* Baton Rouge, LA * Birmingham, AL * Kann apolis, NC * Mobile, AL * Raleigh (RTP), NC * www.entecservices.com 800.429.8445 205.358.1011 

### December 6, 2011

Mr. Howard Gilberg 

### Guida, Slavich and Flores, P.C.
750 North St. Paul Street, Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75201

Re: Emissions Testing Report – Tile MACT ICR Report - Dal Tile - Multiple Sources - Methods 1, 2, 2F, 3, 3A, 4, 5, 23 and 29
El Paso, Texas Entec Project No.: 210268 / 211169

Dear Mr. Gilberg,

Please find the attached two (2) hard copies and a CD with a PDF copy of the Tile MACT ICR
Emissions Testing for Spray Dryer No. 1 (SD-1), Tile Dryer No. 5 (DC-5), 4 Bisque Roller Kilns (RK-1, RK-2, RK-5 and RK-6) and 4 Glost Roller Kilns (RK-7, RK-8, RK-11 and RK-12)

. Testing was conducted at the Dal Tile facility located in El Paso, Texas on December 13 -16, 2010 and April 28-29, 2011. A PDF copy of this report has been or will be sent to you by email for your
records.

This report is the sole property of Guida, Slavich and Flores, P.C. and no additional copies have been sent to any other entity.

We appreciate the opportunity to perform this project for you and hope to be of assistance to you in the future. If you have any questions please call 205-358-1011.

Sincerely, 

# Entec Services, Inc.

John T. Sutton

President

### EMISSIONS TESTING

TILE MACT ICR

ON

SPRAY DRYER NO. 1, TILE DRYER NO. 5, BISQUE ROLLER KILNS 1, 2, 5 AND 6 AND GLOST ROLLER KILNS 7, 8 11 AND 12



## DAL TILE, INC.

DECEMBER 13-16, 2010

PROJECT NO.: 210268

APRIL 28 – 29, 2011 PROJECT NO.: 211169

Prepared for



## GUIDA, SLAVICH & FLORES, P.C.

750 North St. Paul Street, Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75201



## ENTEC SERVICES, INC.

30 Monroe Drive Pelham, Alabama 35124 (205) 358-1011

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 2 of 30 EMISSIONS TESTING

TILE MACT ICR

ON

SPRAY DRYER NO. 1, TILE DRYER NO. 5, BISQUE ROLLER KILNS 1, 2, 5 AND 6 AND GLOST ROLLER KILNS 7, 8, 11 AND 12


## DAL TILE, INC.

CONDUCTED ON DECEMBER 13 – 16, 2010 AND APRIL 28 - 29, 2011

I certify that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information contained herein. Based on my inquiries of the individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the contents of this report deliverable to be true, accurate, and complete, to the best of my knowledge.

Entec Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Report Submitted: December 6, 2011

Completed By: Reviewed By:

_________________________ __________________________ 

### W. Keith Poole Manager, Reporting Division Troy Burrows QA / QC Manager

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 3 of 30 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 6

2.0 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS .......................................................................... 7

2.1 SAMPLING ISSUES AND METHOD DEVIATIONS .................................. 7

3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 17

3.1 RAW MATERIAL HANDLING .................................................................. 17 3.2 BODY PREPARATION ............................................................................ 17 3.3 PRESSING .............................................................................................. 17 3.4 TILE DRYING .......................................................................................... 17 3.5 BISQUE FIRING ...................................................................................... 18 3.6 GLAZE PREPARATION .......................................................................... 18 3.7 GLAZING ................................................................................................. 18 3.8 GLOST FIRING ....................................................................................... 19 3.9 SORTING AND SHIPPING ...................................................................... 19

4.0 REFERENCE METHOD TEST PROCEDURES ................................................. 20

4.1 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 1 -TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT ................................................................ 20 4.2 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 2 – VELOCITY ......................... 20 4.3 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 2F - VELOCITY DETERMINATION WITH THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBE .................... 20 4.4 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 3 – DRY GAS MOLECULAR WEIGHT (CARBON DIOXIDE) ................................................................ 21 4.5 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 3A – DRY GAS MOLECULAR WEIGHT (OXYGEN) ................................................................................ 21 4.6 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 4 – MOISTURE CONTENT ..... 21 4.7 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 23 – DIOXINS FURANS DETERMINATION ................................................................................... 22 4.8 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 5 WITH 29- PARTICULATE AND METALS. ......................................................................................... 22

5.0 QA / QC PROCEDURES..................................................................................... 30

6.0 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES .......................................................................... 30

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 4 of 30 LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX PAGE

A RAW TEST DATA AND EMISSION CALCULATIONS SPRAY DRYER NO. 1 (SD-1) – US EPA METHODS 1 - 4 AND 23 ..................... 1

B RAW TEST DATA AND EMISSION CALCULATIONS TILE DRYER 5 (DC-5) – US EPA METHODS 1 – 4 AND 23 .............................. 24

C RAW TEST DATA AND EMISSION CALCULATIONS BISQUE ROLLER KILNS (RK-1, RK-2, RK-5 AND RK-6) .................................. 37

C.1 US EPA METHODS 1 - 4, 5 AND 29 ......................................................... 38 C.2 US EPA METHODS 1 – 4 AND 23 ............................................................ 54

D RAW TEST DATA AND EMISSION CALCULATIONS GLOST ROLLER KILNS (RK-7, RK-8, RK-11 AND RK-12)– US EPA METHODS 1 – 4 AND 23 .............. 68

D.1 US EPA METHODS 1 - 4, 5 AND 29 ......................................................... 69 D.2 US EPA METHODS 1 – 4 AND 23 ............................................................ 85

E OPERATIONAL AND PRODUCTION DATA ....................................................... 98

F QA/QC DOCUMENTS AND CHECKLISTS ....................................................... 100

G CHAINS OF CUSTODY .................................................................................... 127

H LABORATORY DATA ....................................................................................... 136

H.1 PARTICULATE MATTER AND MULTIPLE METALS ............................ 137 H.2 DIOXINS/FURANS ................................................................................ 146

I CALIBRATION DATA ........................................................................................ 170

J QSTI CERTIFICATIONS ................................................................................... 196

K EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS AND NOMENCLATURE ..................................... 202

L EPA ICR DOCUMENTS .................................................................................... 216

L.1 EPA LETTER AND ENCLOSURES 1 AND 2 ........................................ 217 L.2 ENCLOSURES 3 through 9 AND TABLE 1.1 ........................................ 225

M SAFETY ............................................................................................................ 254

N GUIDELINE DOCUMENT GD-008r AND SPRAY DRYER EPA COMMUNICATIONS ......................................................................................... 263

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 5 of 30 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

2-1 EMISSIONS SU MMARY – SPRAY DRYER NO. 1 – METHODS 1-4 AND 23 ...... 9

2-2 EMISSIONS SUMMARY – TILE DRYER 5 – METHODS 1-4 AND 23 ................ 10

2-3 EMISSIONS SUMMARY – BISQUE ROLLER KILNS (RK-1, RK-2, RK-5 AND RK-6) – METHODS 1-4 AND 23 ......................................................................... 11

2-4 EMISSIONS SUMMARY – BISQUE ROLLER KILNS (RK-1, RK-2, RK-5 AND RK-6) – METHODS 1-4, 5 AND 29 .................................................................... 12

2-5 EMISSIONS SUMMARY – GLOST ROLLER KILNS (RK-7, RK-8, RK-11 AND RK-12) – METHODS 1-4 AND 23 ....................................................................... 14

2-6 EMISSIONS SUMMARY – GLOST ROLLER KILNS (RK-7, RK-8, RK-11 AND RK-12) – METHODS 1-4, 5 AND 29 ................................................................... 15

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

4-1 TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT – SPRAY DRYER NO. 1 ...................................... 24

4-2 TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT – TILE DRYER 5 .................................................. 25

4-3 TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT – BISQUE ROLLER KILNS ................................. 26

4-4 TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT – GLOST ROLLER KILNS ................................... 27

4-5 METHOD 23 SAMPLE TRAIN DIAGRAM ........................................................... 28

4-6 METHOD 5 / 29 SAMPLE TRAIN DIAGRAM ...................................................... 29

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 6 of 30 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On March 12, 2010 the U. S. Environment al Protection Agency (US EPA) issued an Information Collection Request (the Tile ICR) to Dal Tile, Inc. Within the Tile ICR, Enclosure 2 specified the emission sources and pollutants that were required to be tested and Enclosure 3, Table 1.1 Summary of Ceramic Tile Source Test Methods and Alternate Methods, specified the test methods and parameters for each pollutant to be tested. These enclosures are included as
attachments to this report and can be located in Appendix L.

Although the ICR requested that testing be performed for PM 2.5 and condensable PM, these tests were not performed due to an agreement reached between the tile industry and the US EPA. The Test Protocol that was submitted and approved reflects this, as there is no

discussion of these tests.

On April 13, 2010, the Tile Council of North America (TCNA), through the offices of Guida, Slavich and Flores contracted with Entec Services to perform this testing at all TCNA member companies who had received the ICR.

Testing was conducted at Dal Tile on December 13-16, 2010 by Mr. Lynn Beane, Mr. Kevin Rosenberg, Mr. Chuck Duncan IV and Mr. Ryan Fogg of Entec Services, Inc. Representing Dal Tile was Mr. Steve Willis who coordinated testing with plant production
personnel.

Testing on April 28–29, 2011 was conducted by Mr. Kevin Rosenberg and Mr. Tim Draheim. Dal Tile was again represented by Mr. Steve Willis who coordinated testing with plant
production personnel.

NOTE: Various nomenclatures were employed for the source names on field data sheets. The following terms shall be considered equivalent.

Tile Dryer No. 5 – referred to as Roller Dryer Spray Dryer No. 1 (SD-1) – referred to as Spray Dryer (EPN-11)

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 7 of 30 2.0 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

Emission testing was conducted on the following sources utilizing US EPA methods 1, 2, 2f, 3, 3a, 4, 5, 23 and 29 of 40 CFR 60, Appendix A as indicated in the table below.

EU ID Source Name/Control Device Test Methods

SD-1 Spray Dryer No. 1/Wet Scrubber 1, 2f, 3a, 4, 23

DC-5 Tile Dryer / No control device 1, 2, 3, 3a, 4, 23
RK-1, RK-2, RK-5 AND

RK-6 Bisque Roller Kilns / No control device 1, 2, 3, 3a, 4, 5, 23, 29

RK-7, RK-8, RK-11 AND

RK-12 Glost Roller Kilns / No control device 1, 2, 3, 3a, 4, 23, 29

2.1 SAMPLING ISSUES AND METHOD DEVIATIONS

Testing on Spray Dryer (SD-1) was originally scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, December 14-15, 2010 but was postponed when initial flow measurements revealed cyclonic flow conditions in the stack. Cyclonic flow is de scribed as flow primarily not vertical to the stack wall and exhibiting a mean yaw angle of greater than 20 degrees. Based on this information the facility elected to conduct testing utilizing EPA’s alternate test procedures – EMC draft guidance document 008r (January 2003). The facility was unable to meet recommendation 1 and 2 due to facility limitation of the mentioned guidance document. Sampling was completed on April 28-
29, 2011.

Guideline document GD-008r, “Particulate Emission Sampling in Cyclonic Flow”, provides three recommendations for addressing cyclonic flow sampling locations in the preferential order of application. The first is to find another location to sample which was not an option for this particular Spray Dryer. The second option is to install straightening vanes upstream of the sampling location, also not an option for Dal Tile on the Spray Dryer. Therefore, Dal Tile, Inc. received approval from US EPA to pursue sampling of the Spray Dryer duct for particulate and dioxin/furan emissions utilizing US EPA Reference Test Method 2F and

Guideline Document GD-008r.

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 8 of 30 Preliminary measurements during the first m obilization to the facility indicated cyclonic flow at angles greater than 50 o 

### at seven of the twenty-four points. In communications between Mr. Peter Westlin of US EPA, OAQPS (Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards) and Mr. Troy Burrows, Entec Corporate Quality Manager, the decision was made to sample the stack treating all angles as being 50 o 

### or less. Utilizing the agreed upon procedures, the test crew sampled at each of the twenty-four points located according to US EPA Method One with a

dwell time of ten minutes for a total run time of 240 minutes or four hours. The nozzle axis was aligned parallel with the stack axis and was not adjusted during the course of sampling.

Since point by point isokinetics were requi red by GD-008r, isokinetics were calculated using the pre-test velocity traverse data adjusted for the axial velocity. Many points were

outside of the 90% ≤ %I ≤ 110% stated range of US EPA Method 5 using equation 5-8. Some angles were greater than those measured on the first mobilization, including a couple of points with a yaw angle of 80 o 

### . These points skewed isokinetic sampling results.

Additionally, the test crew mistakenly used the actual measured velocity head data to set sampling rates when the sampling rate should have been established using the resultant velocity head data. The effect of this was an approximately 10-12% higher sampling rate.

The ALS Environmental Sample Integrity Form for the Glost Roller Kiln method 29 samples indicated a missing fraction identified as 5C. Fraction 5C is described in Reference Test Method 29 in section 8.2.9.3 as an optional 25 ml rinse using 8N HCl. The rinse is required only if the previous DI water rinse does not remove all visible signs of potassium permanganate (KMnO 4 

### ). For run 1 on the Glost Roller Kilns, there were no visible stains (purple in color) remaining on the glassware. For the following two runs, slight staining required use of

the 5C fraction.

No difficulties or problems, other than what is outlined above, were encountered during sampling on the above sources. The emissions test summaries on the following pages give a detailed summary of each test. No process data was provided thus emissions are not reported in kg/MG of product. The Company will submit process data and corresponding calculations as CBI (confidential business information) under separate cover.

