Compliance Test Report 

KF Plant 

South Windsor, Connecticut 

Prepared for: 

Mr. Barry Miller 

Redland Brick, Inc. 

Prepared by: 

Mr. Leigh A. Gammie 

Gammie Air Monitoring, LLC 

GamAir 

October 2005 

Project No.: 547-0509 
REPORT CERTIFICATION 

I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document 

and all attachments thereto, and I certify, based on reasonable investigation, including my 

inquiry of those individuals responsible for obtaining the information, that the submitted 

information is tree, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowle.dge and belief. 

Leigh A. Ga•mmie 

Officer, Gammie Air Monitoring, LLC 

Date 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 6amAir.¢om 
Table of Contents 

Section 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 

1.1 Summary of Test Program 

1.2 Key Personnel 

2.0 SOURCE AND SAMLING LOCATION DESCRIPTION 2 

2.1 Process Description 2 

2.2 Flue Gas Sampfing Locations 2 

3.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUS!ON OF RESULTS 3 

3.1 Objectives and Test Matrix 3 

3.2 Field Test Changes and Problems 3 

3.3 Summary of Test Results 3 

4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY 5 

4.1 Volumetric Flow Rate Tests 5 

4.2 Sulfur Dioxide Outlet Tests 6 

4.3 Hydrogen Chloride/Hydrogen Fluoride Outlet Tests 6 

5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES 8 

5.1 

S.l.i 

5.1.2 

5.1.3 

5.2 

5.3 

QC Procedures 8 

Equipment Calibrations 8 

Analytical Quality Control Procedures 8 

Calculations Quality Control Procedures 8 

QA Audits 9 

QA/QC Checks of Data Reduction .; 9 

Appendix A Figures and Diagrams 

Appendix B Results and Calculations 

Appendix C Field Data Sheets 

Appendix D Process Monitoring Data 

Appendix E Laboratory Analytical Data 

Appendix F Equipment Calibrations 

547-0509 Redland Brick report -ii GamAir.com 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Summary of Test Program 

Gammie Air Monitoring, LLC (GamAir) was retained by Redland Brick, Inc. to perform a 

compliance air emissions testing program on the brick kiln exhaust stack at the KF Plant 

located in South Windsor, Connecticut. Testing occurred on the exhaust of the limestone 

absorber control device while firing natural gas in the brick tunnel kiln. The purpose of this 

test program was to quantify the controlled emissions from the brick kiln at the KF Plant. 

This source was identified by the State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental 

Protection (CTDEP) as Town No. 169, Premise No. 005, Permit No. 0032, and Stack No. 20. 

The emission limits were as follows. 

Hydrogen Chloride less than 2.85 pounds per hour 

Hydrogen Fluoride less than 2.35 pounds per hour 

Sulfur Dioxide (expressed as SO2) less than 13.2 pounds per hour 

Controlled air emissions of hydrogen chloride (HC1), hydrogen fluoride, (HF), and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and oxygen (02) were measured at the absorber outlet 

stack. Testing was conducted on 21 September 2005 and observed by Mr. Carl Ekroth of the 

CTDEP. 

The air emission tests were carried out in conformance with the CTDEP guidelines for source 

emission testing and applicable test methodologies as published in Title 40, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 60, Appendix A (40CFR60). This test program was conducted during a 

single field effort. GamAir was responsiblefor sampling and analyzing all air emissions. KF 

personnel were responsible for operating the brick manufacturing line at normal load 

conditions and collecting all process data. 

1.2 Key Personnel 

The following is a list of key individuals who were responsible for the organization of this test 

program. 

Mr. Barry Miller 

Mr. Carl Ekroth 

Ms. Ancy Sebastian 

Mr. Leigh Gammie 

Redland Brick, Inc. 

CTDEP 

Maxxam Analytical, Inc. 

GamAir 

(301) 223-7700 

(860) 424-3894 

(905) 332-8788 

(860) 658-4929 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 
2.0 SOURCE AND SAMLING LOCATION DESCRIPTION 

2.1 Process Description 

Redland Brick Inc., KF Plant (KF) operates a brick manufacturing process which utilizes a 

natural gas-fired tunnel kiln to dry and fire the bricks. The kiln is permitted to process 21.6 

tons per hour of unfired bricks (green weight). The maximum fuel-firing rate is 25MMBtu/hr 

(25,000 cubic feet/hour). The maximum kiln temperature is 2100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). 

Unfired bricks vary in weight from 4 to 6.2 pounds each. The maximum daily push rate 

through the kiln is fifteen (15) cars. For this test program the push rate was 11.5 cars per day 

which equates to 13.25 green tons per hour. 

Emissions generated from the tunnel kiln are controlled by a BACT Engineering, 

Inc./Hellmich GmbH & Co. dry cascade absorber. The absorber pressure drop operated at a 

range between 2.5 to 3.0 inches of water column. 

2.2 Flue Gas Sampling Locations 

Outlet flue gas sampling occurred after the dry absorber in a vertical steel stack with an inside 

diameter (ID) of 47 inches. Two test ports were located 90 degrees apart. The sample ports 

were 8.9 duct diameters (420 inches) downstream and 6.4 duct diameters (300 inches) 

upstream to their respective flow disturbances. In accordance with EPA Method 1, twelve 

traverse points (6 per port) were used for isokinetic sampling. The individual traverse point 

locations and stack schematic are shown in Appendix A. 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 2 GamAir.com 
3,0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSION OF RESULTS 

3.1 Objectives and Test Matrix 

The purpose of this test program was to quantify air emissions from the KF brick 

manufacturing plant while firing natural gas and to compare these emissions data to 

applicable emission limits as provided for in the CTDEP air permit. Emission testing was 

conducted in accordance with the EPA approved test procedures. Three emissions tests were 

conducted for each parameter, with the average result of the three tests used to determine 

compliance. Table 3-1 lists the emission limits from the parameters measured, the EPA 

reference methods used, and the sampling times for each test. 

Parameter 

Natural Gas 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Hydrogen Fluoride 

Hydrogen Chloride 

Oxygen/ 

Carbon Dioxide 

lbs/hr pounds per hour 

EPA 

Test Methods 

Method 8 

Table 3-1 

Air Emissions Test Program 

Redland Brick, Inc. 

KF Plant 

South Windsor• Connecticut 

Method 3 

Sample 

Times 

(min.) 

60 

Emission 

Limits 

60 

13.2 lbs/hr 

Analytical 

Laboratory 

Maxxam 

Number of 

Runs 

GamAir 

Method 26 60 2.35 lbs/hr Maxxam 3 + 1 blank 

Method 26 60 2.85 lbs/hl: Maxxam 3 + 1 blank 

NA 

3.2 Field Test Changes and Problems 

There were no changes to the original test protocol, testing proceeded without incident. 

3.3 Summary of Test Results 

Results from this compliance test program are summarized in Table 3-2 and detailed in 

Appendix B. The sulfur dioxide emissions, (expressed as SO2), averaged 8.24 pounds per 

hour 0bs/hr) which are 62.4 percent of the permit limit and are in compliance with the 

CTDEP regulations. Hydrogen chloride (HC1) tests averaged 2.73 pounds per hour, are 95.8 

percent of the permit limit, and also are in compliance with CTDEP regulations. The 

hydrogen fluoride (HF) runs averaged 0.0945 pounds per hour which is in compliance with 

the CTDEP permit limit of 2.35 pounds per hour. 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 3 GamAir,com 
Table 3-2 

Summary of Results 

Redland Brick, Inc. 

KF Plant 

South Windsor, CT 

21 September 2005 

Method/Component 

Sampling Period 

Method 3A O2/CO2 

Method 8 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Method 26 

HCI 

HF 

Units 

military time 

O• 02 

tr•C02 

pounds per hpur 

pounds per hour 

pounds per hour 

Run 1 

0850-0954 

17.2 

2.0 

8.66 

2.10 

0.089 

Run 2 

1017-1124 

17.4 

2.0 

7.91 

Run 3 

1206-1309 

17.4 

2.0 

8.16 

2.95 3.15 

0.0916 0.103 

Average 

ZUIU• 

17.3 

2.0 

2.73 

0.0945 

dscfm dry standard cubic feet per minute (68°F and 29.92 inches Hg) 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 4 l•amAir.com 
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY 

The following EPA test methods were utilized during this emissions test program: 

EPA Method 1 

EPA Method 2 

EPA Method 3 

EPA Method 4 

EPA Method 8 

EPA Method 26 

Sample and velocity traverses for stationary sources 

Determination of stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate (type S 

Pitot tube) 

Determination of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations in 

emissions from stationary sources (Orsat analyzer procedure) 

Determination of moisture content in stack gases 

Dete•ation ef su!fi-,-r dioxide•emissions-fromstationary•urces 

Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from 

Stationary Sources -Non-Isokinetic Method 

The following sections describe the sampling and analytical procedures utilized during the 

emissions testing. All tests were performed in triplicate. All sampling and analytical 

procedure followed those outlined in 40CFR60, Appendix A. 

4.1 Volumetric Flow Rate Tests 

The volumetric flowrate of the flue gas at the stack test location was determined using EPA 

Methods 1-4. In accordance with EPA Method 1 traverse points were utilized for flue gas 

velocity measurements and isokinetic sampling. The locations of the traverse points, as 

determined by EPA Method 1, are listed inAppendix A. Flue gas velocity measurements 

were taken at each traverse point during each test run using an S-type Pitot tube and an 

inclined water manometer in accordance with EPA Method 2. Stack temperature 

measurements were taken at each traverse point using a Type-K thermocouple and digital 

temperature readout. The stack static pressure was also measured during each test run using 

the Pitot tube and manometer setup. Pitot tube leak checks were performed before and after 

each test run in accordance with EPA Method 2. 

The dry molecular weight of the outlet flue gases was determined by measuring the oxygen 

(02) and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations using the integrated bag sampling method 

followed by analysis with an Orsat analyzer. An integrated 15 liter Tedlar bag was collected 

simultaneously with the EPA Method 8 sampling train. Carbon dioxide and oxygen 

concentrations were determined from integrated gaseous samples collected during each test 

run using the sample train described in EPA Method 3. The flue gas moisture content was 

determined from the back half moisture catches of the isokinetic sampling train during the 

emissions testing in accordance with EPA Method 4. The moisture content of the flue gas 

was calculated as the ratio of the moisture catch corrected to standard conditions to the sum of 

the dry sample, volume and the moisture cat..ch, both corrected to standard conditions. 

Calculated moisture contents, which exceed the saturation moisture at the average duct 

temperature, would be defaulted to the saturation moisture. 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 5 ¢•araAir.com 
4.2 Sulfur Dioxide Outlet Tests 

Triplicate isokinetic sulfur dioxide tests were performed on the absorber outlet exhaust stack. 

Each test was 60 minutes in duration and was conducted in accordance with EPA Method 8. 

