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.:

547-0509REPORT 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.¢omTable 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 5.1S.l.i5.1.25.1.35.25.3 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.com1.0 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 report2.0 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.com3,0 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,comTable 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 HCIHF Units military time

O• 02tr•C02 pounds per hpur pounds per hour pounds per hour

Run 1 0850-0954

17.22.0

8.66

2.100.089 Run 2 1017-1124

17.42.0

7.91 Run 3 1206-1309

17.42.0

8.16

2.95 3.15 0.0916 0.103

Average

ZUIU•17.32.0

2.730.0945 dscfm dry standard cubic feet per minute (68°F and 29.92 inches Hg)

547-0509 Redland Brick report 4 l•amAir.com4.0 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.com4.2 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.comThe 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.¢om5.0 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.comgaseous 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.comAp•ndix A
• es and Di•ms

547-0509 Redland Brick report GamAir,com30

10 28 8(r9

4o -[

10

1345789101112. 4.4

3.2 14.6 10.5 ::Z•" 19.4 "7•,4 32.3 85.4 •7.7 •5.6 80.889.59•.8 6.725.075.093.3

2,88,2)`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 88.293.39"•.9 2.16.•-13.1E

0O3I'l•• Aoid •umpling

Train 004005Ap•ndixB Resul• •d Calculations

547-0509 Redland Brick report GamAir.comSummary 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

44.316.49 28.304382752 33139 2070899.8 0;0290 66399 0.0464 414.348.240.2891900.36

547-0509 M8 data summary SO2 GamAJr.©omSummary 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.comSummary 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.comEXAMPLE 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 29.743.

HCI Concentration,

Corrected to Dry Standard Conditions,

(Cs)
Cs 0•01543Vmstd

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 CpCp 2.73E-02

x

24.03 x 17.98 ppm, dry 36.45

453.6

IOO0

1000

1311Run

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 53.

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.com9.

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.¢om14.

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.©omGammie 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 reportCompliance 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.

547-0509Compliance 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.:

547-0509REPORT 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.¢omTable 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 5.15.1.15.1.25.1.35.25.3 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.com1.0 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.com2.0 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.com3.0 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.comMethod/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

2132917.42.0

2070817.32.0

Sulfur Dioxide Method 26 HCIHF pounds per hour pounds per hour pounds per hour

8.66

2.100.089

7.91

2.950.0916 dscfm dry standard cubic feet per minute (68°F and 29.92 inches Hg) 8.16

3.150.103

8.24

2.730.0945

547-0509 Redland Brick report. 4 GamAir.com4.0 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 54.2 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.¢omThe

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.¢om5.0 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 Yes percent difference

less than 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.comgaseous 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

0013O

2O

10

24 C• 25

4567$9101112. 4

6

8

10

12 4.4 3.2 14.6 lO.S 7e.4 32.3 85,4 67.7 •.6 80.689,5•.8 6.725,075.093.3

2.6

2.1 8.214.6 11,8 22,6 17,7 34.2 25,0 65,8 35.6 77,4 •4 o4 85,491,8 8•,3 97.4 88.293.397.9 2.1

5 •0.1 ?
10003HydrocModo Acid •unplin9

Train 004005Appendix B Results and Calculations

547-0509 Redland Brick report GamAlr.(:om

006Summary 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

44.316.49 28.304382752 33139 2070899.8 0.0290 66399 0.0464 414.848.240.2891900.36

547-0509 M8 data summary SO2 GamAir.¢om007Summary 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.com068Summary 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

0.14393=0760 121.75 4.299 29.740.0020.00

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 totTm 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

453.6453.6
Csi
5. HCI Concentration,

(ppm dry)CpCpCp 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

OllRun

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.¢om0123.

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,com9.

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 514.

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-:0z 0i80

Z EAppendix D

547.0509 Redland Bri•k report GamAir.com

0217U101

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

022Appendix E Laboratory •alytical

Report

547-0509 Redland Brick report G•Air,comYour 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 DateAnalyzed

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 6Maxxam

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

3300140 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 M26-1Lab-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

202O

Page 2 of 6 025Maxxam

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 M8-1Impinger 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 Imi•- Titration

144793-Dup M8-1Impinger 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 M8-2Impinger 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 M26-1Impinger Solution Instrumentation IC/SPEC

Batch836798 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 M26-1Impinger Solution Instrumentation IC/SPEC

Batch836798

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 M26-2Impinger Solution Instrumentation IC/SPEC

Batch836798

Prepared 2005/10/06

Collected

2005/09/21 Shipped Received 2005/09127 Analyzed 2005/10/06

Page 3 of 6Maxxam

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 Hdr•alides

bylC•

Maxxam ID Sample ID Matrix 144811 Dup M26-2Impinger 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 M26-3Impinger 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 M26-3Impinger 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 M26-4Impinger 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 M26-4Impinger 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) RPDMATRIX 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. 029GamAir 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
12345678910111121314151617181920212223242526272829 M8-1M8-2M8-3

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.com030•47-0509 Redland Briek report 03INozzle Set:

Nozzle No.

Glass Nozzle

Calibration

Data Date: 21-Feb-2005 By:

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

Average

JSG

GLASS 5 5-15-25-35-45 -4A5-65-7 GLASS 6 6-16-26-36-46-56-6

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

501502503504505 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.com032033034S-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)46L" 1,0"•