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 9 of 30 

## Table 2-1 

## Emissions Summary

Test Performed For: Testing Performed By:
El Paso, Texas Birmingham Division

Source(s) Tested: Spray Dryer (SD-1) Project Manager:

Test Condition: Operating Conditions - ICR Tile MACT Lynn Beane Test(s) Performed:

Run Number Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date of Run 4/28/11 4/28/11 4/29/11 3 Runs

Times, Pollutant Runs (Began - Ended) 0651-1055 1341-1745 0731-1135

- Oxygen Conc., % (dry basis) 18.0 17.4 17.6 17.7

Carbon Dioxide Conc. % (dry basis) 2.0 2.5 4.0 2.8 Molecular Weight Of Stack Gas % (dry basis) 29.04 29.10 29.34 29.16 Molecular Weight Of Stack Gas % (wet basis) 26.13 26.13 26.43 26.23 Isokinetic Sampling Rate % 106.90 109.40 109.00

- Stack Temperature o F 146.2 146.8 145.0 146.0 Stack Temperature o C 129.4 130.8 130.1 130.1

Moisture Content %, v / v 26.41 26.76 25.71 26.29 Average Stack Gas Velocity mps 16.52 16.05 16.18 16.25
Stack Gas Flow @ Actual Conditions acmm 972 945 952 957
Stack Gas Flow @ Standard Conditions scmm 738 716 722 725 Stack Gas Flow @ Dry Standard Conditions dscmm 543 524 537 535

Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Conc. @ STP ng / dscm 7.04 8.22 5.86 7.04 Furan (Target PCDFs) Conc. @ STP ng / dscm 0.0034 0.0025 0.0028 0.0029 Combined Target DD/DF Conc. @ STP ng / dscm 7.05 8.22 5.87 7.05
Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Conc. ng / dscm @ 7% O2 34.0 32.7 24.4 30.4
Furan (Target PCDFs) Conc. ng / dscm @ 7% O2 0.017 0.010 0.011 0.013
Combined Target DD/DF Conc. ng / dscm @ 7% O2 34.0 32.7 24.4 30.4
Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Mass Emissions kg / Hr 2.29E-07 2.59E-07 1.89E-07 2.26E-07
Furan (Target PCDFs) Mass Emissions kg / Hr 1.12E-10 7.90E-11 8.88E-11 9.32E-11 Dal Tile

Flows, Moisture and Dioxins/Furans w/ Methods 1-4 and 23

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 10 of 30 

## Table 2-2 

## Emissions Summary

Test Performed For: Testing Performed By:
El Paso, TX Birmingham Division

Source(s) Tested: Tile Dryer (DC-5) Project Manager:

Test Condition: Operating Conditions - ICR Tile MACT Lynn Beane Test(s) Performed:

Run Number Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date of Run 12/13/10 12/13/10 12/14/10 3 Runs

Times, Pollutant Runs (Began - Ended) 0851-1300 1328-1730 0745-1151

- Oxygen Conc., % (dry basis) 17.5 17.6 17.4 17.5

Carbon Dioxide Conc. % (dry basis) 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.7 Molecular Weight Of Stack Gas % (dry basis) 28.97 28.99 28.96 28.97 Molecular Weight Of Stack Gas % (wet basis) 27.66 27.60 27.57 27.61 Isokinetic Sampling Rate % 105.36 100.65 100.26

- Stack Temperature o F 366.4 368.4 364.6 366.5 Stack Temperature o C 185.8 186.9 184.8 185.8

Moisture Content %, v / v 11.94 12.64 12.68 12.42 Average Stack Gas Velocity mps 8.35 8.35 8.17 8.29
Stack Gas Flow @ Actual Conditions acmm 36.6 36.5 35.8 36.3
Stack Gas Flow @ Standard Conditions scmm 20.5 20.3 20.0 20.3 Stack Gas Flow @ Dry Standard Conditions dscmm 18.0 17.8 17.5 17.8

Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Conc. @ STP ng / dscm 0.20 0.25 0.19 0.21 Furan (Target PCDFs) Conc. @ STP ng / dscm 0.0042 0.0035 0.0033 0.0036 Combined Target DD/DF Conc. @ STP ng / dscm 0.20 0.25 0.19 0.21
Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Conc. ng / dscm @ 7% O2 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.9
Furan (Target PCDFs) Conc. ng / dscm @ 7% O2 0.017 0.014 0.013 0.015
Combined Target DD/DF Conc. ng / dscm @ 7% O2 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9
Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Mass Emissions kg / Hr 2.14E-10 2.63E-10 1.94E-10 2.24E-10
Furan (Target PCDFs) Mass Emissions kg / Hr 4.49E-12 3.69E-12 3.43E-12 3.87E-12 Dal Tile

Flows, Moisture and Dioxins/Furans w/ Methods 1-4 and 23

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 11 of 30



## Table 2-3 

# Emissions Summary

Test Performed For: Testing Performed By:
El Paso, TX Birmingham Division

Source(s) Tested: Bisque Roller Kilns (Kilns 1,2 5, 6) - Common Stack Project Manager:

Test Condition: Operating Conditions (Kilns 1, 2, 5 & 6 Operating) - ICR Tile MACT Lynn Beane Test(s) Performed:

Run Number Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date of Run 12/13/10 12/14/10 12/14/10 3 Runs

Times, Pollutant Runs (Began - Ended) 1142-1550 0802-1210 1247-1655

- Oxygen Conc., % (dry basis) 16.8 16.7 16.9 16.8

Carbon Dioxide Conc. % (dry basis) 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.9 Molecular Weight Of Stack Gas % (dry basis) 29.15 29.16 29.12 29.14 Molecular Weight Of Stack Gas % (wet basis) 28.46 28.54 28.49 28.50 Isokinetic Sampling Rate % 98.05 99.49 100.36

- Stack Temperature o F 297.3 289.1 300.6 295.7 Stack Temperature o C 147.4 142.8 149.2 146.5

Moisture Content %, v / v 6.24 5.54 5.60 5.79 Average Stack Gas Velocity mps 7.96 7.08 7.57 7.54
Stack Gas Flow @ Actual Conditions acmm 960 855 913 910
Stack Gas Flow @ Standard Conditions scmm 587 527 554 556 Stack Gas Flow @ Dry Standard Conditions dscmm 550 497 523 524

Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Conc. @ STP ng / dscm 1.95 1.85 1.70 1.83 Furan (Target PCDFs) Conc. @ STP ng / dscm 0.0093 0.0081 0.0105 0.0093 Combined Target DD/DF Conc. @ STP ng / dscm 1.96 1.86 1.71 1.84
Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Conc. ng / dscm @ 7% O2 6.6 6.1 5.9 6.2
Furan (Target PCDFs) Conc. ng / dscm @ 7% O2 0.031 0.026 0.037 0.031
Combined Target DD/DF Conc. ng / dscm @ 7% O2 6.7 6.1 5.9 6.2
Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Mass Emissions kg / Hr 6.44E-08 5.52E-08 5.33E-08 5.76E-08
Furan (Target PCDFs) Mass Emissions kg / Hr 3.06E-10 2.41E-10 3.30E-10 2.92E-10 Dal Tile

Flows, Moisture and Dioxins/Furans w/ Methods 1-4 and 23

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 12 of 30



### Table 2-4 

## Emissions Summary

Test Performed For: Testing Performed By:
El Paso, TX Birmingham Division

Source(s) Tested: Bisque Roller Kilns (Kilns 1, 2, 5, 6) - Common Stack Project Manager:

Test Condition: Operating Conditions (Kilns 1,2,5 & 6 operating) - ICR Tile MACT Lynn Beane Test(s) Performed:

Run Number Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date of Run 12/13/10 12/14/10 12/14/10 3 Runs

Times, Pollutant Runs (Began - Ended) 1140-1548 0800-1208 1245-1653 -

Oxygen Conc., % (dry basis) 16.8 16.7 16.7 16.7

Carbon Dioxide Conc. % (dry basis) 3

. 0 3

. 1 2

. 8 2

. 9 Molecular Weight Of Stack Gas % (dry basis) 29.15 29.16 29.11 29.14 Molecular Weight Of Stack Gas % (wet basis) 28.46 28.68 28.37 28.51 Isokinetic Sampling Rate % 101.73 102.51 101.92

- Stack Temperature o F 298.2 288.4 297.9 294.8 Stack Temperature o C 147.9 142.5 147.7 146.0

Moisture Content %, v / v 6.19 4.25 6.62 5.69 Average Stack Gas Velocity mps 7.87 7.06 7.47 7.47
Stack Gas Flow @ Actual Conditions acmm 949 852 901 901
Stack Gas Flow @ Standard Conditions scmm 580 525 549 551 Stack Gas Flow @ Dry Standard Conditions dscmm 544 503 512 520

Particulate Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 2.97 3.21 5.60 3.92 Particulate Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 10.1 10.5 18.5 13.03

Particulate Emissions kg / hr 0.097 0.097 0.172 0.1219 Antimony Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 1.88E-04 1.73E-04 1.56E-04 1.72E-04
Arsenic Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 7.91E-03 2.71E-03 6.45E-03 5.69E-03 Beryllium Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 6.55E-05 7.02E-05 6.94E-05 6.84E-05
Cadmium Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 7.59E-04 6.20E-04 1.00E-03 7.94E-04
Chromium Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 2.09E-02 6.04E-02 1.38E-02 3.17E-02
Cobalt Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 3.61E-04 2.14E-04 2.04E-04 2.60E-04
Lead Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 2.35E-03 1.35E-03 2.84E-03 2.18E-03 Manganese Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 4.64E-03 3.73E-03 3.83E-03 4.07E-03 Mercury Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 1.33E-02 6.54E-03 1.66E-02 1.22E-02
Nickel Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 3.84E-03 1.02E-02 6.23E-03 6.76E-03
Selenium Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 9.27E-02 2.33E-02 6.00E-02 5.87E-02
Total Metals Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 1.47E-01 1.09E-01 1.11E-01 1.23E-01 Antimony Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 6.38E-04 5.69E-04 5.15E-04 5.74E-04 Arsenic Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 2.69E-02 8.90E-03 2.13E-02 1.90E-02 Beryllium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 2.23E-04 2.30E-04 2.29E-04 2.27E-04 Cadmium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 2.58E-03 2.03E-03 3.31E-03 2.64E-03 Chromium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 7.09E-02 1.98E-01 4.57E-02 1.05E-01 Dal Tile

Methods 1-4, 5 and 29 (Metric)

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 13 of 30 

# Table 2-4, continued 

# Emissions Summary

Test Performed For: Testing Performed By:

El Paso, TX Birmingham Division

Source(s) Tested: Bisque Roller Kilns (Kilns 1-6) - Common Stack 

### Project Manager:

Test Condition: Operating Conditions (Kilns 1,2,5 & 6 operating) - ICR Tile MACT 

### Lynn Beane Test(s) Performed:

Run Number Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date of Run 12/13/10 12/14/10 12/14/10 3 Runs

Times, Pollutant Runs (Began - Ended) 1140-1548 0800-1208 1245-1653 - Cobalt Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 1.23E-03 7.00E-04 6.75E-04 8.68E-04 Lead Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 7.97E-03 4.42E-03 9.38E-03 7.26E-03 Manganese Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 1.58E-02 1.22E-02 1.26E-02 1.35E-02 Mercury Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 4.54E-02 2.14E-02 5.48E-02 4.05E-02 Nickel Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 1.30E-02 3.35E-02 2.06E-02 2.24E-02 Selenium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 3.15E-01 7.64E-02 1.98E-01 1.96E-01 Total Metals Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 5.00E-01 3.58E-01 3.67E-01 4.08E-01 Antimony Emissions kg / hr 6.125E-06 5.237E-06 4.791E-06 5.385E-06

Arsenic Emissions kg / hr 2.580E-04 8.192E-05 1.984E-04 1.794E-04 Beryllium Emissions kg / hr 2.137E-06 2.120E-06 2.133E-06 2.130E-06

Cadmium Emissions kg / hr 2.476E-05 1.873E-05 3.078E-05 2.476E-05

Chromium Emissions kg / hr 6.809E-04 1.823E-03 4.257E-04 9.766E-04

Cobalt Emissions kg / hr 1.179E-05 6.446E-06 6.284E-06 8.173E-06

Lead Emissions kg / hr 7.653E-05 4.071E-05 8.737E-05 6.820E-05 Manganese Emissions kg / hr 1.515E-04 1.125E-04 1.178E-04 1.272E-04 Mercury Emissions kg / hr 4.354E-04 1.974E-04 5.099E-04 3.809E-04

Nickel Emissions kg / hr 1.252E-04 3.086E-04 1.914E-04 2.084E-04

Selenium Emissions kg / hr 3.024E-03 7.033E-04 1.844E-03 1.857E-03

Total Metals Emissions kg / hr 4.796E-03 3.300E-03 3.419E-03 3.838E-03 

### Dal Tile

Methods 1-4, 5 and 29 (Metric)

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 14 of 30



## Table 2-5 

# Emissions Summary

Test Performed For: Testing Performed By: El Paso, TX Birmingham Division

Source(s) Tested: Glost Roller Kilns (Kilns 7, 8, 11, 12) - Common Stack Project Manager:

Test Condition: Operating Conditions (Kilns 7, 8, 11 & 12 Operating) - ICR Tile MACT Lynn Beane Test(s) Performed:

Run Number Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date of Run 12/15/10 12/15/10 12/16/10 3 Runs

Times, Pollutant Runs (Began - Ended) 0748-1154 1236-1644 0758-1202

- Oxygen Conc., % (dry basis) 19.5 19.7 17.3 18.8

Carbon Dioxide Conc. % (dry basis) 0.5 0.4 1.8 0.9 Molecular Weight Of Stack Gas % (dry basis) 28.86 28.85 28.98 28.90 Molecular Weight Of Stack Gas % (wet basis) 27.94 28.32 28.41 28.23 Isokinetic Sampling Rate % 100.85 97.53 98.73

- Stack Temperature o F 297.2 296.0 291.8 295.0 Stack Temperature o C 147.3 146.7 144.4 146.1

Moisture Content %, v / v 8.48 4.83 5.19 6.17 Average Stack Gas Velocity mps 5.85 5.69 5.63 5.72
Stack Gas Flow @ Actual Conditions acmm 705 687 679 690
Stack Gas Flow @ Standard Conditions scmm 425 415 413 418 Stack Gas Flow @ Dry Standard Conditions dscmm 389 395 391 392

Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Conc. @ STP ng / dscm 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.10 Furan (Target PCDFs) Conc. @ STP ng / dscm 0.0100 0.0084 0.0093 0.0093 Combined Target DD/DF Conc. @ STP ng / dscm 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.10
Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Conc. ng / dscm @ 7% O2 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.8
Furan (Target PCDFs) Conc. ng / dscm @ 7% O2 0.098 0.094 0.036 0.076
Combined Target DD/DF Conc. ng / dscm @ 7% O2 1.0 1.3 0.3 0.9
Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Mass Emissions kg / Hr 2.27E-09 2.63E-09 1.81E-09 2.24E-09
Furan (Target PCDFs) Mass Emissions kg / Hr 2.34E-10 2.00E-10 2.19E-10 2.18E-10 Dal Tile

Flows, Moisture and Dioxins/Furans w/ Methods 1-4 and 23

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 15 of 30

Table 2-6 

### Emissions Summary

Test Performed For: Testing Performed By:
El Paso, TX Birmingham Division

Source(s) Tested: Glost Roller Kilns (Kilns 7, 8, 11, 12) - Common Stack Project Manager:

Test Condition: Operating Conditions (Kilns 7, 8, 11 & 12 Operating) - ICR Tile MACT Lynn Beane Test(s) Performed:

Run Number Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date of Run 12/15/10 12/15/10 12/16/10 3 Runs

Times, Pollutant Runs (Began - Ended) 0747-1153 1235-1643 0755-1149 -

Oxygen Conc., % (dry basis) 19.5 19.7 17.3 18.8

Carbon Dioxide Conc. % (dry basis) 0.5 0.4 1.8 0.9 Molecular Weight Of Stack Gas % (dry basis) 28.86 28.85 28.98 28.90 Molecular Weight Of Stack Gas % (wet basis) 28.32 28.31 28.43 28.35 Isokinetic Sampling Rate % 102.87 103.89 102.94

- Stack Temperature o F 293.3 296.5 292.2 294.0 Stack Temperature o C 145.2 146.9 144.6 145.5

Moisture Content %, v / v 4.98 4.99 5.03 5.00 Average Stack Gas Velocity mps 5.83 5.66 5.66 5.72
Stack Gas Flow @ Actual Conditions acmm 704 683 683 690
Stack Gas Flow @ Standard Conditions scmm 427 412 415 418 Stack Gas Flow @ Dry Standard Conditions dscmm 406 392 394 397

Particulate Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 3.68 2.52 4.25 3.48 Particulate Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 35.7 28.0 16.2 26.66

Particulate Emissions kg / hr 0.089 0.059 0.101 0.0831 Antimony Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 1.40E-04 5.10E-05 1.15E-04 1.02E-04
Arsenic Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 2.49E-03 2.22E-03 2.45E-03 2.39E-03 Beryllium Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 8.68E-05 8.90E-05 8.92E-05 8.84E-05
Cadmium Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 9.29E-05 3.44E-04 8.30E-05 1.73E-04
Chromium Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 2.01E-02 5.32E-03 9.68E-03 1.17E-02
Cobalt Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 2.11E-04 1.40E-04 5.00E-05 1.34E-04
Lead Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 2.48E-03 2.35E-03 2.16E-03 2.33E-03 Manganese Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 4.45E-03 1.02E-02 3.14E-03 5.94E-03 Mercury Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 1.85E-04 1.66E-04 1.85E-04 1.79E-04
Nickel Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 1.03E-02 1.80E-03 3.08E-03 5.07E-03
Selenium Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 7.45E-03 3.17E-03 5.05E-03 5.23E-03
Total Metals Conc. @ STP mg / dscm 4.81E-02 2.59E-02 2.61E-02 3.33E-02 Antimony Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 1.36E-03 5.67E-04 4.40E-04 7.88E-04 Arsenic Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 2.42E-02 2.47E-02 9.31E-03 1.94E-02 Beryllium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 8.44E-04 9.90E-04 3.40E-04 7.25E-04 Cadmium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 9.03E-04 3.83E-03 3.16E-04 1.68E-03 Chromium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 1.96E-01 5.92E-02 3.69E-02 9.72E-02 Cobalt Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 2.05E-03 1.56E-03 1.90E-04 1.27E-03 Lead Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 2.41E-02 2.62E-02 8.22E-03 1.95E-02 Manganese Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 4.33E-02 1.14E-01 1.20E-02 5.63E-02 Mercury Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 1.80E-03 1.85E-03 7.05E-04 1.45E-03 Dal Tile

