84.6 9:04 772.97 0.35 288 64 60 0.38 0.412 2

2 84.6 105.8 9:25 779.65 0.34 292 64 61 0.37 0.417 2

1 105.8 126.9 9:46 786.45 0.33 291 64 61 0.36 0.413 2

6 126.9 148.1 10:07 793.06 0.37 289 64 61 0.41 0.414 2

5 148.1 169.2 10:28 799.76 0.35 291 65 62 0.38 0.416 2

4 169.2 190.4 10:49 806.99 0.40 289 66 62 0.44 0.415 2

3 190.4 211.5 11:10 813.94 0.44 294 69 66 0.48 0.417 2

2 211.5 232.7 11:31 821.66 0.45 296 72 68 0.49 0.415 2

1 232.7 253.8 11:52 829.50 0.48 295 76 72 0.53 0.414 2

253.8 12:23 838.13

Average: 90.31 0.43 292.9 64.9 61.8 0.47 0.41 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # 5ft A Pollutant PM2.5 Points/Port 6 Start Finish Pre PCompany Thermafiber DGM # MB-3 Method OTM27-28 Total Points 12Location Wabash Rate (cfm) 0.75 Run # 2 Time/pt (min) 19.7Source Cupola 61 Delta ∆H@ 1.83 Date 19-Oct-10 Time/reading 19.7

Operator MY Bws (%) 3.28 # of Ports 2 Total Run 236.3

Filter Number 10090240 Condensate Volume 38 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 28.59

Barometric 29.99 Silica Gel Weight Gain 26 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 29.99 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) 0.2 O2 (%) 12.90 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) 0.00022 CO2 (%) 8.3 Md 29.84 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 29.46 Act. Flow (cfm) 17,457 Must delete extra z

Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 177.2 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 11,688

Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 11,305Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

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

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

6 0.0 19.7 0:00 845.14 0.45 294 76 76 0.51 0.423 2

5 19.7 39.4 0:19 853.34 0.43 295 79 76 0.49 0.423 2

4 39.4 59.1 0:38 861.55 0.42 297 80 77 0.48 0.422 2

3 59.1 78.8 0:57 869.66 0.30 295 82 79 0.34 0.42 2

2 78.8 98.5 1:16 876.58 0.31 296 83 80 0.35 0.424 2

1 98.5 118.1 1:35 883.62 0.29 290 84 81 0.33 0.424 2

6 118.1 137.8 1:54 890.34 0.47 294 85 82 0.53 0.431 2

5 137.8 157.5 2:13 899.01 0.43 298 84 82 0.49 0.428 2

4 157.5 177.2 2:32 907.25 0.37 298 84 82 0.42 0.423 2

3 177.2 196.9 2:51 914.82 0.28 297 85 82 0.32 0.423 2

2 196.9 216.6 3:10 921.34 0.33 284 86 83 0.37 0.424 2

1 216.6 236.3 3:29 928.45 0.36 285 86 83 0.41 0.44 2

236.3 14:30 935.70

Average: 90.56 0.37 293.6 82.8 80.3 0.42 0.43 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # 5ft A Pollutant PM2.5 Points/Port 6 Start Finish Pre PCompany Thermafiber DGM # MB-3 Method OTM27-28 Total Points 12Location Wabash Rate (cfm) 0.75 Run # 3 Time/pt (min) 21.0Source Cupola 61 Delta ∆H@ 1.83 Date 20-Oct-10 Time/reading 21.0

Operator MY Bws (%) 2.53 # of Ports 2 Total Run 252.1

Filter Number 10090236 Condensate Volume 28 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 28.48

Barometric 29.88 Silica Gel Weight Gain 23 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 29.88 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) 0.2 O2 (%) 12.00 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) 0.00022 CO2 (%) 9.3 Md 29.97 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 29.67 Act. Flow (cfm) 18,522 Must delete extra z

Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 189.1 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 12,449

Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 12,135Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #DIV/0! Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

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

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

6 0.0 21.0 0:00 936.06 0.29 287 56 56 0.33 0.446 2

5 21.0 42.0 0:21 942.44 0.32 290 60 58 0.36 0.446 2

4 42.0 63.0 0:42 949.16 0.34 283 62 61 0.39 0.444 2

3 63.0 84.0 1:03 956.01 0.54 278 66 63 0.61 0.455 2

2 84.0 105.0 1:24 964.44 0.50 286 69 65 0.57 0.463 2

1 105.0 126.0 1:45 972.94 0.44 289 73 63 0.50 0.455 2

6 126.0 147.0 2:06 980.82 0.51 294 76 72 0.58 0.45 2

5 147.0 168.1 2:27 989.24 0.48 290 79 76 0.54 0.451 2

4 168.1 189.1 2:48 997.57 0.48 289 81 78 0.54 0.46 2

3 189.1 210.1 3:09 1006.06 0.37 287 81 78 0.42 0.463 2

2 210.1 231.1 3:30 1013.60 0.39 288 81 78 0.44 0.465 2

1 231.1 252.1 3:51 1021.20 0.40 293 81 78 0.45 0.464 2

252.1 4:12 1028.83

Average: 92.77 0.42 287.8 72.1 68.8 0.48 0.46 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # 5FT A Pollutant Metals Points/Port 8 Start Finish Pre PCompany Thermafiber DGM # MB5 Method M29 Total Points 16Location Wabash Rate (cfm) Run # 1 Time/pt (min) 10.0

Source Cupola #4 Delta ∆H@ 1.53 Date 20-Oct-10 Time/reading 5.0

Operator JB/JP Bws (%) 3.06 # of Ports 2 Total Run 160.0Filter Number 10081657 Condensate Volume 64 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 28.48

Barometric 29.88 Silica Gel Weight Gain 32 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 30.10 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) 0.311 O2 (%) 13.2 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) 0.00053 CO2 (%) 8.3 Md 29.86 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) 3.00 Ms 29.49 Act. Flow (cfm) 18,688 Must delete extra z

Preliminary dP (in H20) 0.36 Total Vol.(cf) 0.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 12,437

Preliminary Ts (oF) 125 Est. Us (ft/s) 36.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 12,056Preliminary Tm (oF) 85 Theor Dn (in) 0.2657 Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

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

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

8 0.0 5.0 14:21 239.85 0.32 290 89 89 1.83 1.78 2

5.0 10.0 14:26 243.96 0.34 294 93 90 1.94 1.89 2

7 10.0 15.0 14:31 248.13 0.41 297 97 90 2.34 2.28 2

15.0 20.0 14:36 252.67 0.43 296 101 91 2.46 2.4 2

6 20.0 25.0 14:41 257.31 0.45 296 102 91 2.57 2.51 2

25.0 30.0 14:46 262.19 0.46 299 102 92 2.63 2.57 2

5 30.0 35.0 14:51 267.06 0.41 300 104 92 2.34 2.29 2

35.0 40.0 14:56 271.7 0.44 300 104 93 2.51 2.45 2

4 40.0 45.0 15:01 276.45 0.49 300 104 94 2.80 2.73 2

45.0 50.0 15:06 281.50 0.52 302 105 94 2.97 2.9 2

3 50.0 55.0 15:11 286.62 0.48 298 105 95 2.74 2.68 2

55.0 60.0 15:16 291.69 0.49 301 106 95 2.80 2.74 2

2 60.0 65.0 15:21 296.8 0.35 296 106 96 2.00 1.96 2

65.0 70.0 15:26 301.19 0.37 293 105 96 2.11 2.07 2

1 70.0 75.0 15:31 305.66 0.35 297 105 96 2.00 1.96 2

75.0 80.0 15:41 309.99 0.36 292 105 97 2.06 2.02 2

8 80.0 85.0 15:48 314.41 0.50 300 98 96 2.86 2.79 2

85.0 90.0 15:53 319.48 0.52 299 103 97 2.98 2.92 2

7 90.0 95.0 15:58 324.62 0.52 298 105 97 2.97 2.91 2

95.0 100.0 16:03 329.83 0.50 298 105 97 2.86 2.8 2

6 100.0 105.0 16:08 335.04 0.45 297 106 97 2.57 2.52 2

105.0 110.0 16:13 339.95 0.47 297 106 97 2.68 2.64 2

5 110.0 115.0 16:18 344.9 0.43 295 106 97 2.46 2.41 2

115.0 120.0 16:23 349.62 0.43 295 106 97 2.46 2.42 2

4 120.0 125.0 16:28 354.45 0.37 293 106 97 2.11 2.08 2

125.0 130.0 16:33 358.86 0.35 295 106 98 2.00 1.97 2

3 130.0 135.0 16:38 363.25 0.30 291 106 98 1.71 1.69 2

135.0 140.0 16:43 367.35 0.28 287 106 98 1.60 1.57 2

2 140.0 145.0 16:48 371.33 0.41 290 105 98 2.34 2.31 2

145.0 150.0 16:53 375.95 0.42 284 106 98 2.40 2.36 2

1 150.0 155.0 16:58 380.66 0.41 290 106 98 2.34 2.31 2

155.0 160.0 17:03 385.36 0.45 290 106 98 2.57 2.53 2

160.0 17:08 390.27

Average: 150.43 0.42 295.3 103.6 95.3 2.41 2.36 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # 5FT A Pollutant Metals Points/Port 8 Start Finish Pre PCompany Thermafiber DGM # MB5 Method M29 Total Points 16Location Wabash Rate (cfm) Run # 2 Time/pt (min) 10.0

Source Cupola #4 Delta ∆H@ 1.53 Date 21-Oct-10 Time/reading 5.0

Operator JB/JP Bws (%) 3.04 # of Ports 2 Total Run 160.0Filter Number 10081651 Condensate Volume 64 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 28.43

Barometric 29.83 Silica Gel Weight Gain 31 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 30.05 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) 0.311 O2 (%) 13.9 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) 0.00053 CO2 (%) 7.6 Md 29.77 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) 3.00 Ms 29.41 Act. Flow (cfm) 18,896 Must delete extra z

Preliminary dP (in H20) 0.36 Total Vol.(cf) 0.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 12,455

Preliminary Ts (oF) 125 Est. Us (ft/s) 36.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 12,077Preliminary Tm (oF) 85 Theor Dn (in) 0.2653 Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

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

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

8 0.0 5.0 7:28 390.56 0.32 284 73 73 1.77 1.74 2

5.0 10.0 7:33 394.56 0.36 307 74 73 1.99 1.93 2

7 10.0 15.0 7:38 398.78 0.47 304 77 74 2.59 2.52 2

15.0 20.0 7:43 403.43 0.50 305 78 74 2.76 2.67 2

6 20.0 25.0 7:48 408.25 0.52 306 80 74 2.87 2.78 2

25.0 30.0 7:53 413.21 0.54 308 81 74 2.98 2.88 2

5 30.0 35.0 7:58 418.23 0.48 303 83 74 2.65 2.57 2

35.0 40.0 8:03 423.12 0.50 309 84 85 2.76 2.67 2

4 40.0 45.0 8:08 428.02 0.40 305 85 76 2.21 2.14 2

45.0 50.0 8:13 432.40 0.39 306 85 76 2.15 2.09 2

3 50.0 55.0 8:18 436.69 0.41 307 86 77 2.26 2.2 2

55.0 60.0 8:23 441.15 0.42 302 87 77 2.32 2.25 2

2 60.0 65.0 8:28 445.66 0.35 298 88 78 1.93 1.88 2

65.0 70.0 8:33 449.87 0.34 286 89 78 1.88 1.83 2

1 70.0 75.0 8:38 454.1 0.34 284 89 79 1.88 1.83 2

75.0 80.0 8:43 458.29 0.37 285 89 79 2.04 2 2

8 80.0 85.0 8:55 462.57 0.40 298 82 79 2.21 2.16 2

85.0 90.0 9:00 466.99 0.43 300 87 80 2.37 2.32 2

7 90.0 95.0 9:05 471.56 0.38 301 90 81 2.10 2.05 2

95.0 100.0 9:10 475.98 0.45 304 92 81 2.48 2.43 2

6 100.0 105.0 9:15 480.69 0.41 302 93 82 2.26 2.22 2

105.0 110.0 9:20 485.22 0.42 305 93 82 2.32 2.27 2

5 110.0 115.0 9:25 489.73 0.42 306 94 83 2.32 2.27 2

115.0 120.0 9:30 494.26 0.44 307 95 84 2.43 2.39 2

4 120.0 125.0 9:35 498.88 0.42 308 95 84 2.32 2.27 2

125.0 130.0 9:40 503.40 0.46 306 96 85 2.54 2.49 2

3 130.0 135.0 9:45 508.2 0.42 306 97 86 2.32 2.28 2

135.0 140.0 9:50 512.91 0.43 302 99 87 2.37 2.33 2

2 140.0 145.0 9:55 517.58 0.45 301 99 88 2.48 2.44 2

145.0 150.0 10:00 522.25 0.45 296 99 88 2.48 2.44 2

1 150.0 155.0 10:05 527.1 0.45 297 100 90 2.48 2.44 2

155.0 160.0 10:10 531.95 0.44 301 100 91 2.43 2.39 2

160.0 10:15 536.79

Average: 146.24 0.42 301.2 88.7 80.4 2.34 2.29 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # 5FT A Pollutant Metals Points/Port 8 Start Finish Pre PCompany Thermafiber DGM # MB5 Method M29 Total Points 16Location Wabash Rate (cfm) Run # 3 Time/pt (min) 10.0

Source Cupola #4 Delta ∆H@ 1.53 Date 21-Oct-10 Time/reading 5.0

Operator JB/JP Bws (%) 3.31 # of Ports 2 Total Run 160.0Filter Number 10081654 Condensate Volume 71 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 28.43

Barometric 29.83 Silica Gel Weight Gain 30 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 30.05 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) 0.311 O2 (%) 14.4 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) 0.00053 CO2 (%) 7.0 Md 29.70 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) 3.00 Ms 29.31 Act. Flow (cfm) 18,376 Must delete extra z

Preliminary dP (in H20) 0.36 Total Vol.(cf) 0.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 12,103

Preliminary Ts (oF) 125 Est. Us (ft/s) 36.1 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 11,703Preliminary Tm (oF) 85 Theor Dn (in) 0.2655 Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

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

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

8 0.0 5.0 10:35 536.99 0.42 298 92 89 2.33 2.32 2

5.0 10.0 10:40 541.54 0.39 306 93 89 2.16 2.14 2

7 10.0 15.0 10:45 546.01 0.37 307 95 89 2.05 2.03 2

15.0 20.0 10:50 550.34 0.37 306 96 88 2.05 2.03 2

6 20.0 25.0 10:55 554.67 0.35 304 97 89 1.94 1.92 2

25.0 30.0 11:00 558.94 0.36 306 98 89 2.00 1.98 2

5 30.0 35.0 11:05 563.28 0.35 305 98 89 1.94 1.92 2

35.0 40.0 11:10 567.56 0.35 307 98 89 1.94 1.92 2

4 40.0 45.0 11:15 571.85 0.44 307 98 89 2.44 2.42 2

45.0 50.0 11:20 576.59 0.45 308 98 89 2.50 2.47 2

3 50.0 55.0 11:25 581.43 0.39 311 97 90 2.16 2.14 2

55.0 60.0 11:30 585.88 0.43 304 96 89 2.39 2.36 2

2 60.0 65.0 11:35 590.5 0.40 298 95 89 2.22 2.2 2

65.0 70.0 11:40 594.97 0.49 298 95 88 2.72 2.69 2

1 70.0 75.0 11:45 599.93 0.48 300 96 88 2.66 2.64 2

75.0 80.0 11:50 604.78 0.46 302 95 88 2.55 2.53 2

8 80.0 85.0 12:02 609.58 0.40 290 87 86 2.22 2.2 2

85.0 90.0 12:07 614.09 0.44 300 90 86 2.44 2.42 2

7 90.0 95.0 12:12 618.72 0.49 307 91 85 2.72 2.69 2

95.0 100.0 12:17 623.7 0.46 307 93 85 2.55 2.53 2

6 100.0 105.0 12:22 628.6 0.48 305 94 85 2.66 2.64 2

105.0 110.0 12:27 633.57 0.47 304 95 85 2.61 2.58 2

5 110.0 115.0 12:32 638.44 0.45 306 95 86 2.50 2.47 2

115.0 120.0 12:37 643.23 0.46 306 95 86 2.56 2.53 2

4 120.0 125.0 12:42 648.07 0.39 306 94 86 2.16 2.14 2

125.0 130.0 12:47 652.56 0.34 304 93 85 1.89 1.87 2

3 130.0 135.0 12:52 656.71 0.34 297 92 86 1.89 1.87 2

135.0 140.0 12:57 660.89 0.36 293 92 85 2.00 1.98 2

2 140.0 145.0 13:02 665.23 0.34 295 92 85 1.89 1.87 2

145.0 150.0 13:07 669.29 0.31 290 92 85 1.72 1.7 2

1 150.0 155.0 13:12 673.3 0.30 292 91 85 1.67 1.65 2

155.0 160.0 13:17 677.31 0.28 289 90 84 1.55 1.54 2

160.0 13:22 681.20

Average: 144.21 0.40 301.8 94.2 87.1 2.22 2.20 2

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

30B Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # Hg Probe Pollutant Hg Points/Port 1Company Thermafiber DGM # 2033 Method 30B Total Points 1Location Wabash Rate (L/m) 1.25 Run # 1 Time/pt (min) N/ASource Cupola #1 Delta ∆H@ N/A Date 19-Oct-10 Time/reading 5.0

Operator JP Bws (%) 6 # of Ports 1 Total Run 120.0

Filter Number NA Condensate Volume N/A Cp N/A Ps (in Hg) 28.59

Barometric 29.99 Silica Gel Weight Gain N/A DGM Y 0.999 Pm (in Hg) 29.99 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) N/A O2 (%) 12 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) CO2 (%) 9.4 Md 29.98 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 29.26 Act. Flow (cfm) #DIV/0!

Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 150.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) #DIV/0!Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) #VALUE! Dry Ref Flow (cfm) #DIV/0!

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #VALUE!

Clock Time Sample Time Stack Temp

A B A B A B AB A B 

8:00:00 AM 0.0 300.0 256 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 0.00 0 58 58 

5.0 299.0 250 256 1.25 1.25 8 8 6.17 6.22 56 56 

10.0 299.0 250 256 1.25 1.25 8 8 12.57 12.56 58 58 15.0 303.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 18.95 19.01 60 60 20.0 292.0 249 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 25.45 25.55 62 62 25.0 284.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 32.54 32.51 65 66 30.0 286.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 38.96 38.95 66 66 35.0 288.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 45.23 45.11 68 71 40.0 293.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 51.28 51.16 70 69 45.0 294.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 57.14 57.13 72 71 50.0 292.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 63.05 63.12 73 72 55.0 295.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 69.10 69.13 74 73 60.0 293.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 75.17 75.14 74 74 65.0 294.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 81.25 81.19 76 73 70.0 294.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 87.52 87.38 76 77 75.0 298.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 93.83 93.63 77 77 80.0 295.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 100.04 99.99 78 78 85.0 295.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 106.48 106.42 78 78 90.0 294.0 249 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 112.84 112.87 79 79 95.0 296.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 119.22 119.27 79 79 

100.0 295.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 125.58 125.62 79 79 105.0 294.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 132.07 132.13 803 80 110.0 293.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 138.26 138.29 80 80 115.0 293.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 144.60 144.62 80 80 

10:00:00 AM 120.0 293.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 150.740 150.74 80 80 

Average 120.0 294.1 250.2 250.5 100.84 71.84

Volume 150.740 150.740 

dscm 0.14 0.15 

Trap/ Probe Temp

0.002 L @ 15" for 1 min. 0.000 L@10" for 1 min. 0.003 L 

Leak Check Train "A" Unspiked

Rotameter Setting (LPM) Meter Vacuum ("Hg) Meter Reading (liters) Meter Temp (*F)

Pre Test Post Test 
BT Environmental Consulting

30B Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # Hg Probe Pollutant Hg Points/Port 1Company Thermafiber DGM # 2033 Method 30B Total Points 1Location Wabash Rate (L/m) 1.25 Run # 2 Time/pt (min) N/ASource Cupola #1 Delta ∆H@ N/A Date 19-Oct-10 Time/reading 5.0

Operator JP Bws (%) 6 # of Ports 1 Total Run 120.0

Filter Number NA Condensate Volume N/A Cp N/A Ps (in Hg) 28.59

Barometric 29.99 Silica Gel Weight Gain N/A DGM Y 0.999 Pm (in Hg) 29.99 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) N/A O2 (%) 12 Ref Press 29.92

Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) CO2 (%) 9.4 Md 29.98 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 29.26 Act. Flow (cfm) #DIV/0!

Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 150.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) #DIV/0!Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) #VALUE! Dry Ref Flow (cfm) #DIV/0!

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #VALUE!

Clock Time Sample Time Stack Temp

A B A B A B AB A B 

10:21:00 AM 0.0 290.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 0.00 0 78 78 

5.0 289.0 251 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 6.10 6.13 77 77 

10.0 291.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 12.58 12.54 77 77 15.0 291.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 18.96 18.93 79 79 20.0 290.0 249 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 25.16 25.16 80 80 25.0 290.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 31.47 31.42 80 81 30.0 290.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 37.62 37.59 82 82 35.0 290.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 43.90 43.84 83 83 40.0 293.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 50.02 50 85 85 45.0 293.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 56.26 56.27 86 86 50.0 293.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 62.50 62.52 88 88 55.0 295.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 68.78 68.81 89 89 60.0 293.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 75.05 75.06 90 90 65.0 295.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 81.35 81.34 92 92 70.0 295.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 87.64 87.64 92 92 75.0 297.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 93.96 94.01 93 93 80.0 295.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 100.18 100.29 94 94 85.0 296.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 106.43 106.58 94 95 90.0 295.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 112.76 112.83 95 95 95.0 297.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 119.06 119.04 96 96 

100.0 299.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 125.35 125.32 96 96 105.0 293.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 131.60 131.63 96 97 110.0 295.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 137.88 137.07 97 97 115.0 294.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 8 8 144.19 144.14 97 98 

12:21:00 PM 120.0 293.0 250 130 1.25 1.25 8 8 150.398 150.267 98 97 

Average 120.0 293.3 250.0 245.2 88.56 88.68

Volume 150.398 150.267 

dscm 0.15 0.14 

Leak Check Train "A" Unspiked

Rotameter Setting (LPM) Meter Vacuum ("Hg) Meter Reading (liters) Meter Temp (*F)

Pre Test Post Test 

0.002 L @ 12" for 1 min. 0.002 L@10" for 1 min. 0.003 L 

Trap/ Probe Temp
BT Environmental Consulting

30B Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # Hg Probe Pollutant Hg Points/Port 1Company Thermafiber DGM # 2033 Method 30B Total Points 1Location Wabash Rate (L/m) 1.25 Run # 3 Time/pt (min) N/ASource Cupola #1 Delta ∆H@ N/A Date 19-Oct-10 Time/reading 5.0

Operator JP Bws (%) 6 # of Ports 1 Total Run 120.0

Filter Number NA Condensate Volume N/A Cp N/A Ps (in Hg) 28.59

Barometric 29.99 Silica Gel Weight Gain N/A DGM Y 0.999 Pm (in Hg) 29.99 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) N/A O2 (%) 12.9 Ref Press 29.92Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) CO2 (%) 8.3 Md 29.84 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 29.13 Act. Flow (cfm) #DIV/0!

Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 150.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) #DIV/0!Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) #VALUE! Dry Ref Flow (cfm) #DIV/0!

Preliminary Tm (oF) Theor Dn (in) #VALUE!

Clock Time Sample Time Stack Temp

A B A B A B AB A B 

12:59:00 PM 0.0 298.0 249 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 0.00 0 93 93 

5.0 298.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 6.71 6.65 89 90 

10.0 302.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 12.80 12.71 90 91 15.0 301.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 18.87 18.85 91 92 20.0 302.0 251 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 25.07 25.02 92 92 25.0 299.0 249 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 31.24 31.18 92 93 30.0 298.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 37.41 37.44 93 94 35.0 298.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 43.83 43.78 94 94 40.0 295.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 50.17 50.11 95 96 45.0 297.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 56.48 56.48 97 97 50.0 298.0 251 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 62.71 62.75 97 98 55.0 299.0 249 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 68.79 68.86 98 98 60.0 296.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 75.15 75.19 99 99 65.0 299.0 251 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 81.36 81.31 99 99 70.0 300.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 87.53 87.47 99 100 75.0 301.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 93.68 93.7 100 100 80.0 299.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 99.93 99.95 100 100 85.0 302.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 106.25 106.2 101 101 90.0 301.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 112.63 112.54 101 101 95.0 301.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 118.91 118.94 101 101 

100.0 300.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 125.11 125.17 101 101 105.0 296.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 131.38 131.45 102 102 110.0 298.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 137.65 137.67 102 102 115.0 297.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 143.81 147.77 102 102 

2:59:00 PM 120.0 299.0 250 250 1.25 1.25 7 7 150.272 150.28 102 103 

Average 120.0 299.0 250.0 250.0 97.2 97.56

Volume 150.272 150.280 

dscm 0.14 0.14 

Trap/ Probe Temp

0.003 L @ 12" for 1 min. 0.000 L@10" for 1 min. 0.003 L 

Leak Check Train "A" Unspiked

Rotameter Setting (LPM) Meter Vacuum ("Hg) Meter Reading (liters) Meter Temp (*F)

Pre Test Post Test 
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # 3W-2 Pollutant Hex ChromePoints/Port 8 Start Finish Pre P

Company Thermafiber DGM # MB3 Method 61 Total Points 16Location Wabash Rate (cfm) 0.75 Run # 1 Time/pt (min) 10.0Source Cupola 4 Delta ∆H@ 1.82 Date 20-Oct-10 Time/reading 5.0

Operator MY Bws (%) 4.00 # of Ports 2 Total Run 160.0Filter Number Condensate Volume 44 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 28.48Barometric 29.88 Silica Gel Weight Gain 66 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 30.10 Ref Temp 68Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) 0.31 O2 (%) 13.2 Ref Press 29.92Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) 0.00052 CO2 (%) 8.3 Md 29.86 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) 3.00 Ms 29.44 Act. Flow (cfm) 18,950 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 135.96 Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 120.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 12,585

Moisture % 3.67 Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 12,082

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

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

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

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

8 0.0 5.0 14:21 29.18 0.40 290 79 79 2.58 2.56 

5.0 10.0 14:26 33.55 0.39 298 84 79 2.52 2.49 

7 10.0 15.0 14:31 37.89 0.41 298 85 79 2.65 2.61 

15.0 20.0 14:36 42.29 0.42 297 87 80 2.71 2.69 

6 20.0 25.0 14:41 46.78 0.37 296 89 80 2.39 2.36 

25.0 30.0 14:46 51.04 0.39 295 90 81 2.52 2.49 

5 30.0 35.0 14:51 55.39 0.35 294 91 82 2.26 2.24 

35.0 40.0 14:56 59.57 0.36 298 92 83 2.32 2.31 

4 40.0 45.0 15:01 63.8 0.43 299 92 84 2.77 2.76 

45.0 50.0 15:06 68.43 0.49 301 94 85 3.16 3.14 

3 50.0 55.0 15:11 73.29 0.50 301 95 85 3.23 3.21 

55.0 60.0 15:16 78.23 0.49 303 96 86 3.16 3.14 

2 60.0 65.0 15:21 83.16 0.48 302 97 87 3.10 3.08 

65.0 70.0 15:26 88.04 0.51 302 96 88 3.29 3.28 

1 70.0 75.0 15:31 93.1 0.50 301 96 88 3.23 3.22 

75.0 80.0 15:41 98.05 0.50 302 96 88 3.23 3.21 

8 80.0 85.0 15:50 103.25 0.36 293 88 88 2.32 2.32 

85.0 90.0 15:55 107.45 0.40 297 93 89 2.58 2.58 

7 90.0 95.0 16:00 111.95 0.41 296 94 88 2.65 2.64 

95.0 100.0 16:05 116.54 0.40 296 95 88 2.58 2.57 

6 100.0 105.0 16:10 121.1 0.41 296 95 88 2.65 2.64 

105.0 110.0 16:15 125.65 0.44 297 95 88 2.84 2.83 

5 110.0 115.0 16:20 130.35 0.43 296 96 89 2.77 2.78 

115.0 120.0 16:25 134.95 0.45 302 96 89 2.91 2.91 

4 120.0 125.0 16:30 139.72 0.44 300 96 89 2.84 2.84 

125.0 130.0 16:35 144.45 0.41 294 96 89 2.65 2.65 

3 130.0 135.0 16:40 148.89 0.43 292 96 89 2.77 2.78 

135.0 140.0 16:45 153.57 0.44 293 96 89 2.84 2.85 

2 140.0 145.0 16:50 158.32 0.43 291 96 89 2.77 2.78 

145.0 150.0 16:55 162.99 0.44 293 96 89 2.84 2.85 

1 150.0 155.0 17:00 167.69 0.44 294 97 89 2.84 2.85 

155.0 160.0 17:05 172.44 0.44 292 97 90 2.84 2.85 

160.0 17:10 177.40

Average: 148.22 0.43 296.8 93.2 86.1 2.77 2.77 #D

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # 3W-2 Pollutant Hex Chrom Points/Port 8 Start Finish Pre PCompany Thermafiber DGM # MB3 Method 61 Total Points 16Location Wabash Rate (cfm) 0.75 Run # 2 Time/pt (min) 10.0Source Cupola 4 Delta ∆H@ 1.82 Date 21-Oct-10 Time/reading 5.0

Operator MY Bws (%) 4.0 # of Ports 2 Total Run 160.0

Filter Number Condensate Volume 94 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 28.43

Barometric 29.83 Silica Gel Weight Gain 70 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 30.05 Ref Temp 68

Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) 0.31 O2 (%) 13.9 Ref Press 29.92Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) 0.00052 CO2 (%) 7.6 Md 29.77 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) 3.00 Ms 29.30 Act. Flow (cfm) 19,489 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 137.98 Preliminary dP (in H20) 0.36 Total Vol.(cf) 120.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 12,815

Moisture % 5.30 Preliminary Ts (oF) 125 Est. Us (ft/s) 36.1 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 12,303

Preliminary Tm (oF) 85 Theor Dn (in) 0.2664 Comments: "Data Entry Cells" 

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

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

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

8 0.0 5.0 7:28 178.61 0.40 293 71 71 2.52 2.52 

5.0 10.0 7:33 182.86 0.43 302 74 71 2.71 2.69 

7 10.0 15.0 7:38 187.17 0.45 300 74 71 2.84 2.82 

15.0 20.0 7:43 191.66 0.45 305 79 72 2.84 2.82 

6 20.0 25.0 7:48 196.24 0.47 305 80 73 2.96 2.94 

25.0 30.0 7:53 200.89 0.50 304 81 73 3.15 3.13 

5 30.0 35.0 7:58 205.7 0.50 305 82 74 3.15 3.13 

35.0 40.0 8:03 210.55 0.49 306 82 74 3.09 3.07 

4 40.0 45.0 8:08 215.38 0.44 300 83 75 2.78 2.76 

45.0 50.0 8:13 219.94 0.43 305 83 75 2.71 2.7 

3 50.0 55.0 8:18 224.5 0.40 302 83 75 2.52 2.51 

55.0 60.0 8:23 228.94 0.42 301 84 76 2.65 2.64 

2 60.0 65.0 8:28 233.43 0.39 300 85 76 2.46 2.45 

65.0 70.0 8:33 237.93 0.41 304 85 76 2.59 2.58 

1 70.0 75.0 8:38 242.41 0.51 304 85 77 3.22 3.21 

75.0 80.0 8:48 247.32 0.45 299 86 77 2.84 2.83 

8 80.0 85.0 8:56 252.01 0.37 300 78 78 2.33 2.33 

85.0 90.0 9:01 256.56 0.45 303 83 78 2.84 2.83 

7 90.0 95.0 9:06 260.77 0.35 303 85 78 2.21 2.2 

95.0 100.0 9:11 264.93 0.42 296 87 79 2.65 2.65 

6 100.0 105.0 9:16 269.49 0.36 306 88 79 2.27 2.27 

105.0 110.0 9:21 273.76 0.39 305 88 80 2.46 2.46 

5 110.0 115.0 9:26 278.06 0.42 306 88 80 2.65 2.65 

115.0 120.0 9:31 282.54 0.44 310 89 80 2.78 2.78 

4 120.0 125.0 9:36 287.10 0.48 307 89 81 3.03 3.03 

125.0 130.0 9:41 291.93 0.53 308 89 81 3.34 3.34 

3 130.0 135.0 9:46 296.94 0.54 305 89 81 3.41 3.41 

135.0 140.0 9:51 302.04 0.53 302 89 82 3.34 3.35 

2 140.0 145.0 9:56 307.12 0.50 301 89 82 3.15 3.16 

145.0 150.0 10:01 312.11 0.49 301 89 82 3.09 3.1 

1 150.0 155.0 10:06 317.08 0.47 304 88 82 2.96 2.97 

155.0 160.0 10:11 321.92 0.47 306 88 82 2.96 2.97 

160.0 10:16 326.85

Average: 148.24 0.45 303.1 84.2 77.2 2.83 2.82 #D

Leak Check
BT Environmental Consulting

Isokinetic Run Sheet

Project No.: 10-3990.15 Probe # 3W-2 Pollutant Hex ChromePoints/Port 8 Start Finish Pre P

Company Thermafiber DGM # MB3 Method 61 Total Points 16Location Wabash Rate (cfm) 0.75 Run # 3 Time/pt (min) 10.0Source Cupola 4 Delta ∆H@ 1.82 Date 21-Oct-10 Time/reading 5.0