The EPA Method 8 sampling train is depicted in Appendix A. The sampling train was similar 

to the Method 5 train with the exception of 1) a glass wool filter was placed between the first 

and second impinger 2) the heated filter between the probe and impingers was removed, and 

3) the impinger contents were replaced with isopropanol (IPA) and hydrogen peroxide. The 

sample train probe and heater box were heated to 248°F +/-25°17 degrees to prevent moisture 

condensation. The first impinger contained100ml of 80% isopropanol, 100 ml of 3% 

hydrogen peroxide was contained in both the second and third impinger, while 250 grams of 

silica gel ;-,,as placed-in the fourtl•impinger to knoeteoutanyremaining moisture-before 

reaching the sampling pump. The impinger outlet temperature was maintained below 68°F 

during sampling. 

Before and after each test run the sampling train was leak checked to ensure no leakage 

greater than 0.2 cubic feet per minute. The sampling train operating parameters was recorded 

at each traverse point on preprinted data sheets as shown in Appendix C. 

After the post test leak check, the sampling train was inspected and then moved to the clean 

up area. A fifteen (15) purge of clean ambient air was then run at the average flow rate used 

during the test. Upon completion, the sampling train was recovered as follows: 

Container No. 1 Weighed the first impinger content• to the nearest 0.5 gram and 

recorded its weight. Rinsed the nozzle, probe, filter housing, first impinger, and 

connecting glassware with IPA. Placed the glass wool filter in with the IPA rinses, 

sealed container, and marked level of liquid. 

Container No. 2 Weighed second and third impingers for moisture gain to the 

nearest 0.5 grams. Transfer solutions from second and third impingers to a 1000ml 

graduated cylinder. All connecting glassware from the second impinger to the third 

impinger are then rinsed twice with distilled water. Dilute to a volume of 1000 ml 

with DI water, mark liquid level, and label container. 

Container No. 3 Weighed contents of silica gel impinger to nearest 0.5 grams 

and add figure to total moisture gain, then discard. 

Container No. 1 did not get analyzed as sulfuric acid was not a requirement for this test 

program. Container No. 2 was then shipped to a contract laboratory for sulfur dioxide 

analysis. Sulfur dioxide analysis from container No. 2 consisted of using a titration method 

with 2 to 4 drops of thorin indicator, titrating to a pink endpoint using 0.010 N barium 

perchlorate. This analysis was duplicated per the method. A field blank was also provided to 

the laboratory for analysis. 

4.3 Hydrogen Chloride/Hydrogen Fluoride Outlet Tests 

Triplicate hydrogen chloride (HC1) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) tests were performed at the 

absorber outlet stack simultaneously with the EPA Method 8 testing. Each test was 60 

minutes in duration and was conducted in accordance with EPA Method 26. 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 6 GamAir.com 
The HC1/HF sampling train consisted of a flexible heated Teflon transfer line with an in-stack 

Teflon filter, a set of 5 glass mini impingers connected in series contained in an ice bath, a 

leakless vacuum pump, a calibrated rotometer, and a calibrated dry gas meter. The sample 

probe was maintained at a temperature between 248°F and 275°F to prevent moisture 

condensation. A cyclone was not used with the GamAir sampling train. The first two 

impingers each contained 15 milliliters (ml) of 0.1N H2SO,• for the collection of HC1 and HF, 

the third and fourth impingers each contained 15 ml of 0.1N NaOH, and the fifth impinger 

contained a known quantity of silica gel. The impinger outlet temperature was maintained 

below 68°F during sampling. Sampling was performed at a constant rate of 2.0 liters per 

minute. 

Before and after each test run the sampling train was leak checked to ensure no leakage 

greater than 40 cubic centimeters per minute. The sampling train operating parameters were 

recorded at each traverse point on preprinted data sheets as shown in Appendix C. The 

sampling train components were then moved to the clean up area. The following is a 

description of the sample recovery procedure. 

Container No. 1 emptied contents of impingers 1 & 2 and saved. Duplicate 

deionized water rinses of impingers 1 & 2. 

Container No. 2 

discarded. 

measured moisture contained in impinger 3, 4, and 5 then 

Container No. 3 

rinse water added. 

0.1 N H2SO4 reagent blank (30 ml) with corresponding 

Sample containers 1 and 3 were shipped to a contract laboratory for HCI and HF analysis. 

Sample preparation and analysis consisted of properly preparing the ion chromatograph (IC). 

The IC conditions depended upon analytical column type and whether suppressed or 

nonsuppressed IC was used. The two individual samples (Containers 1 and 3) were then 

analyzed separately. The reagent blanks (Containers 3) was also analyzed separately. The 

reagent blank consisted of those solutions u•ed in the collection of HCI/HF, these blanks did 

not come in contact with any portion of the sampling trains as associated with a field train 

blank. 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 7 I]am/•ir.¢om 
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES 

5.1 QC Procedures 

Specific quality control (QC) procedures were followed to ensure the continuous production 

of useful and valid data throughout the course of this test program. The QC checks and 

procedures described in this section represent an integral part of the overall sampling and 

analytical scheme. Strict adherence to prescribed procedures is quite often the most 

applicable QC check. A discussion of both the sampling and analytical QC checks that were 

utilized during this program are presented below. 

5.1.1 Equipment Calibrations 

Prior to the start of the test program the CTDEP received copies of all sampling equipment 

calibrations as described in their stack testing guidelines. 

Emissions sampling equipment requiring calibration includes sampling nozzles, Pitot tubes, 

pressure gauges, thermometers, dry gas meters, and barometer. Post test calibration of the dry 

gas meters were all within their acceptable limit (Y 1.00 +/- 0.05). 

5.1.2 Analytical Quality Control Procedures 

All analyses for this program were performed using accepted laboratory procedures in 

accordance with the specified analytical protocols. Adherence to prescribed QC procedures 

for the EPA methods used for this test program ensured data of consistent and measurable 

quality. Analytical QC focused on the use of control standards to provide a measure of 

analytical precision and accuracy. The SO2 Samples were analyzed following the procedures 

of EPA Method 8; HC1 and HF samples were analyzed in accordance with EPA Method 26. 

Field blanks and laboratory blanks were used to check for contamination. Also, specific 

acceptance criteria defined below for various analytical operations, including calibrations, 

control standard analyses, drift checks, blanks, etc. were within the acceptable limits of EPA 

Methods 8 and 26. 

Test Method and QC Sample 

EPA Method 8 

Table 5-1 

Quality' Comrol Samples 

•Criteria 

Duplicate Analysis less than 1% or 0.2 ml Yes 

Blanks At or below detection limit Yes 

Sampling Isokinetics 90% to 110% Yes 

Blanks At or below detection limit Yes 

EPA Method 26 

Duplicate Analysis percent difference less than 

5% 

QC Limits Met 

Yes 

5.1.3 Calculations Quality Control Procedures 

Calculations for determining flow rates, moisture contents, isokinetics, particulate and 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 8 GamAir.com 
gaseous concentrations were made using a computer program developed by GamAir. This 

program utilizes the calculation procedures-and equations specified in EPA Methods 2, 4, and 

5. The program has been successfully used for numerous test efforts and has been validated 

by independent performance audits. Sample calculations .were performed by the software 

program and a definition of terms is provided in the final report. Field data was transported to 

the software directly from the data sheets. All tests were performed within the acceptable 

isokinetic range of 90% to 110%. 

5.2 QA Audits 

There were no audits for this test program. 

The project manager ran an independent check (using a validated computer program) of the 

calculations with predetermined data before the field test. This ensured that calculations done 

in the field were accurate. The project manager also conducted a spot check onsite to assure 

that data was recorded accurately. 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 9 GamAir.com 
Ap•ndix A 

• es and Di•ms 

547-0509 Redland Brick report GamAir,com 
30 

10 

28 

8(r9 

4o -[ 

10 

1 

3 

4 

5 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12. 

4.4 3.2 

14.6 10.5 

::Z•" 19.4 

"7•,4 32.3 

85.4 •7.7 

•5.6 80.8 

89.5 

9•.8 

6.7 

25.0 

75.0 

93.3 

2,8 

8,2 

)`4.8 •..8 

22.6 ),7.7 

34.2 25•0 

65.8 35.6 

77.4 64.4 

85.4 75.0 

91.8 82.3 

9"7.4 88.2 

93.3 

9"•.9 

2.1 

6.•- 

13.1 
E 

0O3 
I'l•• Aoid •umpling Train 

004 
005 
Ap•ndixB 

Resul• •d Calculations 

547-0509 Redland Brick report GamAir.com 
Summary of Sulphur Dioxide Emissions 

Redland Brick, Inc. 

KF Plant 

South Windsor, Connecticut 

RUN NUMBER: 

DATE: 

TIME: 

M8-1 M8-2 M8-3 

9/21/2005 9/2112005 9/21/2005 

0850-0954 1017-1124 '1206-1309 

REQUIRED INPUT DATA 

BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, (" Hg) 

AREA OF STACK, (•) 

NOZZLE DIAMETER, (inches) 

TOTAL SAMPLE TIME, (minutes) 

DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION FACTOR 

PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT 

AVERAGE VELOCITY PRESSURE (SQ. RT.), (" H20) 

AVG. ORIFICE PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL, (" H=O) 

Average 

AVG. DRY GAS METER TEMPERATURE, (OF) 

STACK STATIC PRESS., 

AVERAGE STACK GAS TEMPERATURE, (OF) 

VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED, (ft •) 

TOTAL MOISTURE COLLECTED, (ml) 

CO2 IN STACK GAS, (%) 

O2 IN STACK GAS, (%) 

CO IN STACK GAS, (%) 

N2 IN STACK GAS, (%) 

TOTAL SULPHUR DIOXIDE COLLECTED, (rag) 

29.74 29.74 29.74 29.74 

12.040 12.040 12.040 12.04 

0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 

6O 60 60 60 

0.992 0.992 0.992 0.992 

0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 

0.6584 0.6466 0.6788 0.661 

1.910 1.980 2.100 2.00 

68 77 83 76 

0.32 0.31 0.32 0.32 

328 "•" 324 326 326 

44.344 45.208 46.653 45.402 

68.0 66.0 62.0 65.33 

2•0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

17.2 17.4 17.4 17.3 

0.0 0,0 0.0 "0.00 

80.8 80,6 80.6 80.7 

140.0 130.0 130.0 133.3 

CALCULATED DATA 

VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLED, (dscf) 43.93 44.04 44.96 

MOISTURE IN STACK GAS, (%) 6.79 6.59 6.09 

STACK GAS WET MOLECULAR WEIGHT, (Ib/Ib-mole) 28.26 28.29 28.34 

EXCESS AIR, (%) 416.3 448.6 448.6 

STACK GAS VELOCITY, (fpm) 2745.79 2688.34 2823.07 

ACTUAL VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE, (acfm) 33059 32368 33990 

STANDARD VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE, (dscfm) 20539 20255 21329 

ISOKINETIC, (%) 99.7 101.4 98.3 

grains/actual cubic feet 3.05E-02 2.85E-02 2.80E-02 

micrograms/actual cubic meter 6.99E+04 6.52E+04 6.41E+04 

grains/dry standard cubic feet 4.92E-02 4.55E-02 4.46E-02 

milligrams/dry standard cubic meter at 7% 02 4.24E+02 4.15E+02 4.06E+02 

pounds/hour 8.66E+00 7.91E+00 8.16E+00 

grains/dry standard cubic feet at 12% CO2 2.95E-01 2.73E-01 2.68E-01 

dry standard cubic feet/million Btu (F.Factor) 9190 9190 9190 

pounds/million Btu 3.65E-01 3.57E-01 3.50E-01 

44.31 

6.49 

28.30 

438 

2752 

33139 

20708 

99.8 

0;0290 

66399 

0.0464 

414.34 

8.24 

0.28 

9190 

0.36 

547-0509 M8 data summary SO2 GamAJr.©om 
Summary of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions 

Redland Brick, Inc. 