Methods 1-4, 5 and 29 (Metric)

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 16 of 30 

## Table 2-6, continued 

# Emissions Summary

Test Performed For: Testing Performed By: El Paso, TX Birmingham Division

Source(s) Tested: Glost Roller Kilns (Kilns 7 - 12) - Common Stack Project Manager:
Test Condition: Operating Conditions (Kilns 7, 8, 11 & 12 Operating) - ICR Tile MACT Lynn Beane Test(s) Performed:

Run Number Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date of Run 12/15/10 12/15/10 12/16/10 3 Runs

Times, Pollutant Runs (Began - Ended) 0747-1153 1235-1643 0755-1149 - Nickel Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 1.01E-01 2.00E-02 1.17E-02 4.41E-02 Selenium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 7.24E-02 3.53E-02 1.92E-02 4.23E-02 Total Metals Conc. @ 7% Oxygen mg / dscmc 4.67E-01 2.88E-01 9.93E-02 2.85E-01 Antimony Emissions kg / hr 3.40E-06 1.20E-06 2.73E-06 2.44E-06

Arsenic Emissions kg / hr 6.07E-05 5.22E-05 5.79E-05 5.69E-05 Beryllium Emissions kg / hr 2.11E-06 2.09E-06 2.11E-06 2.11E-06

Cadmium Emissions kg / hr 2.26E-06 8.09E-06 1.96E-06 4.11E-06

Chromium Emissions kg / hr 4.90E-04 1.25E-04 2.29E-04 2.81E-04

Cobalt Emissions kg / hr 5.14E-06 3.29E-06 1.18E-06 3.20E-06

Lead Emissions kg / hr 6.05E-05 5.53E-05 5.11E-05 5.56E-05 Manganese Emissions kg / hr 1.08E-04 2.40E-04 7.43E-05 1.41E-04 Mercury Emissions kg / hr 4.51E-06 3.91E-06 4.38E-06 4.27E-06

Nickel Emissions kg / hr 2.52E-04 4.23E-05 7.28E-05 1.22E-04

Selenium Emissions kg / hr 1.81E-04 7.46E-05 1.20E-04 1.25E-04

Total Metals Emissions kg / hr 1.17E-03 6.09E-04 6.17E-04 7.98E-04 Dal Tile

Methods 1-4, 5 and 29 (Metric)

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 17 of 30 3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

No production data is included in this report. The Company will submit process data and corresponding calculations as CBI (confidential business information) under separate cover.

The Dal-Tile manufacturing site located in El Paso, Texas produces ceramic wall tile. It is unlike any of the other major sources that received a stack testing ICR. Its raw materials mix is different, consisting primarily of talc, clays and glazing compounds. Further, it has an integrated wall tile firing processes consisting of a first step that produces an intermediate product known as “bisque,” and a second “glost” firing process.

3.1 Raw Material Handling

Talc and clays are delivered to the site by covered trucks or enclosed railcars, while the glazing compounds typically arrive in bulk bags. These raw materials contain either no, or very low naturally occurring, organic compounds. The body materials are stored in silos in the raw material storage building.

3.2 Body Preparation

Talc and clays are mixed with recycled green scrap, fired tile wastes, and water in large continuous ball mills to produce a wet slurry, or ‘slip’. Due to the high water content of the ‘slip’, no emissions result from the mixing process. The ‘slip’ is stored in underground tanks prior to processing through the spray dryer. The ‘slip’ is processed through the natural gas fired spray dryer to convert the slurry into granules ( aka powder or prill). A water-based wet scrubber (EPN 11) controls particulate emissions from the spray dryer operations.

3.3 Pressing

The body granules are conveyed to hydraulic pr esses that are used to form the various shapes and sizes of the product. The pressed tiles are moved by roller conveyors directly from the presses to the tile drying operation.

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 18 of 30 3.4 Tile Drying

Each press has its own associated roller dryer. These dryers, heated by natural gas, reduce the moisture in the pressed tiles and increase the tile temperature in preparation for firing in the kilns. Each roller dryer (Tile dryer) has its own separate exhaust stack venting to
atmosphere.

3.5 Kiln Firing

The firing process at Dal-Tile/El Paso is different from the tile manufacturing processes at other Dal-Tile facilities and at other US manufacturers. The El Paso facility produces ceramic tile designed for use on walls and is both thinner and lighter (less dense) than other tile products (e.g., floor, mosaic, and/or quarry tile products). Due to the unique characteristics of the raw
materials used to make wall tile at El Paso, it is necessary to use a double-fire process in order to obtain the desired finish of the glazed product.

The pressed and dried tiles are conveyed directly from the roller dryer into the first-fire kiln. Each roller dryer has its own associated first-fire kiln. The product of the first-fire kiln process is called “bisque”. The fired bisque tiles are transferred via special cars to the glazing operations (see Sections 3.6 and 3.7 below).

Following the glazing process, tiles are moved to the entrance of, and automatically fed into one of the second-fire kilns. This proces s is called glost firing. The bisque process has already converted the raw materials to ceramic tile and the glost process is simply firing the glaze compounds to create the finished product.

Under normal operation, as required by the facility’s air permit, the exhausts from the combustion zone of the bisque kilns are combined with the exhausts from the combustion zone of the glost kilns and vented through a common stack (EPN 29). There are no pollution controls

on the common stack.

Since it was expected that the double-fire process would result in different concentrations of HAP emissions, for purposes of this testing program, the exhaust from the bisque kilns were measured separately from the ex haust from the glost kilns. The glost kilns exhaust testing was accomplished by venting the exhaust from each individual bisque kiln stack

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 19 of 30 directly to atmosphere. Glost Kilns 7, 8, 11 and 12 were operated during this testing event. Likewise, the bisque kilns exhaust testing was accomplished by venting the exhaust from each individual glost kiln stack directly to atmosphere. Bisque Kilns 1, 2, 5, and 6 were operated during this testing event.

3.6 Glaze Preparation

The ceramic glaze material and stains arrive at the facility in sealed bags by truck. The glaze materials are mixed with clean water in small batch ball mills to achieve the desired moisture content. Stains are dispersed into differ ent base glazes to create specific glaze colors.

3.7 Gla8zing

The cars with the fired bisque tiles are moved to the entrance of one of the six glaze lines. The fired bisque tiles are automatically fed onto the glaze conveyor lines and pass under bell (“waterfall”) or roto-color type glaze applicators. The glaze is deposited as a thin layer onto the tiles. Neither the bell nor the roto-color glaze application processes utilize aerosols and therefore, do not generate overspray. The glazed bisque tiles are stored temporarily in special cars in preparation for the next process, glost firing.

3.8 Sorting and Shipping

Fired glazed tiles are sorted and inspected at the sorting lines. Defective tiles are separated and transported to the fired tile scrap processing area for recycling/reuse into the body material formula. The finished, inspected tiles are packaged into cartons and stacked on pallets. The full pallets are moved to the storage area and staged for shipping.

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 20 of 30 4.0 REFERENCE METHOD TEST PROCEDURES

Emission rates were determined using US EPA Reference Test Methods 1, 2, 2F, 3, 3A, 4, 5, 23 and 29 of US EPA 40 CFR 60, Appendix A and Emissions Measurement Center (EMC)

Draft Guidance Document 008r. Calibration and quality assurance procedures of US EPA 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A and the “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement System” Volume III Stationary Source-Specific Methods were followed throughout the duration of field and laboratory testing for all methods. The most current version for each method (as described in the Federal Register) was used.

4.1 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 1 - TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT

For Information on stack dimensions, traverse points, distance to disturbance and other relevant data, refer to the drawings presented in Figures 4-1 through 4-4, “Stack Drawing and

Traverse Point Location”.

4.2 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 2 – VELOCITY (Glost and Bisque Kilns, Tile Dryer)

The velocity of each gas stream was determined according to US EPA Reference Method 2 by reading the instantaneous velocity head with an inclined manometer at each sampling point with a calibrated S-type pitot. The stack pressure was measured with the static side of an S-type pitot tube. A calibrated pyrometer was used to measure stack temperature at each sampling point. All test data, worksheets, and spreadsheets presenting the calculations are included in Appendices A - D. Calibration procedures for the velocity equipment are located in Section 6.0 of this report. Pitot tube, thermocouple, and other measurement device calibration worksheets used for the test series are presented in Appendix I.

4.3 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 2F – VELOCITY USING A THREEDIMENSIONAL PROBE (Spray Dryer No. 1)

This method is applicable for the determination of yaw angle, pitch angle, axial velocity and the volumetric flow rate of a gas stream in a stack or duct using a three-dimensional (3-D) probe. This method may be used only when the average stack or duct gas velocity is greater than or equal to 20 ft/sec. When the above condition cannot be met, alternative procedures,

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 21 of 30 approved by the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, shall be used to make

accurate flow rate determinations.

A 3-D probe is used to determine the velocity pressure and the yaw and pitch angles of the flow velocity vector in a stack or duct. The method determines the yaw angle directly by rotating the probe to null the pressure across a pair of symmetrically placed ports on the probe head. The pitch angle is calculated using probe-specific calibration curves. From these values and a determination of the stack gas density, the average axial velocity of the stack gas is calculated. The average gas volumetric flow rate in the stack or duct is then determined from the average axial velocity. All test data, worksheets, and spreadsheets presenting the calculations are included in Appendices A and I. Calibration procedures for the velocity equipment are located in Section 6.0 of this report

4.4 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 3 - DRY GAS MOLECULAR WEIGHT-CARBON DIOXIDE (Spray Dryer SD-1)

Dry Gas molecular weight (carbon dioxide) was determined using US EPA Reference Test Method 3 (Fyrite Method). A sample of the flue gas was extracted from the gas stream during each test. These samples were analyzed with a Fyrite gas analyzer. The molecular weight of the gas was calculated using the moisture, oxygen and carbon dioxide content, and the measured stack gas temperature.

4.5 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 3A - MOLECULAR WEIGHT .DETERMINATION

INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSIS- OXYGEN/CARBON DIOXIDE (Bisque and Glost Kilns, Tile Dryer No. 5)

The oxygen/carbon dioxide concentration was determined using US EPA Reference Test Method 3A. A sample of the flue gas was extracted from the gas stream during each test. Moisture was removed from the sample and the dry sample was then analyzed with an instrumental gas analyzer. The molecular weight of the gas was calculated using the moisture, oxygen and carbon dioxide content and the measured stack gas temperature.

4.6 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 4 - MOISTURE CONTENT

The moisture content used for calculating the gas stream flow rate was determined by measuring the moisture in a series of glass impi ngers and silica gel impin ger gravimetrically with

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 22 of 30 an analytical balance with a tolerance of 0.1 g. The volume of gas drawn was corrected to dry standard conditions. The dry gas meter and thermocouple calibration forms are contained in
Appendix I.

4.7 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 23 - DIOXIN-FURAN DETERMINATION

This method is applicable to the determination of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD's) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF's ) from stationary sources. A sample is withdrawn from the gas stream isokinetically and collected in the sample probe, on a glass fiber filter, and on a packed column of adsorbent material. The sample cannot be separated into a particle vapor fraction. The PCDD's and PCDF's are extracted from the sample, separated by high resolution gas chromatography, and measur ed by high resolution mass spectrometry.

4.8 US EPA REFERENCE TEST METHOD 5 WITH METHOD 29 – PARTICULATE AND

METALS DETERMINATION

The particulate/multiple metals sample train consisted of a heated stainless steel sample probe with a glass liner equipped with an S-type pitot tube and thermocouple. The probe was attached to a sample module consisting of a heated filter compartment, which houses the in-line filter holder equipped with a pre-weighed quartz filter for the collection of the particulate, and a series of glass impingers to collect metals and determine moisture. The sample module was connected to a control module by means of an um bilical cord. The control module consisted of a dry gas meter, calibrated orifice, leak free pump, two inclined manometers, and temperature controllers for the heated filter compartment, the probe, and a thermocouple indicator to monitor the required temperatures during the testing.

Gas samples were collected as follows: the sample gas was drawn through the sampling probe isokinetically and passed through a 3-inch quartz filter on to which particulate matter was deposited. The sample gas was then passed through a series of ice-cooled impingers. The first and second impingers contained exactly 100 ml each of an absorbing solution (5% HNO 3 

### 10%

H 2 

### O 2 

### ). The third impinger was empty. The fourth and fifth impingers contained exactly 100 ml

each of acidic KMnO 4 

### absorbing solution. The sixth impinger contained exactly 250 g of silica gel, which absorbs any remaining moisture. These impingers were placed in an ice-bath to maintain a maximum exit temperature of 68 o 

### F. The sample gas then passed through a vacuum pump followed by a dry gas meter. The dry gas meter integrated the sample gas flow

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 23 of 30 throughout the duration of the test. A calibrated orifice attached to the outlet of the dry gas meter provided real time flow rate data.

A representative gas sample was acquired by sampling for equal periods of time at the centroid of a number of equal area regions in the exhaust stack. The sampling rate was adjusted at each test point maintaining an isokinetic sampling condition.

After the sampling was complete, the filter was removed and placed in a storage container. The nozzle, probe liner, and inlet side of the filter holder were quantitatively washed with exactly 100 ml of reagent grade acetone and stored in a marked and sealed container. The nozzle, probe liner, and inlet side of the filter holder were rinsed again with 0.1N HNO 3 

### and placed into another marked and sealed container. The nozzle and probe liner were then rinsed with DI water and followed by another acetone rinse. These rinses were not retained and were a QA/QC step to ensure clean glassware prior to starting another run. The liquids from the first and second impingers were weighed and added to a third marked and sealed container. The back half of the filter holder and these two impi ngers were rinsed with exactly 100 ml of 0.1N

HNO 3 

### and the rinses were added to the same container. The contents of the third impinger were weighed and then rinsed with exactly 100 ml of 0.1N HNO 3 

### and the rinses were placed in a fourth marked and sealed container. The liquids from the fourth and fifth impingers were weighed and added to a fifth marked and sealed container. These impingers were first rinsed with exactly 100 ml of fresh KMnO 4, 

### and then exactly 100 ml of distilled water and the rinses were added to the sample container. All the samples were transferred to our laboratory for particulate determination and shipment to ALS Laboratory Group for metals analysis. The fourth and fifth impingers were then rinsed with a total of 25ml of 8N HCI; this was added to 200ml of

DI 

### water in a sixth marked container and sealed. The sixth impinger was weighed to determine moisture catch of the silica gel.

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 24 of 30 Client: Dal Tile Job No. :

Source: Spray Dryer (SD-1) Input By:

P Port Type Nipple Port Diameter

Stack Properties: Inches Feet

Stack Diameter (inside), inches: 44 3.67

Stack Height (grade to test platform), feet: 90.0 -

264.0 6.00

202.5 4.60 12 12

Point No.
1 1.0 *adjusted 6.3

2 2.9 8.2

3 5.2 10.4

4 7.8 13.0

5 11.0 16.3

6 15.7 20.9

7 28.3 33.6

8 33.0 38.3

9 36.2 41.5

10 38.8 44.1

11 41.1 46.3
12 43.0 *adjusted 48.3

* Adjusted points diameter > 24" no point closer than 1.0 inch
* Adjusted points diameter < 24" no point closer than 0.5 inch

Stack Diameters between 12-24 inches minimum points are 8 ;
4 points per port if the 8 / 2 diameters downstream and
upstream criteria is met. 

