California Environmental Protection Agency

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

DETERMINATION OF

 REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

AND BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR

STATIONARY SPARK-IGNITED INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

November 2001

Process Evaluation Section

Emissions Assessment Branch

Stationary Source Division

P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812

This document has been prepared by the staff of the California Air Resources Board. Publication

does not signify that the contents reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor

does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation

for use.
ii

California Environmental Protection Agency

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

DETERMINATION OF

 REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

AND BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR

STATIONARY SPARK-IGNITED INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

Principal Investigators

 Winston Potts (Team Lead)

Renaldo Crooks

Ron Walter

Mark Watkins

Marie Kavan

Reviewed by

Peter D. Venturini, Chief, Stationary Source Division

Daniel E. Donohoue, Chief, Emissions Assessment Branch

Tony Andreoni, Manager, Process Evaluation Section
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This determination was prepared by the Air Resources Board staff in cooperation with

representatives of the California air pollution control and air quality management districts. We

would like to particularly thank:

Andrew Lee South Coast AQMD

Laura Yannayon San Diego County APCD

Camqui Nguyen San Diego County APCD

Tom Canaday U.S. EPA Region 9

Doug Hall Bay Area AQMD

Craig Ullery Bay Area AQMD

Doug Grapple Santa Barbara County APCD

Eldon Heaston Mojave Desert AQMD

Scott Nester San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD

George Heinen San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD

Don Price Ventura County APCD

Paul Reitz San Luis Obispo County APCD

Paul HensleighSacramento Metropolitan AQMD

Matt Ehrhardt Yolo-Solano AQMD

George Poppic Air Resources Board

Mike TollstrupAir Resources Board

Grant Chin Air Resources Board

Robert Hughes Air Resources Board

Stephanie Kato Air Resources Board

Don Koeberlein Air Resources Board, Retired
iv

Table of Contents

Contents Page

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................I-1

A. Background ..............................................................................................I-1

B. Diesel-fueled Engines................................................................................I-6

C. IC Engines used in Agricultural Operations...............................................I-7

II. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED DETERMINATION FOR

SPARK-IGNITED IC ENGINES.......................................................................... II-1

A. Engines Rated Less Than 50 Horsepower................................................ II-1

B. Engines Derated to Less Than 50 Horsepower........................................ II-1

C. RACT Limits .......................................................................................... II-2

D. BARCT Limits........................................................................................ II-2

E. Engines with Common RACT and BARCT Limits .................................. II-2

III. SUMMARY OF SPARK-IGNITED IC ENGINE CONTROLS ...........................III-1

IV. BASIS FOR PROPOSED DETERMINATION

FOR SPARK-IGNITED IC ENGINES ................................................................IV-1

A. Applicability...........................................................................................IV-1

1. Engines Derated to Less Than 50 Horsepower............................IV-1

B. Alternative Form of Limits.....................................................................IV-2

C. RACT NOx Limits.................................................................................IV-3

1. Rich-Burn Engines......................................................................IV-3

2. Lean-Burn Engines.....................................................................IV-6

D. BARCT NOx Limits ..............................................................................IV-7

1. Rich-Burn Engines......................................................................IV-8

2. Lean-Burn Engines.....................................................................IV-9

E. Common Limits ...................................................................................IV-10

1. CO Limits.................................................................................IV-10

2. VOC Limits..............................................................................IV-11

F. Other Control Options .........................................................................IV-11

G. Exemptions..........................................................................................IV-13

 1. Engines Used During Disasters or Emergencies........................IV-13

2. Portable Engines.......................................................................IV-13

3. Nonroad or Offroad Engines.....................................................IV-13

4. Engines Operated No More Than 200 Hours Per Year..............IV-14

5. Emergency Standby Engines.....................................................IV-14

6. Other Exemptions.....................................................................IV-15

H. Compliance Dates................................................................................IV-16
v

Contents Page

I. Inspection and Monitoring Program ................................ ................. . IV-16

J. Continuous Monitoring ...........................................................................IV-17

K. Source Testing/Quarterly Monitoring......................................................IV-18

L. Records ..................................................................................................IV-18

V. COST AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS................................................................. V-1

A. Costs for RACT/BARCT........................................................................... V-1

B. Cost-Effectiveness .................................................................................... V-2

C. Other Costs................................................................................................ V-5

D. Incremental Costs and Cost-Effectiveness .................................................. V-6

VI. IMPACTS............................................................................................................VI-1

A. Air Quality ................................................................................................VI-1

B. Economic Impacts.....................................................................................VI-3

C. Catalysts...................................................................................................VI-4

D. Methanol...................................................................................................VI-5

E. Energy Impacts.........................................................................................VI-5

F. PM Impacts ..............................................................................................VI-5

VII. OTHER ISSUES.................................................................................................VII-1

A. Effect of District, ARB and U.S. EPA Regulations...................................VII-1

1. ARB IC Engine Regulations.........................................................VII-1

2. U.S. EPA IC Engine Regulations..................................................VII-2

B. Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants/Toxic Air Contaminants...............VII-3

1. Hazardous Air Pollutants/Toxic Air Contaminants Emitted...........VII-3

2. U.S. EPA Requirements ...............................................................VII-4

3. State and District Requirements....................................................VII-4

4. Emission Rates of HAPs/TACs.....................................................VII-4

5. Control of HAPs/TACs ................................................................VII-4

REFERENCES................................................................................................................. R-1

APPENDICES

A. PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF RACT AND BARCT

FOR STATIONARY SPARK-IGNITED IC ENGINES

B. DESCRIPTION OF SPARK-IGNITED IC ENGINE OPERATION AND EMISSION

CONTROLS
vi

C. SUMMARY OF DISTRICT IC ENGINE RULES

D. EMISSIONS DATA

E. ENGINE POWER TEST CODE, SAE J 1349

F. LEGAL OPINION REGARDING THE REGULATION OF STATIONARY SOURCES

USED IN AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS

G. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP HELD ON AUGUST 29, 2000
vii

List of Tables

Table Page

Table I-1 NOx Emissions Comparison, Stationary Spark-Ignited

IC Engines and All Stationary Sources............................................................I-3

Table I-2 CO Emissions Comparison, Stationary Spark-Ignited

IC Engines and All Stationary Sources............................................................I-4

Table I-3 VOC Emissions Comparison, Stationary Spark-Ignited

IC Engines and All Stationary Sources............................................................I-5

Table II-1 Summary of Proposed RACT Standards for Stationary

Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines................................................... II-4

Table II-2 Summary of Proposed BARCT Standards for Stationary

Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines................................................... II-5

Table III-1 Summary of Primary NOx Controls for Stationary

Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines..................................................III-2

Table IV-1 Summary of NOx Source Testing of Cyclically

Operated Engines, Santa Barbara County .....................................................IV-6

Table V-1 Cost Estimates for ICE Control Techniques and Technologies ......................V-2

Table V-2 Cost Effectiveness Estimates for ICE Control

Techniques and Technologies........................................................................V-3

Table V-3 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Estimates for ICE

Control Techniques and Technologies...........................................................V-7

Table V-4 Incremental Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Summary for

Application of BARCT to RACT Controlled Engines....................................V-9

Table VI-1 Estimated NOx Emissions Reductions for Stationary Source Spark

Ignited (SI) Engines from Districts without IC Engine Rules........................VI-2

Table VI-2 Estimated NOx Emissions Reductions for Stationary Source Spark

Ignited (SI) Engines from Larger Districts with IC Engine Rules..................VI-3

Table VI-3 Cost Estimates for IC Engine Monitoring.....................................................VI-4
viii

GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS

AFRC Air/fuel ratio controller

ARB Air Resources Board

APCD Air Pollution Control District

AQMD Air Quality Management District

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District

BARCT Best available retrofit control technology

bhp Brake horsepower

Btu British thermal unit

BSFC Brake specific fuel consumption (Btu/bhp-hour)

CAA Federal Clean Air Act Amendments

CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association

CCAA California Clean Air Act

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring System

CI Compression ignited

CO Carbon monoxide

EGR Exhaust gas recirculation

gal Gallon

gm/bhp-hr Gram per brake horsepower-hour

HAPs Hazardous air pollutants

HC Hydrocarbons

HNCO Gaseous isocyanic acid

HNCO3 Cyanuric acid

ICCR Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking

IC Engines Internal combustion engines

I & M Inspection and monitoring

lbm/day Pounds mass per day

LPG Liquified petroleum gas

MACT Maximum achievable control technology

NO Nitric oxide

N2 Molecular nitrogen

N2O Nitrous oxide

NMHC Non-methane hydrocarbon compounds

NOx Nitrogen oxides

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

NSCR Nonselective catalytic reduction

O2 Oxygen

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PM Particulate matter

PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers

PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers
ix

GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS (cont.)

ppm Parts per million

ppmv Parts per million by volume

PSC Prestratified charge

RACT Reasonably available control technology

RECLAIM Regional Clean Air Incentives Market

ROC Reactive organic compounds

RRP Risk Reduction Plan

SCR Selective catalytic reduction

SI Spark ignited

SOx Sulfur oxides

TAC Toxic air contaminant

VCAPCD Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

VOC Volatile organic compounds
I-1

RACT/BARCT DETERMINATION

 FOR STATIONARY SPARK-IGNITED INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

I. INTRODUCTION

This document presents the determination of reasonably available control technology

(RACT) and best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) for controlling nitrogen oxides

(NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon monoxide (CO) from stationary, sparkignited (SI) reciprocating internal combustion (IC) engines. This report also presents the basis

for the determination, an overview of the control technologies for spark-ignited engines, an

assessment of the cost and cost-effectiveness, and the expected associated economic and other

impacts. The determination was developed by the Air Resources Board (ARB) staff and a

workgroup made up of representatives of the air pollution control and air quality management

districts (districts).

It is important to note that this determination is a non-regulatory guidance document with

the purpose of assisting districts in developing regulations for stationary IC engines. Nothing in

our guidance precludes districts from adopting different or more stringent rules or from varying

from the determination to consider site specific situations.

A. Background

The California Health and Safety Code section 40000 states that the districts have the

primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources, other than emissions from

motor vehicles. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988 requires that the districts develop

attainment plans to achieve the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practicable date.

These plans must include measures that require control technologies for reducing emissions from

existing sources. RACT/BARCT determinations aid districts in developing regulations to attain

and maintain the state ambient air quality standards. The determinations also promote

consistency of controls for similar emission sources among districts with the same air quality

attainment designations.

While the CCAA does not define RACT, RACT for existing sources is generally

considered to be those emission limits that would result from the application of demonstrated

technology to reduce emissions. BARCT is defined in the California Health and Safety Code,

section 40406, but applicable statewide in this case, as “an emission limitation that is based on

the maximum degree of reduction achievable, taking into account environmental, energy, and

economic impacts by each class or category of source.”

 The California Health and Safety Code, section 40918(a)(2), requires nonattainment areas

that are classified as moderate for the State ozone standard to include in their attainment plan the

use of RACT for all existing stationary sources, and BARCT for existing stationary sources

permitted to emit 5 tons or more per day or 250 tons or more per year of nonattainment

pollutants or their precursors. This requirement applies to the extent necessary to achieve

standards by the earliest practicable date.
I-2

The California Health and Safety Code, section 40919(a)(3), requires nonattainment areas

that are classified as serious for the State ozone standard to include in their attainment plan the

use of BARCT on all permitted stationary sources to the extent necessary to achieve standards by

the earliest practicable date. Districts classified as being severe nonattainment must take all

measures required of moderate and serious nonattainment areas. In addition, Title 17, Section

70600 of the California Code of Regulations requires districts to adopt BARCT if the districts

are within an area of origin of transported air pollutants, as defined in Section 70500(c).

In developing this determination, the ARB and air districts staff reviewed a number of

reports on spark-ignited IC engines, emissions inventory data, vendor literature, source test data,

district rules and accompanying staff reports, and other sources of information regarding SI

engines.

Stationary spark-ignited IC engines are major contributors of NOx, VOC, and CO

emissions to the atmosphere. The 1996 point source emissions inventory for stationary SI

engines includes about 21,932 tons of NOx per year, 16,479 tons of CO per year, and

23,606 tons of VOC per year from IC engines. Tables I-1, I-2, and I-3 summarize this inventory

by district. As can be seen from these tables, spark-ignited IC engines are responsible for a

significant percentage of the NOx, VOC, and CO emissions from stationary point sources in

California. This significance, however, varies from district to district. The 1996 point source

emissions inventory also indicates that there are approximately 5,900 diesel-fueled and sparkignited engines located at 1,700 facilities statewide. Forty-four percent of these engines are

fueled by diesel fuel; 42 percent are fueled by natural gas; 7 percent are fueled by gasoline; and 4

percent are fueled by propane with the remainder fueled by waste gas and other fuels.

It should be noted that not all districts in California with significant stationary source IC

engine emissions are included in Tables I-1, I-2, and I-3. In some districts, all stationary IC

engines emissions may not have been reported in the 1996 emissions inventory. In those cases,

these tables underestimate the actual emissions.