KF Plant 

South Windsor, Connecticut 

RUN NUMBER: 

DATE: 

TIME: 

REQUIRED INPUT DATA 

TOTAL HCI COLLECTED, (mg) 

AVERAGE DRY QA8 METER TEMPERATURE, •F) 

DRY GAS METER CAUBRATION FACTOR 

TOTAL SAMPLE TIME, (minutes) 

VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED, (liters) 

VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED,. (ft a) 

BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, (" Hg) 

AVG. ORIFICE PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL, (" H20) 

HCI MOLECULAR WEIGHT 

O2 IN STACK GAS, (%) 

CO2 IN STACK GAS, (%) 

VOLUMETRIC FLOW, (dscfm) 

M26-1 M26-2 M26-3 

9/21/2005 9/21/2005 9/21/2005 

0852-0956 1013-1119 1200-1305 

AVERAGE 

3.3000 4.5000 4.6000 4.133 

RR 98 96.2 93 

1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 

60 60 60 60 

123.20 120.86 121.20 121.75 

4.350 4.268 4.280 4.299 

29.74 29.74 29.74 29.74 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

36.45 36.45 36.45 36.45 

17.2 17.4 17.4 17.33 

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.00 

20539 20255 21329 20708 

CALCULATED DATA 

VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLED, (dscf) 

SAMPLING RATE, (liters/minute) 

HCI pounds/dry standard cubic feet 

HCI grams/dry standard cubic meter 

HCI parts per million 

HCI pounds/hour 

4.27 4.09 4.12 4.16 

2.02 1.93 1.94 1.96 

1.70E-06 2.42E-06 2.46E-06 2.20E-06 

2.73E-02 3.88E-02 3.94E-02 3.52E-02 

17.98 25.59 26.00 23.19 

2.10E+00 2.95E+00 3.15E+00 2.73E+00 

547-0509 KF Bdck HCI & HF data summapj HCI sample & lab GamNr.com 
Summary of Hydrogen Fluoride Emissions 

Redland Brick, Inc. 

KF Plant 

South Windsor, Connecticut 

RUN NUMBER: 

DATE: 

TIME: 

REQUIRED INPUT DATA 

TOTAL HF COLLECTED, (mg) 

AVI=RAGE DRY GAS METER TEMPERATURE, (°F') 

DRY GAS METER GAUBRATION FACTOR 

TOTAL SAMPLE TIME, (minutes) 

VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED, (liters) 

VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED, (ft •) 

BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, (" Hg) 

AVG. ORIFICE PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL, (" H=O) 

HF MOLECULAR WEIGHT 

O= IN STACK GAS, (%) 

COz IN STACK GAS, (%) 

VO ,LUMETRIC FLOW, (dscfm) 

M26-1 M26-2 M26-3 

9/21/2005 9/21/2005 9/21/2005 

0852-0956 1013-1119 1200-1305 

AVERAGE 

0.1400 0.14• 0.15• 0.1• 

85 08 •.2 93 

1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 

60 60 6O 6O 

23.20 120.86 121.20 121.75 

4.350 4,268 4.280 4.299 

29.74 29.74 29.74 29.74 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 

17.2 17.4 17.4 17.33 

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.00 

20539 20255 21329 20708 

CALCULATED DATA 

VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLED, (dscf) 

SAMPLING RATE, (liters/minute) 

HF pounds/dry standard cubic feet 

HF grams/dry standard cubic meter 

HF pads per million 

HF pounds/hour 

4.27 4.09 4.12 4.16 

2,02 1.93 1.94 1.96 

7.22E-08 7.54E-08 8.03E-08 7.60E-08 

1.16E-03 1.21E-03 1.29E-03 1.22E-03 

1.39 1.45 1.55 1.46 

8.90E-02 9.16E-02 1.03E-01 9.45E-02 

547-0509 KF Brick HCI & HF data summary HF sample & lab GamAir.com 
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

CLIENT: Redland Brick 

PROJ. NO: 547-0509 

LOCATION: Absorber Outlet Stack 

POLLUTANT: HCI 

RUN NO: M26-1 

REQUIRED INPUT DAT A 

Mn 3.30000 

Tm avg 85 

y 1.0200 

T tot 60 

Vm tot 4.350 

Pbar 29.74 

DH avg 0.00 

MWp 36.45 

%H 0.00 

%C 0.00 

%S 0.00 

%N 2 0.00 

%02 0.00 

Btu/]b 0 

Stack 02 17.2 

Stack CO2 ..- 2.0 

Total pollutant cellected, mg 

Average dry gas meter temperaturel degrees F 

Dry gas meter calibration factor 

Total sampling time, minutes 

Total meter sample volume, cubic feet 

Barometric pressure, "Hg 

Average orifice pressure drop," H=O 

Pollutant Molecular Weight 

Percent hydrogen in fuel 

Percent carbon in fuel 

Percent sulfur in fuel 

Percent nitrogen in fuel 

Percent oxygen in fuel 

Gross calodc value 

Percent oxygen in stack gas 

Percent CO2 in stack gas 

1. Volume of Sample Measured By Dry Gas Meter, Corrected to Standard Conditions (Vm std) 

Vm std 17.647 x Vm tot x Y 

Tm + 460 

Pbar 

Vm std 17.647 x 4.35 x 

Vm etd 

Sampling Rate, (I/rain) 

I/rain 

I/rain 

•rnin 

1.02 

4.27. dscf 

450 

Vm std x 28.32 I/ft 3 

T 

4.27 x 28.32 

6O 

2.02 Ipm 

29.74 
3. HCI Concentration, Corrected to Dry Standard Conditions, (Cs) 

Cs 0•01543 

Vmstd 

x Mn 

Cs 0•01543 x 

4.27 x 

3,3 

Cs 1.70E-06 pounds/dscf 

4. HCI Concentration, Corrected to Dry Standard Conditions, (grams/dscm) 

Csi Cs 

Csi 2.73E-02 grams/dscm 

5. HCI Concentration, (ppm dry) 

Cp x 24.03 x 

MWp 

Cp 

Cp 

2.73E-02 x 24.03 x 

17.98 ppm, dry 

36.45 

453.6 

IOO0 

1000 

1311 
Run Number: M8"2 

Example Calculations 

Date: 9/21/2005 Time: 1017-1124 

Emission Calculation Symbols 

PB 29.74 

AS 12.040 

DN 0.281 

TT 60 

y 0.992 

SQRT DP 0.6466 

DH 1.98 

TM 77 

PS 0.31 

TS 324 

VM TOT 45.206 

VI 66 

002 2.0 

O2 17.40 

CO =. 0 

N 80.60 

MN 130.00 

barometric pressure, (" Hg) 

area of stack, (ft 2) 

nozzle diameter, (inches) 

total sampling time, (minutes) 

dry gas meter calibration factor 

,•t t,,h= P_n•ffininnt. dimensionless 

average velocity pressure (square mot), (" H20) 

average orifice pressure differential, (" HzO) 

average dry gas meter temperature, (°F) 

stack static pressure, (" H20) 

average stack gas temperature, (oF) 

volume of gas sampled, (ft 3) 

total moisture collected, (ml) 

C02 in stack gas (dry basis), % 

02 in stack gas (dry basis), % 

CO in stack gas (dry basis), % 

N 2 in stack gas (dry basis), % 

total analyte collected, (milligrams) 

Fuel Analysis Input Data 

%H 13.3 

%C 82.0 

%S 0.33 

%N 0.25 

%0 3.42 

GCV 18460 

percent by weight of hydrogen in fuel 

percent by weight of carbon in fuel 

percent by weight of sulfur in fuel 

percent by weight of nitrogen in fuel 

percent by weight of oxygen in fuel 

gross calorific value of fuel, Btu/Ib 

T STD 68 

P STD 29.92 

LP 0,00 

LA 0.02 

standard temperature, (OF) 

standard pressure, (" Hg) 

final leak rate of sampling train, •3/min) 

allowable leak rate of sampling train, (ft3/min) 

1. Volume of Dry Gas Sampled (DSCF), dW standard cubic feet 

DSCF (VMTOT) x (Y) x [(TSTD+460)/(TM+460)] x [(PB+ (DH/13.6))/29.92| 

DSCF 44.04 dry standard cubic feet 

2. Moisture In Stack Gas (%H=O), percent 

% H20 100 x [(0.04707 x VI)/[DSCF + (0.04707 x VI)] 

%H=0 6.59 percent 

Typical M5 Method 5 
3. Stack Gas Wet Molecular Weight (MWS), Ib/Ib-ntole 

MWS [(0.44 x CO•) + (0.28 x CO) + (0.28 x N2) + (0.32 x Oz)] x [1. (%H20/100)| + (0.18 x %H20) 

MWS 28.29 Ib/Ib mole 

4. Average Stack Gas Deltsity (DS'r), pOUltdS per cubic feet 

DST (0.0458) x MWS x [(PB + (PS/13.6) (TS + 460)] 

DST 0.0492 pounds per cubic feet 

S. Excess Air (EA), percent 

EA 100 x [(O2- (0.5xCO))/(0.m64xN2)" O2" (0"SxCO))] 

EA 448.6 percent 

6. Sta•,k Gas Veloolty (FPM), feet permim•te 

FPM 5129.4 x CP x SQRT DP x SQRT [(T$ +460)/(PB + (PS/13.6)) x MSW] 

FPM 2688.3 feet per minute 

7. A¢tual Volumatri¢ Row Rate (Q), actual cubic feet per minute 

Q FPM x AS 

Q 32368 actual cubic feet per minute 

8. Standard Volumetric Flow Rate (Q STD), dry standard cubic feet per minute 

QSTD O x [1 (%H=O/100)] x [('I'STD +460)/(TS+ 460)] x [PB + (PS/13.6)/29.92] 

Q STD 20255 dry standard •ubi¢ feet per minute 

Typical M5 Method 5 GamNr.com 
9. Iiokineti¢ Factor (110, percent 

IK [5.67 x ('1"$ + 460) x DSCFJ/[(PB + (PS/13.6)) x FPM x TT x (1- (%H20/100)) x (DN 2 x 0.7854)/144] 