Operator MY Bws (%) 4.0 # of Ports 2 Total Run 160.0Filter Number Condensate Volume 113 Cp 0.840 Ps (in Hg) 28.43Barometric 29.83 Silica Gel Weight Gain 57 DGM Y 1.003 Pm (in Hg) 29.83 Ref Temp 68Static (in H2O) -19 Actual Dn (in) 0.31 O2 (%) 14.4 Ref Press 29.92Stack Dia (ft) 3.00 An (ft^2) 0.00052 CO2 (%) 7.0 Md 29.70 Stack Area (sf) 7.07

Est.DH(in H2O) Ms 29.23 Act. Flow (cfm) 19,369 Must delete extra z

Vmnstd 137.85 Preliminary dP (in H20) Total Vol.(cf) 120.0 Wet Ref Flow (cfm) 12,711

Moisture % 5.49 Preliminary Ts (oF) Est. Us (ft/s) 0.0 Dry Ref Flow (cfm) 12,203

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

"Calculated Cells D

PT # Start Time End Time

Clock Time 

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

Desired Delta 

H

Actual 

Delta H

Probe 

(

8 0.0 5.0 10:35 327.53 0.38 298 78 79 2.41 2.41 

5.0 10.0 10:40 332.14 0.38 301 80 78 2.41 2.41 

7 10.0 15.0 10:45 336.47 0.35 303 81 78 2.22 2.21 

15.0 20.0 10:50 340.6 0.34 304 83 78 2.16 2.15 

6 20.0 25.0 10:55 344.61 0.42 308 84 78 2.67 2.65 

25.0 30.0 11:00 349.09 0.37 307 85 78 2.35 2.34 

5 30.0 35.0 11:05 353.31 0.38 306 85 78 2.41 2.4 

35.0 40.0 11:10 357.59 0.39 306 86 79 2.48 2.46 

4 40.0 45.0 11:15 361.93 0.45 307 87 79 2.86 2.84 

45.0 50.0 11:20 366.59 0.49 306 88 80 3.11 3.09 

3 50.0 55.0 11:25 371.44 0.47 302 88 80 2.99 2.97 

55.0 60.0 11:30 376.17 0.50 303 89 81 3.18 3.16 

2 60.0 65.0 11:35 381.06 0.50 308 89 81 3.18 3.16 

65.0 70.0 11:40 385.99 0.53 303 90 82 3.37 3.35 

1 70.0 75.0 11:45 391.04 0.50 301 91 83 3.18 3.17 

75.0 80.0 11:50 395.96 0.50 304 91 83 3.18 3.16 

8 80.0 85.0 12:01 400.93 0.40 302 84 84 2.54 2.54 

85.0 90.0 12:06 405.44 0.39 306 89 84 2.48 2.47 

7 90.0 95.0 12:11 409.81 0.45 305 91 84 2.86 2.85 

95.0 100.0 12:16 414.41 0.41 306 92 85 2.60 2.6 

6 100.0 105.0 12:21 418.93 0.49 304 93 85 3.11 3.11 

105.0 110.0 12:26 423.82 0.48 304 94 86 3.05 3.05 

5 110.0 115.0 12:31 428.68 0.50 309 95 86 3.18 3.18 

115.0 120.0 12:36 433.64 0.51 309 94 87 3.24 3.25 

4 120.0 125.0 12:41 438.77 0.40 307 94 87 2.54 2.54 

125.0 130.0 12:46 443.16 0.39 307 93 87 2.48 2.48 

3 130.0 135.0 12:51 447.56 0.43 301 92 86 2.73 2.74 

135.0 140.0 12:56 452.18 0.42 303 92 86 2.67 2.67 

2 140.0 145.0 13:01 456.71 0.45 304 92 86 2.86 2.86 

145.0 150.0 13:06 461.41 0.47 306 91 85 2.99 2.99 

1 150.0 155.0 13:11 466.19 0.49 303 89 84 3.11 3.12 

155.0 160.0 13:16 471.07 0.49 303 89 84 3.11 3.12 

160.0 13:21 476.98

Average: 149.45 0.44 304.6 88.7 82.5 2.80 2.80 #D

Leak Check































APPENDIX D 

EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION DOCUMENTS 
METHOD 5 DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION USING CRITICAL ORIFICES

1) Select three critical orifices to calibrate the dry gas meter which bracket the expected operating range.2) Record barometric pressure before and after calibration procedure.3) Run at tested vacuum (from Orifice Calibration Report), for a period of time

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

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

INITIAL FINAL AVG (Pbar)

DATE: 8/30/2010 METER SERIAL #: C-5000 BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (in Hg): 30.33 30.33 30.33 

METER PART #: MB3 CRITICAL ORIFICE SET SERIAL #: 1447 

K' TESTED TEMPERATURES °F ELAPSED

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

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

1 0.3367 16 696.810 702.190 5.380 81 80 83 80 81 81 12.00 0.62 5.3316 5.2 0.3367 16 702.190 707.570 5.380 81 83 86 81 83 83.25 12.00 0.62 5.3095 5.3 0.3367 16 707.570 712.980 5.410 82 86 88 83 84 85.25 12.00 0.62 5.3195 5.1 0.5057 16 713.050 718.340 5.290 83 88 91 85 86 87.5 8.00 1.4 5.1899 5.2 0.5057 16 718.340 724.320 5.980 85 91 93 86 87 89.25 9.00 1.4 5.8482 5.3 0.5057 16 724.320 730.320 6.0 83 93 92 87 88 90 9.00 1.4 5.8597 5.1 0.8778 16 730.570 737.510 6.940 85 95 98 89 90 93 6.00 4.5 6.7914 6.2 0.8778 16 737.510 744.470 6.960 85 98 99 90 91 94.5 6.00 4.5 6.7926 6.3 0.8778 16 744.470 751.450 6.980 86 99 101 91 92 95.75 6.00 4.5 6.7968 6.

AVERAGE DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION FACT

AVERAG

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

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

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

Vcr

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

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

K' = Average K' factor from Critical Orifice Calibration

(3) = DGM calibration factor

121832

ENVIRONMENTAL 

USING THE CRITICAL ORIFICES AS CALIBRATION STANDARDS:The following equations are used to calculate the standard volumes of air passed through the DGM, Vm (std), and the critical 

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

(

Tm

Pbar

H Vm std

K Vm ( /13.6) ( ) 1

+ Δ = ∗ ∗

Tamb

Pbar Vcr std

K ∗ Θ ( ) = '∗

( )

( )

std

std

Vm

Vcr

Y =
METHOD 5 DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION USING CRITICAL ORIFICES

1) Select three critical orifices to calibrate the dry gas meter which bracket the expected operating range.2) Record barometric pressure before and after calibration procedure.3) Run at tested vacuum (from Orifice Calibration Report), for a period of time

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

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

INITIAL FINAL AVG (Pbar)

DATE: 11/22/2010 METER SERIAL #: C-5000 BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (in Hg): 29.97 29.92 29.945 

METER PART #: MB3 CRITICAL ORIFICE SET SERIAL #: 1447 

K' TESTED TEMPERATURES °F ELAPSED

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

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

1 0.3367 16 126.20 131.085 4.885 66 67 69 67 67 67.5 11.00 0.62 4.9021 4.2 0.3367 16 131.085 136.430 5.345 65 69 71 67 68 68.75 12.00 0.62 5.3510 5.3 0.3367 16 136.430 141.320 4.890 66 71 72 68 69 70 11.00 0.62 4.8839 4.1 0.5057 16 141.40 147.310 5.910 66 70 74 69 70 70.75 9.00 1.5 5.9071 5.2 0.5057 16 147.310 152.560 5.250 66 74 76 70 71 72.75 8.00 1.5 5.2277 5.3 0.5057 16 152.560 157.820 5.260 66 76 76 71 71 73.5 8.00 1.5 5.2303 5.1 0.8778 16 157.930 165.935 8.005 66 75 80 71 72 74.5 7.00 4.6 8.0051 8.2 0.8778 16 165.935 172.815 6.880 66 80 81 72 73 76.5 6.00 4.6 6.8544 6.3 0.8778 16 172.815 179.710 6.895 66 81 81 73 74 77.25 6.00 4.6 6.8598 6.

AVERAGE DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION FACT

AVERAG

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

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

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

Vcr

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

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

K' = Average K' factor from Critical Orifice Calibration

(3) = DGM calibration factor

121832

ENVIRONMENTAL 

USING THE CRITICAL ORIFICES AS CALIBRATION STANDARDS:The following equations are used to calculate the standard volumes of air passed through the DGM, Vm (std), and the critical 

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

(

Tm

Pbar

H Vm std

K Vm ( /13.6) ( ) 1

+ Δ = ∗ ∗

Tamb

Pbar Vcr std

K ∗ Θ ( ) = '∗

( )

( )

std

std

Vm

Vcr

Y =
METHOD 5 DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION USING CRITICAL ORIFICES

1) Select three critical orifices to calibrate the dry gas meter which bracket the expected operating range.2) Record barometric pressure before and after calibration procedure.3) Run at tested vacuum (from Orifice Calibration Report), for a period of time

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

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

INITIAL FINAL AVG (Pbar)

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

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

K' TESTED TEMPERATURES °F ELAPSED

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

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

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

AVERAGE DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION FACT

AVERAG

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

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

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

Vcr

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

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

K' = Average K' factor from Critical Orifice Calibration

(3) = DGM calibration factor

321812

ENVIRONMENTAL 

USING THE CRITICAL ORIFICES AS CALIBRATION STANDARDS:The following equations are used to calculate the standard volumes of air passed through the DGM, Vm (std), and the critical 

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

(

Tm

Pbar

H Vm std

K Vm ( /13.6) ( ) 1

+ Δ = ∗ ∗

Tamb

Pbar Vcr std

K ∗ Θ ( ) = '∗

( )

( )

std

std

Vm

Vcr

Y =
METHOD 5 DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION USING CRITICAL ORIFICES

1) Select three critical orifices to calibrate the dry gas meter which bracket the expected operating range.2) Record barometric pressure before and after calibration procedure.3) Run at tested vacuum (from Orifice Calibration Report), for a period of time

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

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

INITIAL FINAL AVG (Pbar)

DATE: 11/23/2010 METER SERIAL #: 1672 BAROMETRIC PRESSURE (in Hg): 29.79 29.84 29.815 

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

K' TESTED TEMPERATURES °F ELAPSED

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

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

1 0.8778 16 885.520 893.360 7.840 62 73 77 72 72 73.5 7.00 3.8 7.8058 8.2 0.8778 16 893.360 900.080 6.720 62 77 78 72 73 75 6.00 3.8 6.6719 6.3 0.8778 16 900.080 906.820 6.740 62 78 78 73 73 75.5 6.00 3.8 6.6855 6.1 0.5057 16 866.910 872.080 5.170 62 72 74 69 70 71.25 8.00 1.2 5.1364 5.2 0.5057 16 872.080 879.230 7.150 62 74 75 70 71 72.5 11.00 1.2 7.0869 7.3 0.5057 16 879.230 885.070 5.840 62 75 76 71 72 73.5 9.00 1.2 5.7776 5.1 0.3367 16 850.330 856.130 5.80 62 68 69 67 68 68 13.00 0.47 5.7874 5.2 0.3367 16 856.130 861.480 5.350 62 69 71 68 69 69.25 12.00 0.47 5.3258 5.3 0.3367 16 861.480 866.830 5.350 62 71 72 69 69 70.25 12.00 0.47 5.3157 5.

AVERAGE DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION FACT

AVERAG

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

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

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

Vcr

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

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

K' = Average K' factor from Critical Orifice Calibration

(3) = DGM calibration factor

321812

ENVIRONMENTAL 

USING THE CRITICAL ORIFICES AS CALIBRATION STANDARDS:The following equations are used to calculate the standard volumes of air passed through the DGM, Vm (std), and the critical 

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

(

Tm

Pbar

H Vm std

K Vm ( /13.6) ( ) 1

+ Δ = ∗ ∗

Tamb

Pbar Vcr std

K ∗ Θ ( ) = '∗

( )

( )

std

std

Vm

Vcr

Y =










APPENDIX E 

LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS 
Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration Results Summary

Thermafiber - Wabash, Indiana Plant

BTEC Project No. 10-3990.15

Sampling Dates: October 19-21, 2010

Cupola 4

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Average

Test Run Date 10/19/2010 10/19/2010 10/20/2010 10/20/2010 10/21/2010 10/21/2010Oxygen concentration (%) 12.0 12.9 11.9 13.1 13.8 14.3 13.0Oxygen concentration (%) (corrected as per USEPA 3A) 12.0 12.9 12.0 13.2 13.9 14.4 12.3Carbon Dioxide concentration (%) 9.6 8.3 9.4 8.3 7.7 7.1 8.4Carbon Dioxide concentration (%) (corrected as per USEPA 3A) 9.4 8.3 9.3 8.3 7.6 7.0 9.0CO2 Correction O2 Correction

1 2 3 4 5 6 1

Co 0.11 0.04 -0.08 -0.08 -0.01 -0.01 Co 0.03 0.

Cma 10.10 10.10 10.10 10.10 10.10 10.10 Cma 9.95 9.

Cm 10.2 10.1 10.18 10.18 10.26 10.26 Cm 9.95 9.

Co= Average of initial and final zero gasesCma=Actual concentration of the calibration gasCm= Average of initial and final calibration gases
Acetone 

Rinse 

Volume 

(mL)

Particulate 

Weight in 

Acetone 

(mg)

Particulate 

Weight on 

Filter 

(mg)

Organic 

(mg)

Inorganic 

(mg)

Filterable 

PM2.5 Catch 

Weight (mg)

Organic 

PM2.5 Cat

Weight (m

Run 1 32 1.5 11.30 3 30 12.80 2 Run 2 39 1.9 9.60 1.5 13 11.50 0.5 Run 3 53 2.0 14.30 1.3 24 16.30 0.3 

Blank: 62 ND ND 2.1 1.2

RDL: 1 0.5 0.30 1.0 0.50

Correcte

OTM 27/28 PM2.5 Lab Results Blank Correction

Thermafiber, Inc.

Wabash Indiana, Cupola #4 

BTEC job # 10-3990.15

Sampling Dates: October 19 and 20, 2010

OTM27 OTM28
Acetone 

Rinse 

Volume 

(mL)

Particulate 

Weight in 

Acetone 

Rinse (mg)

Particulate 

Weight on 

Filter (mg)

Particulate 

Weight in 

Acetone 

Rinse (mg)

Combined 

Particulate 

Weight (mg)

Run 1 120 5.9 26.70 5.9 32.6

Run 2 130 7.8 24.80 7.8 32.6

Run 3 120 4.7 20.00 4.7 24.7

Blank 130 ND ND

Method 5 PM Lab Results

Corrected

Sampling Date: October 20 & 21, 2010

BTEC job # 10-3990.15

Wabash Indiana, Cupola #4 

Thermafiber, Inc.
Compound/Fraction

Blank 

Filter 

Result

(μg)

Filter 

RDL 

(μg)

R1 

Result

(μg)

R2 

Result

(μg)

R3 

Result

(μg)

R1

(μg)

R2 

(μg)

R3 

(μg)

Antimony ND 0.40 ND ND ND 4.00 4.00 4.00 

Arsenic 0.86 0.40 9.0 8.4 7.1 8.14 7.54 6.24 

Berylium ND 0.10 ND ND ND 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Cadmium ND 0.10 9.50 13.30 9.10 9.50 13.30 9.10 

Chromium 1.04 0.30 3.90 8.0 ND 3.00 6.96 3.00 

Cobalt ND 0.10 1.50 1.30 1.60 1.50 1.30 1.60 

Lead 0.41 0.20 16 12.4 13.3 15.59 11.99 12.89 

Manganese 1.19 0.75 117 107.0 87 115.8 105.8 85.6 

Nickel 0.50 0.50 8.1 8.4 ND 7.60 7.90 5.00 

Selenium 3.50 1.0 755.0 596.0 482 751.5 592.5 479 

Corrected

Method 29 Lab Results

Sampling Date: October 20 & 21, 2010

BTEC job # 10-3990.15

Wabash Indiana, Cupola #4 

Thermafiber, Inc.
Corrected

Total Volume 

(ml)

Impinger 

KOH (ml)

Hexavalent 

Chromium, 

Cr6+ [μg]

Hexavalent 

Chromium, 

Cr6+ [μg]

Run 1 760 300 ND 0.40Run 2 800 300 ND 0.40

Run 3 850 300 ND 0.40

Blank H2O 440 ND

Blank KOH 300 0.80

RDL 1 0.40

Method 0061 Lab Results

Sampling Date: October 20 and 21, 2010

BTEC job # 10-3990.15

Wabash Indiana, Cupola #4 

Thermafiber, Inc.
Volume (mL)

Hydrochloric 

Acid (μg)

Hydrofluoric 

Acid (μg)

Hydrochloric 

Acid (μg)

Hyd

A

Run 1 330 30000 14000 30000 Run 2 390 37000 21000 37000 Run 3 360 32000 26000 32000 

Blank H20 160 ND ND

Blank H2SO4 340 ND ND

RDL 1 200 200

Corrected

Method 26A Lab Results

Thermafiber, Inc.