In other cases, some classes of spark-ignited IC engines with substantial emissions may

be exempt from permit, and their emissions may not be reflected in Tables I-1, I-2, and I-3. For

example, engines used in agricultural operations in the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District (APCD) are exempt from permit and their emissions are not included in these

tables. Annual NOx emissions for these agricultural engines (spark-ignited and diesel-fueled)

have been estimated at 12,000 tons per year. This emissions estimate is greater than the NOx

emissions for all stationary engines in the inventory for San Joaquin Valley APCD. Moreover,

this annual NOx estimate is approximately 40 percent of the emissions from the stationary IC

engines in the State as reported in the 1996 point source inventory. It appears that agricultural

engines can be a significant contributor to emissions. Because of the potential adverse air quality

impacts from these engines, the control of emissions from IC engines used in agricultural

operations will be addressed. It should also be noted that it is believed that the majority of these

engines are diesel-fueled.
I-3

Table I-1

NOx Emissions Comparison

Stationary Spark-Ignited IC Engines and All Stationary Sources

in Tons Per Year

District* Spark-Ignited IC Engines All Stationary Sources Percent of Total

Antelope Valley APCD 0.1 365 0.03

Bay Area AQMD 2,077 36,500 5.7

Butte County AQMD 14 730 1.9

Colusa County APCD 680 1,460 47

Feather River AQMD 361 1,100 33

Glenn County APCD 325 1,100 30

Lake County AQMD 0.06 146 0.04

Mojave Desert AQMD 7,499 31,000 24

Monterey Bay Unified

APCD

76 7,300 1.0

Northern Sierra AQMD 0.3 730 0.04

Sacramento Metropolitan

AQMD

27 1,825 1.5

San Diego County APCD 238 5,840 4.2

San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD

4,882 65,700 7.4

San Luis Obispo County

APCD

92 1,460 6.3

Santa Barbara County APCD 985 2,190 45

South Coast AQMD 4,259 47,450 9.0

Ventura County APCD 176 1,825 9.6

Yolo/Solano AQMD 241 1,100 22

Totals 21,932 218,776 10

Source: ARB 1996 Point Source Inventory

* APCD = Air Pollution Control District

 AQMD = Air Quality Management District
I-4

Table I-2

CO Emissions Comparison

Stationary Spark-Ignited IC Engines and All Stationary Sources

 in Tons Per Year

District* Spark-Ignited IC Engines All Stationary Sources Percent of Total

Amador APCD NR 1,100 -

Antelope Valley APCD 1.3 365 0.4

Bay Area AQMD 1,932 21,170 9.1

Butte County AQMD 1.0 1,460 0.07

Colusa County APCD 88 365 24

Feather River AQMD 128 730 17

Glenn County APCD 75 1,100 6.8

Great Basin Unified APCD NR 7.3 -

Imperial County APCD NR 365 -

Kern County APCD NR 730 -

Lake County AQMD 0.01 3,285 0

Mojave Desert AQMD 1,094 5,840 19

Monterey Bay Unified

APCD

79 10,585 0.7

Northern Sierra AQMD 0.06 4,015 0

Placer County APCD NR 730 -

Sacramento Metro AQMD 56 730 7.7

San Diego County APCD 526 7,665 7.0

San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD

4,818 22,630 21

San Luis Obispo County

APCD

57 365 16

Santa Barbara County APCD 928 1,460 64

South Coast AQMD 5,095 22,630 23

Ventura County APCD 1,553 3,285 47

Yolo-Solano AQMD 48 730 6.6

Totals 16,479 111,342 15

Source: ARB 1996 Point Source Inventory

* APCD = Air Pollution Control District

 AQMD = Air Quality Management District
I-5

Table I-3

VOC Emissions Comparison

Stationary Spark-Ignited IC Engines and All Stationary Sources

 in Tons Per Year

District* Spark-Ignited IC Engines All Stationary Sources Percent of Total

Amador County APCD NR 365 -

Antelope Valley APCD 1.6 1,100 0.15

Bay Area AQMD 822 43,800 1.9

Butte County AQMD 3 1,100 0.3

Colusa County APCD 275 730 38

Feather River AQMD 148 1,460 10

Glenn County APCD 146 730 20

Imperial County APCD NR 730 -

Kern County APCD NR 365 -

Lake County AQMD 0.003 730 0

Mojave Desert AQMD 1,209 2,920 41

Monterey Bay Unified

APCD

362 5,475 6.6

Northern Sierra AQMD 0.02 730 0

Placer County APCD NR 2,555 -

Sacramento Metro AQMD 23 6,570 0.4

San Diego County APCD 666 16,425 4.1

San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD

6,,776 43,800 15

San Luis Obispo County

APCD

9.6 2,555 0.4

Santa Barbara County APCD 1,684 2,920 58

South Coast AQMD 11,116 109,500 10

Ventura County APCD 352 3,650 9.6

Yolo-Solano AQMD 13 4,015 0.3

Totals 23,606 252,225 9.4

Source: ARB 1996 Point Source Inventory

* APCD = Air Pollution Control District

 AQMD = Air Quality Management District
I-6

IC engines generate power by combustion of an air/fuel mixture. In the case of sparkignited engines, a spark plug ignites the air/fuel mixture while a diesel-fueled IC engine relies on

heating of the inducted air during the compression stroke to ignite the injected diesel fuel. A

more detailed description of spark-ignited IC engine operation is included in Appendix B. Most

stationary IC engines are used to power pumps, compressors, or electrical generators. IC engines

are used in the following industries: oil and gas pipelines, oil and gas production, water transport,

general industrial (including construction), electrical power generation, and agriculture. The

combined NOx emissions from the oil and gas industry, manufacturing facilities, power plants,

and landfill and waste water treatment facilities contribute almost 85 percent of the annual NOx

emissions from stationary IC engines according to the 1996 point source inventory. According

to the inventory, approximately 11 percent of the annual NOx emissions from the engines in

these categories are emitted by diesel-fueled stationary IC engines with the remaining 89 percent

emitted from stationary spark-ignited IC engines.

Engines used for electrical power generation include base load power generation

(generally in remote areas), resource recovery facilities in areas where waste fuels are available

(such as landfills and sewage treatment facilities), portable units used as temporary sources of

electrical power, and emergency generators used during electrical power outages.

There are a wide variety of spark-ignited IC engine designs, such as:

? Two stroke and four stroke

? Rich-burn and lean-burn

? Supercharged, turbocharged, and naturally aspirated

Spark-ignited engines can use one or more fuels, such as natural gas, oil field gas,

digester gas, landfill gas, propane, butane, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), gasoline, methanol,

ethanol, residual oil, and crude oil. IC engines can also exhibit a wide variety of operating

modes, such as:

? Emergency operation (e.g., used only during testing, maintenance,

and emergencies)

? Seasonal operation

? Continuous operation

? Continuous power output

? Cyclical power output

These differences in use, design, and operating modes must be taken into account when

setting standards to control emissions from IC engines.

B. Diesel-fueled Engines

Diesel engines not only have significant NOx emissions but also emit particulate matter

(PM) which has been identified as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) by the ARB. Once a

substance is identified as a TAC, the ARB is required by law to determine if there is a need for

further control. Recently, the ARB approved a Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (RRP) in
I-7

consultation with the Advisory Committee on TACs from Diesel-fueled Engines and Vehicles.

The Advisory Committee is made up of industry, environmental groups, other government

agencies, and members of the public. Because of the timing of the Diesel RRP and the potential

threat to public health from diesel particulate matter, stationary diesel-fueled engines are being

addressed separately in a manner which takes into account the potential need to further control

diesel PM and NOx simultaneously.

Emissions from diesel-fueled engines have the potential to pose significant cancer risks to

the public working or living in close proximity to a diesel engine installation. It is possible that

both NOx and PM emissions will need to be controlled from these engines. Unfortunately, many

combustion modification techniques and technologies used to reduce NOx emissions can tend to

increase PM emissions and vice versa. In addressing diesel-fueled engines, a balanced approach

will be taken so that the maximum benefit to public health will be realized in reducing both

pollutants. ARB staff is evaluating technologies that reduce PM emissions from diesel-fueled

engines and the results from their evaluation will be considered in controlling emissions from

stationary diesel-fueled engines. The effect on NOx emissions from these different technologies

will also be evaluated in the document addressing diesel-fueled engines.

C. IC Engines used in Agricultural Operations

Also discussed previously, were the potentially significant emissions from the IC engines

used in agricultural operations, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley. Although limited

information is available, statewide NOx emissions from diesel-fueled engines used in stationary,

nonroad, and portable agricultural applications have been estimated to be about 8,400 tons per

year, which is about 28 percent of the emissions from stationary spark-ignited and diesel-fueled

IC engines in the 1996 point source inventory. It is important to note that the majority of these

engines are believed to be diesel-fueled with a smaller portion being natural gas-fueled SI

engines. According to Health and Safety Code Section 42310(e), districts are prohibited from

requiring permits for agricultural engines which accounts for the incomplete information and

data on their engine population, operating hours, and emissions. Presently, these engines are not

regulated, and their emissions are uncontrolled. However, the Health and Safety Code

prohibition does not preclude districts from controlling the emissions from agricultural engines

in some other manner. Appendix F provides a legal opinion on this issue.

In recent years, there has been a growing concern with the NOx and other emissions from

these uncontrolled sources and their contribution to ozone. Because of the magnitude of the

potential emissions from these engines, we recommend that districts develop alternatives to

permitting for regulating these types of IC engines. An example of an alternative would be a

voluntary approach such as the Carl Moyer program which provides incentives for

owner/operators of internal combustion engines to repower with low emissions engines or to

replace an existing engine with an electric motor. This type of program has demonstrated the

potential to significantly reduce NOx emissions.
II-1

II. SUMMARY OF THE DETERMINATION FOR SPARK-IGNITED IC ENGINES

The provisions of this determination are applicable to all stationary, spark-ignited internal

combustion engines with a manufacturer’s rating of 50 brake horsepower or greater, or a

maximum fuel consumption of 0.52 million Btu per hour or greater. This fuel consumption is

equivalent to 50 brake horsepower using a default brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) rating

of 10,400 Btu per brake horsepower-hour. For different BSFC ratings, the maximum fuel

consumption ratings should be adjusted accordingly.

The RACT and BARCT limits for NOx, VOC, and CO are summarized in Tables II-1 and

II-2. Different limits apply to (1) spark-ignited rich-burn engines, (2) spark-ignited lean-burn

engines, (3) rich-burn engines using waste gases, (4) cyclically-loaded rich-burn engines using

field gas, and (5) two stroke lean-burn engines rated at less than 100 horsepower. Gasolinefueled, spark-ignited engines are required to use California Reformulated Gasoline. The

exemptions, administrative requirements, and test methods are listed at the end of this chapter.

A. Engines Rated Less Than 50 Horsepower

Most district rules exempt from permit and control requirements engines rated less than 50

horsepower. This document does not make a RACT/BARCT determination for this class of

engines. If it is determined that these engines make a significant contribution to district-wide

emissions, non-attainment Districts are encouraged to consider making a RACT/BARCT

determination for these engines either as an entire subcategory or on a case-by-case basis. In

considering this class of engines, ARB staff recommends that the districts evaluate the costeffectiveness of controlling less than 50 hp engines.

B. Engines Derated to Less Than 50 Horsepower

This document does not make a RACT/BARCT determination for engines derated to less

than 50 horsepower. A derated engine is one in which the manufacturer’s brake horsepower

rating has been reduced through some device that restricts the engine’s output. In fact, most

district IC engine rules apply to engines with a manufacturer’s rating greater than 50 horsepower,

regardless of any derating. Districts are encouraged to make a RACT/BARCT determination for

these engines either as an entire subcategory or on a case-by-case basis.

ARB staff analysis identified several technically feasible approaches for reducing NOx

emissions from engines derated to less than 50 hp. These approaches include electrification,

air/fuel adjustments, and use of a catalytic control system. However, the cost effectiveness of

implementing these technologies was highly dependent on site-specific considerations, including

the proximity of power and the need to cleanup the gaseous fuel prior to making air/fuel

adjustments or installing a catalyst.

As a result, ARB staff did not believe it was appropriate to make a statewide

RACT/BARCT determination for the entire subcategory of engines derated to less than 50 hp.

Instead, ARB staff recommends that the districts evaluate the cost-effectiveness of controlling

engines derated to less than 50 horsepower and make a RACT/BARCT determination on either a
II-2

district-wide or case-by-case basis. Please refer to Chapter IV for a more detailed discussion of

this issue.

C. RACT Limits

For spark-ignited rich-burn engines, the RACT limits are expected to be achieved by using

catalysts, prestratified charge systems, or by leaning the air/fuel mixture. The RACT limits for

spark-ignited lean-burn engines are expected to be achieved by leaning the air/fuel mixture or by

retrofitting with low-emission combustion controls to allow further leaning of the air/fuel mixture.

Alternative approaches would be the retrofit of existing engines with parts used in newer engines

designed for low NOx emissions, replacement of the existing engine with a state-of-the-art lowemissions engine fueled by natural gas or propane, or replacement with an electric motor.

Examples of retrofit parts used in low emissions engines would include pistons, heads, electronic

engine controllers and ignition systems. It may be necessary to check with the engine

manufacturer concerning the compatibility of the components being for retrofit on an existing

engine.

D. BARCT Limits

The BARCT limits for spark-ignited rich-burn engines fueled by waste gas are expected to

be achieved by using prestratified charge systems. For spark-ignited rich-burn engines, the limits

for fuels other than waste gases are expected to be achieved by using catalysts. The spark-ignited

lean-burn limits are expected to be achieved by the retrofit of low-emission combustion controls,

although some engines may require the use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR).

The BARCT limits reflect a cost-effectiveness threshold of $12 per pound of NOx

reduced which is comparable to Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD’s threshold of $12 per pound

and the South Coast AQMD’s threshold of $12.25 per pound. Although the cost-effectiveness

for individual engines will generally be lower than $12 per pound, in some individual cases the

cost-effectiveness could exceed this figure.

E. Engines with Common RACT and BARCT Limits

In addition, there are two categories of engines which are assigned identical RACT and

BARCT limits due to conditions or situations which would make meeting the standard limits

onerous. The RACT and BARCT limits for cyclically-loaded, field gas fueled engines used on oil

pumps have been set at 300 ppm NOx due to the unique duty cycle of the engine, the character of

the fuel which can contain significant amounts of sulfur and moisture, the variable Btu content of

the fuel, and the difficulty in controlling emissions from a cyclically-loaded engine. It is expected

that the limits for these rich-burn engines will be met by keeping the engines properly maintained

and tuned, and by leaning the air/fuel mixture.

There is another category, which includes two-stroke engines fueled by gaseous fuel and

rated at less than 100 horsepower. There are a limited number of these engines in use and there

are no cost-effective controls available for these engines. The limits for these engines are

expected to be achieved by properly maintaining and tuning these engines which would include
II-3

replacing the oil-bath air filter with a dry unit and cleaning the air/fuel mixer and muffler on a

regular basis.

These RACT and BARCT limits should be used as guidance. Districts have the primary

responsibility for regulating stationary sources and have the flexibility to adopt IC engine rules

that differ from this guidance, as long as these differences do not conflict with other applicable

statutes, codes and regulations. The districts may adopt internal combustion engine rules after a

case-by-case analysis of engines in the district in order to determine a technically feasible and cost

effective way to reduce emissions taking into account site-specific situations or conditions. The

districts’ decisions on control technologies must not conflict with regulatory requirements and

statutory obligations such as attainment plans.