IK 101.4 percent 

10. Actual Analyte Concentration (C), grain= per actual cubic feet 

C [0.01543 x MN x (T STD + 460) x (PB + (PS/13.6)) x (1- (%H=O/100)ji (D$CF x ('='3 + 4¢C} x 29.•) 

0.0285 grains per actual cubic feet 

11. Actual/•alyta Concentration Corrected To Stack Conditio=m (Cd), micrograms per actual cubic meter 

Cd [1000 x MN x (T STD + 460) x (PB + (PS/13.6)) x (1 -(%H20/100))]/(0.02832 X (TS + 460). x 29.92) 

Cd 65221.8 micrograms per actual cubic meter 

12. Analyte Concentration Corrected To Dry Standard conditions (Csm), milligrams/dry standard cubic meters 

Analyta Concentration corrected To D•y Standard Conditions (Cs), grains/dry standard cubi© feet 

Csm (MN DSCF) x 35.31 Cs 0.01543 x (MN/DSCF) 

Csm 104.22 mg/dscm Cs 4.55E-02 grains/dscf 

13. Analyte Emission Rate (ER), pound• per hour 

ER 0.008571 x Cs x Q STD 

ER 7.91 pounds per hour 

Method 5 Gam•r.¢om 
14. F* Factor (F), DSCF per million British thermal units 

F 1000000 x [(3.64x%H)+(1.53x%C)+(O.57x%S)+(O.14x%N)-(O:46x%O)]lGCV 

F 9346 DSCF per million Btu 

15. Analyte Emission Rate (EBTU), pounds pe¢ million Blu 

EBTU 0.000142• x Cs F (2G.•/(20.9-O2)) 

EBTU 0.36 pounds/million BTU 

16. Altalyta Concentration Corrected to Dry Standard Conditions and 12% CO: (Cs 12%COz), mg/ds•m at 12% CO: 

Csm12%CO= Csm x (12/CO2) Cs12%CO2 Cs x (12/CO2) 

Csm12%COz 625.32 mg/dscm @ 12% CO2 Cs12%CO2 2.73E-01 gr/dscf @ 12% CO2 

17. Analyte Concentration Corrected to Dry Standard Conditions and 7% O: (Cs @7%0z), mg/dsm at 7% O2 

Csm7%02 Csm x [(20.9 7.0) / (20.9 

Csm7%O2 413.91 mg/dscm @ 7% 02 

Typic• M5 Method 5 GamAJr.©om 
Gammie Air 

Monitoring, LLC 

28 Canton Road 

West Simsbury, CT 

860-658-4929 

06092 

Fax 860-658-2223 

17 October 2005 

Mr. Carl S. Ekroth 

State of Connecticut 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Bureau of Air Management/E&E 

79 Elm Street 

Hartford, CT 06106-5127 

Re: Redland Brick, Inc. KF Plant 

Air Emissions Test Report 

GamAir Project No.: 547-0509 

Dear Mr. Ekroth: 

Please find enclosed a copy of the, "Compliance Test Report, Redland Brick, Inc., KF Plant, 

South Windsor, Connecticut", dated October 2005. This report summarizes the testing 

conducted on 21 September 2005. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. 

Thank you, 

Gammie Air Monitoring, LLC 

/ 

Leigh A. Gammie 

Program Manager 

cc. Mr. B. Miller, Redland 

DEPT. OF EN\/IRONMENL• BUREAU OF AIR COMPLIANCE AND FIELO 

cmd: 547-0509 KF Plant report 
Compliance Test Report 

KF ,Plant 

South Windsor, Connecticut 

Prepared for: 

Mr. Barry Miller 

Redland Brick, Inc. 

Prepared by: 

Mr. Leigh A. Gammie 

Gammie Air Monitoring, LLC 

October 2005 

GamAir Project No. 547-0509 
Compliance Test Report 

D•llnnrl Rrirl•_ Tn•__ 

KF Plant 

South Windsor, Connecticut 

Mr. Barry Miller 

Redland Brick, Inc. 

RECE V ' 

OCT 1 

Prepared by: 

Mr. Leigh A. Gammie 

Gammie Air Monitoring, LLC 

October 2005 

GamAir Project No.: 547-0509 
REPORT CERTIFICATION 

I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document 

and all attachments thereto, and I certify, based on reasonable investigation, including my 

inquiry of those individuals responsible for obtaining the information, that the submitted 

information is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

Leigh A. Gan•mie 

Officer, Gammie Air Monitoring, LLC 

Date 

547-0509 Redland Brick report Gam,•ir.¢om 
Table of Contents 

Section 

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. I 

1.1 Summary of Test Program 

1.2 Key Personnel ................................................................................................................................ 

2.0 SOURCE AND SAMLING LOCATION DESCRIPTION 2 

2.1 Process Description ....................................................................................................................... 2 

2.2 Flue Gas Sampling Locations 2 

3.0 SUMM_A__RY AND DI•qCIISION OF RESULTS 3 

3.1 Objectives and Test Matrix 3 

3.2 Field Test Changes and Problems 3 

3.3 Summary of Test Results 3 

4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY 5 

4.1 Volumetric Flow Rate Tests 5 

4.2 Sulfur Dioxide Outlet Tests 6 

4.3 Hydrogen Chloride/Hydrogen Fluoride Outlet Tests 6 

5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES 8 

5.1 

5.1.1 

5.1.2 

5.1.3 

5.2 

5.3 

QC.Procedures .............................................................................................................................. 8 

Equipment Calibrations 8 

Analytical Quality Control Procedures 8 

Calculations Quality Control Procedures 8 

QA Audits ...................................................................................................................................... 9 

QA/QC Checks of Data Reduction 9 

Appendix A Figures and Diagrams 

Appendix B Results and Calculations 

Appendix C Field Data Sheets 

Appendix D Process Monitoring Data 

Appendix E Laboratory Analytical Data 

Appendix F Equipment Calibrations 

547-0509 Redland Brick report ii GamAir.com 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Summary of Test Program 

Gammie Air Monitoring, LLC (GamAir) was retained by Redland Brick, Inc. to perform a 

compliance air emissions testing program on the brick kiln exhaust stack at the KF Plant 

located in South Windsor, Connecticut. Testing occurred on the exhaust of the limestone 

absorber control device while firing natural gas in the brick tunnel kiln. The purpose of this 

test program was to quantify the controlled emissions from the brick kiln at the KF Plant. 

This source was identified by the State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental 

Protection (CTDEP) as Town No. 169, Premise No. 005, Permit No. 0032, and Stack No. 20. 

The emission limits were as follows. 

Hydrogen Chloride less than 2.85 pounds per hour 

Hydrogen Fluoride less than 2.35 pounds per hour 

Sulfur Dioxide (expressed as SO2) less than 13.2 pounds per hour 

Controlled air emissions of hydrogen chloride (HC1), hydrogen fluoride, (HF), and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and oxygen (02) were measured at the absorber outlet 

stack. Testing was conducted on 21 September 2005 and observed by Mr. Carl Ekroth of the 

CTDEP. 

The air emission tests were carried out in conformance with the CTDEP guidelines for source 

emission testing and applicable test methodologies as published in Title 40, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 60, Appendix A (40CFR60). This test program was conducted during a 

single field effort. GamAir was responsible for sampling and analyzing all air emissions. KF 

personnel were responsible for operating the brick manufacturing line at normal load 

conditions and collecting all process data. 

1.2 Key Personnel 

The following is a list of key individuals who were responsible for the organization of this test 

program. 

Mr. Barry Miller 

Mr. Carl Ekroth 

Ms. Ancy Sebastian 

Mr. Leigh Gammie 

Redland Brick, Inc. 

CTDEP 

Maxxam Analytical, Inc. 

GamAir 

(301) 223-7700 

(860) 424-3894 

(905) 332-8788 

(860) 658-4929 

547-0509 Redland Brick report GamAir.com 
2.0 SOURCE AND SAMLING LOCATION DESCRIPTION 

2.1 Process Description 

Redland Brick Inc., KF Plant (KF) operates a brick manufacturing process which utilizes a 

natural gas-fired tunnel kiln to dry and fire the bricks. The kiln is permitted to process 21.6 

tons per hour of unfired bricks (green weight). The maximum fuel-firing rate is 25MMBtu/hr 

(25,000 cubic feet/hour). The maximum kiln temperature is 2100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). 

Unfired bricks vary in weight from 4 to 6.2 pounds each. The maximum daily push rate 

through the kiln is fifteen (15) cars. For this test program the push rate was 11.5 cars per day 

which equates to 13.25 green tons per hour. 

Emissions generated •roIn Ule tumlc• hm• a• •,•,,ut,•u •,y a •-• s, 

Inc./Hellmich GmbH & Co. dry cascade absorber. The absorber pressure drop operated at a 

range between 2.5 to 3.0 inches of water column. 

2.2 Flue Gas Sampling Locations 

Outlet flue gas sampling occurred after the dry absorber in a vertical steel stack with an inside 

diameter (ID) of 47 inches. Two test ports were located 90 degrees apart. The sample ports 

were 8.9 duct diameters (420 inches) downstream and 6.4 duct diameters (300 inches) 

upstream to their respective flow disturbances. In accordance with EPA Method 1, twelve 

traverse points (6 per port) were used for isokinetic sampling. The individual traverse point 

locations and stack schematic are shown in Appendix A. 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 2 GamAir.com 
3.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSION OF RESULTS 

3.1 Objectives and Test Matrix 

The purpose of this test program was to quantify air emissions from the KF brick 

manufacturing plant while firing natural gas and to compare these emissions data to 

applicable emission limits as provided for in the CTDEP air permit. Emission testing was 

conducted in accordance with the EPA approved test procedures. Three emissions tests were 

conducted for each parameter, with the average result of the three tests used to determine 

compliance. Table 3-1 lists the emission limits from the parameters measured, the EPA 

reference methods used, and the sampling times for each test. 

Parameter 

Natural Gas 

EPA 

Test Methods 

Hydrogen Fluoride 

Hydrogen Chloride 

Oxygen/ 

Carbon Dioxide 

Table 3-1 

Air Emissions Test Program 

Redland Brick, Inc. 

KF Plant 

South Windsor, Connecticut 

Sample 

Times 

(min.) 

60 

Emission 

Limits 

Analytical 

Laboratory 

Number of 

Runs 

Sulfur Dioxide Method 8 13.2 lbs/hr Maxxam 3 

Method 26 60 2.35 lbs/hr Maxxam 3 + 1 blank 

Method 26 60 2.85 lbs/hr Maxxam 3 + 1 blank 

NA GamAir 3 Method 3 

lbs/hr pounds per hour 

60 

3.2 Field Test Changes and Problems 

There were no changes to the original test protocol, testing proceeded without incident. 