## Fi g ure 4-1 Entec Services, Inc

30 Monroe Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124

Type of Traverse: Velocity (V) or Particulate (P):

2 STACK DRAWING & TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION

Total Number of Traverse Points: 3

10.559

'After' Flow Disturbance, Distance (A) : Stack Area, Ft 2 :

24 Length of Port, inches:

Inches Inside Stack 'Before' Flow Disturbance, Distance (B) : 211169

Kevin Rosenberg

Outside Nipple Number of Points per port / traverse: Number of Ports:

Inches 5.25

INCHES 44.0 INCHES

INCHES

202.5 264.0

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 25 of 30 Client: Dal Tile Job No. :

Source: Tile Dryer (DC-5) Input By:

P Port Type Nipple Port Diameter

Stack Properties: Inches Feet

Stack Diameter (inside), inches: 12 1.00

Stack Height (grade to test platform), feet: 50.0

-

240.0 20.00

360.0 30.00 4 4

Point No.

1 0.8 4.8

2 3.0 7.0

3 9.0 13.0

4 11.2 15.2

* Adjusted points diameter > 24" no point closer than 1.0 inch
* Adjusted points diameter < 24" no point closer than 0.5 inch

Stack Diameters between 12-24 inches minimum points are 8 ;
4 points per port if the 8 / 2 diameters downstream and
upstream criteria is met. STACK DRAWING & TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION 

## Fi g ure 4-2 Entec Services, Inc

30 Monroe Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124

Total Number of Traverse Points: 3

0.785

'After' Flow Disturbance, Distance (A) : Stack Area, Ft 2 :

8 Length of Port, inches: Type of Traverse: Velocity (V) or Particulate (P):

2

Inches Inside Stack 'Before' Flow Disturbance, Distance (B) : 210268

Chuck Duncan IV

Outside Nipple Number of Points per port / traverse: Number of Ports:

Inches 4.00

INCHES 12.0 INCHES

INCHES

360.0 240.0

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 26 of 30 Client: Dal Tile Job No. :

Source: Bisque Roller Kilns (Kilns 1,2 5, 6) - Common Stack Input By:

P Port Type Nipple Port Diameter

Stack Properties: Inches Feet

Stack Diameter (inside), inches: 63 5.25

Stack Height (grade to test platform), feet: 80.0

-

420.0 6.67

500.0 7.94 12 12

Point No.

1 1.3 4.8

2 4.2 7.7

3 7.4 10.9

4 11.2 14.7

5 15.8 19.3

6 22.4 25.9

7 40.6 44.1

8 47.3 50.8

9 51.8 55.3

10 55.6 59.1

11 58.8 62.3

12 61.7 65.2

* Adjusted points diameter > 24" no point closer than 1.0 inch
* Adjusted points diameter < 24" no point closer than 0.5 inch

Stack Diameters between 12-24 inches minimum points are 8 ;
4 points per port if the 8 / 2 diameters downstream and
upstream criteria is met.

NOTE: Due to low sales demand in the tile industry, only four of the bisque kilns were in operation for this test. INCHES 63.0 INCHES

INCHES

500.0 420.0 Inches Inside Stack 'Before' Flow Disturbance, Distance (B) : 210268

Kevin Rosenberg

Outside Nipple Number of Points per port / traverse: Number of Ports:

Inches 3.50

Total Number of Traverse Points: 3

21.648

'After' Flow Disturbance, Distance (A) : Stack Area, Ft 2 :

24 Length of Port, inches: Type of Traverse: Velocity (V) or Particulate (P):

2 STACK DRAWING & TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION 

## Fi g ure 4-3 Entec Services, Inc

30 Monroe Dr. Pelham, AL 35124

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 27 of 30 Client: Dal Tile Job No. :

Source: Glost Roller Kilns (Kilns 7, 8, 11, 12) - Common Stack Input By:

P Port Type Nipple Port Diameter

Stack Properties: Inches Feet

Stack Diameter (inside), inches: 63 5.25

Stack Height (grade to test platform), feet: 80.0

-

420.0 6.67

500.0 7.94 12 12

Point No.

1 1.3 4.8

2 4.2 7.7

3 7.4 10.9

4 11.2 14.7

5 15.8 19.3

6 22.4 25.9

7 40.6 44.1

8 47.3 50.8

9 51.8 55.3

10 55.6 59.1

11 58.8 62.3

12 61.7 65.2

* Adjusted points diameter > 24" no point closer than 1.0 inch
* Adjusted points diameter < 24" no point closer than 0.5 inch

Stack Diameters between 12-24 inches minimum points are 8 ;
4 points per port if the 8 / 2 diameters downstream and
upstream criteria is met.

NOTE: Due to low sales demand in the tile industry, only four of the glost kilns were in operation for this test. STACK DRAWING & TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION 

## Figure 4-4 Entec Services, Inc

30 Monroe Dr. Pelham, AL 35124

Total Number of Traverse Points: 3

21.648

'After' Flow Disturbance, Distance (A) : Stack Area, Ft 2 :

24 Length of Port, inches: Type of Traverse: Velocity (V) or Particulate (P):

2

Inches Inside Stack 'Before' Flow Disturbance, Distance (B) : 210268

Kevin Rosenberg

Outside Nipple Number of Points per port / traverse: Number of Ports:

Inches 3.50

INCHES 63.0 INCHES

INCHES

500.0 420.0

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 28 of 30 

# Figure 4-5

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 29 of 30 

# Figure 4-6

### Dal Tile, Inc. – El Paso, TX Project Nos. 210268 / 211169 Page 30 of 30 5.0 QA / QC PROCEDURES

Specific Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA / QC) procedures were adhered to during this test project to provide valid and scientifically defensible data. For any environmental field and laboratory measurement, a degree of uncertainty exists in the data due to inherent limitations of the measurement sy stems employed. Entec Services, Inc. objective of the QA / QC program is to produce data of known precis ion, accuracy, representation, completeness, and comparability. Special Entec-designed QA/QC checklists are contained in Appendix F.

For purposes of the ICR, EPA requested that non-detects are to be reported at the detection limit for all compounds. This is critical in the D/F results due to calculation of the total target analytes as dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. When specific congeners were not
detected, the summations included detection limits.

6.0 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES

All of the emission testing equipment used was calibrated according to the procedures outlined in the EPA 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix “A” and the Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems , Volume III, EPA-600/4-77-027b. Complete calibration records are located in the appendix of this report.

### APPENDIX A

RAW TEST DATA AND EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

SPRAY DRYER NO. 1 (SD-1)

US EPA METHODS 1-4 AND 23SOURCE OWNER: Dal Tile

PLANT LOCATION: El Paso, Texas

SOURCE(S) NAME(S): Spray Dryer (SD-1)

SOURCE(S) CONDITION: Operating Conditions - ICR Tile MACT

SOURCE(S) SHAPE: Circular

PROBE WASH CHEMICAL(s), a-b-c-d: Acetone, Methylene Choride, and Toluene

TEST PERFORMED: Flows, Moisture, and Dioxins / Furans

ADDITIONAL TEST REQUIREMENTS: 120 meter volume, 4 hour testing w/ Metrics

REFERENCE METHOD TESTS: Sample Test Points at Location EPA Method 1

Volumetric Flow EPA Method 2 Molecular Weight EPA Method 3, 3A
Moisture Content EPA Method 4

Dibenzo- p -dioxins / Furans (DDs / DFs) EPA Method 23

ENTEC PROJECT MANAGER (PM) Lynn Beane

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYST (Team Leader) Kevin Rosenberg 

# Entec Services, Inc.

SOURCE OVERVIEW

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYST (Assistants) Tim Draheim

OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE(s): Mr. Steve Willis

ENTEC PROJECT NUMBER: 211169

ENTEC QUALITY REVIEW:

x Keith Poole 06/13/11

x DATES TESTS CONDUCTED: 4/28/2011 4/28/2011
04/27/11Client:

Source: Spray Dryer (SD-1)

Symbol Units Test Data QC'd by: Keith Poole

- - 1 2 3A V E R A G E

Test Date

- - 04/28/11 04/28/11 04/29/11 All Runs

Times, Pollutant Runs (Began - Ended) - Military Time 0651-1055 1341-1745 0731-1135 -
Sampling Time  minutes 240.0 240.0 240.0 240.0

Stack Area A s Ft 2 10.56 10.56 10.56

-

Barometric Pressure P bar in. Hg 25.98 25.98 25.92 25.950

Stack Static Pressure P g in. H 2 0 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20

Pitot Tube Correction factor C p - 0.84 0.84 0.84

-

Meter Correction Factor Y - 0.977 0.977 0.977

-
Meter Delta H @  H@ in. H 2 0 1.725 1.725 1.725 1.725

Nozzle Diameter D n inches 0.242 0.242 0.242

-

Meter Volume V m dcf 174.337 180.203 181.152 178.564

Meter Temperature t m o F 66.9 90.9 81.9 79.9 Run Number Field Data Data Input By: 211169

Kevin Rosenberg Job No.: Dal Tile 

# ENTEC Services, Inc.

30 Monroe Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124



### INPUT DATA

Avg. Orifice Delta H  H in. H 2 0 1.46 1.43 1.39 1.43
Impingers Weight Gain (Moisture) W imp grams 1120.7 1226.1 1201.4 1182.7
Silica Gel Impinger Weight Gain (Moisture) W sg grams 40.9 45.9 43.1 43.3
Oxygen Concentration, % (dry basis) O 2 % 18.02 17.41 17.56 17.66
Carbon Dioxide Concentration, % (dry basis) CO 2 % 2.00 2.50 4.00 2.83
Avg. Sq. Rt. of Axial Velocity Delta P sqrt  P in. H20 1/2 0.800 0.777 0.788 0.788
Stack Temperature t s o F 146.2 146.8 145.0 146.0
Total Target Analytes Dibenzo-p-dioxins pg 29,681 34,239 24,905 29,608
Total Target Analytes Dibenzofurans pg 14.5 10.5 11.7 12.2

Total Target Analytes Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans pg 29,695.5 34,249.1 24,916.6 29,620.4Client:

Source: Spray Dryer (SD-1)

Formulas Symbol Units Calculated Data QC'd by: Keith Poole

Run Numbers

- - 1 2 3 AVERAGE
Test Date(s)

- - 04/28/11 04/28/11 04/29/11 All Runs
Times, Pollutant Runs (Began - Ended)

- Military Time 0651-1055 1341-1745 0731-1135 -

1. Stack Pressure = Pbar + Pg / 13.6 Ps in. Hg 26.07 26.07 26.01 26.05

2. Meter Pressure = Pbar + DH / 13.6 Pm in. Hg 26.09 26.09 26.02 26.06

3. Standard Meter Volume = 17.64* Y* (Vm/Tm)* (Pbar + DH / 13.6) Vm(std) dscf 148.825 147.109 149.977 148.637
4a. Standard Volume of Water Vapor Condensed =0.04706*Wimp Vwc(std) scf 52.740 57.700 56.538 55.659

4b. Standard Volume of Water Collected in Silica Gel =0.04715*Wsg Vwsg(std) scf 1.928 2.164 2.032 2.042

5. Moisture Fraction =(Vwc(std) + Vwsg(std))/(Vwc(std) + Vwsg(std) + Vm(std)) Bws fraction 0.2686 0.2892 0.2808 0.2796
6. Moisture Fraction @ Saturation (Theoretical) =10[6.37-(2827/(ts+460-95.2)]/Ps TBws fraction 0.2641 0.2676 0.2571 0.2629
7. Standard Water Volume @ Saturation (Theoretical) =Vm(std) * (TBws)/(1-TBws) TVW(std) scf 53.40 53.76 51.89 53.02
8. Volume of Water @ Saturation (Theoretical) =TVw(std)/0.04707 TVlc ml 1134.4 1142.1 1102.4 1126.3
9. Molecular Weight of Stack Gas (dry) = 0.32*(O2)+ 0.44*(CO2)+0.28*(100-(O2)-(CO2)) Md g / g-mole 29.041 29.096 29.342 29.160
10. Molecular Weight of Stack Gas (wet) = Md*(1-Bws)+18.0*(Bws) Ms g / g-mole 26.125 26.127 26.427 26.226
11. Average Stack Gas Velocity = 85.49*Cp*(sqrt DP)avg*SQRT((Ts) / (Ps*Mw)) vs ft / s 54.205 52.66 53.09 53.32

12. Stack Gas Flow @ Actual Conditions = 60*vs*As Qa acfm 34,342 33,364 33,633 33,780

13. Stack Gas Flow @ Standard Conditions = Qa*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/Pstd) Qs scfm 26,050 25,286 25,503 25,613
14. Stack Gas Flow @ Dry Standard Conditions = Qa*(1-Bws)*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/Pstd) Qstd dscfm 19,171 18,518 18,947 18,879
15a. Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Conc. @ STP =0.01543*mn/1000000000/Vm(std) cs gr / dscf 3.1E-09 3.6E-09 2.6E-09 3.1E-09
15b. Furan (Target PCDFs) Conc. @ STP =0.01543*mn/1000000000/Vm(std) cs gr / dscf 1.5E-12 1.1E-12 1.2E-12 1.3E-12
15. Combined Target DD/DF Conc. @ STP =0.01543*mn/1000000000/Vm(std) cs gr / dscf 3.1E-09 3.6E-09 2.6E-09 3.1E-09
20a. Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Conc. @ 7% O2 =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c %O2 gr / dscfc 1.5E-08 1.4E-08 1.1E-08 1.3E-08
20b. Furan (Target PCDFs) Conc. @ 7% O2 =Cs * (( 20.9-7 ) / ( 20.9- % O2 )) c %O2 g r / dscfc 7.2E-12 4.4E-12 5.0E-12 5.5E-12 

### ENTEC Services, Inc.

30 Monroe Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124

CALCULATED TEST DATA - English Units

Description Data Input By: Kevin Rosenberg Job No.: 211169 Dal Tile

20b. Furan (Target PCDFs) Conc. @ 7% O2 (( ) ( % )) %O2 g 20. Combined Target DD/DF Conc. @ 7% O2 =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c %O2 gr / dscfc 1.5E-08 1.4E-08 1.1E-08 1.3E-08
21a. Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Mass Emissions = (60/7000)*cs*Qsd PMR DD lb / hr 5.06E-07 5.70E-07 4.16E-07 4.97E-07
21b. Furan (Target PCDFs) Mass Emissions = (60/7000)*cs*Qsd PMR DF lb / hr 2.47E-10 1.74E-10 1.96E-10 2.06E-10
21. Combined Target DD/DF Mass Emissions = (60/7000)*cs*Qsd PMR D/F lb / hr 5.06E-07 5.70E-07 4.16E-07 4.97E-07
22. Volume collected through nozzle =Ts/Ps*[0.002669*Vlc+ Vm*Y*Pm/Tm] Vn acf 266.527 264.979 266.159 265.888
24. Isokinetic Sampling Rate, Percent = 100*Vn / (60*vs*An*q) I % 106.90 109.40 109.00 108.43Client:

Source: Spray Dryer (SD-1)

Formulas Symbol Units Calculated Data QC'd by: Keith Poole

Test Date

- - 04/28/11 04/28/11 04/29/11 All Runs
Times, Pollutant Runs (Began - Ended) - Military Time 0651-1055 1341-1745 0731-1135 -

1. Stack Pressure = Ps*25.4 P s mm. Hg 662.1 662.1 660.6 661.6

2. Meter Pressure = Pm*25.4 P m mm. Hg 662.6 662.6 661.0 662.0

3. Standard Meter Volume =Vm(std) * 0.02831685 V m(std) dscm 4.214 4.166 4.247 4.209
4a. Standard Volume of Water Vapor Condensed =0.04706*Wimp V wc(std) scm 1.493 1.634 1.601 1.576

4b. Standard Volume of Water Collected in Silica Gel =0.04715*Wsg V wsg(std) scm 0.055 0.061 0.058 0.058