The full text of the determination is provided in Appendix A. The technical basis for the

emission limits can be found in Chapter IV.
II-4

Table II-1

Summary of RACT Standards for

Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines

ppmv at 15% O2

1

Spark-Ignited Engine Type % Control of NOX NOX VOC CO

Rich-Burn

Cyclically-loaded, Field Gas Fueled

All Other Engines

--

90

300

50

250

250

4,500

4,500

Lean-Burn

Two Stroke, Gaseous Fueled, Less

Than 100 Horsepower

All Other Engines

--

80

200

125

750

750

4,500

4,500

1. For NOx, either the percent control or the parts per million by volume (ppmv) limit must be

met by each engine where applicable. The percent control option applies only if a percentage

is listed, and applies to engines using either combustion modification or exhaust controls. All

engines must meet the ppmv VOC and CO limits.
II-5

Table II-2

Summary of BARCT Standards for

Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines

ppmv at 15% O2

1

Spark-Ignited Engine Type % Control of NOX NOX VOC CO

Rich-Burn

Waste Gas Fueled

Cyclically-loaded, Field Gas Fueled

All Other Engines

90

--

96

50

300

25

250

250

250

4,500

4,500

4,500

Lean-Burn

Two Stroke, Gaseous Fueled, Less

Than 100 Horsepower

All Other Engines

--

90

200

65

750

750

4,500

4,500

1. For NOx, either the percent control or the parts per million by volume (ppmv) limit must be

met by each engine where applicable. The percent control option applies only if a percentage

is listed, and applies to engines using combustion modification or exhaust controls. All

engines must meet the ppmv VOC and CO limits. 
II-6

ELEMENTS APPLICABLE TO BOTH RACT AND BARCT

Exemptions

? Engines operated during emergencies or disasters to preserve or protect property,

human life, or public health (e.g., firefighting, flood control)

? Portable engines, as defined in Appendix A

? Nonroad engines, as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(U.S. EPA), excluding nonroad engines used in stationary applications

? Engines not used for the distributed generation of electricity, if operated 200 or fewer

hours per year

? Emergency standby engines that, excluding period of operation during unscheduled

power outages, operate 100 or fewer hours per year

[Note: Engines used in agricultural operations are exempt from permitting by the districts

according to Health and Safety Code Section 42310(e). However, this prohibition does not

preclude districts from controlling agricultural engines in some other manner. Refer to Appendix

F.]

Administrative Requirements

? Emission control plan

? Inspection and monitoring plan

? System to monitor NOx and O2 continuously for engines >1,000 horsepower and

permitted to operate >2,000 hours per year

? Source test every two years

? Monitor NOx and O2 every three months using a portable NOx analyzer

? Conduct source testing and quarterly monitoring at an engine’s actual peak load and

under the engine’s typical duty cycle

? Maintain records of inspections and continuous stack monitoring data for two years

? Maintain an operating log which shows, on a monthly basis, the hours of operation,

fuel type, and fuel consumption for each engine

? Installation of nonresettable elapsed operating time meter

? Installation of nonresettable fuel meter or an alternative approved by the Air Pollution

Control Officer
II-7

ELEMENTS APPLICABLE TO BOTH RACT AND BARCT

(continued)

Test Methods

? O2: ARB Method 100 or U.S. EPA Method 3A

? NOx: ARB Method 100 or U.S. EPA Method 7E

? VOC: ARB Method 100 or U.S. EPA Method 25A or 25B

? CO: ARB Method 100 or U.S. EPA Method 10

Alternative test methods which are shown to accurately determine the concentration of

NOx, VOC, and CO in the exhaust of IC engines may be used upon the written approval of the

Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board and the Air Pollution Control Officer.

Nonresettable fuel meters installed on stationary spark-ignited internal combustion engines

shall be calibrated periodically per the manufacturers’ recommendation. The portable NOx

analyzer shall be calibrated, maintained, and operated in accordance with manufacturer’s

specifications and recommendations or with a protocol approved by the Air Pollution Control

Officer.
III-1

III. SUMMARY OF SPARK-IGNITED IC ENGINE CONTROLS

The combustion of hydrocarbon fuels in IC engines results in emissions of the following

criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, VOC, particulate matter, and sulfur oxides (SOx). The pollutant of

primary concern from stationary IC engines in this determination is NOx. NOx is a criteria

pollutant that reacts in the atmosphere to form ozone which is a significant air pollution problem

in California.

There are probably more different types of controls available to reduce NOx from IC

engines than for any other type of NOx source. These controls can be grouped into the following

general categories: combustion modifications, fuel switching, post-combustion controls, and

replacement of the engine with a new, low emissions engine or an electric motor.

Combustion modifications include ignition timing retard, optimization of the internal

engine design, turbocharging or supercharging with aftercooling, exhaust gas recirculation, and

leaning of the air/fuel ratio. In the case of leaning the air/fuel ratio, this is generally done in

combination with other techniques, which allow extremely lean ratios. Fuel switching includes the

substitution of methanol for natural gas. Post combustion controls include nonselective catalytic

reduction and selective catalytic reduction. Low-emission combustion may use several

combustion modifications such as precombustion chambers, turbocharging, and improved ignition

systems to reduce emissions, and may also use fuel switching.

Table III-1 summarizes the applicability and effectiveness of the NOx control methods for

stationary engines. Although control technologies are shown for NOx control, both CO and VOC

emissions must meet their respective requirements. A more detailed description of controls for

stationary IC engines can be found in Appendix B.
III-2

_____________________________________________________________________________

Table III-1

Summary of Primary NOx Controls For Stationary Spark-Ignited IC Engines

Control Technology NOx Reduction Effectiveness

Combustion Modifications

 Ignition Timing Retard

 Prestratified Charge

 Low-emission Combustion

 Turbocharging or Supercharging

 With Aftercooling

 Exhaust Gas Recirculation

15-30%

80+%1

80+%2

3-35%

30%

Fuel Switching

 Methanol 30%3

Post-Combustion Controls

 Nonselective Catalytic Reduction

 Selective Catalytic Reduction

90+%1

80+%4

Replacement with Low Emissions Engine

Or Electric Motor 60-100%5

1. Applies to rich-burn spark-ignited (SI) engines.

2. When the air/fuel mixture is leaned and combined with other NOx reduction techniques (i.e.,

precombustion chamber, ignition system improvement, turbocharging, air/fuel ratio controller).

3. Applies to natural gas engines.

4. Applies to SI lean-burn engines.

5. For replacement with an electric motor, emissions are reduced 100 percent at the IC engine location,

although emissions at power plants may increase.
IV-1

IV. BASIS FOR DETERMINATION FOR SPARK-IGNITED IC ENGINES

A summary of the determination can be found in Chapter II. The full text of the

determination can be found in Appendix A. This chapter will review the basis or reasons for the

emissions limits, requirements, and exemptions included in the determination. In developing this

determination, the ARB and air districts staff reviewed a number of reports on IC engines,

emissions inventory data, vendor literature, source test data, district rules and accompanying staff

reports, and other sources of information.

A. Applicability

This determination is applicable to stationary spark-ignited internal combustion engines

that have a continuous power rating equal to or greater than 50 brake horsepower. The 50

horsepower cutoff is consistent with the majority of district IC engine rules. Neither a RACT nor

BARCT determination was made for engines rated less than 50 horsepower. Districts may

consider making a specific determination for this class of engines if their emissions are significant.

In some cases, an engine's power rating may be suspect or unknown. To assure that

engines exceeding 50 brake horsepower are not exempt, spark-ignited engines with a maximum

hourly fuel consumption rate above 0.52 million Btu per hour are also subject to controls. This

fuel consumption level corresponds to engines rated at approximately 50 brake horsepower using

a default BSFC rating of 10,400 Btu per brake horsepower-hour. For different BSFC ratings, the

maximum fuel consumption ratings should be adjusted accordingly.

1. Engines Derated to Less Than 50 Horsepower

Neither a RACT nor a BARCT determination was made on stationary spark-ignited IC

engines derated to less than 50 horsepower due to insufficient, and in some cases, conflicting data.

A derated engine is one in which the manufacturer’s brake horsepower rating has been reduced

through some device which restricts the engine’s output. One of the largest categories of the

derated engines are cyclically-loaded units used to drive reciprocating oil pumps. These engines

are generally fueled by oil field gas with variable energy content and composition which may

include moisture, hydrogen sulfide and other compounds. The cyclic load on these engines may

have a cyclic period of less than 10 seconds. These characteristics would tend to discourage the

use of catalysts with air-to-fuel controllers. However, it is interesting to note that a review of

source test data in the text of Sections C and D of Chapter IV, Table IV-1 and Appendix D

indicates that there have been instances where these engines have been successfully controlled in

the past by cleaning up the field gas, and “leaning-out” the engine or installing a catalyst in some

cases.

In the case of field gas-fueled engines driving beam-balanced and crank-balanced oil

pumps, there are a variety of issues which can affect the approach used to control emissions. The

fuel quality and composition of the field gas varies from area to area so that one engine may

require treated fuel while another doesn’t. The installation of a gas processing plant may be

costly and would affect the cost effectiveness of controlling the emissions from these engines. In
IV-2

addition, consideration should also be given to the number of wells feeding the plant, the

proximity of the wells to the plant, and the cost of setting up a gas collection and distribution

system for the fuel. An alternative approach is electrification. The majority of the beam-balanced

and crank-balanced oil pumps in California are driven by electric motors. This would certainly be

an effective approach if electric power is reasonably accessible. However, since some of these

engines may be remotely located, the cost of bringing in electrical power could be onerous.

Finally, there is a lack of data on certain control technologies which may be effective in reducing

emissions from cyclic and non-cyclic engines fueled by field gas with significant amounts of

moisture and hydrogen sulfide. Because of the variety of factors that can affect the feasibility and

cost-effectiveness of controlling this category, we were unable to make a categorical

determination. We recognize that there are technologies (i.e. electrification, cleaning up the field

gas and controlling the engine by leaning the air/fuel mixture or adding a catalyst) that can be used

to control the emissions from these engines. However, the costs associated with implementing

these controls may be cost prohibitive depending on site-specific considerations. We recommend

that the districts handle this type of derated engine on a categorical or case-by-case basis due to

the uniqueness of the different installations.

Districts may consider controlling the emissions from other categories of derated engines

if they determine that it is technically feasible and cost effective. Engines with lower horsepower

ratings may be difficult to control due to lack of available emission controls, the relatively high

cost of emission controls (especially when compared to the cost of the engine), cost effectiveness,

site-specific conditions and other considerations such as operating mode and fuel type. Districts

should take these factors into consideration. In addition, repowering with either electric motors

or new low-emissions engines should also be considered as alternatives.

Technology development and innovation may also aid in the feasibility of controlling

engines derated to less than 50 horsepower. Recently the California Air Resources Board

adopted regulations for new small off-road engines and new large off-road spark-ignited engines

which included engines rated at less than 50 horsepower. In the rulemaking effort for the large

spark-ignited off-road engines, it was concluded that it was feasible and cost effective to control

engines rated at 25 horsepower and greater with an air-to-fuel ratio controller and a three-way

catalyst also known as non-selective catalytic reduction. Technologies used to control mobile

engines certainly have the capability to be used in stationary applications.

B. Alternative Form of Limits

Where applicable, the determination provides a choice of two NOx alternatives: operators

must meet either a percent reduction or an emissions concentration limit in parts per million by

volume (ppmv). Use of the percentage reduction option may be applied to engines using add-on

control devices that treat the exhaust gas stream, engine modifications, or fuel switching. One

reason for this NOx control alternative is that exhaust controls typically reduce NOx by a certain

percentage, regardless of the initial NOx concentration. Thus, for engines inherently high in NOx,

the emission concentration limit may be difficult to achieve when using exhaust controls.

Providing an emission limit and percent reduction option allows engine owners or operators a

greater degree of flexibility in choosing controls and complying with the emission limits.
IV-3

In using the percentage reduction option, determining compliance when exhaust controls

are used is relatively straightforward, as NOx concentrations can be measured before and after the

control device. In contrast, for controls based on engine changes or fuel changes, it is more

difficult to determine an accurate percentage reduction. Baseline concentrations must be

established by conducting source testing prior to the installation of the engine or fuel

modifications. The baseline concentrations will be a function of engine operating parameters such

as air/fuel ratio, ignition timing, power output, and the engine duty cycle. When baseline

concentrations are being established, it is recommended that the engine operating parameters be

thoroughly documented along with the load and the duty cycle under which the engine normally

operates. This is done so that the engine can be checked to ensure that it is operating under

similar conditions when post-modification source testing is conducted. In this case, compliance is

determined by comparing the baseline NOx concentration with the post-modification

concentration, estimating a percent NOx reduction and verifying that the control meets the

appropriate percent reduction limit.

Except for the optional percentage reduction for NOx, the determination uses limits

expressed in parts per million by volume (ppmv). These limits could have been expressed in units

of grams per brake horsepower-hour. However, use of limits in terms of grams per brake

horsepower-hour would require engines to be simultaneously tested for emissions and

horsepower. This would increase costs for compliance verification, and for that reason limits

expressed in terms of grams per brake horsepower-hour are not recommended.

C. RACT NOx Limits

It is generally understood that RACT is the application of demonstrated technology to

reduce emissions. "Demonstrated" means a particular limit has been achieved and proven feasible

in practice. This demonstration need not take place in California. The demonstration also need

not be performed on every make and model of IC engine, as long as there is a reasonable

likelihood that the technology will be successful on these other makes and models. In addition to

the control options discussed below, other options for meeting RACT are discussed in Section F

of this chapter. These options include repowering with either a new controlled engine or an

electric motor.