3.3 Summary of Test Results 

Results from this compliance test program are summarized in Table 3-2 and detailed in 

Appendix B. The sulfur dioxide emissions, (expressed as SO2), averaged 8.24 pounds per 

hour (lbs/hr) which are 62.4 percent of the permit limit and are in compliance with the 

CTDEP regulations. Hydrogen chloride (HC1) tests averaged 2.73 pounds per hour, are 95.8 

percent of the permit limit, and also are in compliance with CTDEP regulations. The 

hydrogen fluoride (HF) runs averaged 0.0945 pounds per hour which is in compliance with 

the CTDEP permit limit of 2.35 pounds per hour. 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 3 GamAir.com 
Method/Component 

Sampling Period 

Table 3-2 

Summary of Results 

Redland Brick, Inc. 

KF Plant 

South Windsor, CT 

21 September 2005 

Units Run I Run 2 Run 3 Average 

military time 0850-0954 1017-1124 1206-1309 

Method 2 Flowrate 

Method 3A Oz/CO2 

Method 8 

dscfrn 

% O2 

%CO2 

20539 20255 

17.2 17.4 

2.0 2.0 

21329 

17.4 

2.0 

20708 

17.3 

2.0 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Method 26 

HCI 

HF 

pounds per hour 

pounds per hour 

pounds per hour 

8.66 

2.10 

0.089 

7.91 

2.95 

0.0916 

dscfm dry standard cubic feet per minute (68°F and 29.92 inches Hg) 

8.16 

3.15 

0.103 

8.24 

2.73 

0.0945 

547-0509 Redland Brick report. 4 GamAir.com 
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY 

The following EPA test methods were utilized during this emissions test program: 

EPA Method 1 

EPA Method 2 

EPA Method 3 

EPA Method 4 

EPA Method 8 

EPA Method 26 

Sample and velocity traverses for stationary sources 

Determination of stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate (type S 

Pitot tube) 

Determination of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations in 

emissions from stationary sources (Orsat analyzer procedure) 

Determination of moisture content in stack gases 

Determination of sutfur dioxideemissions fromstationary sources 

Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from 

Stationary Sources Non-Isokinetic Method 

The following sections describe the sampling and analytical procedures utilized during the 

emissions testing. All tests were performed in triplicate. All sampling and analytical 

procedure followed those outlined in 40CFR60, Appendix A. 

4.1 Volumetric Flow Rate Tests 

The volumetric flowrate of the flue gas at the stack test location was determined using EPA 

Methods 1-4. In accordance with EPA Method 1 traverse points were utilized for flue gas 

velocity measurements and isokinetic sampling. The locations of the traverse points, as 

determined by EPA Method 1, are listed in Appendix A. Flue gas velocity measurements 

were taken at each traverse point during each test run using an S-type Pitot tube and an 

inclined water manometer in accordance with EPA Method 2. Stack temperature 

measurements were taken at each traverse point using a Type-K thermocouple and digital 

temperature readout. The stack static pressure was also measured during each test run using 

the Pitot tube and manometer setup. Pitot tube leak checks were performed before and after 

each test run in accordance with EPA Method 2. 

The dry molecular weight of the outlet flue gases was determined by measuring the oxygen 

(02) and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations using the integrated bag sampling method 

followed by analysis with an Orsat analyzer. An integrated 15 liter Tedlar bag was collected 

simultaneously with the EPA Method 8 sampling train. Carbon dioxide and oxygen 

concentrations were determined from integrated gaseous samples collected during each test 

run using the sample train described in EPA Method 3. The flue gas moisture content was 

determined from the back half moisture catches of the isokinetic sampling train during the 

emissions testing in accordance with EPA Method 4. The moisture content of the flue gas 

was calculated as the ratio of the moisture catch corrected to standard conditions to the sum of 

the dry sample, volume and the moisture catch, both corrected to standard conditions. 

Calculated moisture contents, which exceed the saturation moisture at the average duct 

temperature, would be defaulted to the saturation moisture. 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 5 
4.2 Sulfur Dioxide Outlet Tests 

Triplicate isokinetic sulfur dioxide tests were performed on the absorber outlet exhaust stack. 

Each test was 60 minutes in duration and was conducted in accordance with EPA Method 8. 

The EPA Method 8 sampling train is depicted in Appendix A. The sampling train was similar 

to the Method 5 train with the exception of 1) a glass wool filter was placed between the first 

and second impinger 2) the heated filter between the probe and impingers was removed, and 

3) the impinger contents were replaced with isopropanol (IPA) and hydrogen peroxide. The 

sample train probe and heater box were heated to 248°F +/-25°F degrees to prevent moisture 

condensation. The first impinger contained 100ml of 80% isopropanol, 100 ml of 3% 

hydrogen peroxide was contained in both the second and third impinger, while 250 grams of 

silic•gel ,•vas placedin the fourth impinger to knock out any remaining moisture before 

reaching the sampling pump. The impinger outlet temperature was maintained below 68°F 

during sampling. 

Before and after each test mn the sampling train was leak checked to ensure no leakage 

greater than 0.2 cubic feet per minute. The sampling train operating parameters was recorded 

at each traverse point on preprinted data sheets as shown in Appendix C. 

After the post test leak check, the sampling train was inspected and then moved to the clean 

up area. A fifteen (15) purge of dean ambient air was then run at the average flow rate used 

during the test. Upon completion, the sampling train was recovered as follows: 

Container No. 1 Weighed the first impinger contents to the nearest 0.5 gram and 

recorded its weight. Rinsed the nozzle, probe, filter housing, first impinger, and 

connecting glassware with IPA. Placed the glass wool filter in with the IPA rinses, 

sealed container, and marked level of liquid. 

Container No. 2 Weighed second and third impingers for moisture gain to the 

nearest 0.5 grams. Transfer solutions from second and third impingers to a 1000ml 

graduated cylinder. All connecting glassware from the second impinger to the third 

impinger are then rinsed twice with distilled water. Dilute to a volume of 1000 ml 

with DI water, mark liquid level and label container. 

Container No. 3 Weighed contents of silica gel impinger to nearest 0.5 grams 

and add figure to total moisture gain, then discard. 

Container No. 1 did not get analyzed as sulfuric acid was not a requirement for this test 

program. Container No. 2 was then shipped to a contract laboratory for sulfur dioxide 

analysis. Sulfur dioxide analysis from container No. 2 consisted of using a titration method 

with 2 to 4 drops of thorin indicator, titrating to a pink endpoint using 0.010 N barium 

perchlorate. This analysis was duplicated per the method. A field blank was also provided to 

the laboratory for analysis. 

4.3 Hydrogen Chloride/Hydrogen Fluoride Outlet Tests 

Triplicate hydrogen chloride (HC1) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) tests were performed at the 

absorber outlet stack simultaneously with the EPA Method 8 testing. Each test was 60 

minutes in duration and was conducted in accordance with EPA Method 26. 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 6 GamAir.¢om 
The HCI/HF sampling train consisted of a flexible heated Teflon transfer line with an in-stack 

Teflon filter, a set of 5 glass mini impingers connected in series contained in an ice bath, a 

leakless vacuum pump, a calibrated rotometer, and a calibrated dry gas meter. The sample 

probe was maintained at a temperature between 248°F and 275°F to prevent moisture 

condensation. A cyclone was not used with the GamAir sampling train. The first two 

impingers each contained 15 milliliters (ml) of 0.1N H2SO4 for the collection of HC1 and HF, 

the third and fourth impingers each contained 15 ml of 0.1N NaOH, and the fifth impinger 

contained a known quantity of silica gel. The impinger outlet temperature was maintained 

below 68°F during sampling. Sampling was performed at a constant rate of 2.0 liters per 

minute. 

Before and after each test run the sampling train was leak checked to ensure no leakage 

greater than 40 cubic centimeters per minute. The sampling train operating parameters were 

recorded at each traverse point on preprinted data sheets as shown in Appendix C. The 

sampling train components were then moved to the dean up area. The following is a 

description of the sample recovery procedure. 

Container No. 1 emptied contents of impingers 1 & 2 and saved. Duplicate 

deionized water rinses of impingers 1 & 2. 

Container No. 2 

discarded. 

measured moisture contained in impinger 3, 4, and 5 then 

Container No. 3 

rinse water added. 

0.1 N H2SO4 reagent blank (30 ml) with corresponding 

Sample containers 1 and 3 were shipped to a contract laboratory for HCI and HF analysis. 

Sample preparation and analysis consisted of properly preparing the ion chromatograph (IC). 

The IC conditions depended upon analytical column type and whether suppressed or 

nonsuppressed IC was used. The two individual samples (Containers 1 and 3) were then 

analyzed separately. The reagent blanks (Containers 3) was also analyzed separately. The 

reagent blank consisted of those solutions used in the collection of HC1/HF, these blanks did 

not come in contact with any portion of the sampling trains as associated with a field train 

blank. 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 7 Gam/•ir.¢om 
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES 

5.1 QC Procedures 

Specific quality control (QC) procedures were followed to ensure the continuous production 

of useful and valid data throughout the course of this test program. The QC checks and 

procedures described in this section represent an integral part of the overall sampling and 

analytical scheme. Strict adherence to prescribed procedures is quite often the most 

applicable QC check. A discussion of both the sampling and analytical QC checks that were 

utilized during this program are presented below. 

5.1.1 Equipment Calibrations 

Prior to the start of the test program the CTDEP received copies of all sampling equipment 

calibrations as described in their stack testing guidelines. 

Emissions sampling equipment requiring calibration includes sampling nozzles, Pitot tubes, 

pressure gauges, thermometers, dry gas meters, and barometer. Post test calibration of the dry 

gas meters were all within their acceptable limit (Y 1.00 +/- 0.05). 

5.1.2 Analytical Quality Control Procedures 

All analyses for this program were performed using accepted laboratory procedures in 

accordance with the specified analytical protocols. Adherence to prescribed QC procedures 

for the EPA methods used for this test program ensured data of consistent and measurable 

quality. Analytical QC focused on the use of control standards to provide a measure of 

analytical precision and accuracy. The SO2 samples were analyzed following the procedures 

of EPA Method 8; HC1 and HF samples were analyzed in accordance with EPA Method 26. 

Field blanks and laboratory blanks were used to check for contamination. Also, specific 

acceptance criteria defined below for various analytical operations, including calibrations, 

control standard analyses, drift checks, blanks, etc. were within the acceptable limits of EPA 

Methods 8 and 26. 

Test Method and QC Sample 

EPA Method 8 

Duplicate Analysis 

Table 5-1 

Qualit•¢ Control Samples 

Criteria 

Duplicate Analysis less than 1% or 0.2 ml Yes 

Blanks At or below detection limit Yes 

Sampling Isokinetics 90% to 110% Yes 

Blanks At or below detection limit Yes 

EPA Method 26 

percent difference less than Yes 

5% 

QC Limits Met 

5.1.3 Calculations Quality Control Procedures 

Calculations for determining flow rates, moisture contents, isokinetics, particulate and 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 8 6am/•ir.com 
gaseous concentrations were made using a computer program developed by GamAir. This 

program utilizes the calculation procedures and equations specified in EPA Methods 2, 4, and 

5. The program has been successfully used for numerous test efforts and has been validated 

by independent performance audits. Sample calculations were performed by the software 

program and a definition of terms is provided in the final report. Field data was transported to 

the software directly from the data sheets. All tests were performed within the acceptable 

isokinetic range of 90% to 110%. 