Wabash Indiana, Cupola #4 

BTEC job # 10-3990.15

Sampling Date: October 19 and 20, 2010
Your Project #: 10-3990.15 

 Site: THERMAFIBER

Your C.O.C. #: N/A

Attention: Barry Boulianne

BT Environmental Consulting

2615 Wolcott St.

Ferndale, MI

USA 48220

Report Date: 2010/11/11

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

MAXXAM JOB #: B0F3773

Received: 2010/10/28, 12:00

Sample Matrix: Stack Sampling Train

# Samples Received: 10

Date Date Method

Analyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method Reference

Hexavalent Chromium (M0061) 5 2010/10/29 2010/11/03 BRL SOP-00106 EPA 7199 (M0061) 

Hydrogen Halides in H2SO4 Imp. (1 ) 5 2010/11/09 2010/11/09 BRL SOP-00108 EPA Method 26A 

Volume of Sulfuric Acid Impinger 5 N/A 2010/11/09 

Final Volume of KOH Impinger 5 N/A 2010/10/29 

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

(1) This test was performed in Maxxam Mississauga under Maxxam Burlington SCC Accreditation

Encryption Key

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

LINA BARRETO, Project Manager

Email: LBarreto@maxxam.ca

Phone# (905) 817-5700

====================================================================

Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section

5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Total cover pages: 1

Page 1 of 6
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0F3773 Client Project #: 10-3990.15

Report Date: 2010/11/11 Project name: THERMAFIBER

RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF STACK SAMPLING TRAIN

Maxxam ID H Q 9 8 9 7 H Q 9 8 9 8 H Q 9 8 9 9 H Q 9 8 9 9

Sampling Date 2010/10/20 2010/10/20 2010/10/19 2010/10/19

COC Number N/A N/A N/A N/A

 U n i t s BLANK-H2O-M26A BLANK-H2SO4-M26A RDL RUN RUN RDL QC Batch

1-M26A-H2SO4 1-M26A-H2SO4

Lab-Dup

Volume ml 160 340 1 330 1 2324479

Hydrochloric Acid ug ND ND 200 30000 30000 400 2324503

Hydrofluoric Acid ug ND ND 200 14000 14000 200 2324503

ND = Not detected

N/A = Not Applicable

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Maxxam ID H Q 9 9 0 0 H Q 9 9 0 1 H Q 9 9 0 2 H Q 9 9 0 3

Sampling Date 2010/10/20 2010/10/20 2010/10/21 2010/10/21

COC Number N/A N/A

 U n i t s RUN RUN QC Batch BLANK-H2O-M0061 BLANK-KOH-M0061 RDL QC Batch

2-M26A-H2SO4 3-M26A-H2SO4

Volume ml 390 360 2324479 440 300 1 2314624

Hexavalent Chromium (Cr 6+) ug ND 0.8 0.2 2314621

Hydrochloric Acid ug 37000 32000 2324503 200

Hydrofluoric Acid ug 21000 26000 2324503 200

ND = Not detected

N/A = Not Applicable

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Maxxam ID H Q 9 9 0 4 H Q 9 9 0 4 H Q 9 9 0 5 H Q 9 9 0 6

Sampling Date 2010/10/20 2010/10/20 2010/10/21 2010/10/21

COC Number

 U n i t s RUN RUN RUN RUN RDL QC Batch

1-M0061 1-M0061 2-M0061 3-M0061

Lab-Dup

Volume ml 760 800 850 1 2314624

Hexavalent Chromium (Cr 6+) ug ND ND ND ND 0.4 2314621

ND = Not detected

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 2 of 6
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0F3773 Client Project #: 10-3990.15

Report Date: 2010/11/11 Project name: THERMAFIBER

Test Summary

Maxxam ID HQ9897 Collected 2010/10/20

Sample ID BLANK-H2O-M26A Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hydrogen Halides in H2SO4 Imp. IC/SPEC 2324503 2010/11/09 2010/11/09 A_S

Volume of Sulfuric Acid Impinger 2324479 N/A 2010/11/09 A_S

Maxxam ID HQ9898 Collected 2010/10/20

Sample ID BLANK-H2SO4-M26A Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hydrogen Halides in H2SO4 Imp. IC/SPEC 2324503 2010/11/09 2010/11/09 A_S

Volume of Sulfuric Acid Impinger 2324479 N/A 2010/11/09 A_S

Maxxam ID HQ9899 Collected 2010/10/19

Sample ID RUN 1-M26A-H2SO4 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hydrogen Halides in H2SO4 Imp. IC/SPEC 2324503 2010/11/09 2010/11/09 A_S

Volume of Sulfuric Acid Impinger 2324479 N/A 2010/11/09 A_S

Maxxam ID HQ9899 D u p Collected 2010/10/19

Sample ID RUN 1-M26A-H2SO4 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hydrogen Halides in H2SO4 Imp. IC/SPEC 2324503 2010/11/09 2010/11/09 A_S

Maxxam ID HQ9900 Collected 2010/10/20

Sample ID RUN 2-M26A-H2SO4 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hydrogen Halides in H2SO4 Imp. IC/SPEC 2324503 2010/11/09 2010/11/09 A_S

Volume of Sulfuric Acid Impinger 2324479 N/A 2010/11/09 A_S

Maxxam ID HQ9901 Collected 2010/10/20

Sample ID RUN 3-M26A-H2SO4 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hydrogen Halides in H2SO4 Imp. IC/SPEC 2324503 2010/11/09 2010/11/09 A_S

Volume of Sulfuric Acid Impinger 2324479 N/A 2010/11/09 A_S

Page 3 of 6
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0F3773 Client Project #: 10-3990.15

Report Date: 2010/11/11 Project name: THERMAFIBER

Test Summary

Maxxam ID HQ9902 Collected 2010/10/21

Sample ID BLANK-H2O-M0061 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hexavalent Chromium (M0061) IC/SPEC 2314621 2010/10/29 2010/11/03 LLE

Final Volume of KOH Impinger 2314624 N/A 2010/10/29 FMO

Maxxam ID HQ9903 Collected 2010/10/21

Sample ID BLANK-KOH-M0061 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hexavalent Chromium (M0061) IC/SPEC 2314621 2010/10/29 2010/11/03 LLE

Final Volume of KOH Impinger 2314624 N/A 2010/10/29 FMO

Maxxam ID HQ9904 Collected 2010/10/20

Sample ID RUN 1-M0061 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hexavalent Chromium (M0061) IC/SPEC 2314621 2010/10/29 2010/11/03 LLE

Final Volume of KOH Impinger 2314624 N/A 2010/10/29 FMO

Maxxam ID HQ9904 D u p Collected 2010/10/20

Sample ID RUN 1-M0061 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hexavalent Chromium (M0061) IC/SPEC 2314621 2010/10/29 2010/11/03 LLE

Maxxam ID HQ9905 Collected 2010/10/21

Sample ID RUN 2-M0061 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hexavalent Chromium (M0061) IC/SPEC 2314621 2010/10/29 2010/11/03 LLE

Final Volume of KOH Impinger 2314624 N/A 2010/10/29 FMO

Maxxam ID HQ9906 Collected 2010/10/21

Sample ID RUN 3-M0061 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Hexavalent Chromium (M0061) IC/SPEC 2314621 2010/10/29 2010/11/03 LLE

Final Volume of KOH Impinger 2314624 N/A 2010/10/29 FMO

Page 4 of 6
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0F3773 Client Project #: 10-3990.15

Report Date: 2010/11/11 Project name: THERMAFIBER

GENERAL COMMENTS

Results relate only to the items tested.

Page 5 of 6
BT Environmental Consulting

Attention: Barry Boulianne 

Client Project #: 10-3990.15

P.O. #:

Project name: THERMAFIBER

Quality Assurance Report

Maxxam Job Number: GB0F3773

QA/QC Date

Batch Analyzed

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

2314621 LLE Matrix Spike

(HQ9904) Hexavalent Chromium (Cr 6+) 2010/11/03 94 % 80 - 120

Spiked Blank Hexavalent Chromium (Cr 6+) 2010/11/03 101 % 90 - 110

Method Blank Hexavalent Chromium (Cr 6+) 2010/11/03 ND, RDL=0.2 ug

RPD -

Sample/Sample

Dup Hexavalent Chromium (Cr 6+) 2010/11/03 NC % 20

2324503 A_S Matrix Spike

(HQ9899) Hydrochloric Acid 2010/11/09 101 % 80 - 120

Hydrofluoric Acid 2010/11/09 105 % 80 - 120

Spiked Blank Hydrochloric Acid 2010/11/09 101 % 90 - 110

Hydrofluoric Acid 2010/11/09 102 % 90 - 110

Method Blank Hydrochloric Acid 2010/11/09 ND, RDL=200 ug

Hydrofluoric Acid 2010/11/09 ND, RDL=200 ug

RPD -

Sample/Sample

Dup Hydrochloric Acid 2010/11/09 0.08 % 20

Hydrofluoric Acid 2010/11/09 1.2 % 20

Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference.

Spiked Blank: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery.

Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.

NC (RPD): The RPD was not calculated. The level of analyte detected in the parent sample and its duplicate was not sufficiently significant to permit a

reliable calculation.

Page 6 of 6
Your Project #: 10-3990.15 

 Site: THERMAFIBER

Your C.O.C. #: 0698

Attention: James K. Sharp

BT Environmental Consulting

2615 Wolcott St.

Ferndale, MI

USA 48220

Report Date: 2010/11/08

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

MAXXAM JOB #: B0F3790

Received: 2010/10/28, 12:00

Sample Matrix: Stack Sampling Train

# Samples Received: 8

Date Date Method

Analyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method Reference

Organic Condensable PM (OTM28) (1 ) 4 2010/11/03 2010/11/03 BRL SOP-00120 EPA OTM 28 

Inorganic Condensable PM (OTM28) (1 ) 4 2010/11/04 2010/11/04 BRL SOP-00120 EPA OTM 28 

2.5 um Particulates on Filter (OTM-027) (2 ) 4 N/A 2010/11/02 BRL SOP-00109 EPA OTM - 027 

<2.5um Particulates in Rinse(OTM-027) (2 ) 4 2010/10/29 2010/11/04 BRL SOP-00109 EPA OTM - 027 

Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 4 N/A 2010/11/03 

Weight of DCM Received 4 N/A 2010/11/03 

Weight of Water from Impingers 4 N/A 2010/11/03 

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

(1) This is a non-accredited test.

(2) This test was performed in Maxxam Mississauga under Maxxam Burlington SCC Accreditation

Encryption Key

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

LINA BARRETO, Project Manager

Email: LBarreto@maxxam.ca

Phone# (905) 817-5700

====================================================================

Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section

5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Total cover pages: 1

Page 1 of 6
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0F3790 Client Project #: 10-3990.15

Report Date: 2010/11/08 Project name: THERMAFIBER

RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF STACK SAMPLING TRAIN

Maxxam ID H Q 9 9 8 0 H Q 9 9 8 1 H Q 9 9 8 2 H Q 9 9 8 3 H Q 9 9 9 6

Sampling Date 2010/10/19 2010/10/19 2010/10/19 2010/10/20 2010/10/19

COC Number 0698 0698 0698 0698

 U n i t s TRAIN R1-OTM28 R2-OTM28 R3-OTM28 TRAIN RDL QC Batch

BLANK-OTM28 BLANK-OTM27

< 2.5 Particulate Weight in Acetone Rinse mg ND 0.5 2314080

< 2.5 Particulate Weight on Filter mg ND 0.30 2315878

Acetone Rinse Volume (2.5) ml 62 1 2314077

Weight g 240 300 290 240 0.1 2316581

DCM Weight g 130 150 220 160 0.1 2316579

Inorganic Condensible PM mg 1.2 30 13 24 0.50 2319573

Organic Condensible PM mg 2.1 3.0 1.5 1.3 1.0 2316574

ND = Not detected

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Maxxam ID H Q 9 9 9 7 H Q 9 9 9 8 H Q 9 9 9 9

Sampling Date 2010/10/19 2010/10/19 2010/10/20

COC Number

 U n i t s R1-OTM27 R2-OTM27 R3-OTM27 RDL QC Batch

< 2.5 Particulate Weight in Acetone Rinse mg 1.5 1.9 2.0 0.5 2314080

< 2.5 Particulate Weight on Filter mg 11.3 9.60 14.3 0.30 2315878

Acetone Rinse Volume (2.5) ml 32 39 53 1 2314077

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 2 of 6
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0F3790 Client Project #: 10-3990.15

Report Date: 2010/11/08 Project name: THERMAFIBER

Test Summary

Maxxam ID HQ9980 Collected 2010/10/19

Sample ID TRAIN BLANK-OTM28 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Organic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2316574 2010/11/03 2010/11/03 MGE

Inorganic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2319573 2010/11/04 2010/11/04 FMO

Weight of DCM Received 2316579 N/A 2010/11/03 

Weight of Water from Impingers 2316581 N/A 2010/11/03 FMO

Maxxam ID HQ9981 Collected 2010/10/19

Sample ID R1-OTM28 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Organic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2316574 2010/11/03 2010/11/03 MGE

Inorganic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2319573 2010/11/04 2010/11/04 FMO

Weight of DCM Received 2316579 N/A 2010/11/03 

Weight of Water from Impingers 2316581 N/A 2010/11/03 FMO

Maxxam ID HQ9982 Collected 2010/10/19

Sample ID R2-OTM28 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Organic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2316574 2010/11/03 2010/11/03 MGE

Inorganic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2319573 2010/11/04 2010/11/04 FMO

Weight of DCM Received 2316579 N/A 2010/11/03 

Weight of Water from Impingers 2316581 N/A 2010/11/03 FMO

Maxxam ID HQ9983 Collected 2010/10/20

Sample ID R3-OTM28 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Organic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2316574 2010/11/03 2010/11/03 MGE

Inorganic Condensable PM (OTM28) 2319573 2010/11/04 2010/11/04 FMO

Weight of DCM Received 2316579 N/A 2010/11/03 

Weight of Water from Impingers 2316581 N/A 2010/11/03 FMO

Maxxam ID HQ9996 Collected 2010/10/19

Sample ID TRAIN BLANK-OTM27 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

2.5 um Particulates on Filter (OTM-027) BAL 2315878 N/A 2010/11/02 BLM

<2.5um Particulates in Rinse(OTM-027) BAL 2314080 2010/10/29 2010/11/04 NUA

Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2314077 N/A 2010/11/03 NUA

Page 3 of 6
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0F3790 Client Project #: 10-3990.15

Report Date: 2010/11/08 Project name: THERMAFIBER

Test Summary

Maxxam ID HQ9997 Collected 2010/10/19

Sample ID R1-OTM27 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

2.5 um Particulates on Filter (OTM-027) BAL 2315878 N/A 2010/11/02 BLM

<2.5um Particulates in Rinse(OTM-027) BAL 2314080 2010/10/29 2010/11/04 NUA

Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2314077 N/A 2010/11/03 NUA

Maxxam ID HQ9998 Collected 2010/10/19

Sample ID R2-OTM27 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

2.5 um Particulates on Filter (OTM-027) BAL 2315878 N/A 2010/11/02 BLM

<2.5um Particulates in Rinse(OTM-027) BAL 2314080 2010/10/29 2010/11/04 NUA

Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2314077 N/A 2010/11/03 NUA

Maxxam ID HQ9999 Collected 2010/10/20

Sample ID R3-OTM27 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

2.5 um Particulates on Filter (OTM-027) BAL 2315878 N/A 2010/11/02 BLM

<2.5um Particulates in Rinse(OTM-027) BAL 2314080 2010/10/29 2010/11/04 NUA

Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2314077 N/A 2010/11/03 NUA

Page 4 of 6
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0F3790 Client Project #: 10-3990.15

Report Date: 2010/11/08 Project name: THERMAFIBER

GENERAL COMMENTS

Sample HQ9981-01: ORGANIC EXTRACTION : Yellowish oily material found in vial.

INORGANIC EXTRACTION : Whitish residue found in aluminum dish.

Sample HQ9982-01: ORGANIC EXTRACTION : Pinkish oily material found in vial.

INORGANIC EXTRACTION : Whitish residue found in aluminum dish.

Sample HQ9983-01: ORGANIC EXTRACTION : Yellowish oily material found in vial.

INORGANIC EXTRACTION : Pinkish residue found in aluminum dish.

RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF STACK SAMPLING TRAIN

2.5 um Particulates on Filter (OTM-027): Maxxam # Filter Condition

HQ9994-01RNormal

HQ9996-01RNormal

HQ9997-01RFT

HQ9998-01RNormal

HQ9999-01RNormal

Normal Filters received in normal condition

FT Filter torn

Results relate only to the items tested.