1. Rich-Burn Engines

The RACT emission limits for spark-ignited rich-burn engines not cyclically-loaded are

based on Ventura County APCD’s Rule 74.9 that was in effect between September 1989 and

December 1993 (this rule was superseded by a more effective version of Rule 74.9 in December

1993). The 1989-1993 version of this rule required all affected engines to meet applicable limits

by 1990. For natural gas-fired rich-burn engines, this NOx limit is 50 parts per million by volume

(ppmv), corrected to 15 percent oxygen and dry conditions. Alternatively, rich-burn engines can

meet a 90 percent NOx reduction requirement.
IV-4

The Ventura County rule allowed the emission limits to be increased for engines exhibiting

efficiencies greater than 30 percent. However, there are few cases where such efficiency

adjustments would increase the allowable emissions significantly. For example, natural gas-fired

engines rarely exceed the mid-30s in percentage efficiency, and most of these engines probably are

less than 30 percent efficient. In addition, districts that include an efficiency adjustment in their IC

engine rules have rarely found a need to use this adjustment to meet rule requirements. This

determination does not include an efficiency adjustment. Such an adjustment increases the

complexity of the determination, and would complicate enforcement. In many cases, it is difficult

to determine the efficiency of an engine. The manufacturer’s rated efficiency could be used, but in

some cases this information may not be available. Even if this information is available, the

efficiency of an engine in the field may differ significantly from the manufacturer’s rating due to

differences in air density, temperature, humidity, condition of the engine, and power output. The

RACT emissions limits can be met without an efficiency adjustment if controls are properly

designed, maintained, and operated.

Appendix D summarizes recent source tests from Ventura County for the years 1994

through 1997. Results of source tests for 1986 through 1997 on rich-burn engines are compared

to the Ventura IC engine rule applicable at the time (i.e., 50 ppmv NOx or 90 percent reduction).

Included in this database were a dozen tests on engines to determine baseline values or emission

reduction credits. These engines were not controlled and were not required to meet the rule's

emissions limits. Excluding tests conducted to determine baseline values or emission reduction

credits leaves over 1000 tests on rich-burn engines. Only about 8 percent of these tests exceeded

the applicable NOx limit. In the majority of cases, engines that violated the limit passed other

source tests before and after the violation. No particular engine make or model appeared to have

a significant problem in attaining the applicable NOx limit. These source tests covered almost

sixty different models of engines made by eight different manufacturers.

From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, approximately 280 of 360 stationary engines were

removed from service in Ventura County. Many of these engines were first retrofitted with

controls and were in compliance when they were removed. Though Ventura County's IC engine

rule may have contributed to the reduction in the number of stationary IC engines, other areas of

the State that did not have a rule controlling NOx emissions from existing stationary engines also

experienced significant reductions in stationary engines during the same time period. Most of

these engines were used in oil and gas production activities. This reduction in numbers may

reflect an overall general reduction in oil and gas production in the State. It may also reflect the

impact of new source review. New source review is a collection of emissions and mitigation

requirements that must be met before a new or existing stationary source of emissions can be built

or modified in the State. New source review may have encouraged the use of electric motors

rather than IC engines for new or modified production activities. In addition, new source review

may have encouraged the shutdown or replacement of existing IC engines to generate emissions

offsets for new or modified production activities.

Based on these data, it appears that the RACT emission levels for rich-burn engines not

cyclically-loaded are achievable for a wide variety of gaseous-fueled engines.
IV-5

It is expected that the most common control method to be used to meet the RACT limits

for rich-burn engines not cyclically-loaded will be the retrofit of NSCR controls. For rich-burn

engines using waste-derived fuels, where fuel contaminants may poison the catalyst, the most

common control method is expected to be the use of prestratified charge controls.

Cyclically-loaded (cyclic) engines including those driving the beam-balanced or crankbalanced oil pumps and fueled by oil field gas have characteristics that may affect the effectiveness

of controls. These characteristics include low exhaust gas temperatures (since the engines spend

significant periods of time at idle) and rapid fluctuations in power output. The oil field gas may

contain significant amounts of moisture and sulfur which may lead to the formation of sulfuric

acid which can damage catalysts. The energy content of field gas may vary affecting engine

performance. Because of the difficulties and potential costs associated with controlling the

emissions from field gas-fueled IC engines driving the beam-balanced and crank-balanced

reciprocating oil pumps, the emission limits for these engines are based on San Joaquin Valley

Unified APCD’s Rule 4701. For beam-balanced or crank-balanced pumping engines, the NOx

limit is 300 ppmv corrected to 15 percent oxygen. It is expected that this limit for these rich-burn

engines will be met by keeping the engines properly maintained and tuned, and by leaning the

air/fuel mixture. We recommend that the districts require the replacement of these engines at the

end of their useful life with prime movers having lower NOx emissions.

There have been situations where cyclic rich-burn engines have met the RACT limits of 50 ppmv

either by using NSCR or by leaning the air/fuel mixture in conjunction with treating the field gas

to reduce the moisture and sulfur content. Both of these control methods have been used

successfully on cyclic engines used on “grasshopper” oil well pumps in Santa Barbara County.

Source tests of NSCR-equipped cyclic engines in Santa Barbara County have shown that these

engines can be effectively controlled with or without air/fuel controllers provided the oil well

pumps are air-balanced units. The oil field gas in this particular situation is naturally low in sulfur

or “sweet.” In the case of beam- and crank-balanced rod pumps, the air/fuel ratio controllers that

are part of the control system have slow response times relative to the load fluctuations, making

NSCR ineffective due to the low exhaust temperatures. For the beam- and crank-balanced oil

well engines, the air/fuel ratio must be leaned along with treating the field gas to meet the NOx

limits. Table IV-1 summarizes the results of source tests on cyclically operated engines in Santa

Barbara County. These tests were conducted from 1992 through 1995. All engines at Site A

used NSCR on engines driving air-balanced oil pumps to control NOx emissions. All engines at

other sites used leaning of the air/fuel mixture to control NOx. In addition, it is important to note

that the field gas used at the sites referenced in Table IV-1 was either naturally low in sulfur or

treated to pipeline-quality natural gas. These engines represent two different manufacturers and

six different models. In Ventura County, there are another eight of these rich-burn engines fueled

by treated field gas which drive beam-balanced and air-balanced rod pumps. NSCR is installed on

all of these engines with five meeting a limit of 50 ppmv NOx and three meeting 25 ppmv.
IV-6

Table IV-1

Summary of NOx Source Testing of Cyclically Operated Engines

Santa Barbara County

 Emissions in ppmv

Site Engines Tests Engine

Size

Operating

Capacity

NOX CO VOC

A 18 5 195 hp 50-75% 2-14 79-2445 2-35

B 4 9 131 hp 20-40% 12-35 165-327 29-5521

C 16 16 39-46 hp 43-112% 8-28 129-291 25-98

D 18 28 39-49 hp230-75% 7-33 154-406 31-196

1. One engine exceeded the 250 ppmv VOC limit. After repairs, this engine was retested 6 weeks

later and was found to be in compliance.

2. Two engines were derated.

Because of the demonstrated success of meeting the 50 ppmv NOx limit for cyclic richburn engines fueled by low-sulfur or treated field gas, we recommend that the districts consider

the cost effectiveness of field gas treatment and emission controls in setting limits for these

engines on a site-specific basis. In situations where this approach exceeds the cost effectiveness

threshold of $12 per pound, we would recommend that districts set a limit of 300 ppm NOx and

require the replacement of these engines at the end of their useful life with IC engines having

lower NOx emissions or electric motors. In performing the cost effectiveness analysis for treating

the field gas and the emission control, the additional costs for field gas treatment should be

included along with the incremental materials and labor cost associated with piping the treated

gaseous fuel back to the engines from the gas processing unit. Naturally, any costs, benefits, or

profits realized from selling the gas should also be included in the analysis.

2. Lean-Burn Engines

The basis for the RACT emission limits for four-stroke spark-ignited lean-burn engines

and two-stroke spark-ignited engines rated at 100 horsepower or more is the same as for richburn engines: Ventura County APCD’s Rule 74.9 that was in effect between September 1989 and

December 1993. For natural gas-fired lean-burn engines, this NOx limit is 125 ppmv, corrected

to 15 percent oxygen and dry conditions. Alternatively, these lean-burn engines can meet an 80

percent NOx reduction requirement.

Appendix D summarizes a large number of source tests from Ventura County from the

years 1994 through 1997. Results of source tests from 1986 through 1997 on lean-burn engines

were compared to the limits of Ventura County's IC engine rule applicable at the time (i.e., 125

ppm NOx or 80 percent reduction). Excluding tests conducted to determine baseline values or

emission reduction credits, there were 358 tests on lean-burn engines. Only 21 (approximately 6

percent) of these tests exceeded the applicable NOx limit. In most cases, engines that violated the

limit passed several other source tests before and after the violation. No particular engine make
IV-7

or model appeared to have a significant problem in attaining the applicable NOx limit. These

source tests covered nineteen different models of engines made by nine different manufacturers.

Based on these data, we conclude that the RACT emission levels for four-stroke lean-burn

engines and two-stroke engines rated at 100 horsepower and greater are achievable for a wide

variety of gaseous-fueled engines.

We expect the most popular control method used to meet the RACT limits for these leanburn engines will be the retrofit of low-emission combustion modifications. These modifications

will probably include the retrofit of precombustion chambers. In cases where these modifications

have not been developed for a particular make and model of engine, SCR may be used as an

alternative.

A separate NOx limit of 200 ppmv is set for gaseous-fueled, two-stroke lean-burn engines

rated at less than 100 horsepower. This limit is based on recent source test data. There are a

relatively small number of these engines which are located in gas fields statewide and are used to

drive compressors at gas wells. While precombustion chambers or low-emission combustion

retrofits would control emissions from this engine type, there are none available on the market and

the cost to develop a retrofit for a limited number of engines would be cost prohibitive. As a

result, the only cost-effective way to control emissions from the small two-stroke engines is by

properly maintaining and tuning these engines which includes replacing oil-bath air filters with dry

units and periodically cleaning the air/fuel mixer and muffler. We recommend that the districts

require the replacement of these engines at the end of the two-stroke engine’s useful life with

prime movers having lower NOx emissions.

D. BARCT NOx Limits

A summary of the BARCT determination can be found in Chapter II. The full text of the

BARCT determination can be found in Appendix A.

The Health and Safety Code Section 40406 defines BARCT as "an emission limitation that

is based on the maximum degree of reduction achievable, taking into account environmental,

energy, and economic impacts by each class or category of source." Control technology must be

available by the compliance deadline that has achieved or can achieve the BARCT limits, but these

limits do not necessarily need to have been demonstrated on IC engines. A technology can meet

the definition of BARCT if it has been demonstrated on the exhaust gases of a similar source,

such as a gas turbine, and there is a strong likelihood that the same technology will also work on

exhaust gases from IC engines and that systems designed for IC engines are available from control

equipment vendors. In addition to the technologies cited below, there are additional candidates

described in Appendix B which potentially could be considered to be BARCT. Finally, it is

important to note that South Coast AQMD requires owner/operators of stationary engines to

comply with Rule 1110.2 by offering them the choice of reducing the engines emissions to

specified limits, removing the engine from service, or replacing the engine with an electric motor.

Electrification is another approach to consider and is discussed along with other control options in

Section F of this chapter.
IV-8

1. Rich-Burn Engines

The BARCT emission limits for rich-burn engines not cyclically-loaded are based on the

current version (adopted December 1993) of Ventura County APCD's Rule 74.9, the Federal

Implementation Plan for the Sacramento area, and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management District's Rule 412. These NOx limits are 25 ppmv or 96 percent reduction for most

rich-burn engines, and 50 ppmv or 90 percent reduction for rich-burn engines using waste gases

as fuel. Best available control technology (BACT) determinations of the South Coast AQMD and

ARB's BACT Clearinghouse meet or exceed the BARCT limits.

The Ventura County source test data referenced earlier (page IV-2) indicates that about

65 percent of the tests (i.e., 623 out of 962 tests) on rich-burn engines operating on natural gas or

oil field gas met the BARCT NOx limit of 25 ppmv or 96 percent NOx reduction. These engines

used either NSCR type catalysts or prestratified charge controls. Engines using prestratified

charge controls met the limit less often (21 percent, or 32 out of 153 tests) than engines using

catalysts (73 percent, or 591 out of 809 tests). The controls for these rich-burn engines were

designed to meet a 50 ppmv or 90 percent reduction limit, not the 25 ppmv or 96 percent NOx

reduction limit as in the BARCT determination. Better NOx emission reduction performance can

be anticipated if controls are designed to meet a 25 (rather than 50) ppmv limit.

There is a separate BARCT NOx limit for rich-burn engines fueled by waste gases (e.g.,

sewage digester gas, landfill gas). This limit, 50 ppmv or 90 percent reduction, is the same as the

RACT limit for rich-burn engines. A review of source tests of rich-burn engines using waste

gases indicate a high percentage of the engines complied with a 50 ppmv NOx limit. In addition,

identical NOx limits are contained in Ventura County APCD’s Rule 74.9. Comparable limits are

included in IC engine rules for South Coast AQMD and Antelope Valley APCD. The waste gas

engines that were tested used prestratified charge controls because the application of NSCR to

waste gas fueled engines has often been unsuccessful. NSCR catalysts often have problems with

plugging and deactivation from impurities in waste gases. In order to use a catalyst, the waste gas

should be treated to remove these impurities. This gas treatment process could be a substantial

additional cost in controlling the emissions from this class of engines.

It is expected that the most popular control method used to meet the BARCT limits for

rich-burn engines not cyclically-loaded using fuels other than waste gases will be NSCR with

air/fuel ratio controllers. For engines using waste gases, the use of prestratified charge controls

are expected to be the most popular control method.

For cyclic rich burn engines, the discussion and recommendations for RACT NOx limits

apply for BARCT NOx limits as well. Due to the difficulties and costs associated with controlling

the emissions from these engines, the NOx limit is set at 300 ppmv which is based on San Joaquin

Valley Unified APCD’s Rule 4701. We recommend that the districts require the replacement of

these engines at the end of their useful life with prime movers having lower NOx emissions. It is

expected that this limit will be met by keeping the engines properly maintained and tuned, and by

leaning the air/fuel mixture. However, there are situations where it has been feasible to control
IV-9

the emissions from these engines. A review of 34 source tests on 26 cyclic rich burn engines

fueled by low-sulfur field gas and driving air-balanced oil well pumps in Santa Barbara County

APCD demonstrated that all engines were able to meet the 25 ppm NOx limit by using NSCR. In

the case of the “leaned-out”engines fueled by treated field gas and driving beam-balanced and

crank-balanced oil wells, the source tests indicate that 81 percent of the source tests met the limit.