5.2 QA Audits 

There were no audits for this test program. 

5.3 QA/QC Checks of Daia Reduction 

The project manager ran an independent check (using a validated computer program) of the 

calculations with predetermined data before the field test. This ensured that calculations done 

in the field were accurate. The project manager also conducted a spot check onsite to assure 

that data was recorded accurately. 

547-0509 Redland Brick report 9 I]amAir.¢om 
.Appendix A 

Fibres and Diagrams 

547-0509 Redland Brick report GamAir.com 

001 
3O 

2O 

10 

24 C• 25 

4 

5 

6 

7 

$ 

9 

10 

11 

12. 

4 6 8 10 12 

4.4 3.2 

14.6 lO.S 

7e.4 32.3 

85,4 67.7 

•.6 80.6 

89,5 

•.8 

6.7 

25,0 

75.0 

93.3 

2.6 2.1 

8.2 

14.6 11,8 

22,6 17,7 

34.2 25,0 

65,8 35.6 

77,4 •4 o4 

85,4 

91,8 8•,3 

97.4 88.2 

93.3 

97.9 

2.1 

5 •0.1 

? 

10 
003 
HydrocModo Acid •unplin9 Train 

004 
005 
Appendix B 

Results and Calculations 

547-0509 Redland Brick report GamAlr.(:om 

006 
Summary of Sulphur Dioxide Emissions 

Redland Brick, Inc. 

KF Plant 

South Windsor, Connecticut 

RUN NUMBER: 

DATE: 

TIME: 

M8.1 M8-2 M8-3 

9/21/2005 9/21/2005 9/21/2005 

0850-0954 1017-1124 1206-1309 

REQUIRED INPUT DATA 

BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, (" Hg) 

AREA OF STACK, (ft 2) 

NOZZLE DIAMETER, (inches) 

TOTAL SAMPLE ]•IME, (minutes) 

DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION FACTOR 

PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT 

AVERAGE VELOCITY PRESSURE (SQ. RT.), (" H20) 

AVG. ORIFICE PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL, (" Hi0) 

Average 

AVG. DRY GAS METER TEMPERATURE, (°F) 

STACK STATIC PRESS., (" H20) 

AVERAGE STACK GAS TEMPERATURE, (OF) 

VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED, (ft •) 

TOTAL MOISTURE COLLECTED, (ml) 

CO2 IN STACK GAS, (%) 

O2 IN STACK GAS, (%) 

CO IN STACK GAS, (%) 

N2 IN STACK GAS, (%) 

•"'• TOTAL SULPHUR DIOXIDE COLLECTED, (mg) 

29.74 29.74 29.74 29.74 

12.040 12.040 12.040 12.04 

0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 

60 60 60 60 

0.992 0.992 0.992 0.992 

0.84 0.84 0.84 0.64 

0.6584 0.6466 0.6788 0.661 

1.910 1.980 2.100 2.00 

68 77 83 76 

0.32 0.31 0.32 0.32 

328 324 326 326 

44.344 45.208 46.653 45.402 

68.0 66.0 62.0 65.33 

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

17.2 17.4 17.4 17.3 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

80.8 80.6 80.6 80.7 

140.0 130.0 130.0 133.3 

CALCULATED DATA 

VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLED, (dsct) 43.93 44.04 44.96 

MOISTURE IN STACK GAS, (%) 6.79' 6.59 6.09 

STACK GAS WET MOLECULAR WEIGHT, (Ib/Ib-mole) 28.26 28.29 28.34 

EXCESS AIR, (%) 416.3 448.6 448.6 

STACK GAS VELOCITY, (fpm) 2745.79 2688.34 2823.07 

ACTUAL VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE, (acfm) 33059 32368 33990 

STANDARD VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE, (dscfm) 20539 20255 21329 

ISOKINETIC, (%) 99.7 101.4 98.3 

grains/actual cubic feet 3.05E-02 2.85E-02 2.80E-02 

micrograms/actual cubic meter 6.99E+04 6.52E+04 6.41E+04 

grains/dry standard cubic feet 4.92E-02 4.55E-02 4o46E-02 

milligrams/dry standard cubic meter at 7% 02 4.24E+02 4.15E+02 4.06E+02 

pounds/hour 8.66E+00 7.91E+00 8.16E+00 

grains/dry standard cubic feet at 12% CO2 2.95E-01 2.73E-01 2.68Eo01 

dry standard cubic feet/million Btu (F-Factor) 9190 9190 9190 

pounds/million Btu 3.65E-01 3.57E-01 3.50E-01 

44.31 

6.49 

28.30 

438 

2752 

33139 

20708 

99.8 

0.0290 

66399 

0.0464 

414.84 

8.24 

0.28 

9190 

0.36 

547-0509 M8 data summary SO2 GamAir.¢om 

007 
Summary of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions 

Redland Brick, Inc. 

KF Plant 

South Windsor, Connecticut 

RUN NUMBER: 

DATE: 

TIME: 

REQUIRED INPUT DATA 

TOTAL HCI COLLECTED, (mg) 

AVERAGE DRY GP.S ..".ETE- •- T•MPFRATURE, (°F) 

DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION FACTOR 

TOTAL SAMPLE TIME, (minutes) 

VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED, (liters) 

VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED, (ft 3) 

BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, (" Hg) 

AVG. ORIFICE PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL, (" H20) 

HCI MOLECULAR WEIGHT 

02 IN STACK GAS, (%) 

CO2 IN STACK GAS, (%) 

VOLUMETRIC FLOW, (dscfrn) 

M26-1 M26-2 M26-3 

9/21/2005 9/21/2005 9/21/2005 

0852-0956 1013-1119 1200-1305 

AVERAGE 

3.3000 4.5000 4.6000 4.133 

85 98 96.2 93 

1.02 1.02 1.02 1.U2 

60 60 60 60 

123.20 120.86 121.20 121.75 

4.350 4.268 4.280 4.299 

29.74 29.74 29.74" 29.74 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

36.45 36.45 36.45 36.45 

17.2 17.4 17.4 17.33 

2,0 2.0 2.0 2.00 

20539 20255 21329 20708 

VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLED, (dscf) 

SAMPLING RATE, (liters/minute) 

HCI pounds/dry standard cubic feet 

HCI grams/dry standard cubic meter 

HCI parts per million 

HCI pounds/hour 

4.27 4.09 4.12 4.16 

2.02 1.93 1.94 1.96 

1.70E-06 2.42E-06 2.46E-06 2.20E-06 

2.73E-02 3o88E-02 3.94E-02 3.52E-02 

17.98 25.59 26.00 23.19 

2.10E+00 2.95E+00 3.15E+00 2.73E+00 

547-0509 KF Brick HCI & HF data summanj HCI sample & lab GamAir.com 

068 
Summary of Hydrogen Fluoride Emissions 

Redland Briok, Inc. 

KF Plant 

South Windsor, Connecticut 

RUN NUMBER: 

DATE: 

TIME: 

REQUIRED INPUT DATA 

TOTAL HF COLLECTED, (mg) 

AVERAGE DRY GAS METER TEMPERATURE, (OF) 

DRY GAS METER CAUBRATION FACTOR 

TOTAL SAMPLE TIME, (minutes) 

VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED, (liters) 

VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED, (ft 3) 

BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, (" Hg) 

AVG. ORIFICE PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL, (" H20) 

HF MOLECULAR WEIGHT 

O2 IN STACK GAS, (%) 

CO2 IN STACK GAS, (%) 

VOLUMETRIC FLOW, (dscfm) 

M26-1 M26-2 M26-3 

9/21/2005 9/21/2005 9/21/2005 

0852-0956 1013-1119 1200-1305 

0.1400 0.1400 0.1500 

85 98 96.2 

1.0z .G2 .02 

60 60 60 

123.20 120.86 121.20 

4.350 4.268 4.280 

29.74 29.74 29.74 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

20.00 20.00 20.00 

AVERAGE 

0.143 

93 

=07 

60 

121.75 

4.299 

29.74 

0.00 

20.00 

17.2 17.4 17.4 17.33 

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.00 

20539 20255 21329 20708 

CALCULATED DATA 

VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLED, (dscf) 

SAMPLING RATE, (liters/minute) 

HF pounds/dry standard cubic feet 

HF grams/dry standard cubic meter 

HF parts per million 

HF pounds/hour 

4.27 4.09 4.12 4.16 

2.02 1.93 1.94 1.96 

7.22E-08 7.54E-08 8.03E-08 7.60E-08 

1.16E-03 1.21 E-03 1.29E-03 1.22E-03 

1.39 1.45 1.55 1.46 

8.90E-02 / 9.16E-02 1.03E-01 9.45E-02 

547-0509 KF Brick HCI & HF data summary HF sample & lab GamAir.com 

OO9 
•'_•_ _u_ P L E CALCULATIONS 

CLIENT: Redland Brick 

PROJ. NO: 547-0509 

LOCATION: Absorber Outlet Stack 

POLLUTANT: HCI 

RUN NO: M26-1 

REQUIRED INPUT DATA 

Mn 3.30000 

Tm avg 85 

y 1.0200 

Ttot 60 

Vm tot 4.350 

Pbar 29.74 

DH avg 0.00 

MWp 36.45 

%H 0.00 

%C 0.00 

%S 0.00 

%N2 0.00 

%02 0.00 

Btu/Ib 0 

Stack O2 17.2 

Stack CO2 2.0 

Total pollutant collected, mg 

Average dry gas meter temperature, degrees F 

Dry gas meter calibration factor 

Total sampling time, minutes 

Total meter sample volume, cubic feet 

Barometric pressure," Hg 

Average orifice pressure drop, H20 

Pollutant Molecular Weight 

Percent hydrogen in fuel 

Percent carbon in fuel 

Percent sulfur in fuel 

Percent nitrogen in fuel 

Percent oxygen in fuel 

Gross caloric value 

Percent oxygen in stack gas 

Percent CO2 in stack gas 

1. Volume of Sample Measured By Dry Gas Meter, Corrected to Standard Conditions (Vm std) 

Vm std 17.647 x Vm tot 

Tm 

x Y Pbar 

+ 46O 

Vm std 

Vm std 

Sampling Rate, (l/min) 

I/min 

I/min 

l/min 

17.647 x 4.35 x 1.02 

4.27 dscf 

85 + 460 

Vm std x 28.32 I/ft z 

T 

4.27 x 28.32 

6O 

2.02 Ipm 

29.74 
,3. HCI Concentration, Corrected to Dry Standard Conditions, (Cs) 