Page 5 of 6
BT Environmental Consulting

Attention: James K. Sharp 

Client Project #: 10-3990.15

P.O. #:

Project name: THERMAFIBER

Quality Assurance Report

Maxxam Job Number: GB0F3790

QA/QC Date

Batch Analyzed

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

2314080 NUA Method Blank < 2.5 Particulate Weight in Acetone Rinse 2010/11/04 ND, RDL=0.5 mg

2316574 MGE Spiked Blank Organic Condensible PM 2010/11/03 95 % 70 - 130

Spiked Blank DUP Organic Condensible PM 2010/11/03 93 % 70 - 130

RPD Organic Condensible PM 2010/11/03 2.3 % 20

Method Blank Organic Condensible PM 2010/11/03 ND, RDL=1.0 mg

2319573 MGE Method Blank Inorganic Condensible PM 2010/11/04 ND, RDL=0.50 mg

Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement.

Spiked Blank: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery.

Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.

Page 6 of 6
Your Project #: 10-3990.15 

 Site: THERMAFIBER

Attention: Barry Boulianne

BT Environmental Consulting

2615 Wolcott St.

Ferndale, MI

USA 48220

Report Date: 2010/11/09

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

MAXXAM JOB #: B0F3754

Received: 2010/10/28, 12:00

Sample Matrix: Stack Sampling Train

# Samples Received: 4

Date Date Method

Analyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method Reference

Metals in Combined Train (6020) (1 ) 4 2010/11/05 2010/11/08 BRL SOP-00103/ BRL EPA 6020 / M29 

SOP-00102

Particulates/Acetone Rinse (M5/315/M201) (1 ) 4 2010/10/29 2010/11/04 BRL SOP-00109 EPA 5/315 

Particulates/Filter (M5/315/NJATM1/M201) (1 ) 4 N/A 2010/11/04 BRL SOP-00109 EPA 5/315/NJATM1 

Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 4 N/A 2010/11/02 

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

(1) This test was performed in Maxxam Mississauga under Maxxam Burlington SCC Accreditation

Encryption Key

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

LINA BARRETO, Project Manager

Email: LBarreto@maxxam.ca

Phone# (905) 817-5700

====================================================================

Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section

5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Total cover pages: 1

Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Burlington:5555 North Service Road, Burlington, Ontario L7L 5H7 Telephone(905) 332-8788 Fax(905) 332-9169

Page 1 of 8
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0F3754 Client Project #: 10-3990.15

Report Date: 2010/11/09 Project name: THERMAFIBER

RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF STACK SAMPLING TRAIN

Maxxam ID H Q 9 7 8 8 H Q 9 7 8 9 H Q 9 7 9 0 H Q 9 7 9 1

Sampling Date 2010/10/21 2010/10/20 2010/10/21 2010/10/21

 U n i t s BLANK-M5/29 RUN RUN RUN RDL QC Batch

1-M5/29 2-M5/29 3-M5/29

Acetone Rinse Particulate Weight in Acetone Rinse mg ND 5.9 7.8 4.7 0.5 2313901

Front Half Particulate Weight on Filter mg ND 26.7 24.8 20.0 0.30 2315865

Acetone Rinse Volume ml 130 120 130 120 1 2314070

ND = Not detected

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 2 of 8
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0F3754 Client Project #: 10-3990.15

Report Date: 2010/11/09 Project name: THERMAFIBER

ELEMENTS BY ICP/MS (STACK SAMPLING TRAIN)

Maxxam ID H Q 9 7 8 8 H Q 9 7 8 9 H Q 9 7 8 9 H Q 9 7 9 0 H Q 9 7 9 1

Sampling Date 2010/10/21 2010/10/20 2010/10/20 2010/10/21 2010/10/21

 U n i t s BLANK-M5/29 RDL RUN RUN RUN RUN RDL QC Batch

1-M5/29 1-M5/29 2-M5/29 3-M5/29

Lab-Dup

Total Antimony (Sb) ug ND 0.40 ND ND ND ND 4.0 2321118

Total Arsenic (As) ug 0.86 0.40 9.0 9.2 8.4 7.1 4.0 2321118

Total Beryllium (Be) ug ND 0.10 ND ND ND ND 1.0 2321118

Total Cadmium (Cd) ug ND 0.10 9.5 9.6 13.3 9.1 1.0 2321118

Total Chromium (Cr) ug 1.04 0.30 3.9 3.6 8.0 ND 3.0 2321118

Total Cobalt (Co) ug ND 0.10 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.0 2321118

Total Lead (Pb) ug 0.41 0.20 16.0 15.5 12.4 13.3 2.0 2321118

Total Manganese (Mn) ug 1.19 0.75 117 115 107 86.8 7.5 2321118

Total Nickel (Ni) ug 0.50 0.50 8.1 8.1 8.4 ND 5.0 2321118

Total Selenium (Se) ug 3.5 1.0 755 738 596 482 10 2321118

ND = Not detected

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 3 of 8
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0F3754 Client Project #: 10-3990.15

Report Date: 2010/11/09 Project name: THERMAFIBER

Test Summary

Maxxam ID HQ9788 Collected 2010/10/21

Sample ID BLANK-M5/29 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Metals in Combined Train (6020) ICP1/MS 2321118 2010/11/05 2010/11/08 N_R

Particulates/Acetone Rinse (M5/315/M201) BAL 2313901 2010/10/29 2010/11/04 NUA

Particulates/Filter (M5/315/NJATM1/M201) BAL 2315865 N/A 2010/11/04 BLM

Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2314070 N/A 2010/11/02 NUA

Maxxam ID HQ9789 Collected 2010/10/20

Sample ID RUN 1-M5/29 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Metals in Combined Train (6020) ICP1/MS 2321118 2010/11/05 2010/11/08 N_R

Particulates/Acetone Rinse (M5/315/M201) BAL 2313901 2010/10/29 2010/11/04 NUA

Particulates/Filter (M5/315/NJATM1/M201) BAL 2315865 N/A 2010/11/04 BLM

Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2314070 N/A 2010/11/02 NUA

Maxxam ID HQ9789 D u p Collected 2010/10/20

Sample ID RUN 1-M5/29 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Metals in Combined Train (6020) ICP1/MS 2321118 2010/11/05 2010/11/08 N_R

Maxxam ID HQ9790 Collected 2010/10/21

Sample ID RUN 2-M5/29 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Metals in Combined Train (6020) ICP1/MS 2321118 2010/11/05 2010/11/08 N_R

Particulates/Acetone Rinse (M5/315/M201) BAL 2313901 2010/10/29 2010/11/04 NUA

Particulates/Filter (M5/315/NJATM1/M201) BAL 2315865 N/A 2010/11/04 BLM

Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2314070 N/A 2010/11/02 NUA

Maxxam ID HQ9791 Collected 2010/10/21

Sample ID RUN 3-M5/29 Shipped

Matrix Stack Sampling Train Received 2010/10/28

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst

Metals in Combined Train (6020) ICP1/MS 2321118 2010/11/05 2010/11/08 N_R

Particulates/Acetone Rinse (M5/315/M201) BAL 2313901 2010/10/29 2010/11/04 NUA

Particulates/Filter (M5/315/NJATM1/M201) BAL 2315865 N/A 2010/11/04 BLM

Final Volume of Acetone Probe Rinse 2314070 N/A 2010/11/02 NUA

Page 4 of 8
BT Environmental Consulting

Maxxam Job #: B0F3754 Client Project #: 10-3990.15

Report Date: 2010/11/09 Project name: THERMAFIBER

RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF STACK SAMPLING TRAIN

Particulates/Acetone Rinse (M5/315/M201): Sample #HQ9791 contained 5ml of water. The sample was was evaporated in the oven at 85C.

ELEMENTS BY ICP/MS (STACK SAMPLING TRAIN)

Metals in Combined Train (6020): Extra 10x dilution was required for all samples except HQ9788, due to the matrix (high S content)

Post digestion duplicate and spike was done on sample HQ9789.

Trace level Ni and As were observed in the Processed Blank.

Results relate only to the items tested.

Page 5 of 8
BT Environmental Consulting

Attention: Barry Boulianne 

Client Project #: 10-3990.15

P.O. #:

Project name: THERMAFIBER

Quality Assurance Report

Maxxam Job Number: GB0F3754

QA/QC Date

Batch Analyzed

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

2313901 NUA Method Blank Acetone Rinse Particulate Weight in Acetone 2010/11/04 ND, RDL=0.5 mg

2321118 N_R Matrix Spike

(HQ9789) Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/11/08 96 % 70 - 130

Matrix Spike DUP

(HQ9789) Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/11/08 98 % 70 - 130

MS/MSD RPD Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/11/08 2.1 % 20

Matrix Spike

(HQ9789) Total Arsenic (As) 2010/11/08 97 % 70 - 130

Matrix Spike DUP

(HQ9789) Total Arsenic (As) 2010/11/08 97 % 70 - 130

MS/MSD RPD Total Arsenic (As) 2010/11/08 0 % 20

Matrix Spike

(HQ9789) Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/11/08 91 % 70 - 130

Matrix Spike DUP

(HQ9789) Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/11/08 90 % 70 - 130

MS/MSD RPD Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/11/08 1.1 % 20

Matrix Spike

(HQ9789) Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/11/08 97 % 70 - 130

Matrix Spike DUP

(HQ9789) Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/11/08 96 % 70 - 130

MS/MSD RPD Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/11/08 1.0 % 20

Matrix Spike

(HQ9789) Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/11/08 99 % 70 - 130

Matrix Spike DUP

(HQ9789) Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/11/08 97 % 70 - 130

MS/MSD RPD Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/11/08 2.0 % 20

Matrix Spike

(HQ9789) Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/11/08 99 % 70 - 130

Matrix Spike DUP

(HQ9789) Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/11/08 97 % 70 - 130

MS/MSD RPD Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/11/08 2.0 % 20

Matrix Spike

(HQ9789) Total Lead (Pb) 2010/11/08 97 % 70 - 130

Matrix Spike DUP

(HQ9789) Total Lead (Pb) 2010/11/08 98 % 70 - 130

MS/MSD RPD Total Lead (Pb) 2010/11/08 1.0 % 20

Matrix Spike

(HQ9789) Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/11/08 98 % 70 - 130

Matrix Spike DUP

(HQ9789) Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/11/08 97 % 70 - 130

MS/MSD RPD Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/11/08 1.0 % 20

Matrix Spike

(HQ9789) Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/11/08 97 % 70 - 130

Matrix Spike DUP

(HQ9789) Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/11/08 96 % 70 - 130

MS/MSD RPD Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/11/08 1.0 % 20

Matrix Spike

(HQ9789) Total Selenium (Se) 2010/11/08 103 % 70 - 130

Matrix Spike DUP

(HQ9789) Total Selenium (Se) 2010/11/08 99 % 70 - 130

MS/MSD RPD Total Selenium (Se) 2010/11/08 4.0 % 20

Spiked Blank Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/11/08 96 % 85 - 115

Spiked Blank DUP Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/11/08 94 % 85 - 115

RPD Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/11/08 1.8 % 20

Spiked Blank Total Arsenic (As) 2010/11/08 98 % 85 - 115

Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Burlington:5555 North Service Road, Burlington, Ontario L7L 5H7 Telephone(905) 332-8788 Fax(905) 332-9169

Page 6 of 8
BT Environmental Consulting

Attention: Barry Boulianne 

Client Project #: 10-3990.15

P.O. #:

Project name: THERMAFIBER

Quality Assurance Report (Continued)

Maxxam Job Number: GB0F3754

QA/QC Date

Batch Analyzed

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

2321118 N_R Spiked Blank DUP Total Arsenic (As) 2010/11/08 95 % 85 - 115

RPD Total Arsenic (As) 2010/11/08 3.4 % 20

Spiked Blank Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/11/08 94 % 85 - 115

Spiked Blank DUP Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/11/08 95 % 85 - 115

RPD Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/11/08 0.5 % 20

Spiked Blank Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/11/08 94 % 85 - 115

Spiked Blank DUP Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/11/08 94 % 85 - 115

RPD Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/11/08 0.3 % 20

Spiked Blank Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/11/08 97 % 85 - 115

Spiked Blank DUP Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/11/08 94 % 85 - 115

RPD Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/11/08 3.0 % 20

Spiked Blank Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/11/08 98 % 85 - 115

Spiked Blank DUP Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/11/08 96 % 85 - 115

RPD Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/11/08 2.5 % 20

Spiked Blank Total Lead (Pb) 2010/11/08 96 % 85 - 115

Spiked Blank DUP Total Lead (Pb) 2010/11/08 93 % 85 - 115

RPD Total Lead (Pb) 2010/11/08 3.3 % 20

Spiked Blank Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/11/08 97 % 85 - 115

Spiked Blank DUP Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/11/08 94 % 85 - 115

RPD Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/11/08 2.9 % 20

Spiked Blank Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/11/08 97 % 85 - 115

Spiked Blank DUP Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/11/08 94 % 85 - 115

RPD Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/11/08 3.2 % 20

Spiked Blank Total Selenium (Se) 2010/11/08 98 % 85 - 115

Spiked Blank DUP Total Selenium (Se) 2010/11/08 96 % 85 - 115

RPD Total Selenium (Se) 2010/11/08 2.3 % 20

Method Blank Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=0.40 ug

Method Blank DUP Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=0.40 ug

RPD Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Method Blank Total Arsenic (As) 2010/11/08 1.02, RDL=0.40 ug

Method Blank DUP Total Arsenic (As) 2010/11/08 1.00, RDL=0.40 ug

RPD Total Arsenic (As) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Method Blank Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=0.10 ug

Method Blank DUP Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=0.10 ug

RPD Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Method Blank Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=0.10 ug

Method Blank DUP Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=0.10 ug

RPD Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Method Blank Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=0.30 ug

Method Blank DUP Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=0.30 ug

RPD Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Method Blank Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=0.10 ug

Method Blank DUP Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=0.10 ug

RPD Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Method Blank Total Lead (Pb) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=0.20 ug

Method Blank DUP Total Lead (Pb) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=0.20 ug

RPD Total Lead (Pb) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Method Blank Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=0.75 ug

Method Blank DUP Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=0.75 ug

RPD Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Method Blank Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/11/08 1.63, RDL=0.50 ug

Method Blank DUP Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/11/08 1.58, RDL=0.50 ug

RPD Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Method Blank Total Selenium (Se) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=1.0 ug

Method Blank DUP Total Selenium (Se) 2010/11/08 ND, RDL=1.0 ug

Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Burlington:5555 North Service Road, Burlington, Ontario L7L 5H7 Telephone(905) 332-8788 Fax(905) 332-9169

Page 7 of 8
BT Environmental Consulting

Attention: Barry Boulianne 

Client Project #: 10-3990.15

P.O. #:

Project name: THERMAFIBER

Quality Assurance Report (Continued)

Maxxam Job Number: GB0F3754

QA/QC Date

Batch Analyzed

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

2321118 N_R RPD Total Selenium (Se) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

RPD -

Sample/Sample

Dup Total Antimony (Sb) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Total Arsenic (As) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Total Beryllium (Be) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Total Cadmium (Cd) 2010/11/08 1.3 % 20

Total Chromium (Cr) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Total Cobalt (Co) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Total Lead (Pb) 2010/11/08 3.4 % 20

Total Manganese (Mn) 2010/11/08 1.2 % 20

Total Nickel (Ni) 2010/11/08 NC % 20

Total Selenium (Se) 2010/11/08 2.2 % 20

Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement.

Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference.

Spiked Blank: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery.

Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.

NC (RPD): The RPD was not calculated. The level of analyte detected in the parent sample and its duplicate was not sufficiently significant to permit a

reliable calculation.

Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Burlington:5555 North Service Road, Burlington, Ontario L7L 5H7 Telephone(905) 332-8788 Fax(905) 332-9169

Page 8 of 8
Ohio Lumex Co., Inc.

9263 Ravenna Rd., Unit A-3

Twinsburg, OH 44087

Phone: (330) 405-0837

Fax: (330) 405-0847

www.ohiolumex.com

Other

Client Name BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. Report Number BTEnvironmental110310 Report

Date

Contact Name Phone

Trap I.D. Test Location Date Analyzed Scientist

 Mass ng 

Sect.1

 Mass ng 

Sect.2

Spike 

Level 

% Spike 

Recovery

Date(s) in 

Stack Comments

70650 Cupola #4 11/3/2010 Matt Carhart 3.95 0 10/19/2010 Run 3, Trap A

80463 Cupola #4 11/3/2010 Matt Carhart 23.8 0.94 20 10/19/2010 Run 3, Trap B

70658 Cupola #4 11/3/2010 Matt Carhart 4.70 0.95 10/19/2010 Run 2, Trap A

80376 Cupola #4 11/3/2010 Matt Carhart 22.9 0.45 20 10/19/2010 Run 2, Trap B

70537 Cupola #4 11/3/2010 Matt Carhart 4.83 0.44 10/19/2010 Run 1, Trap A

80378 Cupola #4 11/3/2010 Matt Carhart 22.1 0 20 10/19/2010 Run 1, Trap B

80305 Cupola #4 11/3/2010 Matt Carhart 0.59 0 10/19/2010 Train Blank, Trap A

80460 Cupola #4 11/3/2010 Matt Carhart 19.7 0.28 20 10/19/2010 Train Blank, Trap B

Variability +- 10%

Plant/Source Thermafiber 

Sorbent Trap Analysis Report

11/3/2010

Barry Boulianne bboulianne@sbcglobal.net Matthew 

Smith msmith@btecinc.com

Turn - Around Time

Standard

48 hour rush

Less than .257 ng is considered "< LDL." Which is less 

than the lowest detection limit.