In setting limits for cyclic rich-burn engines fueled by field gas, we recommend that air districts

consider whether the field gas is “sweet” or if it is cost effective to treat the field gas to reduce the

moisture and sulfur content and enable the usage of emissions controls. Districts should also

consider the cost effectiveness of electrification of these oil pumps to reduce emissions. As

mentioned previously, South Coast AQMD in Rule 1110.2 requires owner/operators of stationary

engines to reduce the emissions to meet limits, remove the engines from service, or replace the

engines with electric motors. Even in remote areas without access to the power grid, South Coast

AQMD requires owner/operators of oil pumps to treat the field gas which fuels an IC engine

genset with NSCR after-treatment. The genset supplies power to motors driving the beambalanced and crank-balanced oil pumps contiguous to the genset.

For engines not cyclically-loaded, NSCR can be used to meet the 25 ppmv NOx limit by

increasing the size of the catalyst bed along with the amount of active materials in the catalysts,

and more precise air/fuel ratio controllers. In addition, closer tolerances, more frequent

inspections, an increase in catalyst replacement frequency, and monitoring of a greater number of

parameters under the facility’s inspection and monitoring plan could be required to maintain the

higher performance required to meet the BARCT limits. The inspection and monitoring plan is

discussed in Section I, Inspection and Monitoring Program.

2. Lean-Burn Engines

The BARCT emission limits for four-stroke spark-ignited lean-burn engines and twostroke spark-ignited engines rated at 100 horsepower or greater are based on the current version

(adopted December 1993) of Ventura County APCD's Rule 74.9, the Federal Implementation

Plan for the Sacramento area, and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management

District's Rule 412.

We have specified a 65 ppmv or 90 percent reduction level as the BARCT NOx limit.

This level is identical to the level in the Federal Implementation Plan for the Sacramento area, and

is also identical to the level found in Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD's Rule 412. This level is

less effective than the current Ventura County APCD's Rule 74.9 NOx limit of 45 ppmv or 94

percent control. However, the Ventura County APCD's limit includes an efficiency correction

that can allow a NOx ppmv limit higher than 45. Our determination does not include an

efficiency correction. In addition, only 40 percent of the Ventura County APCD’s source tests

(143 of 358 tests) showed compliance with a 45 ppmv or 94 percent control NOx limit. On the

other hand, the Ventura County APCD’s source test data show that approximately 70 percent of

the source tests (249 of 358) for lean-burn engines met a NOx limit of 65 ppmv or 90 percent

reduction. It is interesting to note that at the time of these source tests these engines were

required to meet a less effective limit of 125 ppmv or 80 percent reduction under a previous

version of Rule 74.9. The NOx reduction performance for engines using controls designed to
IV-10

meet the BARCT limit is expected to be better than that indicated by the Ventura County source

test data.

It is expected that the most common control method used to meet the BARCT emission

limit for four-stroke spark-ignited lean burn engines and two-stroke spark-ignited engines rated at

100 horsepower or more will be the retrofit of low-emission combustion controls. Other

techniques may also be used to supplement these retrofits, such as ignition system modifications

and engine derating. For engines that do not have low-emission combustion modification kits

available, SCR may be used as an alternative to achieve the BARCT emission limits.

For two-stroke engines rated less than 100 horsepower, the discussion and

recommendations for RACT NOx limits apply for BARCT NOx limits as well. There are

relatively few of these small engines located in the state. In addition, emission controls for these

engines are not available, and the cost to develop a retrofit for a limited number of engines could

be expensive. As a result, the only cost-effective way to control emissions from the small twostroke engines is by properly maintaining and tuning these engines which includes replacing oilbath air filters with dry units and cleaning the air/fuel mixer and muffler on a regular basis. Recent

source test data indicate that almost 90 percent of the small two-stroke gas field engines tested

met the NOx limit of 200 ppmv. We recommend that the districts require the replacement of

these engines at the end of their useful life with prime movers having lower NOx emissions.

E. Common Limits

Both the RACT and BARCT determinations include identical limits for CO and VOC.

The basis for these common emissions limits is discussed below. Other elements that are identical

include alternatives to controlling engines and exemptions which are addressed in Sections F and

G.

1. CO Limits

The determination’s limit for CO is 4,500 ppmv. This 4,500 ppmv limit is based on the

highest CO limit in any district IC engine rule in California. Most districts have a 2,000 ppmv CO

limit. The 4,500 ppmv CO limit in the determination was chosen since the main concern for

emissions from IC engines has been on NOx, and some controls for NOx tend to increase CO

emissions. The 4,500 ppmv CO limit should allow the determination's NOx limits to be met more

easily and economically. In most cases, the determination’s NOx limits will be met either by the

use of three-way catalysts or a leaner air/fuel mixture. Either of these techniques should readily

achieve a CO level of 4,500 ppmv.

In general, vehicles have been found to be the major source of CO in areas that are

nonattainment for CO, and stationary sources do not contribute significantly to the nonattainment

status. However, areas that are nonattainment for CO should assess the impact of stationary

engines on CO violations, and should consider adopting a lower CO limit than 4,500 ppmv.

2. VOC Limits
IV-11

VOC limits are included in the determination because VOC emissions, like NOx emissions,

are precursors to the formation of ozone and particulate matter. VOCs are hydrocarbon

compounds that exist in the ambient air and are termed “volatile” because they vaporize readily at

ambient temperature and pressure. In addition, many VOCs are considered to be toxic and are

classified as Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) or Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP). For stationary

engines, the mass and impact of VOC emissions is lower than NOx emissions. However, several

NOx controls tend to increase VOC emissions. The determination's VOC limits are designed to

assure that VOC increases from NOx controls do not become excessive.

In addition, the determination's VOC limits help assure that engines are properly

maintained. If an engine is misfiring or has other operational problems, VOC emissions can be

excessive.

The determination’s limit for VOC is 250 ppmv for rich-burn engines and

750 ppmv for lean-burn engines. The 250 ppmv limit for rich-burn engines is readily achievable

through the use of three-way catalysts or other NOx control methods involving leaning of the

air/fuel mixture. A higher limit is for lean-burn engines, as VOC concentrations tend to increase

when such engines are operated at the extremely lean levels needed to achieve the determination's

NOx limits. These VOC limits are equal to the highest limits included in any district IC engine

rule in California.

In cases where a district requires further VOC reductions to achieve the ambient air

quality standards, the adoption of VOC limits more effective than those in the determination

should be considered. More effective VOC limits on lean-burn engines can be achieved through

the use of oxidation catalysts without impacting NOx reduction performance. Oxidation catalysts

reduce VOC and CO emissions from lean-burn engines. See Appendix B for more information on

oxidation catalysts.

F. Other Control Options

In addition to combustion modifications, exhaust controls, and use of alternative fuels,

other control options can be used to meet the RACT and BARCT limits.

All RACT and BARCT limits can also be met by replacement of the IC engine with an

electric motor or a new controlled engine. Although engine replacement does not qualify as

“retrofit,” the California Clean Air Act provides that districts can take this approach under “every

feasible measure” if districts are having difficulty attaining the State ambient air quality standard.

In the case of an engine repower, the new controlled engine would use combustion modifications,

exhaust controls, or an alternative fuel similar to an existing retrofitted engine. However, since

the engine is new, greater design flexibility is usually available to engineer a more efficient engine

and effective control package.

For some engines, another option for meeting the RACT and BARCT limits is to convert

a rich-burn engine into a lean-burn engine, or a lean-burn engine into a rich-burn engine. In the

case of engines converted to lean-burn, improved engine efficiencies may reduce overall costs
IV-12

compared to controlling the rich-burn engine. In the case of engines converted to rich-burn, the

rich-burn controls may be much lower in cost than the lean-burn controls.

It is the intent of this determination to maximize emission reductions. Consequently,

owner/operators of rich-burn engines are not allowed to convert these engines to a lean-burn

configuration in order to be subject to the less effective NOx emission limits. For rich-burn to

lean-burn conversions or vice versa, the more stringent rich-burn NOx limits apply. For instance,

in the case of a rich-burn engine converting to a lean-burn unit, the rich-burn limits would apply

since emission reductions would be maximized. Likewise, the rich-burn NOx limits would apply

for a lean-burn to rich-burn conversion. It should be noted that districts may consider these types

of conversions to be modifications, which may fall under New Source Review and trigger best

available control technology and offset requirements. We would recommend consultation with

the appropriate district prior to undertaking one of these conversions.

In addition, market-based programs allowing the buying and selling of emission reduction

credits are another approach that can be used to comply with BARCT requirements. Pursuant to

Health and Safety Code, Section 40920.6.(c), a source subject to BARCT may retire marketable

emission reduction credits in lieu of a BARCT requirement. Health and Safety Code, Section

40920.6.(d) allows alternative means of producing equivalent emission reductions at an equal or

less dollar amount per ton reduced, including the use of emission reduction credits, for any

stationary source that has demonstrated compliance costs exceeding an established costeffectiveness value per unit of pollutant reduced for any adopted rule.

In the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), sources of NOx and

SOx that emit greater than 4 tons per year are regulated through a separate market trading

program, the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market or RECLAIM. RECLAIM allows these

sources to achieve equivalent or greater emission reductions as would have been required

otherwise under BARCT. Excess reductions from one RECLAIM facility can be traded to other

RECLAIM facilities or permanently retired for an air quality benefit. Stationary internal

combustion engines that are regulated under RECLAIM are exempt from the District’s NOx/SOx

limits. However, these sources must still comply with the limits for other regulated pollutants

covered under district rules. Therefore, stationary engines regulated under RECLAIM for NOx

and SOx would still need to comply with the CO and VOC limits specified in Rule 1110.2.

G. Exemptions

1. Engines Used During Disasters or Emergencies

Engines are exempt from the determination when used during a disaster or state of

emergency, provided that they are being used to preserve or protect property, human life, or

public health. Such disasters or states of emergency can be officially declared by local, State, or

Federal officials or by an individual if it is determined that property, human life, or public health

could be adversely affected without the operation of the applicable engine. Reasons for including

this exemption are obvious. If controls fail on an engine used during a disaster, without this

exemption the operator is faced with fines for noncompliance if operations continue, or the loss of
IV-13

property, human life, or public health if the engine is shut down. Another situation where this

exemption would apply would be the operation of an engine where the emission controls result in

a degradation in the power output or performance. It would be considered acceptable to

shutdown or disengage the emission controls if that action increases the engine power output and

thereby would either prevents or decrease the possibility of the loss of property, human life, or

public health which would otherwise occur with the derated engine. Exempting engines under

these conditions eliminates the operator dilemma of choosing between the protection of air quality

and the more immediate concerns of protecting human life, public health, and property.

2. Portable Engines

A portable engine is defined as one which is designed and capable of being carried or

moved from one location to another according to Health and Safety Code, Section 41751. An

engine is not considered portable if the engine is attached to a foundation or will reside at the

same location for more than 12 consecutive months. This determination exempts portable engines

whether they are registered under the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program or

with a district. The statewide program is authorized under Health and Safety Code Sections

41750 through 41755 which require the ARB to develop a registration program and emissions

limits for portable engines (see Chapter VII). Owners or operators of portable engines who

decide to take part in this voluntary registration and control program are exempt from meeting the

requirements of district rules and regulations.

3. Nonroad or Offroad Engines

To avoid potential conflicts with federal law, the determination exempts nonroad engines.

Under the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, districts are prohibited from adopting

emission standards or control technology requirements for all nonroad engines. However, for

some categories of nonroad engines, control can be delegated to the ARB. See Chapter VII for

further details. It should be noted that nonroad engines used in stationary applications are not

exempt from this determination. In addition, engines used in nonroad applications are not

considered “nonroad” if the engine remains at a location for more than 12 consecutive months or

a shorter period of time for an engine located at a seasonal source.

4. Engines Operated No More Than 200 Hours Per Year

Engines that are not used for distributed generation of electrical power are exempt if they

operate 200 hours or fewer per year. Most districts specify 200 hours as the limit for the lowusage exemption in their IC engine rules. Engines in this category are required to have a

nonresettable fuel meter and a nonresettable elapsed operating time meter. The owner or

operator may use an alternative method or device to measure fuel usage provided that the

alternative is approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer.

Distributed generation refers to the practice where an IC engine is operated to produce

electrical power, and this power is either fed into the electric utility grid or displaces utility

electric power purchased by an industrial or commercial facility. An example of the latter
IV-14

situation is called “peak shaving” where an IC engine genset is operated during periods of high

electrical rates, and the electrical power produced by a genset is cheaper than the power from the

grid. Distributed generation also refers to the operation of an IC engine that is part of a

mechanical drive system (e.g., water pump, conveyor belt) consisting of at least one IC engine

and one electric motor, where the system can be powered either by the electric motor(s) or the IC

engine(s).

IC engines used for distributed generation are not exempt, regardless of the number of

hours of operation per year. The reason for this restriction is to assure that exempt engines will

not operate simultaneously on some of the highest ozone days of the year (see the following

discussion on the emergency standby engine exemption).

5. Emergency Standby Engines

The exemption for emergency standby engines is limited to engines operating no more

than 100 hours per year, excluding emergencies or unscheduled power outages. Emergency

standby engines are typically operated for less than an hour each week to verify readiness.

Additional operation may be periodically required for maintenance operations. A limit of

100 hours per year allows a reasonable number of hours for readiness testing, maintenance and

repairs. Engines in this category are required to have a nonresettable fuel meter and a

nonresettable elapsed operating time meter. The owner or operator may use an alternative

method or device to measure fuel usage provided that the alternative is approved by the Air

Pollution Control Officer.

The definition of emergency standby engine excludes engines that operate for any other

purpose than emergencies, unscheduled power outages, periodic maintenance, periodic readiness

testing, readiness testing during and after repairs, and scheduled power outages for maintenance

and repairs on the primary power system. The purpose of these limitations is to assure that these

engines do not operate during nonemergencies to displace or supplement utility grid power for

economic reasons such as distributed generation, “peak shaving,” or as part of an interruptible

power contract or voluntary load reduction program with an electric power utility.