5. Moisture Fraction =(Vwc(std) + Vwsg(std))/(Vwc(std) + Vwsg(std) + Vm(std)) B ws fraction 0.2686 0.2892 0.2808 0.2796 6. Moisture Fraction @ Saturation (Theoretical) =10[6.37-(2827/(ts+460-95.2)]/Ps TB ws fraction 0.264 0.268 0.257 0.263 7. Standard Water Volume @ Saturation (Theoretical) =Vm(std) * (TBws)/(1-TBws) TV W(std) scm 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 8. Volume of Water @ Saturation (Theoretical) =TVw(std)/0.04707 TV lc ml 1134.4 1142.1 1102.4 1126.3
9. Molecular Weight of Stack Gas (dry) = 0.32*(O2)+ 0.44*(CO2)+0.28*(100-(O2)-(CO2)) M d g / g-mole 29.04 29.10 29.34 29.16
10. Molecular Weight of Stack Gas (wet) = Md*(1-Bws)+18.0*(Bws) M s g / g-mole 26.13 26.13 26.43 26.23
11. Average Stack Gas Velocity = 85.49*Cp*(sqrt DP)avg*SQRT((Ts) / (Ps*Mw)) v s m / s 16.52 16.05 16.18 16.25

12. Stack Gas Flow @ Actual Conditions = 60*vs*As Q a acmm 972 945 952 957

13. Stack Gas Flow @ Standard Condition = Qa*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/Pstd) Q s scmm 738 716 722 725 14. Stack Gas Flow @ Dry Standard Condition = Qa*(1-Bws)*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/Pstd) Q std, d dscmm 543 524 537 535 15a. Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Conc. @ STP =ng/Vm(std) c s ng / dscm 7.0430 8.2193 5.8643 7.0422 15b. Furan (Target PCDFs) Conc. @ STP =ng/Vm(std) c s ng / dscm 0.0034 0.0025 0.0028 0.0029 15. Combined Target DD/DF Conc. @ STP =ng/Vm(std) c s ng / dscm 7.0464 8.2218 5.8671 7.0451 20a. Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Conc. @ 7% O2 =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c %O2 ng / dscm c 33.9922 32.7357 24.4053 30.3777 20b. Furan (Target PCDFs) Conc. @ 7% O2 =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c %O2 ng / dscm c 0.0166 0.0100 0.0115 0.0127 20. Combined Target DD/DF Conc. @ 7% O2 =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c %O2 ng / dscm c 34.0088 32.7457 24.4168 30.3904
21a. Dioxin (Target PCDDs) Mass Emissions PMR DD kg / hr 2.29E-07 2.59E-07 1.89E-07 2.26E-07 Data Input By: Kevin Rosenberg

Description 

### ENTEC Services, Inc.

30 Monroe Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124

Dal Tile Job No.: 211169 CALCULATED TEST DATA - Metric Units

21b. Furan (Target PCDFs) Mass Emissions PMR DF kg / hr 1.12E-10 7.90E-11 8.88E-11 9.32E-11
21. Combined Target DD/DF Mass Emissions PMR D/F kg / hr 2.30E-07 2.59E-07 1.89E-07 2.26E-07

22. Volume collected through nozzle =Ts/Ps*[0.002669*Vlc+ Vm*Y*Pm/Tm] V n acm 7.547 7.503 7.537 7.529
24. Isokinetic Sampling Rate, Percent = 100*Vn / (60*vs*An*q) I % 106.90 109.40 109.00 108.43

Post Meter Orifice Cal. (EMC ALT-009 Yqa) y qa 1.0153 0.9943 0.9642 0.991
% Difference, (Calibration must be within 5% of original Y-factor) -1.46%Client:Dal TileTest Date:4/28/2011Source:Run Number:1# of Data Points:24Sampling Time:24030 Monroe Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124ENTEC Services, Inc.Spray Dryer (SD-1)Traverse Point Delta P Sq. Rt. Delta PAxial VelocityDelta PSq, Rt. AxialVelocity Delta PDry Gas MeterReading(ft3)Axial Vs (fps)% ISODelta H Stack Temp. (°F) Meter Temp. (°F)1-10.810.90000.7220.8495555.40457.2585108.891.5714051DIOXINS / FURANS FIELD DATA, EPA METHOD 230.81108.891-20.850.9220 0.757 0.8699 563.060 58.8270106.221.64144551-30.900.9487 0.800 0.8945 570.740 60.6961108.641.74148571-40.850.9220 0.520 0.7209 578.820 48.8307130.381.64146611-50.620.7874 0.220 0.4690 586.710 31.7204178.171.20144651-60.240.4899 0.019 0.1363 593.800 9.2173360.230.46144671-70.800.8944 0.713 0.8442 597.990 57.2342108.591.55147691-80.840.9165 0.863 0.9288 605.800 62.967598.851.63147691-9 0.76 0.8718 0.880 0.9382 613.620 63.661295.891.47148691-10 0.70 0.8367 0.896 0.9464 621.280 64.212794.601.35148681-11 0.68 0.8246 0.869 0.9325 628.890 63.216589.241.32147681-120.600.77460.7690.8767635.97059.335898.061.16145682-10.730.85440.8470.9203643.30062.343391.891.41146682-20.790.88880.9170.9574650.50064.906892.121.53147682-30.810.90000.9400.9694658.00065.723492.451.57147682-40.900.94870.8020.8954665.62060.7073104.081.74147682-50.900.94870.8020.8954673.54060.701088.021.74147692-60.660.81240.2340.4842680.25032.7735160.341.28145692-70.620.78740.2200.4695686.88031.7490163.651.20144702-80.800.89440.4890.6995693.46047.4203137.191.55147702-90.880.93810.7830.8846701.65060.0227102.051.70148712-100.910.95390.8090.8994709.36061.0279100.251.76148712-110.770.87750.7900.8889717.06060.316389.051.49148732-120.670.81850.6890.8303723.85056.292282.601.3014773Final Meter Reading729.741K-Factor1.930.750.86300.6810.800174.33754.215N/A1.46146.266.9Client:Dal TileTest Date:4/28/2011Source:Run Number:2# of Data Points:24Sampling Time:240ENTEC Services, Inc.Spray Dryer (SD-1)30 Monroe Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124Traverse Point Delta P Sq. Rt. Delta PAxial Velocity DeltaPSq, Rt. AxialVelocity Delta PDry Gas MeterReading(ft3)Axial Vs (fps)% ISODelta H Stack Temp. (°F) Meter Temp. (°F)1-10.650.80620.5790.7607731.10251.356692.881.2614285DIOXINS / FURANS FIELD DATA, EPA METHOD 231-20.650.80620.5790.7607738.05051.569491.671.26147861-30.600.77460.4500.6705745.05045.494187.921.16148871-40.600.77460.3670.6055751.98041.0814107.511.16148881-50.550.74160.1930.4388758.81029.7470155.271.06147881-60.380.61640.0910.3017765.23020.4062421.160.74144881-70.910.95390.9360.9675770.32065.5892111.411.76147871-80.850.92201.0881.0433778.60070.789299.561.64148871-90.800.89441.0231.0113786.73068.616292.151.55148871-100.780.88320.9970.9985794.34067.749398.071.51148871-110.750.86600.9580.9788802.51066.413692.411.45148871-120.670.81850.8580.9261810.09062.788593.801.30147882-10.700.83671.0331.0162817.34068.726689.581.35144882-20.750.86600.9600.9800824.65066.386889.071.45146882-30.880.93811.1271.0617832.19071.975597.761.70147882-40.840.91651.1651.0794840.55073.177296.081.63147932-50.920.95921.0671.0330848.21070.0338104.291.78147952-60.700.83670.4270.6536856.55044.2375170.611.35145952-70.550.74160.0170.1309863.9508.8630163.081.06145962-80.860.92740.2120.4600870.82031.1884128.101.66147962-90.930.96440.4440.6662878.84045.2021100.741.80148992-100.870.93270.4150.6446886.85043.7365102.941.681481002-110.820.90550.5010.7075895.19048.0033105.001.591481002-120.750.86600.5630.7502903.60050.9008103.221.4514899Final Meter Reading911.305K-Factor1.930.740.85620.6690.7769180.20352.668N/A1.43146.890.9Client:Dal TileTest Date:4/29/2011Source:Run Number:3# of Data Points:24Sampling Time:240ENTEC Services,Inc.Spray Dryer (SD-1)30 Monroe Drive,Pelham, Alabama 35124Traverse Point Delta P Sq. Rt. Delta PAxial Velocity DeltaPSq, Rt. AxialVelocity Delta PDry Gas MeterReading (ft3)Axial Vs (fps) % ISO Delta H Stack Temp. (°F) Meter Temp. (°F)1-10.780.88320.8020.8953919.10060.2482103.881.5113865DIOXINS / FURANS FIELD DATA, EPA METHOD 231-20.810.90001.0351.0176926.63068.8725105.521.57145701-30.870.93270.8950.9459934.47064.0741104.811.68146741-40.830.91100.7400.8600942.55058.3025127.981.61147771-50.670.81850.5000.7071950.52047.8598183.931.30145791-60.200.44720.1670.4083958.02027.5671353.840.39142811-70.800.89440.4880.6985962.26047.2782107.401.55145821-80.840.91650.7480.8651970.20058.647099.201.63147821-90.770.87750.6850.8275978.24056.101495.831.49147831-100.720.84850.6400.8002986.11054.247991.961.39147831-110.670.81850.5960.7720993.73052.337391.421.30147831 120 600 77460 6170 78571001 19053 26811 1614783-....1001.19053.268195.541.16147832-10.710.84261.0471.02341008.51068.982891.531.37140832-20.760.87181.1211.05871015.96071.481890.601.47142832-30.790.88881.1651.07951023.61073.005791.621.53144842-40.880.93811.2211.10481031.43074.8377105.991.70146852-50.910.95391.0551.02701039.77069.6281106 131.7614786106.132-60.660.81240.5880.76681048.12051.8588170.921.28144872-70.410.64030.0330.18171055.44012.2810135.050.79143862-80.390.62450.0960.30951061.05020.945586.020.75145852-90.870.93270.4150.64441066.36043.6488105.521.68146852-100.830.91100.5060.71161074.57048.2449111.021.61147852-110.790.88880.4820.69451083.34047.0827107.121.53147862-120.700.83670.5250.72471091.72049.1323116.161.3514789Final Meter Reading1100.252K-Factor1.93 0.72 0.8402 0.674 0.7879 181.152 53.331 N/A 1.39 145.0 81.9

### APPENDIX B

RAW TEST DATA AND EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

TILE DRYER 5 (DC-5)

US EPA METHODS 1-4 AND 23

### APPENDIX C

RAW TEST DATA AND EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

BISQUE ROLLER KILNS (RK-1, RK-2, RK-5 AND RK-6)

### APPENDIX C.1

RAW TEST DATA AND EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

BISQUE ROLLER KILNS (RK-1, RK-2, RK-5 AND RK-6)

US EPA METHODS 1-4, 5 AND 29Client:

Source: Bisque Roller Kilns (Kilns 1, 2, 5, 6) - Common Stack

Formulas Symbol Units Calculated Data

Run Numbers

- - 1 2 3A V E R A G E
Test Date(s)

- - 12/13/10 12/14/10 12/14/10 All Runs
Times, Pollutant Runs (Began - Ended)

- Military Time 1140-1548 0800-1208 1245-1653 -

1. Stack Pressure = Pbar + Pg / 13.6 Ps in. Hg 26.24 26.17 26.16 26.19

2. Meter Pressure = Pbar + DH / 13.6 Pm in. Hg 26.38 26.29 26.29 26.32

3. Standard Meter Volume = 17.64* Y* (Vm/Tm)* (Pbar + DH / 13.6) Vm(std) dscf 161.747 150.825 152.733 155.102
4a. Standard Volume of Water Vapor Condensed =0.04706*Wimp Vwc(std) scf 9.116 5.271 9.313 7.900

4b. Standard Volume of Water Collected in Silica Gel =0.04715*Wsg Vwsg(std) scf 1.565 1.419 1.514 1.499

5. Moisture Fraction =(Vwc(std) + Vwsg(std))/(Vwc(std) + Vwsg(std) + Vm(std)) Bws fraction 0.0619 0.0425 0.0662 0.0569
9. Molecular Weight of Stack Gas (dry) = 0.32*(O2)+ 0.44*(CO2)+0.28*(100-(O2)-(CO2)) Md g / g-mole 29.152 29.158 29.109 29.140
10. Molecular Weight of Stack Gas (wet) = Md*(1-Bws)+18.0*(Bws) Ms g / g-mole 28.462 28.684 28.374 28.506
11. Average Stack Gas Velocity = 85.49*Cp*(sqrt DP)avg*SQRT((Ts) / (Ps*Mw)) vs ft / s 25.816 23.16 24.50 24.49

12. Stack Gas Flow @ Actual Conditions = 60*vs*As Qa acfm 33,531 30,087 31,822 31,813

13. Stack Gas Flow @ Standard Conditions = Qa*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/Pstd) Qs scfm 20,468 18,555 19,378 19,467
14. Stack Gas Flow @ Dry Standard Conditions = Qa*(1-Bws)*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/Pstd) Qstd dscfm 19,200 17,767 18,095 18,354
15. Particulate Matter (FH Filterable PM Conc. @ STP) =0.01543*mn/Vm(std) cs gr / dscf 0.00130 0.00140 0.00245 0.00171
15. Antimony Conc. @ STP =(15.43/1000000)*mn/Vm(std) c Sb gr / dscf 8.21E-08 7.58E-08 6.81E-08 7.53E-08

15. Arsenic Conc. @ STP =(15.43/1000000)*mn/Vm(std) c A s gr / dscf 3.46E-06 1.19E-06 2.82E-06 2.49E-06
15. Beryllium Conc. @ STP =(15.43/1000000)*mn/Vm(std) c Be gr / dscf 2.86E-08 3.07E-08 3.03E-08 2.99E-08

15. Cadmium Conc. @ STP =(15.43/1000000)*mn/Vm(std) c Cd gr / dscf 3.32E-07 2.71E-07 4.37E-07 3.47E-07 

## ENTEC Services, Inc.

30 Monroe Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124

Description CALCULATED TEST DATA - English Units 210268 Dal Tile

Data Input By: Job No.:
Kevin Rosenberg

15. Chromium Conc. @ STP =(15.43/1000000)*mn/Vm(std) c C r gr / dscf 9.12E-06 2.64E-05 6.05E-06 1.39E-05

15. Cobalt Conc. @ STP =(15.43/1000000)*mn/Vm(std) c C o gr / dscf 1.58E-07 9.33E-08 8.93E-08 1.14E-07

15. Lead Conc. @ STP =(15.43/1000000)*mn/Vm(std) c Pb gr / dscf 1.03E-06 5.89E-07 1.24E-06 9.52E-07
15. Manganese Conc. @ STP =(15.43/1000000)*mn/Vm(std) c Mn gr / dscf 2.03E-06 1.63E-06 1.67E-06 1.78E-06
15. Mercury Conc. @ STP =(15.43/1000000)*mn/Vm(std) c H g gr / dscf 5.83E-06 2.86E-06 7.25E-06 5.31E-06