Calibration Report Available

(248)-548-8072 
1200 N. Fancher · Mount Pleasant, MI 48858 · (989) 772-5088 · Fax (989) 772-5870 

Thermafiber 

Wabash, Indiana 

FTIR Emission Testing 

October 19, 2010 

Project No. 1681

Prepared For 

BT Environmental Consulting, Inc.

By 

Phillip J. Kauppi 

Chemist / FTIR Specialist 

November 17, 2010 
 

Thermafiber 

Wabash, Indiana – FTIR Emission Testing 

October 19, 2010 

Project No. 1681 

Scope 

Prism Analytical Technologies, Inc. (PATI) was contracted by BT Environmental 

Consulting (Ferndale, MI) to conduct air testing for Thermafiber (Wabash, IN). Cupola 

#4 emissions were tested for gaseous carbonyl sulfide (COS) and carbon monoxide (CO). 

Testing was performed October 19, 2010. 

Extractive Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometry following EPA Method 320 

was used to quantify gaseous emissions from Cupola #4. Lora Kralik (PATI) performed 

data collection. Phillip Kauppi (PATI) performed data validation, and report generation. 

 

Procedures 

FTIR data were collected using an MKS MultiGas 2030 FTIR spectrometer, serial 

number 016252291. An 18”, 1⁄4” diameter, stainless steel probe was used to direct 

effluent gas from the stack to the FTIR. The probe was connected to a 100 ft., heated, 3/8 

inch transfer line, maintained at 191°C. A heated filter box (191°C) made the connection 

from the heated transfer line to the FTIR. A 0.1μ glass filter was used for particulate 

matter removal. 

The FTIR was equipped with a temperature-controlled, 5.11 meter multipass gas cell 

maintained at 191°C. Gas flows and sampling system pressures were monitored using a 

rotometer and pressure transducer. All data were collected at 0.5 cm-1 resolution. Each 

spectrum was derived from the coaddition of 60 scans, with a new data point generated 

every minute. 

A calibration transfer standard (CTS), 100.0 ppm ethylene gas standard (Airgas, cylinder 

#CC156258), was analyzed before and after the three test runs. The concentration 

determined for all CTS runs were within ± 5% of the certified value of the standard. The 

ethylene was passed through the entire system (system purge) to determine the sampling 

system response time and to ensure that the sampling system was leak-free at the stack 

location. Nitrogen was purged through the sampling system to confirm the system was 

free of contaminants. See the FTIR QA/QC appendix for results. 

Direct measurements of carbon monoxide (The American Gas Group, cylinder 

#CC56451) and ethylene gas standards were made to confirm standard concentrations. 
prism analytical technologies, inc. 

Thermafiber, Wabash, IN – FTIR Emission Monitoring, October 19, 2010 

Project No. 1681 

 page 2 

The carbon monoxide standard was passed through the sampling system to determine the 

response time and confirm recovery. See the FTIR QA/QC Appendix for results. 

Carbon monoxide spiking was performed in ambient air to verify the ability of the 

sampling system to quantitatively deliver a sample containing carbon monoxide from the 

base of the probe to the FTIR. The native carbon monoxide concentrations from Cupola 

#4 changed widely over short periods of time, thus making it making difficult, if not 

impossible, to perform carbon monoxide spiking at the cupola using one FTIR. For these 

reasons, carbon monoxide spiking was performed in ambient air. 

Samples from ambient air were measured to determine carbon monoxide concentrations 

to be used in the spike recovery calculations. The water (H2O) concentrations of the 

spiked and unspiked samples were used to determine the dilution factor and thus 

determine the spiked concentration and expected result. See the Spike Calculation below. 

ܨܦ ൌ 1 െ ௑ሺ௦௣௞ሻ

௑ሺ௡௔௧௜௩௘ሻ (Where X = H2O)

ܥܵ ൌ ܨܦ כ ܵ݌݅݇݁ሺ݀݅ݎሻ ൅ ܷ݊݌ݏ݅݇݁ሺ1 െ ܨܦሻ (Sec. 9.2.3 (4) USEPA Method 320) 

DF = Dilution Factor of the spike gas 

Spike(dir) = Analyte concentration of the undiluted spike gas 

CS = Expected concentration of the spiked samples 

Unspike = Native concentration of analytes in unspiked samples 

X(spk) = Concentration of spiked H2O 

X(native) = Concentration of native H2O 

Analyte spikes were introduced using an instrument grade stainless steel rotometer. The 

spike target dilution ratio was 1:10 or less. All carbon monoxide spike recoveries were 

within the EPA Method allowance of ±30%. See Spike Summary Appendix for results. 

As part of the data validation procedure, reference spectra are manually fit to that of the 

sample spectra and a concentration is determined. The reference spectra are scaled to 

match the peak amplitude of the sample, thus providing a scale factor. The scale factor 

multiplied by the reference spectra concentration is used to determine the concentration 

value for the sample spectra. Sample pressure and temperature corrections are then 

applied to compute the final sample concentration. The manually calculated results are 

then compared with the software-generated results. The data is then validated if the two 

concentrations are within ± 5% agreement. If there is a difference greater than ± 5% the 

spectra are reviewed for possible spectra interferences or any other possible causes 

leading to misquantified data. 
prism analytical technologies, inc. 

Thermafiber, Wabash, IN – FTIR Emission Monitoring, October 19, 2010 

Project No. 1681 

 page 3 

Results and Discussion 

Detection Limits

The detection limit of each analyte was calculated following Annex A2 of ASTM 

D6348-3 procedure using spectra that contained similar amounts of moisture. 

Table 1 - FTIR Detection Limits 

Analyte Carbonyl Sulfide Carbon Monoxide 

Det. Lim. (ppmv wet) 1.0 0.2 

Cupola #4

 

Three, 3-hour test runs were performed at Cupola #4 on October 19, 2010 (See Table 2 

for Test Run detail). Carbonyl sulfide and carbon monoxide were detected during the 

three test runs. Analyte spiking was performed before each run to confirm the 

measurement system’s ability to deliver and quantify carbon monoxide (See FTIR 

QA/QC Appendix for results). All concentration data were calculated on a wet volume 

basis. The sample and data collection followed the procedures outlined in USEPA 

Method 320 and PATI’s SOP 207. See the Test Run Data - Cupola #4 appendix for all 

concentration data. 

Table 2 – Summary of FTIR Data, Cupola #4 

Test Run 1 

9:47 – 10:47, 10/19/2010 

Carbonyl Sulfide 

(ppmv wet) 

Carbon Monoxide 

(ppmv wet) 

Minimum < 1 11.4

Maximum 155.5 21,540

Average 14.2* 2819

Test Run 2 

12:01 – 13:01, 10/19/2010 

Carbonyl Sulfide 

(ppmv wet) 

Carbon Monoxide 

(ppmv wet) 

Minimum < 1 11.4

Maximum 139.3 19,889

Average 7.7* 1307

Test Run 3 

13:28 - 14:28, 10/19/2010 

Carbonyl Sulfide 

(ppmv wet) 

Carbon Monoxide 

(ppmv wet) 

Minimum < 1 10.8

Maximum 33.8 6,248

Average 4.3* 894

*For average calculation, Values below the detection limit were replaced with the actual detection limit concentration 
prism analytical technologies, inc. 

Thermafiber, Wabash, IN – FTIR Emission Monitoring, October 19, 2010 

Project No. 1681 

 page 4 

The following appendices include FTIR data and QA/QC procedures: 

- Test Run Data - Cupola #4 

- QA/QC Data – Cupola #4 

- Gas Certificates and Field Notes 

Phillip J. Kauppi (electronic)________ Date: November 17, 2010

Phillip J. Kauppi 

Chemist / FTIR Specialist 

Thermafiber_Prj_1681_RPT.doc 
APPENDIX 

Test Run Data - Cupola #4 

 
Thermafiber, Wabash, IN, October 19, 2010  ‐ FTIR Data ‐ Test Run 1

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

FTIR Gas Cell

Temp (C)

FTIR Gas Cell

Pressure (Atm)

R1_000166.LAB 10/19/2010 9:46:35 24.8 8107.9 190.9 0.920

R1_000167.LAB 10/19/2010 9:47:36 28.8 8022.1 190.9 0.920

R1_000168.LAB 10/19/2010 9:48:37 108.6 19307.3 190.9 0.921

R1_000169.LAB 10/19/2010 9:49:38 38.2 7770.0 190.9 0.920

R1_000170.LAB 10/19/2010 9:50:38 2.0 239.5 190.9 0.920

R1_000171.LAB 10/19/2010 9:51:39 < 1 32.2 190.9 0.921

R1_000172.LAB 10/19/2010 9:52:40 < 1 19.3 190.9 0.920

R1_000173.LAB 10/19/2010 9:53:41 1.1 434.3 190.9 0.921

R1_000174.LAB 10/19/2010 9:54:41 4.0 2406.5 190.9 0.920

R1_000175.LAB 10/19/2010 9:55:42 10.8 4074.9 190.9 0.921

R1_000176.LAB 10/19/2010 9:56:43 5.2 1496.2 190.9 0.920

R1_000177.LAB 10/19/2010 9:57:44 < 1 112.9 190.9 0.920

R1_000178.LAB 10/19/2010 9:58:44 < 1 17.2 190.9 0.920

R1_000179.LAB 10/19/2010 9:59:45 6.3 264.1 190.9 0.921

R1_000180.LAB 10/19/2010 10:00:46 113.6 18279.6 190.9 0.921

R1_000181.LAB 10/19/2010 10:01:47 155.5 21539.5 190.9 0.921

R1_000182.LAB 10/19/2010 10:02:47 29.1 4268.1 190.9 0.921

R1_000183.LAB 10/19/2010 10:03:48 1.9 200.2 190.9 0.920

R1_000184.LAB 10/19/2010 10:04:49 < 1 26.2 190.9 0.920

R1_000185.LAB 10/19/2010 10:05:50 < 1 73.9 190.9 0.920

R1_000186.LAB 10/19/2010 10:06:50 < 1 67.1 190.9 0.920

R1_000187.LAB 10/19/2010 10:07:51 < 1 25.7 190.9 0.920

R1_000188.LAB 10/19/2010 10:08:52 < 1 65.5 190.9 0.920

R1_000189.LAB 10/19/2010 10:09:52 5.0 860.2 190.9 0.920

R1_000190.LAB 10/19/2010 10:10:53 26.8 7431.4 190.9 0.920

R1_000191.LAB 10/19/2010 10:11:54 40.3 8446.5 190.9 0.920

R1_000192.LAB 10/19/2010 10:12:55 3.4 412.4 190.9 0.920

R1_000193.LAB 10/19/2010 10:13:55 < 1 30.0 190.9 0.920

R1 000194 LAB R1_000194.LAB 10/19/2010 10:14:56 < 10/19/2010 10 14 56 1 24.0 190.9 0.920 24 0 190 9 0 920

R1_000195.LAB 10/19/2010 10:15:57 < 1 141.3 190.9 0.921

R1_000196.LAB 10/19/2010 10:16:58 7.5 3956.5 190.9 0.921

R1_000197.LAB 10/19/2010 10:17:58 40.1 12170.2 190.9 0.920

R1_000198.LAB 10/19/2010 10:18:59 50.0 11209.7 190.9 0.921

R1_000199.LAB 10/19/2010 10:20:00 3.3 398.2 190.9 0.920

R1_000200.LAB 10/19/2010 10:21:01 < 1 33.5 190.9 0.920

R1_000201.LAB 10/19/2010 10:22:01 < 1 14.8 190.9 0.920

R1_000202.LAB 10/19/2010 10:23:02 < 1 62.8 190.9 0.921

R1_000203.LAB 10/19/2010 10:24:03 < 1 185.2 190.9 0.921

R1_000204.LAB 10/19/2010 10:25:04 < 1 35.0 190.9 0.921

R1_000205.LAB 10/19/2010 10:26:04 < 1 31.3 190.9 0.922

R1_000206.LAB 10/19/2010 10:27:05 < 1 41.5 190.9 0.921

R1_000207.LAB 10/19/2010 10:28:06 < 1 55.2 190.9 0.923

R1_000208.LAB 10/19/2010 10:29:07 2.7 1272.5 190.9 0.921

R1_000209.LAB 10/19/2010 10:30:07 3.6 1288.0 190.9 0.920

R1_000210.LAB 10/19/2010 10:31:08 < 1 189.6 190.9 0.920

R1_000211.LAB 10/19/2010 10:32:09 < 1 15.5 190.9 0.921

R1_000212.LAB 10/19/2010 10:33:10 < 1 71.7 190.9 0.921

R1_000213.LAB 10/19/2010 10:34:10 < 1 122.1 190.9 0.921

R1_000214.LAB 10/19/2010 10:35:11 < 1 66.0 190.9 0.921

R1_000215.LAB 10/19/2010 10:36:12 < 1 32.2 190.9 0.920

R1_000216.LAB 10/19/2010 10:37:13 < 1 15.2 190.9 0.920

R1_000217.LAB 10/19/2010 10:38:13 < 1 11.4 190.9 0.920

R1_000218.LAB 10/19/2010 10:39:14 < 1 12.3 190.9 0.920

Prj No 1681
Thermafiber, Wabash, IN, October 19, 2010  ‐ FTIR Data ‐ Test Run 1

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

FTIR Gas Cell

Temp (C)

FTIR Gas Cell

Pressure (Atm)

R1_000219.LAB 10/19/2010 10:40:15 1.9 252.8 190.9 0.921

R1_000220.LAB 10/19/2010 10:41:16 22.6 5882.9 190.9 0.920

R1_000221.LAB 10/19/2010 10:42:16 67.4 13961.2 190.9 0.920

R1_000222.LAB 10/19/2010 10:43:17 27.4 5919.5 190.9 0.920

R1_000223.LAB 10/19/2010 10:44:18 1.6 215.5 190.9 0.920

R1_000224.LAB 10/19/2010 10:45:19 < 1 36.6 190.9 0.920

R1_000225.LAB 10/19/2010 10:46:19 < 1 47.7 190.9 0.921

R1_000226.LAB 10/19/2010 10:47:20 < 1 147.8 190.9 0.920

Minimum < 1 11.4

Maximum 155.5 21539.5

Average 14.2* 2818.9

*For average calculation, Values below the detection limit were replaced with the actual 

detection limit concentration

Prj No 1681
Thermafiber, Wabash, IN, October 19, 2010  ‐ FTIR Data ‐ Test Run 2

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

FTIR Gas Cell

Temp (C)

FTIR Gas Cell

Pressure (Atm)