The current electric utility restructuring that is occurring in California changes the pricing

of electricity and the incentives applicable to commercial and industrial facilities. Under

restructuring, commercial and industrial customers are able to purchase electricity on the spot

market. Spot prices are relatively low during the night, but much higher when the demand for

power is at a peak. This peak is typically on hot summer days, when some of the highest ozone

concentrations of the year are recorded.

Under restructuring, commercial and industrial facilities have the potential to generate and

sell power from their emergency generator engines, and send this power to the electrical grid.

Restructuring also allows such facilities to bid a reduction in their electrical demand, and operate

emergency generator engines to supplement their grid power purchases. Thus, if the price of

electricity is high enough there is an economic incentive for a facility to operate its own
IV-15

emergency generators, and either feed this power into the electrical grid or reduce the facility's

demand for power.

Because all facilities within a district simultaneously experience these high electrical prices,

the potential is significant for the simultaneous operation of a large number of engine generators,

even if such usage is limited to only a few hours per year. If a large number of facilities in a

district operate their emergency generators simultaneously, the increase in NOx emissions within

the district could be substantial. These increases would occur on the hottest days of the year,

which are typically the highest ozone days of the year. Thus, unless the nonemergency operation

of emergency generators is restricted, the potential to impact peak ozone concentrations could be

significant.

To minimize this impact on air quality, the determination prohibits the nonemergency

operation of emergency engines to generate electrical or mechanical power so as to reduce a

facility’s electrical power consumption from the grid or to realize an economic benefit. Examples

of the latter would include operation under an interruptible power contract or voluntary load

reduction program, or for purposes of “peak shaving.” In addition, emergency engines cannot be

used to supply electrical power to the grid or for distributed generation.

6. Other Exemptions

Other exemptions may be justified under certain circumstances, but the inclusion of any

additional exemption in a district rule should be fully justified. Before an exemption is added, the

district should also investigate whether alternative, less effective controls should be required for a

class of engines instead of totally exempting such engines from all control or testing requirements.

Factors that should be considered include the need to adopt a RACT or BARCT level of control

to meet air quality plan or Health and Safety Code requirements, and cost-effectiveness for a

particular engine category.

H. Compliance Dates

For engines subject to RACT or BARCT limits, an application for a permit to construct

should be submitted and deemed complete by the district within one year of district rule adoption.

Final compliance is required within two years of district rule adoption. This time period should be

sufficient to evaluate control options, place purchase orders, install equipment, and perform

compliance verification testing.

An additional year for final compliance may be provided for existing engines that will be

permanently removed without being replaced by another IC engine. In many cases, such an

operation may be nearing the end of its useful life, and it would not be cost-effective to retrofit the

engine with controls for only a year of operation. In addition, over the course of several years,

the cumulative emissions from the engine to be removed will be less than if this engine were

controlled. Although emissions are higher in the first year, lower emissions occur in all

subsequent years.
IV-16

A district adopting a BARCT level of control should consider modifying the compliance

schedule for engines that already meet RACT to provide additional time in certain cases to reduce

the financial burden on the engine owner or operator. For example, engines complying with a

RACT level of control through the use of a catalyst could be subject to an alternative compliance

schedule requiring the BARCT level of control when the catalyst is next replaced or 3 years,

whichever time period is shorter.

I. Inspection and Monitoring Program

It is the engine owner or operator's responsibility to demonstrate that an engine is

operated in continuous compliance with all applicable requirements. Each engine subject to

control is required to have an emission control plan describing how the engine will comply. To

reduce the paperwork for engine owners or operators, districts can accept an application to

construct as meeting the control plan requirements, as long as the application contains the

necessary information.

As part of the emission control plan, an inspection and monitoring plan is required. The

inspection and monitoring plan describes procedures and actions taken periodically to verify

compliance with the rule between required source tests and quarterly NOx monitoring. These

procedures and actions should include the monitoring of automatic combustion controls or

operational parameters to verify that values are within levels demonstrated by source testing to be

associated with compliance.

Examples of parameters that can be monitored in an inspection and monitoring program

include exhaust gas concentration, air/fuel ratio (air/fuel ratio control signal voltage for catalyst

systems), flow rate of the reducing liquid or gas added to the exhaust, exhaust temperature, inlet

manifold temperature, and inlet manifold pressure. For engines that are not required to use

continuous monitoring equipment, it is recommended that the inspection and monitoring plan

require periodic measurement of exhaust gas concentrations by a portable NOx monitor so that

engines can be maintained to produce low emissions on a continuous basis. Where feasible, the

portable NOx monitor should be used on a monthly basis. If a portable analyzer is used, it shall

be calibrated, maintained and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and

recommendations or with a protocol approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer. The Air

Pollution Control Officer shall specify what data is to be collected and the records to be kept as

part of the inspection and monitoring plan. Records of the data shall be retained for two years.

These requirements and recommendations are based on Ventura County APCD’s Rule

Effectiveness Study. One of the conclusions of the study was that most non-compliant engines can

come into compliance easily and quickly with minor adjustments. It also appears that compliance

can be significantly improved if more frequent inspections are performed. During the time period

when the study was conducted, the District's rule required quarterly inspections with portable

analyzers and an annual source test. To improve rule effectiveness, the rule was revised to change

the frequency of inspections with portable analyzers from quarterly to monthly, while the

announced source test frequency was decreased from once a year to once every two years.
IV-17

In addition, this study also found that engine operators often did not adjust engines to

optimal settings except for announced source tests and quarterly inspections. We recommend

that, during an initial source test, optimal settings are determined for engine operating parameters

affecting emissions. The inspection and monitoring program should require that these optimal

settings be frequently checked and maintained. In this fashion, emissions reductions should be

maximized.

J. Continuous Monitoring

Continuous monitoring of NOx and O2 are required for each stationary engine with a

brake horsepower rating equal to or greater than 1,000 that is permitted to operate more than

2,000 hours per year. This engine size and operating capacity is found in the SCAQMD's IC

engine rule, and was determined to be cost-effective. Continuous emissions monitoring systems

(CEMS) may be used to fulfill this requirement. Each district’s APCO may consider alternatives,

if adequate verification of the systems accuracy and performance is provided. One example of an

alternative would be a parametric emissions monitoring system (PEMS) which monitors selected

engine parameters and uses the values in calculating emissions concentrations of different

pollutants. Continuous monitoring data must be recorded and maintained for at least two years.

In the case of engines covered by Title V permits, the continuous monitoring data should

be retained for five years. Refer to the appropriate district’s Title V rule(s) to determine if there

are any additional monitoring requirements under Title V.

K. Source Testing/Quarterly Monitoring

Source testing of each engine subject to controls would be required every 24 months.

Alternatives to the specified ARB and U.S. EPA test methods which are shown to accurately

determine the concentration of NOx, VOC, and CO may be used upon the written approval of the

Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board and the Air Pollution Control Officer. In

addition, a portable NOx analyzer shall be used to take NOx emission readings to determine

compliance with the applicable NOx emission limits during any quarter in which a source test is

not performed. A NOx emission reading in excess of the limit shall not be considered a violation,

so long as the problem is corrected and a follow-up inspection is conducted within 15 days of the

initial inspection. The portable analyzer used to provide the emissions data shall be calibrated,

maintained and operated in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications and recommendations

or with a protocol approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer.

Typically, source testing of many other controlled sources is required every year.

However, for IC engines, source testing can be a significant expense, and allowing a longer period

between tests would assure that the cost of source testing would not be out of proportion to other

operating expenses. Extended source test periods normally are associated with operating out of

compliance for longer periods of time and increased emissions. However, the determination

requires quarterly monitoring with a portable NOx analyzer and the development and

implementation of a detailed inspection and monitoring program, which should provide
IV-18

verification that emission controls are operating properly and the IC engine is in compliance

between source tests.

According to one rule effectiveness study, "Phase III Rule Effectiveness Study, VCAPCD

Rule 74.9, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines," October 1, 1994, the frequency of noncompliance was greater for unannounced source tests than for annual or announced source tests

(5 of 22 compared to 1 in 11). One of the main reasons for this difference is that, based on

interviews with the engine owners or operators, in most cases portable emission analyzers are

used to tune engines for better emissions performance immediately before announced source tests

are performed. Based on this observation, we recommend that districts conduct unannounced

source tests so that engines will be maintained to produce low emissions on a continuous basis.

L. Records

Records of the hours of operation and type and quantities of fuel consumed each month

would also be required for each engine subject to controls or subject to limits on annual hours of

operation which includes emergency standby engines and engines operated less than 200 hours

annually. Installation of a nonresettable elapsed operating time meter is required on any sparkignited IC engine subject to the provisions of the determination. Fuel consumption will be

monitored by either installing a nonresettable fuel meter or an acceptable alternative approved by

the Air Pollution Control Officer. Owner/operators of stationary spark-ignited IC engines can

also propose alternative methods or techniques for estimating fuel consumption for the Air

Pollution Control Officer’s approval. An example of this latter alternative would be a fuel-use

monitoring plan as used in Santa Barbara County. Nonresettable fuel meters installed on

stationary spark-ignited internal combustion engines shall be calibrated periodically per the

manufacturer’s recommendation. For emergency standby engines, all hours of non-emergency

and emergency operation shall be recorded along with the fuel usage. These records would be

available for inspection at any time, and would be submitted annually to the district.

As previously noted, data is also collected and recorded as part of source testing, quarterly

monitoring, continuous monitoring and the inspection and monitoring programs where required.

All data taken as a result of continuous monitoring and inspection and monitoring programs shall

be maintained for a period of at least two years and made available for inspection by the Air

Pollution Control Officer or the Officer’s designee. Source test reports shall be submitted to the

Air Pollution Control Officer for review. Quarterly NOx readings by portable analyzers shall be

reported to the Air Pollution Control Officer or the Officer’s designee in a manner specified by the

Air Pollution Control Officer.

For engines subject to Title V permits, it is recommended that these records be retained

for five years and submitted as part of any Title V reporting requirements as necessary. Refer to

the appropriate district’s Title V rule(s).
V-1

V. COST AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS

This chapter reviews the costs and cost effectiveness associated with the installation of

emission controls on stationary spark-ignited engines. The cost estimates and cost effectiveness

numbers provided here are general in nature and apply to generic engines without consideration of

the engine application and local or site-specific conditions or situations which could have a

significant cost impact. In developing rules, districts are encouraged to perform their own cost

analysis and to obtain contemporary cost data from emission control manufacturers, contractors,

industry sources and associations, government agencies, and owner/operators of stationary

engines which have been retrofitted with emission controls. This approach will ensure that the

cost analysis has a greater degree of accuracy.

The cost of NOx controls for reciprocating IC engines can vary widely depending on the

individual site, size of engine, fuel type, type of engine, operational characteristics of the engine,

and other parameters. For engines requiring the installation or replacement of major pieces of

equipment, such as catalysts, engine heads, and turbochargers, the largest expense is the capital

cost of controls. The replacement cost for catalysts can also be a major expense.

When an engine is controlled, greater care must be taken to assure that it is properly

maintained, and thus maintenance costs may increase.

Fuel consumption may be increased by several percent for some of the controls. 

However, for some uncontrolled engines, modifications that lean the air/fuel ratio may decrease

fuel consumption.

Depending on the existing equipment and requirements, other costs associated with

achieving the determination’s requirements may include the purchase and installation of hour and

fuel meters; purchase, installation, and operation of emissions monitors; source testing; permit

fees; and labor and equipment costs associated with the inspection and monitoring program.

A. Costs for RACT/BARCT

The cost estimates in Table V-1 list the capital (including installation) cost for several of

the most commonly used control techniques and technologies. Control techniques such as air/fuel

ratio changes or ignition system improvements are not listed in Table V-1. These techniques are

usually part of a collection of techniques such as a “low-emission combustion” controls and

therefore are included in those cost estimates already shown in Table V-1. However, the benefits

and estimated costs of each separate technique is listed in Appendix B. The estimated costs

shown in Table V-1 are considered general costs because of the wide variation in engine

configuration and application used by the various industries in California as well as the variation in

engine specifications within a series of engines produced by a manufacturer.
V-2

Table V-1

Cost Estimates for ICE Control Techniques and Technologies

Horsepower

Range

Ign.

Timing

Retarding

PreStratified

Charge

NSCR1

W/O AFRC

AFRC2SCR3 Low-Emission

Combustion

Retrofit

Electrification4

50-150 $300 $10,000 $13,500 $4,200 $45,000 $14,000 $28,000

151-300 $450 $23,000 $18,500 $5,000 $45,000 $24,000 $49,000

301-500 $500 $30,000 $20,500 $5,000 $60,000 $42,000 $79,000

501-1,000 $800 $36,000 $30,500 $5,300 $149,000 $63,000 $177,000

1001-1,500 $900 $42,000 $5,300 $185,000 $40,000-

256,000

1501-2,000 $1,000 $47,000 $6,500 $40,000-

256,000

2,001-3,000 $1,400 $40,000-

256,000

1. NSCR is an abbreviation for Nonselective Catalytic Reduction

2. AFRC is an abbreviation for air/fuel ratio controller

3. SCR is an abbreviation for Selective Catalytic Reduction. The costs are based on Urea injection, with parametric emissions

monitoring system, and catalyst sized for 96 percent NOx conversion for lean burn engines.

4. The costs for electrification assume the units will be located relatively close to a power grid. If this is not the case, a cost of

$5,000 to $10,000 may be incurred to have the local utility company install the appropriate power outlet for the motor to the

local utility grid.

The cost estimates shown in Table V-1 are a mixture of quotes and extrapolations of cost

from information provided by industry sources, associations, local governments, and the U. S.

EPA. It also includes an estimated cost for replacing engines in various horsepower ranges with

an electric motor. Electrification may be a consideration as an alternative for internal combustion

engines from 50 to 500 horsepower. Beyond that range, modification and installation costs may

become so extensive that this approach may not be cost effective. The costs for electrification

assume the units will be located relatively close to a power grid. If this is not the case, a cost of

$5,000 to $10,000 may be incurred to have the local utility company install the appropriate power

outlet for the motor to the local utility grid. In some utility districts, the cost for connecting to

the power grid may be waived or refunded if the monthly energy usage matches or approach the

cost to connect to the grid.