15. Nickel Conc. @ STP =(15.43/1000000)*mn/Vm(std) c Ni gr / dscf 1.68E-06 4.47E-06 2.72E-06 2.96E-06

15. Selenium Conc. @ STP =(15.43/1000000)*mn/Vm(std) c Se gr / dscf 4.05E-05 1.02E-05 2.62E-05 2.56E-05

15.Total Metals Conc. @ STP =(15.43/1000000)*mn/Vm(std) c TSM gr / dscf 6.43E-05 4.78E-05 4.86E-05 5.35E-05
15. Particulate Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) C PM7% gr / dscf c 4.41E-03 4.60E-03 8.07E-03 5.69E-03
15. Antimony Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Sb gr / dscf c 2.79E-07 2.49E-07 2.25E-07 2.51E-07
15. Arsenic Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c A s gr / dscf c 1.17E-05 3.89E-06 9.31E-06 8.31E-06
15. Beryllium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Be gr / dscf c 9.73E-08 1.01E-07 1.00E-07 9.93E-08
15. Cadmium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Cd gr / dscf c 1.13E-06 8.89E-07 1.44E-06 1.15E-06
15. Chromium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c C r gr / dscf c 3.10E-05 8.65E-05 2.00E-05 4.58E-05
15. Cobalt Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c C o gr / dscf c 5.37E-07 3.06E-07 2.95E-07 3.79E-07
15. Lead Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Pb gr / dscf c 3.48E-06 1.93E-06 4.10E-06 3.17E-06
15. Manganese Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Mn gr / dscf c 6.90E-06 5.34E-06 5.53E-06 5.92E-06
15. Mercury Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c H g gr / dscf c 1.98E-05 9.37E-06 2.39E-05 1.77E-05
15. Nickel Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Ni gr / dscf c 5.70E-06 1.46E-05 8.98E-06 9.78E-06
15. Selenium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Se gr / dscf c 1.38E-04 3.34E-05 8.65E-05 8.59E-05
15.Total Metals Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c TSM gr / dscf c 2.18E-04 1.57E-04 1.60E-04 1.78E-04
21. Particulate Matter Mass Emissions (FH Filterable PM) = (60/7000)*cs*Qsd PMR lbs / hr 0.214 0.213 0.379 0.269
21. Antimony Emissions = (60/7000)*CSb*Qsd Sb-lb / hr lb / hr 1.35E-05 1.15E-05 1.06E-05 1.19E-05Client:

Source: Bisque Roller Kilns (Kilns 1, 2, 5, 6) - Common Stack

Formulas Symbol Units Calculated Data 

## ENTEC Services, Inc.

30 Monroe Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124

Description CALCULATED TEST DATA - English Units 210268 Dal Tile

Data Input By: Job No.:
Kevin Rosenberg

21. Arsenic Emissions = (60/7000)*CAs*Qsd As-lb / hr lb / hr 5.69E-04 1.81E-04 4.37E-04 3.96E-04
21. Beryllium Emissions = (60/7000)*CBe*Qsd Be-lb / hr lb / hr 4.71E-06 4.67E-06 4.70E-06 4.70E-06

21. Cadmium Emissions = (60/7000)*CCd*Qsd Cd-lb / hr lb / hr 5.46E-05 4.13E-05 6.79E-05 5.46E-05

21. Chromium Emissions = (60/7000)*CCr*Qsd Cr-lb / hr lb / hr 1.50E-03 4.02E-03 9.38E-04 2.15E-03

21. Cobalt Emissions = (60/7000)*CCo*Qsd Co-lb / hr lb / hr 2.60E-05 1.42E-05 1.39E-05 1.80E-05

21. Lead Emissions = (60/7000)*CPb*Qsd Pb-lb / hr lb / hr 1.69E-04 8.98E-05 1.93E-04 1.50E-04
21. Manganese Emissions = (60/7000)*CMn*Qsd Mn-lb / hr lb / hr 3.34E-04 2.48E-04 2.60E-04 2.81E-04
21. Mercury Emissions = (60/7000)*CHg*Qsd Hg-lb / hr lb / hr 9.60E-04 4.35E-04 1.12E-03 8.40E-04

21. Nickel Emissions = (60/7000)*CNi*Qsd Ni-lb / hr lb / hr 2.76E-04 6.80E-04 4.22E-04 4.59E-04

21. Selenium Emissions = (60/7000)*CSe*Qsd Se-lb / hr lb / hr 6.67E-03 1.55E-03 4.07E-03 4.09E-03

21. Total Metals Emissions = (60/7000)*CTSM*Qsd TSM-lb / hr lb / hr 1.06E-02 7.28E-03 7.54E-03 8.46E-03
22. Volume collected through nozzle =Ts/Ps*[0.002669*Vlc+ Vm*Y*Pm/Tm] Vn acf 282.369 255.308 268.491 268.723
23. Particulate Matter (FH Filt erable PM Conc., actual cond.) =0.01543*mn/Vn ca gr / acf 0.00074 0.00083 0.00139 0.00099
24. Isokinetic Sampling Rate, Percent = 100*Vn / (60*vs*An*q) I % 101.73 102.51 101.92 102.05Client:

Source: Bisque Roller Kilns (Kilns 1, 2, 5, 6) - Common Stack

Formulas Symbol Units Calculated Data

Run Number

- - 1 23 AVERAGE

Test Date

- - 12/13/10 12/14/10 12/14/10 All Runs
Times, Pollutant Runs (Began - Ended) - Military Time 1140-1548 0800-1208 1245-1653 -

1. Stack Pressure = Ps*25.4 P s mm. Hg 666.4 664.6 664.6 665.2

2. Meter Pressure = Pm*25.4 P m mm. Hg 670.0 667.7 667.9 668.5

3. Standard Meter Volume =Vm(std) * 0.02831685 V m(std) dscm 4.580 4.271 4.325 4.392 4a. Standard Volume of Water Vapor Condensed =0.04706*Wimp V wc(std) scm 0.258 0.149 0.264 0.224

4b. Standard Volume of Water Collected in Silica Gel =0.04715*Wsg V wsg(std) scm 0.044 0.040 0.043 0.042

5. Moisture Fraction =(Vwc(std) + Vwsg(std))/(Vwc(std) + Vwsg(std) + Vm(std)) B ws fraction 0.0619 0.0425 0.0662 0.0569 9. Molecular Weight of Stack Gas (dry) = 0.32*(O2)+ 0.44*(CO2)+0.28*(100-(O2)-(CO2)) M d g / g-mole 29.15 29.16 29.11 29.14 10. Molecular Weight of Stack Gas (wet) = Md*(1-Bws)+18.0*(Bws) M s g / g-mole 28.46 28.68 28.37 28.51 11. Average Stack Gas Velocity = 85.49*Cp*(sqrt DP)avg*SQRT((Ts) / (Ps*Mw)) v s m / s 7.87 7.06 7.47 7.47

12. Stack Gas Flow @ Actual Conditions = vs*As Q a acmm 949 852 901 901

13. Stack Gas Flow @ Standard Condition = Qa*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/Pstd) Q s scmm 580 525 549 551 14. Stack Gas Flow @ Dry Standard Condition = Qa*(1-Bws)*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/Pstd) Q std, d dscmm 544 503 512 520 15. Particulate Matter (FH Filterable PM Conc. @ STP) =mn/Vm(std) c s mg / dscm 2.97 3.21 5.60 3.92 15. Antimony Conc. @ STP =0.001*mn/Vm(std) c Sb mg / dscm 1.88E-04 1.73E-04 1.56E-04 1.72E-04

15. Arsenic Conc. @ STP =0.001*mn/Vm(std) c A s mg / dscm 7.91E-03 2.71E-03 6.45E-03 5.69E-03 15. Beryllium Conc. @ STP =0.001*mn/Vm(std) c Be mg / dscm 6.55E-05 7.02E-05 6.94E-05 6.84E-05

15. Cadmium Conc. @ STP =0.001*mn/Vm(std) c Cd mg / dscm 7.59E-04 6.20E-04 1.00E-03 7.94E-04

15. Chromium Conc. @ STP =0.001*mn/Vm(std) c C r mg / dscm 2.09E-02 6.04E-02 1.38E-02 3.17E-02

15. Cobalt Conc. @ STP =0.001*mn/Vm(std) c C o mg / dscm 3.61E-04 2.14E-04 2.04E-04 2.60E-04 CALCULATED TEST DATA - Metric Units

Description Dal Tile Job No.: 210268
Data Input By: Kevin Rosenberg 

## ENTEC Services, Inc.

30 Monroe Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124

15. Lead Conc. @ STP =0.001*mn/Vm(std) c Pb mg / dscm 2.35E-03 1.35E-03 2.84E-03 2.18E-03 15. Manganese Conc. @ STP =0.001*mn/Vm(std) c Mn mg / dscm 4.64E-03 3.73E-03 3.83E-03 4.07E-03 15. Mercury Conc. @ STP =0.001*mn/Vm(std) c H g mg / dscm 1.33E-02 6.54E-03 1.66E-02 1.22E-02

15. Nickel Conc. @ STP =0.001*mn/Vm(std) c Ni mg / dscm 3.84E-03 1.02E-02 6.23E-03 6.76E-03

15. Selenium Conc. @ STP =0.001*mn/Vm(std) c Se mg / dscm 9.27E-02 2.33E-02 6.00E-02 5.87E-02

15.Total Metals Conc. @ STP =0.001*mn/Vm(std) c TSM mg / dscm 1.47E-01 1.09E-01 1.11E-01 1.23E-01 15. Particulate Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) C PM7% mg / dscm c 1.01E+01 1.05E+01 1.85E+01 1.30E+01 15. Antimony Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Sb mg / dscm c 6.38E-04 5.69E-04 5.15E-04 5.74E-04 15. Arsenic Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c A s mg / dscm c 2.69E-02 8.90E-03 2.13E-02 1.90E-02 15. Beryllium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Be mg / dscm c 2.23E-04 2.30E-04 2.29E-04 2.27E-04 15. Cadmium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Cd mg / dscm c 2.58E-03 2.03E-03 3.31E-03 2.64E-03 15. Chromium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c C r mg / dscm c 7.09E-02 1.98E-01 4.57E-02 1.05E-01 15. Cobalt Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c C o mg / dscm c 1.23E-03 7.00E-04 6.75E-04 8.68E-04 15. Lead Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Pb mg / dscm c 7.97E-03 4.42E-03 9.38E-03 7.26E-03 15. Manganese Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Mn mg / dscm c 1.58E-02 1.22E-02 1.26E-02 1.35E-02 15. Mercury Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c H g mg / dscm c 4.54E-02 2.14E-02 5.48E-02 4.05E-02 15. Nickel Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Ni mg / dscm c 1.30E-02 3.35E-02 2.06E-02 2.24E-02 15. Selenium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Se mg / dscm c 3.15E-01 7.64E-02 1.98E-01 1.96E-01 15.Total Metals Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c TSM mg / dscm c 5.00E-01 3.58E-01 3.67E-01 4.08E-01

21. Particulate Emissions = (0.000001)*cs*Qsd PMR kg / hr 9.69E-02 9.68E-02 1.72E-01 1.22E-01Client:

Source: Bisque Roller Kilns (Kilns 1, 2, 5, 6) - Common Stack

Formulas Symbol Units Calculated Data Data Input By: Kevin Rosenberg 

## ENTEC Services, Inc.

30 Monroe Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124

CALCULATED TEST DATA - Metric Units

Description Dal Tile Job No.: 210268

17. Chromium Emissions = (0.000001)*CCr*Qsd Cr-kg/hr kg / hr 6.81E-04 1.82E-03 4.26E-04 9.77E-04

17. Cobalt Emissions = (0.000001)*CCo*Qsd Co-kg/hr kg / hr 1.18E-05 6.45E-06 6.28E-06 8.17E-06

17. Lead Emissions = (0.000001)*CPb*Qsd Pb-kg/hr kg / hr 7.65E-05 4.07E-05 8.74E-05 6.82E-05
17. Manganese Emissions = (0.000001)*CMn*Qsd Mn-kg/hr kg / hr 1.51E-04 1.12E-04 1.18E-04 1.27E-04
17. Mercury Emissions = (0.000001)*CHg*Qsd Hg-kg/hr kg / hr 4.35E-04 1.97E-04 5.10E-04 3.81E-04

17. Nickel Emissions = (0.000001)*CNi*Qsd Ni-kg/hr kg / hr 1.25E-04 3.09E-04 1.91E-04 2.08E-04

17. Selenium Emissions = (0.000001)*CSe*Qsd Se-kg/hr kg / hr 3.02E-03 7.03E-04 1.84E-03 1.86E-03

17. Total Metals Emissions = (0.000001)*CTSM*Qsd TSM-kg/hr kg / hr 4.80E-03 3.30E-03 3.42E-03 3.84E-03

22. Volume collected through nozzle =Ts/Ps*[0.002669*Vlc+ Vm*Y*Pm/Tm] V n acm 7.996 7.230 7.603 7.609 24. Isokinetic Sampling Rate, Percent = 100*Vn / (60*vs*An*q) I % 101.73 102.51 101.92 102.05

Post Meter Orifice Cal. (EMC ALT-009 Yqa) y qa 0.9747 0.9690 0.9711 0.972 % Difference, (Calibration must be within 5% of original Y-factor) 2.06%

### APPENDIX C.2

RAW TEST DATA AND EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

BISQUE ROLLER KILNS (RK-1, RK-2, RK-5 AND RK-6)

US EPA METHODS 1-4 AND 23

### APPENDIX D

RAW TEST DATA AND EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

GLOST ROLLER KILNS (RK-7, RK-8, RK-11 AND RK-12)

### APPENDIX D.1

RAW TEST DATA AND EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

GLOST ROLLER KILNS (RK-7, RK-8, RK-11 AND RK-12)

US EPA METHODS 1-4, 5 AND 29Client:

Source: Glost Roller Kilns (Kilns 7, 8, 11, 12) - Common Stack

Formulas Symbol Units Calculated Data

Run Numbers

- - 1 2 3 AVERAGE
Test Date(s)

- - 12/15/10 12/15/10 12/16/10 All Runs
Times, Pollutant Runs (Began - Ended)

- Military Time 0747-1153 1235-1643 0755-1149 -

1. Stack Pressure = Pbar + Pg / 13.6 Ps in. Hg 25.89 25.89 25.93 25.902

2. Meter Pressure = Pbar + DH / 13.6 Pm in. Hg 25.97 25.96 26.00 25.98

3. Standard Meter Volume = 17.64* Y* (Vm/Tm)* (Pbar + DH / 13.6) Vm(std) dscf 122.008 119.025 118.726 119.920
4a. Standard Volume of Water Vapor Condensed =0.04706*Wimp Vwc(std) scf 5.191 5.097 5.205 5.164

4b. Standard Volume of Water Collected in Silica Gel =0.04715*Wsg Vwsg(std) scf 1.207 1.150 1.084 1.147

5. Moisture Fraction =(Vwc(std) + Vwsg(std))/(Vwc(std) + Vwsg(std) + Vm(std)) Bws fraction 0.0498 0.0499 0.0503 0.0500
9. Molecular Weight of Stack Gas (dry) = 0.32*(O2)+ 0.44*(CO2)+0.28*(100-(O2)-(CO2)) Md g / g-mole 28.860 28.848 28.983 28.897
10. Molecular Weight of Stack Gas (wet) = Md*(1-Bws)+18.0*(Bws) Ms g / g-mole 28.319 28.307 28.430 28.352
11. Average Stack Gas Velocity = 85.49*Cp*(sqrt DP)avg*SQRT((Ts) / (Ps*Mw)) vs ft / s 19.141 18.57 18.57 18.76

12. Stack Gas Flow @ Actual Conditions = 60*vs*As Qa acfm 24,862 24,120 24,118 24,366

13. Stack Gas Flow @ Standard Conditions = Qa*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/Pstd) Qs scfm 15,078 14,561 14,664 14,768
14. Stack Gas Flow @ Dry Standard Conditions = Qa*(1-Bws)*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/Pstd) Qstd dscfm 14,327 13,835 13,927 14,029
15. Particulate Matter (FH Filterable PM Conc. @ STP) =0.01543*mn/Vm(std) cs gr / dscf 0.00161 0.00110 0.00186 0.00152

=(15.43/1000000)*m Sb /Vm(std) C Sb gr/dscf 6.10E-08 2.23E-08 5.04E-08 4.46E-08

=(15.43/1000000)*m As /Vm(std) C As gr/dscf 1.09E-06 9.70E-07 1.07E-06 1.04E-06

=(15.43/1000000)*m Be /Vm(std) C Be gr/dscf 3.79E-08 3.89E-08 3.90E-08 3.86E-08

=(15.43/1000000)*m Cd /Vm(std) C Cd gr/dscf 4.06E-08 1.50E-07 3.63E-08 7.57E-08

=(15.43/1000000)*m Cr /Vm(std) C Cr gr/dscf 8.79E-06 2.33E-06 4.23E-06 5.12E-06

=(15.43/1000000)*m Co /Vm(std) C Co gr/dscf 9.22E-08 6.12E-08 2.18E-08 5.84E-08 15. Chromium Conc. @ STP 