=. 0.01543 

Vm std 

x MR 

7000 

Cs 0.01•3 x 

4.27 x 7000 

3.3 

C$ 1.70E-06 pounds/dscf 

4. HCI Concentration, COrrected to Dry Standard Conditions, (grams/dscm) 

Csi Cs 

Csi 1.70E:06 

x 35.31 x 

x 35.31 x 

453.6 

453.6 

Csi 

5. HCI Concentration, (ppm dry) 

Cp 

Cp 

Cp 

2.73E-02 grams/dscm 

Csi x 24.03 

'. MWp 

2.73E-02• x 24 03 

17.98 ppm, dry 

36.45 

x 1000 

x 1000 

Oll 
Run Number: M8-2 

Example Calculations 

Date: 9/21/2005 Time: 1017-1124 

Emission Calculation Symbols 

Reauired Inout Data 

PB 29.74 

AS 12.040 

DN. 0.281 

TT 60 

y 0.992 

CP 0.84 

SQRT DP 0.6466 

DH 1.98 

TM 77 

PS 0.31 

TS 324 

VM TOT 45.208 

VI 66 

CO= 2.0 

02 17.40 

CO 0 

N2 80.60 

MN 130.00 

barometric pressure, (" Hg) 

area of stack, (ft 2) 

nozzle diameter, (inches) 

total sampling time, (minutes) 

dry gas meter calibration factor 

pitot tube coefficient, dimensionless 

average velocity pressure (squa• root), (" H20) 

average orifice pressure differential, (" HzO) 

average dry gas meter temperature, (°F) 

stack static pressure, (" H20) 

average stack gas temperature, (OF) 

volume of gas sampled, (ft 3) 

total moisture collected, (ml) 

CO= in stack gas (dry basis), % 

O2 in stack gas (dry basis), % 

CO in stack gas (dry basis), % 

N2 in stack gas (dry basis), % 

total analyte collected, (milligrams) 

Fuel Analysis Inuut Data 

%H 13.3 

%C 82.0 

%S 0.33 

%N 0.25 

%0 3.42 

GCV 18460 

percent by weight of hydrogen in fuel 

percent by weight of carbon in fuel 

percent by weight of sulfur in fuel 

percent by weight of nitrogen in fuel 

percent by weight of oxygen in fuel 

gross calodfic value of fuel, Btu/Ib 

T STD 68 

P STD 29.92 

LP 0o00 

LA 0.02 

standard temperature, (OF) 

standard pressure, (" Hg) 

final leak rate of sampling train, (ft3/min) 

allowable leak rate of sampling train, (ft3/min) 

1. Volume of Dry Gas Sampled (DSCF), dry standard cubic feet 

DSCF (VMTOT) x CO x [(TSTD+460)/(TM+460)] x [(PB+(DH/13.6))/29.92] 

DSCF 44.04 dry standard cubic feet 

2. Moieture In Stack Gas. (%HzO), percent 

% H20 100 x [(0.04707 x VI)/[DSCF + (0.04707 x VI)] 

%H20 6.59 percent 

TyplcadM5 Method 5 GlmAJr.¢om 

012 
3. Stack Gas Wet Molecular Weight (MWS), Ib/Ib-mole 

MWS [(0.44 x CO=) + (0.28 x CO) + (0.28 x Ha + (0.32 x O2)] x [1 (%H20/100)] + (0.18 x %H20) 

MWS 28.29 Ib/Ib mole 

4. Average Stack Gas Density (DST), pounds per cubic feet 

DST (0.0458) x MWS x [(PB + (PS/13.6) (TS + 460)] 

DST 0.0492 pounds per cubic feet 

6. Excess Air (EA), porceht 

EA 100 x [(O•- (0.5 x CO))/. (0.204 x N•)- (02 (0.5 x CO))] 

EA 448.6 percent 

6. Stack Gas Velocity (FPM), feet per minute 

FPM 5129.4 x CP x SQRT DP x SQRT [(T$ +460)/(PB + (PS/13.6)) x MSW] 

FPM 2688.3 feet per minute 

7. Actual Volumetric Flow Rate (Q), actual cubic feet per minute 

Q FPM x AS 

Q 32368 actual cubic feet per minute 

8. Standard Volumetric Flow Rate (Q STD), dry standard cubic feet per minute 

Q STD Q x [1 (%H20/100)] x [(T STD + 460)/(TS + 460)] x [PB + (PS/13,6) 29,92] 

Q STD 20255 dry standard cubic feet per minute 

Typical M5 Method 5 Gi=mAir,com 
9. I=okineti¢ Factor (110, percent 

IK [5.67 x (TS+460) x DSCF]/[(PB+ (PS/13.6)) x FPM x TT x (1 (%H20/100)) x (DN z 

x 0.7854)/144] 

IK 101.4 percent 

10. Actual Analyte Concentration (C), grains per actual cubic feet 

C [0.0i5•3 MN x •T•TD÷4•0) • (p_•÷ (P•/•_•.6)) x (1 (%H,O/100)]/(DSCF x (TS+460) x 29.92) 

C 0.0285 grains per actual cubic feet 

11. Actual Anaiyte Concentration Corrected To Stack Conditions (Cd), micrograms per actual cubic meter 

Cd [1000 x MN x (T STD + 460) x (PB + (PS/13,6)) x (1 -(%H20/100))]/(0.02832 x (TS + 460) x 29.92) 

65221.8 micrograms per actual cubic meter 

12. Analyte Concentration Corrected To Dry Standard Conditions (Csm), milligrams/dry standard cubic meters 

Analyta Concentration Corrected To Dry Standard Conditions (Cs), grains/dry standard cubic feet 

Cam (MN DSCF) x 35.31 Cs 0.01543 x (MN/DSCF) 

Csm 104.22 mg/dscm Cs 4.55E-02 grains/dscf 

13. Analyte Emission Rate (ER), pounds per hour 

ER 0.008571 x Cs x Q STD 

ER 7.91 pounds per hour 

TypP..•l M5 Method 5 
14. F FaC4or (F), DSCF per million British thermal units 

F 1000000 x [(3.64 x %H) + (1.53 x %C) + (0.57 x %S) + (0.14x%N) (0.46 x %O)] GCV 

F 9346 DSCF per million Btu 

15. Analyta Emission Rata (EBTU), pounds per million Btu 

E•TU n,0t301429 x (•s x F x (20.9/(20.9-O•)) 

EBTU 0.36 pounds/million BTU 

16. Analyte Concentration Corrected to Dry Standard Conditions and 12% CO= (Cs 12%CO=), mg/dscm at 12% CO= 

Csm12%CO= Csm x (12/CO•) Cs12%CO= Cs x (12/COz) 

Csm12%CO= 625.32 mg/dscm @ 12% CO= Cs12%CO= 2.73E-01 gr/dscf @ 12% CO= 

17. Analyte Concentration Corrected to Dry Standard Conditions and 7% O= (Cs @7%O=), mg/dacm at 7% O, 

Csm7%o= Csm x [(20.9 7.0) (20.9 02)] 

Csm7%02 413,91 mg/dscm @ 7% 02 

Typica• M5 

Method 5 GamAir.¢om 
•, 0" 

.-- E 

0 

0.. 

• 

017 
-: 

0 

z 

0i8 
0 

Z 

E 

Appendix D 

547.0509 Redland Bri•k report GamAir.com 

021 
7U101 

FAX (860)658-'q9"29. 

September 27, 2005 

Redland Brick inc. 

15718 Clear Spring Road 

P.O. Box 160 

Williamsport, Maryland 21795 

(301) 223-7700 

(301) 223-6675 Fax 

Red, and 

Mr. Leigh Oamrni 

C, ammi Air Monitoring, LLC 

28 Canton Road 

West Simsbttry, CT 06092 

An ISO 9001:2000 

P•Imr• O•y System 

Re: Stack Test Throughput 

Dear Leigh: 

Here is the throughput that I promised: 

11.5 cars/day X 13,824 brick/car X 4.0 lbforick / 2000 lb/t / 24 hr/day 13.248 tons/hr 

022 
Appendix E 

Laboratory •alytical Report 

547-0509 Redland Brick report G•Air,com 
Your P.O. #: 54700509-02 

Your Project #: 547-0509 

Site: REDLAND BRICK 

AOentinn: Leigh A Gammie 

Gammie Air Monitoring LLC 

28 Canton Rd 

West Simsbury, CT 

USA 6092 

Report Date: 2005/10/12 

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS. 

MAXXAM JOB #: A595793 

Received: 2005/09/27, 13:30 

Sample Matrix: impinger Solution 

# Samples Received: 7 

Analyses 

Hydrogen Halides by IC $ 

Sulphur Dioxide in Impingers Titm.tion • 

Date 

Qamntity Extracted 

4 2005110106 

3 2005110/03 

(1) This test was performed by Maxxam Analytics Burlington 

Date 

Analyzed Laboratory Method 

2005/10/06 SOP ING 211 

2005/10/03 NCAS1--EPA 8a 

Method 

Reference 

EPA CFR PTM 26 

MAXXAM ANALYTICS INC. 

ANCY SEBASTIAN, C.Te•h. 

Senior Project Manager, Air Toxics 

AMS/ams 

encl. 

Total cover pages: 

Burlington:5555 North Service Road, Burlington, Ontario L7L 5H7 Telephone(905) 332-8788 Fax(905) 332-9169 

This document is in electronic format, hard copy is available on request. 

Page of 6 
Maxxam Job #: A595793 

Report Date: 2005/10/12 

Gammie Air Monitoring LLC 

Client Project #: 547-0509 

Project name: REDLAND BRICK 

Your P.O, #: 54700509-02 

Sampler Initials: 

RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF IMPINGER SOLUTION 

3a•ing Date 2005/09/21 2005/09/21 

IJnits M8-1 M8-1 •o-, •u• r=• 

L•__h-Dup 

CONVENTIONALS 

Hydrochloric Acid ug 

Sulphur dioxide mg 140 140 130 130 

3300 

140 

30 836798 20 

;30 836.798 20 

0.1 834857 0.1 

RDL Reportable Detection Limit 

QC Batch Quality Control Batch 

ISampling Date 2005/09/21 

nits M26-1 

Lab-Dup 

CONVENTIONAL$ 

Hydrochloric Acid 

Hy,3rofluodc Acid 

ug 3300 

ug 130 

2005/09/21 2005/09/21 2005/09/21 2005/09/21 

M26-2 M26-2 M26-3 M26-3 

Lab-Dup Lab-Dup 

4500 4600 4600 4500 

140 130 150 150 

RDL Reportable Detection Limit 

QC Batch Quality Control Batch 

30 836798 20 

130 1836798 120,, 

•axxam ID i44813 144813 

Sampling Date 2005/09/21 2005/09/21 

Inits M26-4 M26-4 •DL QC Batch 

Lab-Dup 

CONVENTIONALS 

•ydrochlodc Acid ug <20 <20 20 836798 

•lydrofluoric Acid ug <20 <20 20 836798 

•DL Reportable Detection Limit 

:•C Batch Quality Control Batch 

•IDL 

20 

2O 

Page 2 of 6 

025 
Maxxam Job #: A595793 

Report Date: 2005/10/12 

Dr•,en b•v service a•d •'ci•nce 

Gammie Air Monitoring LLC 

Client Project #: 547-0509 

Project name: REDLAND BRICK 

Your P.O. #: 54700509-02 

Sampler Initials: 