B. Cost-Effectiveness

Table V-2 lists the estimated cost-effectiveness for the control techniques and technology

listed in Table V-1. It should be noted that these costs are estimates and may vary according to

site-specific parameters, situations, and conditions. For purposes of this cost analysis, it was

assumed that the engines operated at rated load for 2,000 hours per year. The costs for the

different control technologies include the capital and installation costs. In the case of ignition

timing retard, it was assumed that the ignition timing was retarded during the engine’s normal
V-3

Table V-2

Cost-Effectiveness Estimates for ICE Control Techniques and Technologies5

Control Horse Power Capital Installation O & M Annualized Cost-Effectiveness

Range Cost ($) Cost($) Cost($/year) Cost ($/year) ($/ton of NOx Reduced)

Ignition Timing Retard (@ 15% reduction)3

50 - 150 N/A N/A 4,700 4,700 7,300

151 - 300 N/A N/A 3,400 3,400 2,100

301 - 500 N/A N/A 2,900 2,900 1,100

501 - 1000 N/A N/A 3,200 3,200 600

1001 - 1700 N/A N/A 3,300 3,300 100

Prestratified Charge (@ 80% reduction)2,3

50 - 150 10,000 N/A 1,000 2,700 800

151 - 300 23,000 N/A 1,500 5,300 700

301 - 500 30,000 N/A 2,000 6,900 500

501 - 1000 36,000 N/A 2,500 8,400 300

1001 - 1700 47,000 N/A 3,000 10,700 200

Nonselective Catalytic Reduction w/o AFRC (@ 96% reduction)3

50 - 150 11,000 2,500 6,000 8,200 2,100

151 - 300 16,000 2,500 6,700 9,000 900

301 - 500 18,000 2,500 7,700 10,000 600

501 - 1000 28,000 2,500 10,200 13,000 400

2500 44,000 3,000 17,800 18,000 300

Selective Catalytic Reduction for Lean Burn(@ 96% reduction)1,3

50 - 150 32,000 13,000 20,000 27,000 7,300

151 - 300 32,000 13,000 26,000 33,000 4,400

301 - 500 43,000 17,000 35,000 36,000 2,900

501 - 1000 116,000 33,000 78,000 78,000 2,900

1001 - 1500 132,000 53,000 117,000 148,000 2,400

Low-Emission Combustion Retrofit (@ 80% reduction)2,3,4

50 - 150 14,000 N/A N/A 2,300 1,100

150 - 300 24,000 N/A N/A 3,900 1,000

300 – 500 42,000 N/A N/A 6,900 500

500 - 1000 63,000 N/A N/A 10,250 400

1000 – 1500 40,000-256,000 N/A N/A 6,500-41,700 100-900

Electrification3

50 - 150 14,000 13,600 unknown 4,600 1,100

150 - 300 24,000 25,300 unknown 7,700 900

300 - 500 40,000 38,800 unknown 12,900 900

500 - 1000 90,000 87,300 unknown 29,000 1,100

1 The cost for the SCR is based on Urea injection, with parametric emissions monitoring system, and catalyst sized for 96 percent NOx

conversion.

2 The cost for fuel is not included in any calculation except for ignition timing retard.

3 The annualized cost do not include local costs such as permit fees, or cost for compliance assurance inspections or source testing.

4 Not Applicable (N/A). The costs for a “low-emission combustion” engine or retrofit kit assume engine replacement or kit installation

during the normal rebuild or replacement cycle of the existing engine.

5 The cost effectiveness analysis is performed assuming that the engines are run at rated power (100% load) for 2,000 hours annually. 

This is equivalent to a capacity factor of approximately 0.23.
V-4

tune-up. Consequently, there are no installation costs associated with this technique. This table

also includes the expenses associated with additional maintenance and parts for the emission

control, and the cost of additional or reduced fuel usage as a result of the control technology. In

some applications, stationary engines are used to run compressors or generators. If the

compressor or generator and the engine are an integral unit, then any additional costs incurred as

a result of this integration should be included in the control equipment cost. Those additional

costs are not reflected in the table.

For each control technique or technology, the cost effectiveness is based on an estimated

percent of emission reduction of NOx from an uncontrolled engine. Some technologies, such as

NSCR, can be used in stages to reduce emissions by having the exhaust gas flow through a series

of catalyst modules. In the case of ignition timing retard, fuel usage may increase by as much as 5

percent. The cost for the increased fuel use is included in the annualized cost shown in Table V-2

under that particular option. None of the other technologies are expected to increase fuel

consumption drastically enough to contribute significantly to a cost increase. In fact, prestratified

charge and low-emission combustion technologies are expected to decrease fuel consumption

because they result in a leaner burning engine. Likewise, operational and maintenance costs with

the ignition timing retarded engine and the prestratified charged engine is not expected to increase

significantly. The maintenance cost for the SCR system is associated with the use of urea and the

maintenance of the SCR components, not necessarily with the engine directly.

Some technologies, such as “low-emission combustion”, have nominal emissions limits

specified by the manufacturer. The costs for a low-emission combustion engine or retrofit kit

assume engine replacement or kit installation during the normal rebuild or replacement cycle of

the existing engine. By exchanging the older engine or installing a low-emission combustion kit

during an engine’s regularly scheduled rebuild or replacement time allows a majority of the

installation cost to be treated as a normal maintenance cost and not a cost directly incurred to

achieve emission reduction. Because of the wide range of low-emission combustion

configurations for engines above 1,000 horsepower, those costs are listed as a range. Engines

larger than 1,000 horsepower should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The cost-effectiveness estimates were derived by first estimating annual costs for each

control. The annualized cash flow method was applied to the pre-tax capital and installation costs

using a nominal interest rate (including inflation) of 10 percent over a 10 year life. To this

annualized cost were added the estimated additional annual fuel (where applicable) cost, plus

operation and maintenance cost attributable to the control method. This sum yields the total

annual cost which is listed as the “Annualized Cost” in Table V-2. It is assumed that the engines

operate 2,000 hours annually at full load. The cost effectiveness for the emissions controls on

engines operating fewer hours per year and/or at lower loads will be higher.

Secondly, NOx reductions were estimated. The process used to determine reductions

included selecting typical NOx emission rates from uncontrolled engines in each size category

listed in Table V-2. Next, we estimated annual NOx emissions, and annual NOx emission

reductions for each control method based on the percent NOx reductions listed for each control

type in Table V-2. The cost-effectiveness is then calculated by dividing the “Annualized Cost” by
V-5

the annual emission reductions. It should be pointed out that some of these control methods

could result in reductions of other pollutants and/or an increase in fuel economy, which would be

additional benefits.

It should be noted that the cost-effectiveness for prestratified charge (PSC) versus NSCR

is very competitive in terms of pollutant reduced per dollar spent. In fact, if the cost of an air to

fuel ratio controller is included with the cost of the NSCR, it becomes less cost-effective than the

PSC. Also, the operation and maintenance cost for NSCR includes catalyst replacement after five

years of operation. For lean burn engines, SCR is a very effective NOx reduction technology, but

it is also relatively expensive for lean-burn engines when compared to a low-emission combustion

retrofit which is more cost effective.

As Table V-2 shows, cost-effectiveness for the selected technologies is equal to or less

than $2,500 per ton of NOx reduced, with the exception of Ignition Timing Retard (ITR) for

engines with horsepower rating below 150, and SCR on engines with horsepower ratings below

1000. The higher cost-effectiveness for the ITR engines below 150 horsepower is due to the

expected increase in fuel use. However, the cost-effectiveness for all of the controls listed are

well below the $24,000 per ton bench mark used in this document and by some of the air quality

districts. The installed and annualized costs for SCR are the highest in Table V-2. As mentioned

previously, each engine site has to be considered on an individual basis along with the

characteristics of each control type when considering emission reduction technologies.

Electrification cost-effectiveness is also estimated in Table V-2 for a range of engines up

to 3000 horsepower in size. Below 500 horsepower, the installed costs associated with

electrification are less than the installed cost for an equivalent internal combustion engine. 

Between 500 and 1000 horsepower, installed costs for electrification are comparable with that of

an internal combustion engine. For engines larger than 1000 horsepower, electrification becomes

very expensive with the primary advantage being that NOx emissions are reduced 100 percent

although emissions from electrical power generating power plants will increase slightly.

C. Other Costs

The previous tables, for the most part, have covered the capital, operating, and

maintenance costs for controls. Other expenses may also be encountered to comply with the

determination. In the case of hour meters and fuel meters, many engines already have such

measuring devices, so there would be no additional cost. For engines using SCR, often the cost

of a continuous NOx monitor is included in the cost of controls.

This determination requires the use of an hour meter on exempt emergency standby

engines operating fewer than 100 hours per year. In addition, many districts will likely require the

use of fuel and hour meters for recordkeeping and compliance verification purposes. For

completeness, the following information on these costs is provided as follows. Hour meters

typically cost between $30 and $80 each, while a fuel meter with an accuracy of plus or minus

three percent can range in cost from about $340 up to $4,500 depending on the manufacturer,
V-6

fuel type, and fuel flow rate. A meter for gaseous fuel, such as natural gas, is more expensive

than one for liquid fuels because gaseous fuel meters must compensate for pressure and

temperature.

The determination also requires the installation of an emissions monitoring system for

engines rated 1,000 brake horsepower and greater and permitted to operate more than

2,000 hours per year. Costs of such a system vary depending on whether continuous emissions

monitors are used or parametric monitoring is employed. The capital and installation cost of a

continuous emission monitor ranges from $25,000 to $100,000, and a parametric system ranges

from $25,000 to $40,000. The annual operating and maintenance costs (per engine) are estimated

to be $7,500 for a continuous emission monitoring system, and $2,000 for a parametric emissions

monitoring system. Costs are also associated with periodic source testing which is required to

determine an engine’s compliance with the emission limits. The cost of a source test is about

$3,000 per engine using a reference method such as ARB Method 100. Costs are less if multiple

engines are tested at the same time.

As part of the inspection and maintenance requirements, it is recommended that exhaust

emissions be periodically checked with a hand-held portable analyzer. The cost of a hand-held

portable analyzer is about $10,000 to $15,000. Many engine operators who perform their own

maintenance and maintain several engines already use portable analyzers. Smaller operators

generally contract out engine maintenance, and nearly all maintenance contractors already have

analyzers. Thus, in most cases, requiring periodic checks with an analyzer is not expected to

increase costs significantly.

D. Incremental Costs and Cost-Effectiveness

New requirements for the adoption of rules and regulations were passed by the State

Legislature in 1995. These requirements, found in Health and Safety Code Section 40920.6,

apply to districts when adopting BARCT rules or feasible measures. Specifically, when adopting

such rules, districts must perform an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis among the various

control options. Incremental cost-effectiveness data represent the added cost to achieve an

incremental emission reduction between two control options. Districts are allowed to consider

incremental cost-effectiveness in the rule adoption process. 

When performing incremental cost-effectiveness analyses, in some cases an uncontrolled

baseline may be appropriate. Table V-3 summarizes an incremental cost-effectiveness comparison

for an uncontrolled baseline. For example, the costs for controlling an uncontrolled engine with

the application of prestratified charge controls is estimated, along with the costs for replacing the

engine with an electric motor. Emission reductions for application of these two
V-7

Table V-3

Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Estimates for ICE Control Techniques and Technologies

Engine Type Control Comparison Horsepower

Incremental

NOX Reduction

 (tons/year)

Incremental NOX

Cost-Effectiveness

($/ton of NOX Removed)

Rich-Burn

From Pre-Stratified

Charge to NSCR (96%)

From Pre-Stratified

Charge to Electrification

From NSCR to

Electrification

50-150

150-300

300-500

500-1000

50-150

150-300

300-500

500-1000

50-150

150-300

300-500

500-1000

0.7

1.7

2.9

9.5

0.9

2.2

3.6

7.1

0.2

0.4

0.7

1.6

7,700

2,200

1,100

500

2,200

1,100

1,700

2,900

(21,200)

(3,000)

4,000

10,100

Lean Burn

From Low-Emission

Combustion to SCR

(96%)

From Low-Emission

Combustion to

Electrification

50-150

150-300

300-500

500-1000

50-150

150-300

300-500

500-1000

0.4

0.8

3.3

6.6

0.9

2.2

3.6

3.6

58,900

35,100

8,800

10,300

2,700

1,800

1,700

2,400

different control methods to an uncontrolled engine are also estimated. The incremental costeffectiveness is determined by dividing the difference in costs by the difference in emission

reductions. The Table V-3 estimates were developed from the cost effectiveness analysis

summarized in Tables V-2. For rich-burn engines, it was assumed that the prestratified charge

technology would achieve an 80 percent NOx reduction and the NSCR control technology would
V-8

achieve a NOx reduction performance of 96 percent control. Both of these technologies were

compared against electrification as well as each other. The emissions reduction associated with

electrification was assumed to be 100 percent. For lean-burn engines, incremental costeffectiveness analyses compared low-emission combustion to electrification and SCR

technologies. The results are included in Table V-3. The numbers in parentheses shown in Table

V-3 indicates a cost saving per incremental ton of NOx reduced for the latter technology when

compared to the former technology.

Districts that adopt a BARCT level of control for IC engines may have already required a

RACT level of control for these engines. Table V-4 summarizes data from Ventura County

APCD. Its provides incremental cost-effectiveness estimates for the case where a RACT level of

control has already been installed (i.e., baseline is RACT such as prestratified charge or NSCR

designed to 90 percent control). In addition the control equipment is either modified or replaced

to meet BARCT limits (i.e., NSCR with 96 percent control). It should be noted that Ventura

APCD’s analysis was performed for lean-burn engines reducing NOx emissions to 45 ppm or

achieving reductions of 94 percent as opposed to our BARCT limits of 65 ppm or 90 percent. 

The base NOx emission limits for this analysis are identical to our RACT NOx limits.