### ENTEC Services, Inc.

30 Monroe Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124

210268 Dal Tile
Kevin Rosenberg

15. Arsenic Conc. @ STP
15. Beryllium Conc. @ STP CALCULATED TEST DATA - English Units

Description Data Input By: Job No.:

15. Cobalt Conc. @ STP 15. Antimony Conc. @ STP

15. Cadmium Conc. @ STP

=(15.43/1000000)*m Pb /Vm(std) C Pb gr/dscf 1.09E-06 1.03E-06 9.43E-07 1.02E-06

=(15.43/1000000)*m Mn /Vm(std) C Mn gr/dscf 1.95E-06 4.47E-06 1.37E-06 2.60E-06

=(15.43/1000000)*m Hg /Vm(std) C Hg gr/dscf 8.09E-08 7.27E-08 8.08E-08 7.82E-08

=(15.43/1000000)*m Ni /Vm(std) C Ni gr/dscf 4.52E-06 7.87E-07 1.34E-06 2.22E-06

=(15.43/1000000)*m Se /Vm(std) C Se gr/dscf 3.26E-06 1.39E-06 2.21E-06 2.28E-06

=(15.43/1000000)*m TSM /Vm(std) C TSM gr/dscf 2.10E-05 1.13E-05 1.14E-05 1.46E-05
15. Particulate Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c s-7% gr/dscf c 1.56E-02 1.23E-02 7.08E-03 1.16E-02
15. Antimony Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Sb-7% gr/dscf c 5.93E-07 2.48E-07 1.92E-07 3.44E-07
15. Arsenic Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c As-7% gr/dscf c 1.06E-05 1.08E-05 4.07E-06 8.48E-06
15. Beryllium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Be-7% gr/dscf c 3.69E-07 4.32E-07 1.48E-07 3.17E-07
15. Cadmium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Cd-7% gr/dscf c 3.95E-07 1.67E-06 1.38E-07 7.35E-07
15. Chromium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Cr-7% gr/dscf c 8.54E-05 2.59E-05 1.61E-05 4.25E-05
15. Cobalt Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Co-7% gr/dscf c 8.96E-07 6.80E-07 8.31E-08 5.53E-07
15. Lead Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Pb1-7% gr/dscf c 1.05E-05 1.14E-05 3.59E-06 8.52E-06
15. Manganese Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Mn-7% gr/dscf c 1.89E-05 4.97E-05 5.22E-06 2.46E-05
15. Mercury Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Hg-7% gr/dscf c 7.87E-07 8.08E-07 3.08E-07 6.34E-07
15. Nickel Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Ni-7% gr/dscf c 4.39E-05 8.75E-06 5.12E-06 1.93E-05
15. Selenium Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c Se-7% gr/dscf c 3.16E-05 1.54E-05 8.41E-06 1.85E-05
15.Total Metals Conc. @ 7% Oxygen =Cs * ((20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2)) c TSM-7% gr/dscf c 2.04E-04 1.26E-04 4.34E-05 1.24E-04
21. Particulate Matter Mass Emissions (FH Filterable PM) = (60/7000)*cs*Qsd PMR lbs / hr 1.97E-01 1.31E-01 2.22E-01 1.83E-01
17. Antimony Emissions = (60/7000)*CSb*Qsd Sb-lb / hr lb / hr 7.49E-06 2.74E-06 6.19E-06 5.47E-06

17. Arsenic Emissions = (60/7000)*CAs*Qsd As-lb / hr lb / hr 1.34E-04 1.19E-04 1.31E-04 1.28E-04
17. Beryllium Emissions = (60/7000)*CBe*Qsd Be-lb / hr lb / hr 4.66E-06 4.78E-06 4.79E-06 4.74E-06

17. Cadmium Emissions = (60/7000)*CCd*Qsd Cd-lb / hr lb / hr 4.99E-06 1.85E-05 4.45E-06 9.30E-06

17. Chromium Emissions = (60/7000)*CCr*Qsd Cr-lb / hr lb / hr 1.08E-03 2.86E-04 5.20E-04 6.28E-04 15.Total Metals Conc. @ STP 15. Selenium Conc. @ STP 15. Mercury Conc. @ STP 15. Lead Conc. @ STP

15. Nickel Conc. @ STP 15. Manganese Conc. @ STPClient:

Source: Glost Roller Kilns (Kilns 7, 8, 11, 12) - Common Stack

Formulas Symbol Units Calculated Data 

### ENTEC Services, Inc.

30 Monroe Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124

210268 Dal Tile
Kevin Rosenberg

CALCULATED TEST DATA - English Units

Description Data Input By: Job No.:

17. Cobalt Emissions = (60/7000)*CCo*Qsd Co-lb / hr lb / hr 1.13E-05 7.51E-06 2.68E-06 7.17E-06

17. Lead Emissions = (60/7000)*CPb*Qsd Pb-lb / hr lb / hr 1.33E-04 1.26E-04 1.16E-04 1.25E-04
17. Manganese Emissions = (60/7000)*CMn*Qsd Mn-lb / hr lb / hr 2.39E-04 5.49E-04 1.68E-04 3.19E-04
17. Mercury Emissions = (60/7000)*CHg*Qsd Hg-lb / hr lb / hr 9.94E-06 8.93E-06 9.93E-06 9.60E-06

17. Nickel Emissions = (60/7000)*CNi*Qsd Ni-lb / hr lb / hr 5.55E-04 9.66E-05 1.65E-04 2.72E-04

17. Selenium Emissions = (60/7000)*CSe*Qsd Se-lb / hr lb / hr 4.00E-04 1.70E-04 2.71E-04 2.80E-04

17. Total Metals Emissions = (60/7000)*CTSM*Qsd TSM-lb / hr lb / hr 2.58E-03 1.39E-03 1.40E-03 1.79E-03
22. Volume collected through nozzle =Ts/Ps*[0.002669*Vlc+ Vm*Y*Pm/Tm] Vn acf 211.724 207.432 205.532 208.230
23. Particulate Matter (FH Filterable PM Conc., actual cond.) =0.01543*mn/Vn ca gr / acf 0.00093 0.00063 0.00107 0.00088
24. Isokinetic Sampling Rate, Percent = 100*Vn / (60*vs*An*q) I % 102.87 103.89 102.94 103.24

Post Meter Orifice Cal. (EMC ALT-009 Yqa) y qa 0.9626 0.9389 0.9510 0.951
% Difference, (Calibration must be within 5% of original Y-factor) 4.15%

### APPENDIX D.2

RAW TEST DATA AND EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

GLOST ROLLER KILNS (RK-7, RK-8, RK-11 AND RK-12)

US EPA METHODS 1-4 AND 23

### APPENDIX E

OPERATIONAL AND PRODUCTION DATA

# Production Data

No production data is included in this report. The Company will provide the production

data to EPA as confidential business information.

### APPENDIX F

QA/QC DOCUMENTS AND CHECKLISTSClient:

Source:

Traverse Point Delta P Sq. Rt. Delta P Stack Temp. (°F)

1-1 2.10 1.4491 140.0

1-2 2.10 1.4491

1-3 2.10 1.4491

1-4 1.60 1.2649

1-5 0.70 0.8367

1-6 1.50 1.2247

1-7 1.70 1.3038

1-8 1.50 1.2247

1-9 1.60 1.2649

1-10 1.40 1.1832

1 11 1 0 1 22 60

60

35

35

30 

### ENTEC Services, Inc.

Test Date:

Run No.: 12/14/10

Preliminary Test 1 Dal Tile 30 Monroe Drive - Pelham, Alabama 35124

Spray Dryer (SD-1)

Null Reading (Angle) Preliminary Traverse & Cyclonic Flow Verification

40

45 50

50

55

55

1-11 1.50 1.2247

1-12 1.20 1.0954

2-1 2.00 1.4142

2-2 2.10 1.4491

2-3 2.10 1.4491

2-4 2.20 1.4832

2-5 2.30 1.5166

2-6 1.80 1.3416

2-7 0.31 0.5568

2-8 0.88 0.9381

2-9 1.30 1.1402

2-10 1.40 1.1832

2-11 1.30 1.1402

2-12 1.20 1.0954

Average 1.5788 1.2366 140.0

Note: Based on the preliminary traverse the flow is considered cyclonic 50

55 30

30

40

40

45.0

65

65

35

30

25

45 40

45Client:

Source:

Traverse Point Delta P Sq. Rt. Delta P Stack Temp. (°F)

1-1 140.0

1-2

1-3

1-4

1-5

1-6

1-7

1-8

1-9

1-10

1-11 45

45

35 45

50

55

60

45

45 Spray Dryer (SD-1) Run No.: Preliminary Test 2

Null Reading (Angle)

40

40 

### ENTEC Services, Inc.

30 Monroe Drive - Pelham, Alabama 35124

Preliminary Traverse & Cyclonic Flow Verification

Dal Tile Test Date: 12/15/10

1-12

2-1

2-2

2-3

2-4

2-5

2-6

2-7

2-8

2-9

2-10

2-11

2-12

Average 140.0

Note: Based on the preliminary traverse the flow is considered cyclonic 65

60

50

60

48.5

40

35

40

60

75

75 20

40

40Client:

Source:

Traverse Point Delta P Sq. Rt. Delta P Stack Temp. (°F)

1-1 0.14 0.3742 281

1-2 0.17 0.4123 290

1-3 0.17 0.4123 290

1-4 0.14 0.3742 293

1-5 0.12 0.3464 296

1-6 0.09 0.3000 297

1-7 0.08 0.2828 298

1-8 0.07 0.2646 297

1-9 0.01 0.0837 298

1-10 0.07 0.2646 298

1-11 0.07 0.2646 296

1-12 0.06 0.2449 296 0

0

0

0

0

0

5

5 10

10 30 Monroe Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124

Preliminary Traverse & Cyclonic Flow Verification

10

5 Null Reading (Angle) 

### ENTEC Services, Inc.

Test Date:

Run No.: 12/13/10

Preliminary Test Dal Tile

Bisque Roller Kilns (Kilns 1, 2, 5, 6) - Common Stack

2-1 0.06 0.2449 291

2-2 0.07 0.2646 291

2-3 0.07 0.2646 292

2-4 0.26 0.5099 292

2-5 0.08 0.2828 292

2-6 0.08 0.2828 292

2-7 0.09 0.3000 297

2-8 0.10 0.3162 298

2-9 0.12 0.3464 298

2-10 0.13 0.3606 298

2-11 0.12 0.3464 298

2-12 0.12 0.3464 298

Average 0.1036 0.3121 294.5

Note: Based on the preliminary traverse the flow is not considered cyclonic
Note: Micro-monometer required based on preliminary low flows. 5

5

3.75

0

0

5

10

10 10 0 0

0

0

### APPENDIX G

CHAINS OF CUSTODY

### APPENDIX H

LABORATORY DATA

### APPENDIX H.1

MULTIPLE METALS AND PM

### APPENDIX H.2

DIOXINS/FURANS

### APPENDIX I

CALIBRATION DATA

### APPENDIX J

QSTI CERTIFICATIONS

### APPENDIX K

EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS AND NOMENCLATURE

### NOMENCLATURE

A s 

### Cross-sectional area of stack, square feet A n 

### Cross-sectional area of nozzle, square feet ACFM Actual cubic feet of gas per minute at stack conditions B ws 

### Proportion by volume of water vapor in gas stream C s 

### Particulate concentration in stack gas, gr/dscf C a 

### Particulate concentration in stack gas, gr/acf C p 

### Pitot tube coefficient ∆ H Pressure drop across orifice meter, inches water ∆ P Velocity head of stack gas, inches water dscf Cubic feet of dry gas corrected to standard conditions K p 

### Constant (85.49) M n 

### Total particulate matter collected, mg M d 

### Molecular weight of stack gas; dry basis, lb/lb-mole M s 

### Molecular weight of stack gas; wet basis, lb/lb-mole I Percent of isokinetic sampling P bar 

### Barometric pressure, inches mercury P g 

### Stack static pressure, inches of water P m 

### Barometric pressure of dry gas meter, in. mercury PMR Particulate mass rate, pounds/hour P s 

### Absolute stack gas pressure, inches mercury P std 

### Barometric pressure, standard conditions, 29.92 inches Hg Q a 

### Volumetric flow rate, actual conditions, ACF/min Q s 

### Volumetric flow rate, standard conditions, scf/min Q std 

### Volumetric flow rate, dry standard conditions, dscf/min TB ws 

### Theoretical water vapor in the gas stream based on saturated stack conditions, proportion by volume (dimensionless) TV lc 

### Theoretical volume of water collected based on saturated stack conditions, ml TV wstd 

### Theoretical volume of water vapor in the gas sample based on saturated stack conditions, corrected to standard temperature and pressure, scf T m 

### Absolute average dry gas meter temperature, degree R (460) T s 

### Absolute average stack gas temperature, degree R (460) T std 

### Absolute temperature at standard conditions, 528 R Ө Total sampling time, minutes V lc 

### Total volume collected in impingers and silica gel, gr V m 

### Volume of gas sampled through gas meter, cubic feet V n 

### Volume collected at stack conditions through nozzle, ACF V ma 

### Stack gas volume sampled, ACF V mstd 

### Volume of gas sampled through gas meter, cubic feet V s 

### Average stack gas velocity, feet/sec V wcstd 

### Volume of water vapor in gas sampled from impingers, standard cubic feet V wsgstd 

### Volume of water vapor in gas sampled from silica gel, standard cubic feet W imp 

### Total volume collected in impingers, gr W sg 

### Total volume collected in silica gel, gr Y Dry gas meter calibration factor

### APPENDIX L

EPA ICR DOCUMENTS

### APPENDIX L.1

EPA LETTER AND ENCLOSURES 1 AND 2

### APPENDIX L.2

ENCLOSURES 3 THROUGH 9 AND TABLE 1.1

### APPENDIX M

SAFETY

### APPENDIX N

GUIDELINE DOCUMENT GD-008r AND EPA COMMUNICATIONS REGARDIN G SPRAY DRYER SAMPLINGPrepared by Peter R. Westlin and Mike Toney , EMC EMC GD-008r

EPA, OAR, OAQPS, EMAD January 2003 

### Emissions Measurement Center **Guideline Document**

**(This is a draft revision to the guideline document GD-008. The alternative testing procedures and acceptance criteria in the guideline are based on general gas flow theories and practices and are**  **supported by little real field experience. The EMC requests your review and comment on the procedures those involving sampling directly in areas of nonaxial flow. Of particular interest would be**  **results of tests for which these or similar procedures were applied and that we could use to verify or modify the guideline. Please, e-mail your comments to westlin.peter@epa.gov.)** 

**Particulate Emissions Sampling in Cyclonic Flow**

**Summary**

Particulate emissions sampling in stacks or ducts with cyclonic or other nonaxial flow patterns presents significant problems in obtaining representative measurements of concentrations and flow rates. Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) describe procedures and criteria for verifying the absence of cyclonic or other nonaxial flow patterns (i.e., not parallel to the stack or duct axis). The purpose of this guideline is to provide options to consider when the angular or cyclonic flow conditions exceed acceptable limits as defined in Method 1. Following are three options and detailed recommendations for addressing the measurement of particulate emissions when cyclonic or nonparallel flow patterns exist. We intend that you prioritize these options in the order that they are presented; that is, attempting to sample directly in conditions of cyclonic or nonaxial flow should be the last resort.

**Recommendations**

1. Find another sampling location.

In many situations, you may find a sampling location downstream or upstream of the original location that exhibits less cyclonic or nonaxial flow tendencies. For example, moving from a duct immediately downstream of the exit of a venturi scrubber with a cyclonic demister to a location multiple equivalent diameters downstream of the duct-stack intersection can often solve a cyclonic flow situation. You may incur extra cost in such a move (e.g., new ports and sampling platforms); however, this option is often less costly or disruptive to the process operation and produces more reliable emissions measurement data than the other options described below.