R2_000343.LAB 10/19/2010 12:00:55 139.3 19889.2 190.9 0.919

R2_000344.LAB 10/19/2010 12:01:56 79.4 12932.4 190.9 0.919

R2_000345.LAB 10/19/2010 12:02:56 9.5 811.4 190.9 0.919

R2_000346.LAB 10/19/2010 12:03:57 < 1 56.0 190.9 0.919

R2_000347.LAB 10/19/2010 12:04:58 < 1 20.2 190.9 0.918

R2_000348.LAB 10/19/2010 12:05:59 < 1 80.4 190.9 0.919

R2_000349.LAB 10/19/2010 12:06:59 9.8 3440.6 190.9 0.918

R2_000350.LAB 10/19/2010 12:08:00 11.1 3478.9 190.9 0.919

R2_000351.LAB 10/19/2010 12:09:01 39.2 9489.2 190.9 0.919

R2_000352.LAB 10/19/2010 12:10:02 18.2 2021.1 190.9 0.918

R2_000353.LAB 10/19/2010 12:11:02 1.1 152.6 190.9 0.919

R2_000354.LAB 10/19/2010 12:12:03 < 1 23.0 190.9 0.919

R2_000355.LAB 10/19/2010 12:13:04 < 1 251.5 190.9 0.919

R2_000356.LAB 10/19/2010 12:14:04 11.0 3636.3 190.9 0.919

R2_000357.LAB 10/19/2010 12:15:05 3.2 656.8 190.9 0.919

R2_000358.LAB 10/19/2010 12:16:06 < 1 42.3 190.9 0.919

R2_000359.LAB 10/19/2010 12:17:07 < 1 16.9 190.9 0.918

R2_000360.LAB 10/19/2010 12:18:07 < 1 14.8 190.9 0.918

R2_000361.LAB 10/19/2010 12:19:08 < 1 16.5 190.9 0.918

R2_000362.LAB 10/19/2010 12:20:09 < 1 20.1 190.9 0.918

R2_000363.LAB 10/19/2010 12:21:10 < 1 19.9 190.9 0.918

R2_000364.LAB 10/19/2010 12:22:10 < 1 17.7 190.9 0.919

R2_000365.LAB 10/19/2010 12:23:11 < 1 23.6 190.9 0.918

R2_000366.LAB 10/19/2010 12:24:12 < 1 32.7 190.9 0.919

R2_000367.LAB 10/19/2010 12:25:13 < 1 25.1 190.9 0.919

R2_000368.LAB 10/19/2010 12:26:13 < 1 15.9 190.9 0.919

R2_000369.LAB 10/19/2010 12:27:14 < 1 14.4 190.9 0.918

R2_000370.LAB 10/19/2010 12:28:15 < 1 12.0 190.9 0.917

R2 000371 LAB R2_000371.LAB 10/19/2010 12:29:15 < 10/19/2010 12 29 15 1 33.6 190.9 0.918 33 6 190 9 0 918

R2_000372.LAB 10/19/2010 12:30:16 < 1 45.6 190.9 0.919

R2_000373.LAB 10/19/2010 12:31:17 < 1 59.8 190.9 0.918

R2_000374.LAB 10/19/2010 12:32:18 < 1 46.4 190.9 0.919

R2_000375.LAB 10/19/2010 12:33:18 < 1 16.4 190.9 0.918

R2_000376.LAB 10/19/2010 12:34:19 < 1 13.2 190.9 0.918

R2_000377.LAB 10/19/2010 12:35:20 < 1 11.4 190.9 0.918

R2_000378.LAB 10/19/2010 12:36:21 < 1 13.3 190.9 0.918

R2_000379.LAB 10/19/2010 12:37:21 < 1 15.0 190.9 0.918

R2_000380.LAB 10/19/2010 12:38:22 < 1 23.2 190.9 0.918

R2_000381.LAB 10/19/2010 12:39:23 < 1 60.0 190.9 0.918

R2_000382.LAB 10/19/2010 12:40:23 < 1 49.8 190.9 0.918

R2_000383.LAB 10/19/2010 12:41:24 < 1 27.6 190.9 0.918

R2_000384.LAB 10/19/2010 12:42:25 < 1 23.7 190.9 0.918

R2_000385.LAB 10/19/2010 12:43:26 < 1 13.7 190.9 0.918

R2_000386.LAB 10/19/2010 12:44:26 < 1 13.7 190.9 0.918

R2_000387.LAB 10/19/2010 12:45:27 < 1 12.3 190.9 0.918

R2_000388.LAB 10/19/2010 12:46:28 < 1 14.0 190.9 0.918

R2_000389.LAB 10/19/2010 12:47:29 < 1 16.0 190.9 0.918

R2_000390.LAB 10/19/2010 12:48:29 < 1 18.0 190.9 0.918

R2_000391.LAB 10/19/2010 12:49:30 < 1 33.4 190.9 0.918

R2_000392.LAB 10/19/2010 12:50:31 < 1 30.1 190.9 0.919

R2_000393.LAB 10/19/2010 12:51:32 < 1 21.9 190.9 0.918

R2_000394.LAB 10/19/2010 12:52:32 3.8 411.1 190.9 0.918

R2_000395.LAB 10/19/2010 12:53:33 16.4 4742.0 190.9 0.917

Prj No 1681
Thermafiber, Wabash, IN, October 19, 2010  ‐ FTIR Data ‐ Test Run 2

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

FTIR Gas Cell

Temp (C)

FTIR Gas Cell

Pressure (Atm)

R2_000396.LAB 10/19/2010 12:54:34 24.3 5734.3 190.9 0.917

R2_000397.LAB 10/19/2010 12:55:34 8.4 2067.8 190.9 0.918

R2_000398.LAB 10/19/2010 12:56:35 10.1 1480.6 190.9 0.918

R2_000399.LAB 10/19/2010 12:57:36 < 1 104.0 190.9 0.918

R2_000400.LAB 10/19/2010 12:58:37 < 1 17.7 190.9 0.918

R2_000401.LAB 10/19/2010 12:59:37 < 1 31.7 190.9 0.918

R2_000402.LAB 10/19/2010 13:00:38 4.0 580.5 190.9 0.919

R2_000403.LAB 10/19/2010 13:01:39 29.5 6713.2 190.9 0.918

Minimum < 1 11.4

Maximum 139.3 19889.2

Average 7.7* 1306.7

*For average calculation, Values below the detection limit were replaced with the actual 

detection limit concentration

Prj No 1681
Thermafiber, Wabash, IN, October 19, 2010  ‐ FTIR Data ‐ Test Run 3

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

FTIR Gas Cell

Temp (C)

FTIR Gas Cell

Pressure (Atm)

R3_000460.LAB 10/19/2010 13:28:09 < 1 73.6 190.9 0.917

R3_000461.LAB 10/19/2010 13:29:10 < 1 27.5 190.9 0.917

R3_000462.LAB 10/19/2010 13:30:10 < 1 52.2 190.9 0.917

R3_000463.LAB 10/19/2010 13:31:11 < 1 56.9 190.9 0.917

R3_000464.LAB 10/19/2010 13:32:12 < 1 108.0 190.9 0.916

R3_000465.LAB 10/19/2010 13:33:13 < 1 1040.7 190.9 0.917

R3_000466.LAB 10/19/2010 13:34:13 11.0 3472.7 190.9 0.917

R3_000467.LAB 10/19/2010 13:35:14 7.4 2590.0 190.9 0.916

R3_000468.LAB 10/19/2010 13:36:15 16.3 4064.7 190.9 0.916

R3_000469.LAB 10/19/2010 13:37:15 2.5 509.8 190.9 0.916

R3_000470.LAB 10/19/2010 13:38:16 < 1 48.6 190.9 0.916

R3_000471.LAB 10/19/2010 13:39:17 < 1 26.8 190.9 0.916

R3_000472.LAB 10/19/2010 13:40:18 1.3 407.4 190.9 0.916

R3_000473.LAB 10/19/2010 13:41:18 20.8 4830.4 190.9 0.916

R3_000474.LAB 10/19/2010 13:42:19 7.7 1794.7 190.9 0.916

R3_000475.LAB 10/19/2010 13:43:20 1.9 665.8 190.9 0.917

R3_000476.LAB 10/19/2010 13:44:20 < 1 48.1 190.9 0.916

R3_000477.LAB 10/19/2010 13:45:21 < 1 10.8 190.9 0.917

R3_000478.LAB 10/19/2010 13:46:22 < 1 62.7 190.9 0.916

R3_000479.LAB 10/19/2010 13:47:23 < 1 54.7 190.9 0.916

R3_000480.LAB 10/19/2010 13:48:23 < 1 47.7 190.9 0.916

R3_000481.LAB 10/19/2010 13:49:24 < 1 436.1 190.9 0.916

R3_000482.LAB 10/19/2010 13:50:25 < 1 113.0 190.9 0.916

R3_000483.LAB 10/19/2010 13:51:26 1.7 590.1 190.9 0.916

R3_000484.LAB 10/19/2010 13:52:26 2.5 1207.0 190.9 0.916

R3_000485.LAB 10/19/2010 13:53:27 < 1 164.8 190.9 0.916

R3_000486.LAB 10/19/2010 13:54:28 < 1 20.3 190.9 0.916

R3_000487.LAB 10/19/2010 13:55:28 < 1 24.0 190.9 0.916

R3 000488 LAB R3_000488.LAB 10/19/2010 13:56:29 5.6 484.4 190.9 0.916 10/19/2010 13 56 29 5 6 484 4 190 9 0 916

R3_000489.LAB 10/19/2010 13:57:30 26.2 4940.6 190.9 0.916

R3_000490.LAB 10/19/2010 13:58:31 2.1 335.7 190.9 0.915

R3_000491.LAB 10/19/2010 13:59:31 < 1 49.0 190.9 0.915

R3_000492.LAB 10/19/2010 14:00:32 < 1 19.5 190.8 0.915

R3_000493.LAB 10/19/2010 14:01:33 < 1 31.2 190.8 0.916

R3_000494.LAB 10/19/2010 14:02:33 9.1 1414.7 190.9 0.916

R3_000495.LAB 10/19/2010 14:03:34 14.5 3740.3 190.9 0.915

R3_000496.LAB 10/19/2010 14:04:35 1.4 270.1 190.8 0.916

R3_000497.LAB 10/19/2010 14:05:36 < 1 20.6 190.9 0.916

R3_000498.LAB 10/19/2010 14:06:36 < 1 46.1 190.9 0.916

R3_000499.LAB 10/19/2010 14:07:37 < 1 134.9 190.9 0.916

R3_000500.LAB 10/19/2010 14:08:38 < 1 58.6 190.9 0.916

R3_000501.LAB 10/19/2010 14:09:39 < 1 77.2 190.9 0.916

R3_000502.LAB 10/19/2010 14:10:39 < 1 37.0 190.8 0.916

R3_000503.LAB 10/19/2010 14:11:40 < 1 18.4 190.9 0.915

R3_000504.LAB 10/19/2010 14:12:41 < 1 16.8 190.9 0.916

R3_000505.LAB 10/19/2010 14:13:41 < 1 104.9 190.9 0.916

R3_000506.LAB 10/19/2010 14:14:42 1.7 299.5 190.9 0.916

R3_000507.LAB 10/19/2010 14:15:43 19.2 4488.2 190.9 0.916

R3_000508.LAB 10/19/2010 14:16:44 5.2 768.1 190.9 0.916

R3_000509.LAB 10/19/2010 14:17:44 < 1 96.3 190.9 0.916

R3_000510.LAB 10/19/2010 14:18:45 < 1 30.3 190.9 0.916

R3_000511.LAB 10/19/2010 14:19:46 2.4 567.7 190.9 0.915

R3_000512.LAB 10/19/2010 14:20:47 10.1 2928.5 190.9 0.916

Prj No 1681
Thermafiber, Wabash, IN, October 19, 2010  ‐ FTIR Data ‐ Test Run 3

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

FTIR Gas Cell

Temp (C)

FTIR Gas Cell

Pressure (Atm)

R3_000513.LAB 10/19/2010 14:21:47 1.3 290.0 190.9 0.915

R3_000514.LAB 10/19/2010 14:22:48 < 1 25.7 190.9 0.916

R3_000515.LAB 10/19/2010 14:23:49 < 1 93.0 190.9 0.916

R3_000516.LAB 10/19/2010 14:24:49 33.8 6247.5 190.9 0.916

R3_000517.LAB 10/19/2010 14:25:50 14.3 2751.6 190.9 0.915

R3_000518.LAB 10/19/2010 14:26:51 9.0 1389.1 190.9 0.915

R3_000519.LAB 10/19/2010 14:27:52 1.1 178.2 190.9 0.915

R3_000520.LAB 10/19/2010 14:28:52 < 1 22.5 190.9 0.916

Minimum < 1 10.8

Maximum 33.8 6247.5

Average 4.3* 893.9

*For average calculation, Values below the detection limit were replaced with the actual 

detection limit concentration

Prj No 1681
APPENDIX 

QA/QC Data – Cupola #4 

 
Thermafiber, Wabash, IN, October 19, 2010  ‐ FTIR QAQC Data

Nitrogen Direct to FTIR

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet)

N2_DIR_000001.LAB 10/19/2010 7:17:22 < 1 < 0.2 < 0.05 < 0.5

N2_DIR_000002.LAB 10/19/2010 7:17:38 < 1 < 0.2 < 0.05 < 0.5

N2_DIR_000003.LAB 10/19/2010 7:17:54 < 1 < 0.2 < 0.05 < 0.5

N2_DIR_000004.LAB 10/19/2010 7:18:09 < 1 < 0.2 < 0.05 < 0.5

N2_DIR_000005BKG.LAB 10/19/2010 7:20:25 < 1 < 0.2 < 0.05 < 0.5

N2_DIR_000006.LAB 10/19/2010 7:20:43 < 1 < 0.2 < 0.05 < 0.5

CTS, 100.0 ppm Ethylene Direct Purge

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet)

Ethylene Recovery

(%)

100.0PPM_CTS_DIR_000007.LAB 10/19/2010 7:23:14 < 1 < 0.2 < 0.05 98.4 98.4%

100.0PPM_CTS_DIR_000008.LAB 10/19/2010 7:23:30 < 1 < 0.2 < 0.05 98.6 98.6%

100.0PPM_CTS_DIR_000009.LAB 10/19/2010 7:23:45 < 1 < 0.2 < 0.05 98.7 98.7%

100.0PPM_CTS_DIR_000010.LAB 10/19/2010 7:24:01 < 1 < 0.2 < 0.05 98.7 98.7%

100.0PPM_CTS_DIR_000011.LAB 10/19/2010 7:24:17 < 1 < 0.2 < 0.05 98.9 98.9%

100.0PPM_CTS_DIR_000012.LAB 10/19/2010 7:24:32 < 1 < 0.2 < 0.05 98.3 98.3%

100.0PPM_CTS_DIR_000013.LAB 10/19/2010 7:24:48 < 1 < 0.2 < 0.05 98.2 98.2%

100.0PPM_CTS_DIR_000014.LAB 10/19/2010 7:25:04 < 1 < 0.2 < 0.05 98.4 98.4%

2423 ppm Carbon Monoxide Direct Purge

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet)

Carbon Monoxide

Recovery (%)

2423PPM_CO_DIR_000015.LAB 10/19/2010 7:30:58 < 1 2352.5 < 0.05 < 0.5 97.1%

2423PPM_CO_DIR_000016.LAB 10/19/2010 7:31:13 < 1 2360.3 < 0.05 < 0.5 97.4%

2423PPM_CO_DIR_000017.LAB 10/19/2010 7:31:29 < 1 2356.8 < 0.05 < 0.5 97.3%

2423PPM_CO_DIR_000018.LAB 10/19/2010 7:31:45 < 1 2360.6 < 0.05 < 0.5 97.4%

2423PPM_CO_DIR_000019.LAB 10/19/2010 7:32:00 < 1 2359.2 < 0.05 < 0.5 97.4%

Prj No 1681
Thermafiber, Wabash, IN, October 19, 2010  ‐ FTIR QAQC Data

2423 ppm Carbon Monoxide System Purge and Response Time Test (using determined direct CO concentration as expected concentration)

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet)

Carbon Monoxide

Recovery (%)

Response Time*

(sec)

CO_RESP_000020.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:04 < 1 0.2 0.685 < 0.5 0.0% 4

CO_RESP_000021.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:08 < 1 0.3 0.704 < 0.5 0.0% 8

CO_RESP_000022.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:12 < 1 493.1 1.142 1.2 20.9% 12

CO_RESP_000023.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:15 < 1 1528.8 0.445 < 0.5 64.8% 16

CO_RESP_000024.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:20 < 1 1138.1 0.390 < 0.5 48.2% 20

CO_RESP_000025.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:23 < 1 1130.6 0.373 < 0.5 47.9% 24

CO_RESP_000026.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:27 < 1 1132.6 0.345 < 0.5 48.0% 28

CO_RESP_000027.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:31 < 1 1131.4 0.360 < 0.5 47.9% 31

CO_RESP_000028.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:35 < 1 1132.6 0.340 < 0.5 48.0% 35

CO_RESP_000029.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:39 < 1 1151.6 0.339 < 0.5 48.8% 39

CO_RESP_000030.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:43 < 1 1246.6 0.341 < 0.5 52.8% 43

CO_RESP_000031.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:47 < 1 1718.3 0.221 < 0.5 72.8% 47

CO_RESP_000032.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:51 < 1 1818.7 0.159 < 0.5 77.1% 51

CO_RESP_000033.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:55 < 1 1847.1 0.145 < 0.5 78.3% 55

CO_RESP_000034.LAB 10/19/2010 8:26:59 < 1 1876.6 0.125 < 0.5 79.5% 59

CO_RESP_000035.LAB 10/19/2010 8:27:03 < 1 1949.6 0.138 < 0.5 82.6% 63

CO_RESP_000036.LAB 10/19/2010 8:27:06 < 1 2188.5 0.079 < 0.5 92.7% 67

CO_RESP_000037.LAB 10/19/2010 8:27:11 < 1 2248.5 0.052 < 0.5 95.3% 71

CO_RESP_000038.LAB 10/19/2010 8:27:14 < 1 2264.6 < 0.05 < 0.5 96.0%

CO_RESP_000039.LAB 10/19/2010 8:27:18 < 1 2256.3 < 0.05 < 0.5 95.6%

CO_RESP_000040.LAB 10/19/2010 8:27:22 < 1 2248.1 < 0.05 < 0.5 95.3%

CO_RESP_000041.LAB 10/19/2010 8:27:26 < 1 2250.9 < 0.05 < 0.5 95.4%

CO_RESP_000042.LAB 10/19/2010 8:27:30 < 1 2267.7 < 0.05 < 0.5 96.1%

* Response Time = Time to recovery 95% of calibration gas delivered through the sampling system