Test Summary 

Maxxam ID 

Sample iD 

Matrix 

Test Des• 

•r Dioxide in--Titration 

144793 

M8-1 

Impinger Solution 

Instrumentation 

Collected 2005/09/21 

Shipped 

Received 2005/09/27 

Batch Prepared Anah2zed 

834857 2005/10/03 2005/10/03 

Maxxam ID 

Sample ID 

Matrix 

Test De• 

S•..•.•hur Dioxide in i•- Im Titration 

144793-Dup 

M8-1 

Impinger Solution 

Instrumentation 

Collected 2005/09121 

Shipped 

Received 2005/09/27 

Batch Prepared Analyzed 

834857 2005/10/03 2005/10/03 

Anal st•.• 

• 

Maxxam ID 

Sample ID 

Matrix 

Sul hur Dioxide "m Im in ers Tdration 

144794 

M8-2 

Impinger Solution 

Instrumentation 

Collected 2005/09121 

Shipped 

Received 2005/09/27 

Batch Prepared Analyzed 

834857 2005/10/03 2005/10/03 

Analyst 

A-S 

Test Desc•on 

Maxxam ID 144795 

Sample ID M8-3 

Matrix Impinger Solution 

Instrumentation Batch 

834857 

Prepared 

2005/10/03 

Collected 2005/09/21 

Shipped 

Received 2005/09/27 

Anal•rzed 

2005/10/03 

Sul•i-•ur Dioxide in I•Titration 

Maxxam ID 

Sample ID 

Matrix 

Test Description 

••c 

144798 

M26-1 

Impinger Solution 

Instrumentation 

IC/SPEC 

Batch 

836798 

Collected 

Shipped 

Received 

Prepared 

2005/10/06 

2005/09/21 

2005/09/27 

Analyzed 

2005/10/06 

Test Description 

Maxxam ID 

Sample ID 

Matrix 

144798 Dup 

M26-1 

Impinger Solution 

Instrumentation 

IC/SPEC 

Batch 

836798 

Prepared 

2005/10106 

Collected 2005/09/21 

Shipped 

Received 2005/09/27 

Anal..vzed 

2005/10/06 

Anal st•y• 

Maxxam ID 

Sample ID 

Matrix 

144811 

M26-2 

Impinger Solution 

Instrumentation 

IC/SPEC 

Batch 

836798 

Prepared 

2005/10/06 

Collected 2005/09/21 

Shipped 

Received 2005/09127 

Analyzed 

2005/10/06 

Page 3 of 6 
Maxxam Job #: A595793 

Report Date: 2005/10/12 

Gammie Air Monitoring LLC 

Client Project #: 547-0509 

Project name: REDLAND BRICK 

Your P.O. #: 54700509-02 

Sampler Initials: 

Test Summary 

Test Description 

dr•alides H bylC• 

Maxxam ID 

Sample ID 

Matrix 

144811 Dup 

M26-2 

Impinger Solution 

Instrumentation 

IC/SPEC 

Collected 2005/09121 

Shipped 

Received 2005/09/27 

Batch Prepared Anal_z_zed 

836798 2005/10106 2005/10/06 

Maxxam ID 144812 Collected 2005/09/21 

Test Descrip•on 

Sample ID 

Matrix 

M26-3 

Impinger Solution 

Instrumentation Batch 

IC/SPEC 836798 

Shipped 

Received 2005/09/27 

Pre•red AnalLrzed 

2005/10106 2005/10/06 

Test Desc• 

Maxxam ID 

Sample ID 

Matrix 

144812 Dup 

M26-3 

Impinger Solution 

Instrumentation Batch 

IC/SPEC 836798 

Collected 2005/09/21 

Shipped 

Received 2005109127 

Prepared Analyzed 

2005110/06 2005/10106 

HLH.y..•__r_r_r_r_•gen Halides by IC 

Maxxam ID 

Sample ID 

Matrix 

144813 

M26-4 

Impinger Solution 

Instrumentation Batch 

IC/SPEC 836798 

Collected 2005/09/21 

Shipped 

Received 2005/09/27 

Prej.•ared Ana•zed 

2005/10/06 2005110/06 

Test Description 

• Halides bytC 

Maxxam ID 

Sample ID 

Matrix 

144813 Dup 

M26-4 

Impinger Solution 

Instrumentation Batch Prej)ared 

IC/SPEC 836798 2005/10/06 

Collected 2005/09/21 

Shipped 

Received 2005/09/27 

Anal•ed 

2005/10/06 

Anal st•.•_• 

•-• 

Page 4 of 6 

02? 
Maxxam Job #: A595793 

Report Date: 2005110112 

Dri•,en by seroic•r a•d 

Gammie Air Monitoring LLC 

Client Project #: 547-0509 

Project name: REDLAND BRICK 

Your P.O. #: 54700509-02 

Sampler Initials: 

Sample 144798-01: impvol=40ml 

impcharg=30ml 

voladjust=300ml 

Sample 144811-01: impvol=41ml 

impcharg=30ml 

voladjust=300ml 

GENERAL COMMENTS 

Sample 144812-01: impvol=46ml 

impcharg=30ml 

voladjust=300ml 

Sample 144813-01: impvol=33ml 

impcharg=30ml 

voladjust=300ml 

Results relate only to the items 

Page 5 of 6 
(3emmie/•ir i0nit0r]n•//Cwww.ma•x•ntanalytics.com 

Attention: Leigh A Gammie 

Client Project #: 547-0509 

P.O. #: 54700509-02 

Project name: REDLAND BRICK 

Quality Assurance Report 

Maxxam Job Number:. GA595793 

QA/QC 

Batch 

Num Init 

834857 A-S 

136798 A-S 

QC Type 

MATRIX SPIKE 

(144793) 

RPD 

MATRIX SPIKE 

(144798) 

DUP (•447e8) 

MATRIX SPIKE 

(144798) 

MATRIX SPIKE 

DUP (144798) 

Spiked Blank 

Spiked Blank DUP 

Spiked Blank 

Spiked Blank DUP 

Method Blank 

Method Blank DUP 

Method Blank 

Method Blank DUP 

RPD 

Parameter 

Date 

Analyzed 

yyyy/mm/dd Value %RecovenJ Units QC Limits 

Sulphur dioxide 2005/10/03 5.1, DL=0.1 102 mg 80 120 

Sulphur dioxide 2005/10/03 1.1 % 20 

Hydrochloric Acid 

Hydrochloric Acid 

Hydrofluoric Acid 

2005/10/06 0, DL=30 94 ug 80- 120 

2005/10106 O, uL=30 97 ug 

2005/10106 0, DL=30 86 ug 80 120 

Hydrofluoric Acid 2005/10/06 0, DL=30 90 ug 80 120 

Hydrochloric Acid 2005110106 0, DL=20 99 ug 90 110 

Hydrochloric Acid 2005/10/06 0, DL=20 98 ug 90- 110 

Hydrofluoric Acid 2005/10/06 0, DL=20 96 ug 90 110 

Hydrofluoric Acid 2005/10106 0, DL=20 99 ug 90 110 

Hydrochloric Acid 2005/10106 <20 ug 

Hydrochloric Acid 2005/10/06 <20 ug 

Hydrofluoric Acid 2005/10/06 <20 ug 

Hydrofluoric Acid 2005/10/06 <20 ug 

Hydrochl0dc Acid 2005/10/06 1.2 % 20 

Hydrofluoric Acid 2005/10/06 NC % 20 

Hydrochloric Acid 2005/10/06 1.2 % 20 

Hydrofluoric Acid 2005110106 NC % 20 

Hydrochloric Acid 2005110106 2.0 % 20 

Hydrofluoric Acid 2005/10/06 NC % 20 

Hydrochloric Acid 2005/10/06 NC % 20 

Hydrofluoric Acid 2005/10106 NC % 20 

NC Non-celculable 

RPD Relative Percent Difference 

.PIKE Fortified sample 

Burlington:5555 North Service Road, Burlington, Ontario L7L 5H7 Telephone(905) 332-8788 Fax(905) 332-9169 

Page 6 of 6 

This document is in electronic format, hard copy is available on request. 

029 
GamAir Laboratory Submittal Form 

To: 

From: 

Date: 

Maxxam Analytical, Inc. 

Leigh Ao Gammie 

22-Sep-05 

GamAir Project No.: 547-0509 

PO # 547-0509-02 

Client: Redland Brick 

Item 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

111 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

M8-1 

M8-2 

M8-3 

M26-1 

M26-2 

M26-3 

M26-4 

Sample Identification Collection Date 

21-Sep-05 

21 :Sep-05 

21 -Sep-05 

21 -Sep-05 

21 -Sep-05 

21 -Sep-05 

21 .Sep-05 

Sample 

Volume 

initial 

volume 

200 ml 

initial 

volume 

3O ml 

Analysis Requested 

Sulfur dioxide only per EPA 

Method 8 

Analyze each sample for 

HCI and HF via EPA Method 26 

(ion chromatography) 

Comments: Normal laboratory turnaround 

Lab COC KF Plant GamAir.com 

030 
•47-0509 Redland Briek report 

03I 
Nozzle Set: 

Nozzle No. 

Glass 

Nozzle Calibration Data 

Date: 21-Feb-2005 By: 

I.D.#2 I.D. #3 Average 

JSG 

GLASS 5 

5-1 

5-2 

5-3 

5-4 

5 -4A 

5-6 

5-7 

GLASS 6 

6-1 

6-2 

6-3 

6-4 

6-5 

6-6 

0.189 0.188 0.189 0.189 

0.228 0.228 0.227 0.228 

0.256 0.258 0.257 0.257 

0.288 0.288 0.287 0.288 

0.280 0.279 0.280 0.280 

0.310 0.310 0.309 0.310 

0.426 0.426 0.424 0.425 

0.185 0.185 0.186 0.185 

0.253 0.253 0.253 0.253 

0.225 0.226 0.226 0,226 

0.280 0.281 0.283 0.281 

0.324 0.325 0.326 0.325 

0.379 0.376 0.377 0.377 

501 

502 

503 

504 

505 

0.250 0.250 0.249 0.250 

0.259 0.259 0.259 0.259 

0.283 0.283 0.283 0.283 

0.220 0.222 0.222 0.221 

0.300 0.300. 0.302 0.301 

Each individual measurement must be within 0.003 inches from average 

Nozzle Calibrations Gla•Ss Pyrex GamAir.com 

032 
033 
034 

S-TYPE PITOT GEOMETRIC CALIBRATION 

pART 2 PITOT ALIGNMENT 

NOTE: V•inl •renlheses are EPA l•le• 2 s••°ns" 

EW)ecled Slack Tenlpera•e (Ts) _" R (T$± 10•) 

(Tref-* 1.s'x, ) 

12/,2a-ax)4 
6L" 1,0"•