2. Install flow straightening vanes upstream of the sampling location.

You may use flow straightening vanes, such as are described in Figure 5D-1 of Method 5D (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Note that the criteria for locating the measurement site downstream of the straightening vanes are based on the average equivalent diameter of the straightening vane openings rather than the stack diameter (section 4.1.1, Method 5D).

Also note that straightening vanes may disrupt the process and may affect control efficiency by creating a back pressure that might change flow characteristics upstream of the vanes. You may need to explore other means sufficient to straighten gas flow, such as addition of stack extensions tangential to the stack axis, thatEMC GD-008r (draft) EMC GUIDELINE DOCUMENT PAGE 2

Prepared by Peter R. Westlin and Mike Toney , EMC EMC GD-008r EPA, OAR, OAQPS, EMAD January 2003 

### have less effect on the process or control device operations. In any case, you must coordinate use of any flow disturbance alternative with the plant engineer.

3. Apply a modified sampling procedure.

We recommend the following procedures for sampling only when other options as described in 1 and 2 above are not available. We previously published guidance (GD-008) for applying alternative procedures for collecting representative particulate matter samples from areas with nonaxial flow. Among the methods recommended were the alignment method and the time-weighted alignment method . With the publication of new EPA Methods 2F and 2G (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) and further review of the principles involved in such testing, we recommend a revision to those procedures for testing in locations with cyclonic flow. The revised procedures involve aligning the sampling nozzle with the stack or duct axis for nonaxial flow angles up to 50°. For flow angles greater than 50°, you should apply a flow alignment method in which you align the sampling nozzle in the direction of the flow (yaw) angle and you adjust the sampling rate or sampling time per point appropriately. Note that a test run may involve different procedures for sampling points with flow angles both greater than and less than 50°.

Note that applying such sampling procedures as an alternative to those specified in a regulation or an operating permit requires approval by the Administrator prior to conducting the test (see sections 60.8(b), 61.13(h), or 63.7(f) of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63, respectively). Note also that the complexities and special techniques associated with these alternative procedures are such that only experienced and well-equipped field staff should attempt this approach.

The modified sampling procedures are as follows:

a. Prior to each test run, conduct a velocity traverse of the stack to establish the angle(s) of flow at each sampling point using procedures as described in Method 2F, section 8, or Method 2G, section 8. Using the yaw and pitch angles, if available, as measured with either Method 2F or 2G, calculate the resultant angle at each sampling point using equation 1-2 of Method 1. Calculate the axial velocity at each sampling point using equation 2F-8 or 2G-6. Use pitot equipment for these measurements that satisfies the QA/QC requirements of sections 6 and 10 of Method 2F or sections 6 and 10 of Method 2G, as appropriate.

For sampling points with nonaxial resultant angles up to 50°:

b. For each test run following the velocity traverse, conduct the particulate sampling at each sample point with the nozzle axis aligned parallel to the stack or duct axis. Either remove the pitot from the sampling probe or ensure that the impact pressure opening plane of the pitot is at least two nozzle diameters downstream of the sampling nozzle opening. Collect the sample at each point isokinetically relative to the axial velocity, v
a 

### , calculated for that sample point during the pre-run velocity traverse (i.e., do not use the velocity values indicated by the pitot, if attached during the test run). One approach for calculating isokinetic sampling rates is to substitute an adjusted nozzle area for each traverse point in determining the sampling rate using the nomograph referenced in Method 5 (e.g., APTD-0576), or other isokineticEMC GD-008r (draft) EMC GUIDELINE DOCUMENT PAGE 3

Prepared by Peter R. Westlin and Mike Toney , EMC EMC GD-008r EPA, OAR, OAQPS, EMAD January 2003 

### equation procedure (e.g., computer program). Calculate an adjusted nozzle area, A
na 

### , for each sample point as follows:


# ( )

A A R

na n i 

### = cos



### where: A
n 

### is the measured area of the nozzle R i 

### is the resultant angle of flow at each sampling point.

For sampling points with nonaxial resultant angles 50° and higher:

c. For each test run following the velocity traverse, conduct the sampling isokinetically at each sampling point rotating the sampling nozzle to point into the gas flow (i.e., parallel to the measured yaw angle) and using the velocity pressure values in the direction of flow (i.e., yaw angle values) determined during the pre-run velocity traverse.

For all test runs:

d. For each test run, conduct a post-run velocity traverse in the same manner as the pre-run velocity traverse as described in step 3.a. above to verify that the average axial stack or duct velocity remains within 10 percent of the pre-test run value. If the post-test and pre-test values do not agree within 10 percent for any of the three or more required test runs, conduct an additional test run to replace that test run. You may use a post-test run velocity traverse as the pre-test run velocity traverse for the next test run.

e. Calculate the isokinetic variation at each sampling point using equation 5-8 of Method 5 based on the average of the results of the pre-test run and post-test run velocity traverses. Isokinetic variations should be within the specification found in section 6.12 of Method 5. Follow the guidelines in section 6.12 of Method 5 for repeating test runs for which you do not meet the isokinetic acceptability criteria.

f. Submit the results for all of the test runs to the responsible regulatory official including the pre-test run and post-test run velocities for each sampling point, the average axial the emissions data for all of test runs, and the results of the isokinetic variations calculations. Identify any results outside of the specified acceptable ranges and any other conditions that might affect conclusions regarding the test results (e.g., process conditions, margin of compliance).

**References**

1. Peeler, James, Isokinetic Particulate Sampling in Non-Parallel Flow Systems-Cyclonic Flow, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc, RTP, NC, 1977.

2. Stack Sampling Cyclonic Flow, Appendix H, Texas Air Control Board, Sampling Procedures Manual

, Texas Air Control Board, 6330 Hwy 290 East, Austin, TX 78723, Revised July 1985.EMC GD-008r (draft) EMC GUIDELINE DOCUMENT PAGE 4

Prepared by Peter R. Westlin and Mike Toney , EMC EMC GD-008r EPA, OAR, OAQPS, EMAD January 2003 

### 3. Westlin, P. R., and K. Alexander, Evaluation of Particulate Sampling Methods for Cyclonic Flow, EPA memorandum, EPA mail code D243-02, RTP, NC, 27711, August 1979.

4. Methods 2F and 2G, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A.

5. Rom, J. J., Maintenance, Calibration, and Operation of Isokinetic Source-Sampling Equipment, EPA Publication Number APTD-0576, March 1972.1 

### Keith Poole

From: Troy Burrows Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 2:30 PM To: Keith Poole Subject: FW: Cyclonic Method 23 Testing in El Paso

Keith,

The email chain below has all of the emails in it that you'll need (I think).

Thank you, Troy Burrows, ASQ

‐ CQA, QSTI (I

‐ IV) Corporate Quality Manager

Entec Services, Inc.

__________________________________________________________________ * Baton Rouge, LA * Birmingham, AL * Mobile, AL * Raleigh (RTP), NC * www.entecservices.com 2008, 20 09 & 2010 Inc. 5000 Fastest Growing S mall Business Entec Services, Inc. is Interim Accredited by the Source Testing Accreditation Council (STAC) in the SEMQAP accreditation program as documented by the Interim Accreditation Certificate. 1.800.429.8445 (toll free) 1.205.358.1011 (office) 1.205.358.1036 (fax) 2008, 2009, 2010

‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐ From: Westlin.Peter@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Westlin.Peter@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: T hursday, April 28, 2 011 11:27 AM To: Troy Burrows Subject: RE: Cyclonic Method 23 Testing in El Paso

Correct. Adjust sampling rate for the resultant delta p only.

|

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | From: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >
>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |"Troy Burrows" <TBurrows@entecservices.com> |

>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | To: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >
>

‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |Peter Westlin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA |

>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | Date: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >
>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |2 |04/28/2011 11:20 AM |

>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | Subject: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >
>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |RE: Cyclonic Method 23 Testing in El Paso |

>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

Peter,

One clarification, please: We are not adjusting the dwell times for the angles >50 degrees, correct? My under standing is that we just run e ach point at 10 minutes for this test.

Thank you, Troy Burrows, ASQ

‐ CQA, QSTI (I

‐ IV) Corporate Quality Manager

Entec Services, Inc.

__________________________________________________________________ * Baton Rouge, LA * Birmingham, AL * Mobile, AL * Raleigh (RTP), NC *

www.entecservices.com 2008, 2009 & 2010 In c. 5000 Fastest Growing Sma ll Business Entec Services, Inc. is Interim Accredited by the Source Testing Accreditation Council (STAC) in the SEMQAP accreditation
program as documented by the Interim Accreditation Certificate. 1.800.429.8445 (toll free) 1.205.358.1011 (office) 1.205.491.6614 (fax)

‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐ From: Westlin.Peter@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Westlin.Peter@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 1:53 PM To: Tro y Burrows Cc: Kevin Rosenbe rg; Lynn Beane; Tim Draheim; Garwood.Gerri@epamail.epa.gov; Stef Johnson; Dewees.Jason@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Re: Cyclonic Method 23 Testing in El Paso

Troy:

Thanks for your note. I am afraid we did not communicate quite clearly. When I said not to apply the Texas cyclonic flow method fo r traverse points w ith nonaxi al resultant angles of 50 degrees or greater, I meant that you should apply EPA GD

‐ 008r (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd

‐ 008r.pdf) for all traverse points including those with resultant angles greater than 50 degrees. Specifically, you should apply section 3 of the guideline document (see3 below) but not adjusting the procedure as described in section c. I understand that you found only a very few points with resultant angles greater that 50 degrees and none above about 55 degrees.

I hope that this clarifies the procedure that I intended to approve for your use at this site. Ple ase call me if you h ave any fu rther questions.

Peter

(The procedure extracted from GD

‐ 008r)

3. Apply a modified sampling procedure.
We recommend the following procedures for sampling only when other options as described in 1 and 2 above are not available. We previously published guidance (GD

‐ 008) for ap plying alternative proce dur es for collecting representative particulate matter samples from areas with nonaxial flow. Among the methods recommended were the alignment method and the time

‐ weighted alignment method. With the publication of new EPA Methods 2F and 2G (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) and further review of the principles i nvolved in such testing, we recommend a revisio n to those procedures for testing in locations with cyclonic flow. The revised procedures involve aligning the sampling nozzle with the stack or duct axis for nonaxial flow angles up to 50°. For flow angles greater than 50°, you should apply a flow a lignment method in whic h yo u align the sampling nozzle in the direction of the flow (yaw) angle and you adjust the sampling rate or sampling time per point appropriately. Note that a test run may involve different procedures for sampling points with flow angles both greater than and less than 50°.

Note th at applying such sam pli ng procedures as an alternative to those specified in a regulation or an operating permit requires approval by the Administrator prior to conducting the test (see sections 60.8(b), 61.13(h), or 63.7(f) of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63, respectively). Note also that the complexities and special techniques associa ted with t hese alternative procedures are such that only experienced and well

‐ equipped field staff should attempt this approach. The modified sampling procedures are as follows:

a. Prior to each test run, conduct a velocity traverse of the stack to establish the angle(s) of flow at each sampling point using pro cedures as described in Method 2F, se ction 8, or Method 2G, section 8. Using the yaw and pitch angles, if available, as measured with either Method 2F or 2G, calculate the resultant angle at each sampling point using equation
1

‐ 2 of Method 1. Calculate the axial velocity at e ach sampling point u sing eq uation 2F

‐ 8 or 2G

‐ 6. Use Pitot equipment for these measurements that satisfies the QA/QC requirements of sections 6 and 10 of Method 2F or sections 6 and 10 of Method 2G, as appropriate.

For sampling points with nonaxial resultant angles up to 50°: b. For eac h test run following the ve loc ity traverse, conduct the particulate sampling at each sample point with the nozzle axis aligned parallel to the stack or duct axis. Either

remove the Pitot from the sampling probe or ensure that the impact pressure opening plane of the Pitot is at least two n ozzle diameters down str eam of the sampling nozzle opening. Collect the sample at each point isokinetically relative to the axial velocity, va, calculated for that sample point during the pre

‐ run velocity traverse (i.e., do not use the velocity values indicated by the Pitot, if attached during the test run). One approach for ca lculating isokinetic sampli ng rates is to subst itute an adjusted nozzle area for each traverse point in determining the sampling rate using the nomograph referenced in Method 5 (e.g., APTD

‐ 0576),

or other isokinetic equation procedure (e.g., computer program). Calculate an adjusted nozzle
area, A na, for each sample point as fol lows:
Ana= Ani (cosRi) where:
An is the measure d a rea of the nozzle4 Ri is the resultant angle of flow at each sampling point.

For sampling points with nonaxial resultant angles 50° and higher:

c. For each test run following the velocity traverse, conduct the sampling isokinetically at each sampling point rotating the sampling nozzle to point into the gas flow (i.e., parallel to the mea sured yaw angle) and using the velocity pressur e v alues in the direction of flow (i.e., yaw angle values) determined during the pre

‐ run velocity traverse.

For all test runs: d. For each test run, conduct a post

‐ run velocity traverse in the same manner as the pre

‐ run velocity traverse as descri bed in step 3.a. abo ve to veri fy that the average axial stack or duct velocity remains within 10 percent of the pre

‐ test run value. If the post

‐ test and pre

‐ test values do not agree within 10 percent for any of the three or more required test runs, conduct an additi onal test run to replac e that tes t run. You may use a post

‐ test run velocity traverse as the pre

‐ test run velocity traverse for the next test run.

e. Calculate the isokinetic variation at each sampling point using equation 5

‐ 8 of Method 5 based on the average of the re sults of the pre

‐ test run and post

‐ test run velocity traverses. Isokinetic variations should be within the specification found in section 6.12 of Method 5. Follow the guidelines in section 6.12 of Method 5 for repeating test runs for which you do not meet the isokinetic acceptability cr iteria. f. Submit the res ult s for all of the test runs to the responsible regulatory official including the pre

‐ test run and post

‐ test run velocities for each sampling point, the average axial the emissions data for all of test runs, and the results of the isokinetic variations calculations. Identify any resu lts outside of the s pec ified acceptable ranges and any other conditions that might affect conclusions regarding the test results (e.g., process conditions, margin of compliance).

|

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | From: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >

>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

|"Troy Burrows" <TBurrows@entecservices.com> |

>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

|

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | To: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >

>

‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

|Peter Westlin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA |

>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

|

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >5 | Cc: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >

>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

|"Lynn Beane" <LBeane@entecservices.com>, "Tim Draheim" <TDraheim@entecservices.com>, "Kevin Rosenberg" <KRosenberg@entecservices.com> |

>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

|

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | Date: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >

>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

|04/27/2011 12:00 PM |

>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

|

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | Subject: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >

>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

|Cycl onic Method 23 Testing in El P aso |

>

‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

Peter,

As a follow up to our conversation on April 25, 2011, I am just confirming your direction in the testing we are doing at the cyclonic source in El Paso, TX. We will not use Texas Cyclonic method, nor the EP A Guidance Document, bu t we wi ll perform this testing as a “normal” Method 5 type test. The Pitot will be maintained perpendicular to the stack wall, and no adjustment will be made to the dwell time or the angles. We will calculate the isokinetics
per regular method 5 type c alculations, perpendicular to the stack walls.

Please con firm that I have gotten this direction correct, or correct me if I have made any

errors.6 Thank you, Troy Burrows, ASQ

‐ CQA, QSTI (I

‐ IV) Troy Burrows Corporate Quality Manager

(Embedded image moved to file: pic00259.jpg)Description: Entec Services, Inc.

__________________________________________________________________ * Baton Rouge, LA * Birmingham, AL * Mobile, AL * Raleigh (RTP), NC *

www.entecservices.com 2008, 2009 & 2010 Inc. 5000 Fastest Growing Small Business Entec Se rvices, Inc. is Interim Accredited by the So urce Testing Accreditation Council (STAC) in the SEMQAP accreditation
program as documented by the Interim Accreditation Certificate. 1.800.429.8445 (toll free) 1.205.358.1011 (office) 1.205.491.6614 (fax) (Embedded image moved to file: pic22313.jpg)Description:
cert

‐ qual

‐ auditor