CTS, 100.0 ppm Ethylene System Purge and Response Time Test

Spectrum pectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet)

Ethylene Recovery

(%)

Response Time*

(sec)

CTS_RESP_000050.LAB 10/19/2010 8:30:13 < 1 4.0 0.740 < 0.5 0.0% 4

CTS_RESP_000051.LAB 10/19/2010 8:30:17 < 1 35.1 0.703 < 0.5 0.0% 8

CTS_RESP_000052.LAB 10/19/2010 8:30:21 < 1 504.2 0.335 39.2 39.2% 12

CTS_RESP_000053.LAB 10/19/2010 8:30:24 < 1 45.2 0.099 94.7 94.7% 16

CTS_RESP_000054.LAB 10/19/2010 8:30:28 < 1 6.1 0.064 98.6 98.6% 20

CTS_RESP_000055.LAB 10/19/2010 8:30:32 < 1 2.8 < 0.05 98.4 98.4%

CTS_RESP_000056.LAB 10/19/2010 8:30:36 < 1 2.0 < 0.05 97.9 97.9%

CTS_RESP_000057.LAB 10/19/2010 8:30:40 < 1 1.6 < 0.05 98.1 98.1%

CTS_RESP_000058.LAB 10/19/2010 8:30:44 < 1 1.2 < 0.05 98.4 98.4%

CTS_RESP_000059.LAB 10/19/2010 8:30:48 < 1 1.3 < 0.05 98.8 98.8%

CTS_RESP_000060.LAB 10/19/2010 8:30:52 < 1 1.2 < 0.05 98.8 98.8%

CTS_RESP_000061.LAB 10/19/2010 8:30:56 < 1 0.8 < 0.05 98.7 98.7%

CTS_RESP_000062.LAB 10/19/2010 8:31:00 < 1 0.9 < 0.05 98.8 98.8%

* Response Time = Time to recovery 95% of calibration gas delivered through the sampling system

Nitrogen System Purge

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet)

N2_SYS_000063.LAB 10/19/2010 8:32:47 < 1 0.5 < 0.05 < 0.5

N2_SYS_000064.LAB 10/19/2010 8:33:03 < 1 0.5 < 0.05 < 0.5

N2_SYS_000065.LAB 10/19/2010 8:33:18 < 1 0.4 < 0.05 < 0.5

Prj No 1681
Thermafiber, Wabash, IN, October 19, 2010  ‐ FTIR QAQC Data

Ambient Air, Prior to Anylte Spike #1

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet)

AMBIENT_AIR_000158.LAB 10/19/2010 9:27:21 < 1 0.6 0.775 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000159.LAB 10/19/2010 9:27:37 < 1 0.5 0.771 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000160.LAB 10/19/2010 9:27:52 < 1 0.5 0.780 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000161.LAB 10/19/2010 9:28:08 < 1 0.2 0.792 < 0.5

Ambient Air Analyte Spike #1 ‐ Using 2423 ppm CO

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet) Dilution Factor

Carbon Monoxide

Recovery (%)

CO_SPK_000162.LAB 10/19/2010 9:35:30 < 1 177.3 0.710 < 0.5 0.089 82.2%

CO_SPK_000163.LAB 10/19/2010 9:35:46 < 1 177.3 0.712 < 0.5 0.086 84.9%

CO_SPK_000164.LAB 10/19/2010 9:36:01 < 1 177.9 0.712 < 0.5 0.087 84.2%

CO_SPK_000165.LAB 10/19/2010 9:36:17 < 1 177.0 0.711 < 0.5 0.088 83.3%

Ambient Air, Prior to Anylte Spike #2

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet)

AMBIENT_AIR_000321.LAB 10/19/2010 11:42:26 < 1 0.6 0.704 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000322.LAB 10/19/2010 11:42:34 < 1 0.3 0.726 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000323.LAB 10/19/2010 11:42:42 < 1 0.3 0.736 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000324.LAB 10/19/2010 11:42:50 < 1 0.3 0.792 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000325.LAB 10/19/2010 11:42:57 < 1 0.5 0.774 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000326.LAB 10/19/2010 11:43:05 < 1 0.5 0.770 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000327.LAB 10/19/2010 11:43:13 < 1 0.3 0.735 < 0.5

Ambient Air Analyte Spike #2 ‐ Using 2423 ppm CO

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet) Dilution Factor

Carbon Monoxide

Recovery (%)

CO_SPK_000328.LAB 10/19/2010 11:47:20 < 1 156.4 0.683 < 0.5 0.087 74.4%

CO_SPK_000329.LAB 10/19/2010 11:47:28 < 1 156.2 0.686 < 0.5 0.082 78.2%

CO_SPK_000330.LAB 10/19/2010 11:47:36 < 1 157.0 0.696 < 0.5 0.069 93.7%

CO_SPK_000331.LAB 10/19/2010 11:47:44 < 1 158.5 0.699 < 0.5 0.066 99.8%

CO_SPK_000332.LAB 10/19/2010 11:47:52 < 1 157.5 0.686 < 0.5 0.083 78.1%

CTS, 100.0 ppm Ethylene System Purge and Response Time Test

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet)

Ethylene Recovery

(%)

Response Time*

(sec)

CTS_RESP_000333.LAB 10/19/2010 11:51:20 < 1 4.8 0.735 < 0.5 0.0% 4

CTS_RESP_000334.LAB 10/19/2010 11:51:24 < 1 7.5 0.730 < 0.5 0.0% 8

CTS_RESP_000335.LAB 10/19/2010 11:51:28 < 1 446.9 0.376 38.8 38.8% 12

CTS_RESP_000336.LAB 10/19/2010 11:51:32 < 1 41.4 0.082 94.7 94.7% 16

CTS_RESP_000337.LAB 10/19/2010 11:51:36 < 1 7.2 < 0.05 98.1 98.1% 20

CTS_RESP_000338.LAB 10/19/2010 11:51:40 < 1 2.3 0.055 98.6 98.6%

CTS_RESP_000339.LAB 10/19/2010 11:51:43 < 1 1.6 < 0.05 98.9 98.9%

CTS_RESP_000340.LAB 10/19/2010 11:51:47 < 1 1.3 < 0.05 98.1 98.1%

CTS_RESP_000341.LAB 10/19/2010 11:51:51 < 1 1.0 < 0.05 98.0 98.0%

* Response Time = Time to recovery 95% of calibration gas delivered through the sampling system

Prj No 1681
Thermafiber, Wabash, IN, October 19, 2010  ‐ FTIR QAQC Data

< 1 4 < 5

CTS, 100.0 ppm Ethylene System Purge and Response Time Test

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet)

Ethylene Recovery

(%)

Response Time*

(sec)

CTS_RESP_000408.LAB 10/19/2010 13:05:45 < 1 14.2 3.320 < 0.5 0.0% 4

CTS_RESP_000409.LAB 10/19/2010 13:05:49 < 1 14.8 3.281 < 0.5 0.0% 8

CTS_RESP_000410.LAB 10/19/2010 13:05:52 < 1 52.1 2.986 51.7 51.7% 12

CTS_RESP_000411.LAB 10/19/2010 13:05:56 < 1 18.9 0.775 94.1 94.1% 16

CTS_RESP_000412.LAB 10/19/2010 13:06:00 < 1 3.5 0.209 97.6 97.6% 20

CTS_RESP_000413.LAB 10/19/2010 13:06:04 < 1 2.6 0.117 97.8 97.8%

CTS_RESP_000414.LAB 10/19/2010 13:06:08 < 1 2.2 0.069 98.4 98.4%

CTS_RESP_000415.LAB 10/19/2010 13:06:12 < 1 1.5 0.087 98.5 98.5%

CTS_RESP_000416.LAB 10/19/2010 13:06:16 < 1 1.6 0.085 98.2 98.2%

CTS_RESP_000417.LAB 10/19/2010 13:06:20 < 1 1.9 0.085 98.1 98.1%

CTS_RESP_000418.LAB 10/19/2010 13:06:24 < 1 1.9 0.073 98.8 98.8%

CTS_RESP_000419.LAB 10/19/2010 13:06:28 < 1 1.8 0.073 98.4 98.4%

* Response Time = Time to recovery 95% of calibration gas delivered through the sampling system

Ambient Air, Prior to Anylte Spike #3

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet)

AMBIENT_AIR_000442.LAB 10/19/2010 13:15:06 < 1 6.6 0.818 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000443.LAB 10/19/2010 13:15:10 < 1 6.6 0.795 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000444.LAB 10/19/2010 13:15:14 < 1 5.9 0.809 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000445.LAB 10/19/2010 13:15:18 < 1 5.5 0.810 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000446.LAB 10/19/2010 13:15:21 < 1 5.3 0.813 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000447.LAB 10/19/2010 13:15:25 < 1 5.9 0.810 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000448.LAB 10/19/2010 13:15:29 < 1 5.1 0.812 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000449.LAB 10/19/2010 13:15:33 < 1 4.7 0.804 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000450.LAB 10/19/2010 13:15:37 < 1 4.8 0.809 < 0.5

AMBIENT_AIR_000451.LAB 10/19/2010 13:15:41 < 1 5.3 0.813 < 0.5

AMBIENT AIR 000452.LAB AMBIENT_AIR_000452.LAB 10/19/2010 /19/2010 13:15:45 < 1 4.9 0.796 < 0.5

Ambient Air Analyte Spike #3 ‐ Using 2423 ppm CO

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet) Dilution Factor

Carbon Monoxide

Recovery (%)

CO_SPK_000457.LAB 10/19/2010 13:21:36 < 1 159.4 0.746 < 0.5 0.077 85.5%

CO_SPK_000458.LAB 10/19/2010 13:21:51 < 1 159.4 0.742 < 0.5 0.082 80.0%

CO_SPK_000459.LAB 10/19/2010 13:22:07 < 1 159.1 0.743 < 0.5 0.080 81.6%

Prj No 1681
Thermafiber, Wabash, IN, October 19, 2010  ‐ FTIR QAQC Data

< 1 4.0 <

2423 ppm Carbon Monoxide System Purge and Response Time Test (using determined direct CO concentration as expected concentration)

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet)

Carbon Monoxide

Recovery (%)

Response Time*

(sec)

CO_RESP_000586.LAB 10/19/2010 15:00:31 < 1 3.0 0.738 < 0.5 0.1% 4

CO_RESP_000587.LAB 10/19/2010 15:00:35 < 1 15.2 0.741 < 0.5 0.6% 8

CO_RESP_000588.LAB 10/19/2010 15:00:39 < 1 1561.8 0.342 < 0.5 66.2% 12

CO_RESP_000589.LAB 10/19/2010 15:00:43 < 1 2190.1 0.087 < 0.5 92.8% 16

CO_RESP_000590.LAB 10/19/2010 15:00:47 < 1 2214.2 0.071 < 0.5 93.8% 20

CO_RESP_000591.LAB 10/19/2010 15:00:51 < 1 2223.4 < 0.05 < 0.5 94.2% 24

CO_RESP_000592.LAB 10/19/2010 15:00:54 < 1 2236.5 < 0.05 < 0.5 94.8% 28

CO_RESP_000593.LAB 10/19/2010 15:00:58 < 1 2237.9 < 0.05 < 0.5 94.8% 31

CO_RESP_000594.LAB 10/19/2010 15:01:02 < 1 2209.9 < 0.05 < 0.5 93.6% 35

CO_RESP_000595.LAB 10/19/2010 15:01:06 < 1 2223.0 < 0.05 < 0.5 94.2% 39

CO_RESP_000596.LAB 10/19/2010 15:01:10 < 1 2210.3 < 0.05 < 0.5 93.7% 43

CO_RESP_000597.LAB 10/19/2010 15:01:14 < 1 2225.1 < 0.05 < 0.5 94.3% 47

CO_RESP_000598.LAB 10/19/2010 15:01:18 < 1 2231.1 < 0.05 < 0.5 94.5% 51

CO_RESP_000599.LAB 10/19/2010 15:01:22 < 1 2233.8 < 0.05 < 0.5 94.7% 55

CO_RESP_000600.LAB 10/19/2010 15:01:26 < 1 2228.4 0.053 < 0.5 94.4% 59

CO_RESP_000601.LAB 10/19/2010 15:01:30 < 1 2244.6 < 0.05 < 0.5 95.1% 63

* Response Time = Time to recovery 95% of calibration gas delivered through the sampling system

CTS, 100.0 ppm Ethylene System Purge and Response Time Test

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet)

Ethylene Recovery

(%)

Response Time*

(sec)

CTS_RESP_000602.LAB 10/19/2010 15:03:20 < 1 2.7 0.745 < 0.5 0.0% 4

CTS_RESP_000603.LAB 10/19/2010 15:03:24 < 1 36.9 0.683 < 0.5 0.0% 8

CTS_RESP_000604.LAB 10/19/2010 15:03:28 < 1 1182.7 0.316 18.2 18.2% 12

CTS_RESP_000605.LAB 10/19/2010 15:03:32 < 1 129.6 0.096 91.3 91.3% 16

CTS_RESP_000606.LAB 10/19/2010 15:03:36 < 1 18.3 0.056 97.8 97.8% 20

CTS_RESP_000607.LAB 10/19/2010 15:03:40 < 1 7.5 < 0.05 97.8 97.8%

CTS RESP 000608.LAB CTS_RESP_000608.LAB 10/19/2010 /19/2010 15:03:44 < 1 4.0 < 0.05 98.3 98.3%

CTS_RESP_000609.LAB 10/19/2010 15:03:48 < 1 3.0 < 0.05 98.9 98.9%

CTS_RESP_000610.LAB 10/19/2010 15:03:52 < 1 2.7 < 0.05 98.7 98.7%

CTS_RESP_000611.LAB 10/19/2010 15:03:56 < 1 2.0 < 0.05 99.2 99.2%

CTS_RESP_000612.LAB 10/19/2010 15:04:00 < 1 2.2 < 0.05 98.7 98.7%

CTS_RESP_000613.LAB 10/19/2010 15:04:04 < 1 1.7 < 0.05 98.9 98.9%

CTS_RESP_000614.LAB 10/19/2010 15:04:07 < 1 1.4 < 0.05 99.0 99.0%

CTS_RESP_000615.LAB 10/19/2010 15:04:11 < 1 1.4 < 0.05 98.8 98.8%

* Response Time = Time to recovery 95% of calibration gas delivered through the sampling system

Nitrogen System Purge

Spectrum Date Time

COS

(ppmv wet)

CO

(ppmv wet)

H2O

(%v)

Ethylene

(ppmv wet)

N2_SYS_000616.LAB 10/19/2010 15:06:06 < 1 1.1 < 0.05 < 0.5

N2_SYS_000617.LAB 10/19/2010 15:06:22 < 1 1.0 < 0.05 < 0.5

N2_SYS_000618.LAB 10/19/2010 15:06:38 < 1 0.8 < 0.05 < 0.5

N2_SYS_000619.LAB 10/19/2010 15:06:53 < 1 0.9 < 0.05 < 0.5

N2_DIR_000690.LAB 10/19/2010 15:38:58 < 1 0.3 < 0.05 < 0.5

N2_DIR_000691.LAB 10/19/2010 15:39:13 < 1 0.5 < 0.05 < 0.5

N2_DIR_000692.LAB 10/19/2010 15:39:29 < 1 0.3 < 0.05 < 0.5

Prj No 1681
APPENDIX 

Gas Certificates and Field Notes 

Certificate of Analysis

Date of Analysis: 6/22/2006 Reference Number: 54-124068388-1

Part Number: X02NI99P15AD524

Grade of Product: PRIMARY

STANDARD

Cylinder Number Component Requested

Concentration

Actual Concentration

(Mole %)

CC156258 ETHYLENE 100.0 PPM 100.0 PPM

NITROGEN Balance Balance

Notes:

Relative Uncertainty of Analytical Value: +/- 1% of component or +/- 0.02% of absolute, which

ever is lower.

Primary Standard gas mixtures are traceable to N.I.S.T weights and/or N.I.S.T gas mixture

reference materials.

Signature on File

__________________________________

Approval Signature

Page 1
gI Qhj—

,t’’ w-

—n” &i ,rc’—-

‘z)I —,Jos;niOn. a. m”sc(4)

1jjn’arw Lo,—

—

2!

.

flS flLtNYLi U U

‘P :jt? _Pt’— t

7II1 ufr vOtøQr c) LI.—

iN- Sic

Q!) s1 dSy

lit

cJs3CcflQ) 01

oiy tfv/

-Gi ,
- ...

‘S

-4

. ...

J

. -4

.

(A)

j. ;vJ.

R;’S.

tJ
__•

p

cL

:...j

,

;

)

0

)

%s2

c)

•:.

L
-Lc (L- -jL

(t) flLjS

c/7

-(h) c1s —

-

•-; i-4

cG±’I’vL

9J

,fliiJO,i4 _7j

-

/

22

1°7

hL9 —

iI7 —

99 — QL5

iic

—ic zhc

V

e
Es’D

a..