Incremental cost-effectiveness values should be used to determine if the added cost for

a more effective control option is reasonable when compared to the additional emission reductions

that would be achieved by the more effective control option. Historically, when determining costeffectiveness, districts have estimated the costs and emission reductions associated with

controlling uncontrolled sources. This latter method is sometimes called "absolute" costeffectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness should not be compared directly to a costeffectiveness threshold that was developed for absolute cost-effectiveness analysis. Incremental

cost-effectiveness calculations, by design, yield values that can be significantly greater than the

values from absolute cost-effectiveness calculations. Direct comparisons may make the costeffectiveness of an economic and effective alternative seems exceedingly expensive.
V-9

Table V-4

Incremental Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Summary for Application of BARCT to RACT

Controlled Engines1

Engine/ Size Number Reduction Emissions Capital O&M Cost-Effectiveness

Control Range of Engines Needed Reduction Costs Costs ($/ton)3 ($/ton, adjusted 

 (HP) (%) (tons/yr)2 ($) ($/yr) to 1999 dollars)

Rich-burn

 From NSCR (90%/50 ppm) to improved NSCR (96%/25 ppm)

100-200 6 36 2.93 9,185 1,888 9,300 9,740

225 1 22 0.37 9,185 1,888 8,200 8,590

412 2 25 0.79 18,335 1,673 10,000 10,470

625 1 19 0.79 18,260 2,399 6,000 6,280

700-800 3 50 6.27 18,260 2,399 2,300 2,410

1250 3 34 5.85 18,260 2,399 3,300 3,460

 From PSC (90%/50 ppm) to NSCR (96%/25 ppm)

300 3 50 7.84 10,600 1,673 1,300 1,360

330 3 53 0.62 10,600 1,673 17,0004 17,800

Lean-burn

 From SCR (80%/125 ppm) to improved SCR (94%/45 ppm)

660 2 62 14.81 105,000- 15,000 3,800- 3,980-

 346,500 7,900 8,270

 From Low-Emission Combustion (80%/125 ppm) to added SCR (94%/45 ppm)

1108 8 29 39.38 105,000- 15,000 6,300- 6,600-

 346,000 13,000 13,610

1. Reference: Ventura County APCD Staff Report for Rule 74.9, December 1993

2. Based on actual emissions rate

3. Capital recovery factor of .125 used (approximately 9 percent interest for 15 years) 

4. Operator proposed electrification for these engines 
VI-1

VI. IMPACTS

A. Air Quality

NOx is a precursor to ozone, and State and Federal ozone ambient air quality standards

are violated throughout many parts of California. In addition, although most NOx is emitted in

the form of nitric oxide (NO), on most days NO will rapidly oxidize to form nitrogen dioxide

(NO2). There are State and federal ambient air quality standards for NO2. NOx is also a

precursor to particulate nitrate, which can contribute to violations of PM10 (particulate matter

less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter) and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards.

Violations of PM10 standards are even more widespread than ozone violations in California.

Reductions in NOx emissions will reduce ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and PM10 and PM2.5

concentrations, and reduce the number of violations of State and Federal ambient air quality

standards for these four pollutants.

Table VI-1 lists emission reduction estimates by district for NOx emissions from

stationary IC engines. In order to develop NOx emissions reductions estimates for this

determination, we used the 1996 Air Resources Board’s point source emissions inventory. We

first identified districts that do not currently have IC engine rules and are designated as

nonattainment for the State ozone standard. We also identified which districts are required to

adopt RACT rules, and which districts are required to adopt BARCT rules.

The Table VI-1 emission reduction estimates were calculated assuming no reduction

would come from engines emitting one ton or less of NOx per year. Engines with emissions of

one ton or less are often standby emergency generators, which would be exempt from control

requirements. In addition, no reductions were assumed for engines that are already controlled.

In order to determine emissions reduction percentages, we identified control technologies

likely to be used for compliance with the guidelines. For spark-ignited engines in districts

required to adopt RACT emissions limits, leaning of the air-fuel mixture or retrofitting of lowemission combustion kits are the control technologies expected to be used. These technologies

are expected to achieve NOx reductions of approximately 80 percent. For waste gas fueled

engines, the BARCT limits will be met by using prestratified charge systems or clean burn

retrofits. These technologies are expected to achieve NOx reductions of approximately 80

percent. For engines burning fuels other then waste gas, the BARCT emissions limits are

expected to be met using NSCR, clean burn retrofit, or SCR. These technologies are expected to

achieve NOx reductions of at least 90 percent. We looked at the number of engines in each

district that were spark-ignited, or used waste gas for fuel and applied these NOx emissions

reduction estimates to each engine to determine NOx emissions reductions. Since in some

respects this inventory may underestimate actual emissions (see Chapter I), the actual emission

reductions may be greater than the estimates in Table VI-1. However, to the extent that engines

have already been controlled but are reported in the inventory as being uncontrolled, the Table

VI-1 estimates may be higher than actual emissions reductions. Total statewide NOx emissions

reductions from districts without rules are 601 tons per year, or about 2.5 percent of NOx

emissions from SI engines.
VI-2

Table VI-1

Estimated NOx Emissions Reductions for Stationary Source Spark Ignited (SI) Engines

from Districts without IC Engine Rules

Emissions in Tons per Year

District Ozone

Classification

1996 Inventory SI Engine Emissions

Reductions

Butte County AQMD Moderate 14 6

Feather River AQMD Moderate 361 289

Glenn County APCD Moderate 325 248

Monterey Bay Unified

APCD

Moderate 76 58

Totals 776 601

Source: Air Resources Board 1996 Point Source Inventory

Potential emissions reductions for some of the larger districts with IC engine rules are

estimated in Table VI-2. Engines in districts that already have IC engine rules may already be

controlled. Therefore, it may not be cost effective for these districts to require these lower limits.

To the extent that requiring lower emissions limits is not cost effective, or if controlled engines

are already emitting at levels below those required by district rules, the emissions reductions in

Table VI-2 are overestimated.
VI-3

Table VI-2

Estimated NOx Emissions Reductions for Stationary Source Spark Ignited (SI) Engines

from Larger Districts with IC Engine Rules1,2

Emissions in Tons per Year

District Ozone

Classification

1996 Inventory SI Emissions Reductions

San Diego Serious 238 155

San Joaquin Valley Severe 4,882 2,104

Santa Barbara Moderate 985 433

South Coast3,4 Extreme 4,259 1,375

Totals 10,364 4,067

Source: Air Resources Board 1996 Point Source Inventory

1

Includes only point sources.

2

 Assumes engines emit at levels required in district rules.

3

 Assumes 87 percent of SI engines are rich-burn per 1990 SCAQMD IC engine staff report.

4

 Assumes 50 percent of rich-burn SI engines are > 500 hp, 50 percent are < 500 hp, as different standards apply for each

category.

Totaling tables VI-1 and VI-2 gives potential NOx reductions of approximately

4,700 tons per year, or approximately 20 percent of statewide NOx emissions from SI engines.

B. Economic Impacts

The economic impacts from meeting the requirements of this determination will be a

function of the type of engine and controls used, and the financial health of the engine owner or

operator. The costs and cost effectiveness are discussed in detail in Chapter V.

An NSCR catalyst is the control method expected to be used on most rich-burn engines.

The total (annualized capital plus operating and maintenance) cost of an NSCR catalyst will

range from approximately $8,200 to $18,000 depending on the size of the engine. This

annualized cost is based on a ten-year life for the catalyst. The required source testing would add

to this total. These costs are detailed in Table V-2. In addition, source testing of an engine’s

emissions is required periodically, and this will cost about $3,000 for a single engine, and less on

a unit basis if multiple engines are tested during the same period.

The costs of retrofitting a lean-burn engine to meet the determination's NOx limits will

generally be greater than for a rich-burn engine. Retrofit costs can vary significantly, with lower

costs associated with the use of an economical clean burn retrofit kit, and higher costs if a
VI-4

turbocharger or other expensive equipment must be replaced or added, or if SCR controls are

used.

For larger engines operating a substantial number of hours per year, NOx and oxygen

concentrations must be monitored continuously. In addition, for other engines using SCR, a

continuous NOx monitor is often included as part of the controls package. The cost of

continuous monitoring can be significant. The purchase and installation costs of a stand-alone

NOx monitor and data acquisition and reporting system can range from $25,000 to $100,000. As

an alternative to monitoring NOx directly, districts may find parametric monitoring to be a

reasonable alternative. In parametric monitoring, several engine ambient and operational

parameters are monitored, and these parameters are used to calculate NOx emissions. The

monitoring of engine parameters can be less expensive than monitoring NOx directly. The

capital cost for a parametric system ranges from $25,000 to $40,000. The annual operating and

maintenance costs (per engine) are estimated to be $7,500 for a continuous emission monitoring

system, and $2,000 for a parametric emission monitoring system.

Table VI-3

Cost Estimates for IC Engine Monitoring

Monitoring Device Capital Costs O&M Costs (per engine)

Continuous Emissions Monitoring $25,000-$100,000 $7,500

Parametric Emissions Monitoring $25,000-$40,000 $2,000

C. Catalysts

Both NSCR and SCR catalysts contain heavy metals and other toxic substances that may

create environmental problems if they are not disposed of properly. In the case of NSCR

catalysts, it is usually cost-effective to reclaim and recycle the heavy metals from spent catalysts.

For all catalysts, the cost of proper disposal is relatively minor, and catalyst vendors generally

will agree to dispose of their own used catalysts at no charge.

In the case of SCR, ammonia or urea is injected into the exhaust gas to reduce NOx, and

some of the ammonia is released into the atmosphere unreacted. Ammonia is a toxic compound

(but not a TAC) at high concentrations and can also be a precursor to the formation of particulate

matter. At lower concentrations, ammonia can cause health effects and can be a nuisance due to

odor. Therefore, many districts have adopted rules or specified permit conditions, which limit

the ammonia concentration in the exhaust vented to the atmosphere. These limits vary from a

few ppmv to about 50 ppmv. Two districts have engine rules which set an ammonia emission

limit of 20 ppmv from any emissions control device.
VI-5

There are also safety concerns associated with accidental spills of ammonia. Not only is

ammonia a toxic compound, but it is also a fire hazard at extremely high concentrations.

Constructing and operating the ammonia system in conformance with existing safety and fire

regulations can mitigate these concerns. Another way to minimize the safety concerns with

ammonia is to replace it with urea. Urea, which has been used extensively in Europe, is

nontoxic, non-odorous, and nonflammable. It dissolves easily in water and has been used as a

fertilizer and an additive in animal feed and cosmetics.

D. Methanol

Methanol is a toxic compound that can cause serious health effects if ingested, breathed,

or absorbed through the skin. In addition, combustion of methanol in IC engines can result in

elevated formaldehyde exhaust emissions. The ARB has identified formaldehyde as a toxic air

contaminant. Careful handling of methanol and conformance to existing health and industrial

standards should minimize any safety hazards associated with methanol. Formaldehyde

emissions can be minimized by assuring that the IC engine does not operate overly rich, and by

the use of an oxidation catalyst. Methanol has been used as a fuel for cars and buses for a

number of years with little or no adverse health impacts noted.

E. Energy Impacts

Controls used to meet the NOx limits in this determination are not expected to have a

significant impact on energy usage. In many instances, controls may increase fuel consumption

by a few percent, but there may be a net fuel savings in other instances. For example, if a NOx

limit is met by replacing a rich-burn engine with a new, low NOx lean-burn engine, fuel

consumption will decrease by about five to eight percent.

F. PM Impacts

Controls used to meet the NOx limits in this determination may also increase PM

emissions. Emissions of particulate matter are generally very low for a properly operating sparkignited engine. Particulate matter emissions from spark-ignited engines can be minimized by

assuring that the air/fuel ratio is not overly rich and the fuel is low in sulfur content. Commercial

natural gas, commercial LPG, and California cleaner burning gasoline are all extremely low in

sulfur. For fuels high in sulfur such as waste gases, scrubbing the sulfur from the fuel before it is

introduced into the engine can minimize emissions of particulate matter.
VII-1

VII. OTHER ISSUES

This chapter addresses miscellaneous issues concerning Federal, State, and local

regulation of stationary IC engines, nonroad engines, and portable engines as well as the control

of toxic emissions from these engines.

A. Effect of District, ARB, and U.S. EPA Regulations

The districts in California have primary responsibility for control of air pollution from

stationary sources. Thus, districts have the authority to adopt rules and regulations controlling

emissions from IC engines that are stationary sources. The ARB and U.S. EPA also have

authority to control emissions from certain engines, including motor vehicle engines, nonroad

(off-road) engines, and other types of engines. The California Health and Safety Code authorizes

the ARB to adopt standards and regulations for motor vehicles and for certain off-road or

nonvehicle engine categories, including farm equipment and construction equipment. Under the

federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA has authority to control emissions from stationary sources

and from mobile sources, including nonroad engines. The U.S. EPA may authorize California to

enforce requirements for certain motor vehicle engines and nonroad engines if standards are at

least as protective as applicable federal standards. U.S. EPA has granted such waivers to

California for a number of engine categories.

1. ARB IC Engine Regulations

Two major provisions in State law authorize the ARB to control emissions from

nonvehicular IC engines. The first of these, Section 43013 of the Health and Safety Code, grants

the ARB authority to adopt standards and regulations for a wide variety of off-road or nonvehicle

engines. These include off-highway motorcycles, off-highway vehicles, construction equipment,

farm equipment, utility engines, locomotives, and marine vessels. Under Section 43013, the

ARB has adopted regulations for several engine categories, including small off-road engines,

large off-road spark ignition engines, and portable engines. Some of these engines could be used

in applications where the engines are considered to be stationary sources. In such situations, the

ARB staff has concluded that the district holds jurisdiction, and the engine must comply with

district rules and regulations.

The second major provision in State law regarding ARB authority to control emissions

from nonvehicular IC engines can be found in Health and Safety Code sections 41750 through

41755. These sections require the ARB to develop uniform statewide regulations for the

registration and control of emissions from portable engines. ARB adopted regulations on March

27, 1997, which became effective September 17, 1997. It should be noted that this

RACT/BARCT determination for stationary IC engines exempts all portable engines if they are

registered either with a local district or under the statewide registration program described in the

following paragraph.

The Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program establishes a uniform program

for portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units. Once registered, engines and

equipment units may operate throughout California without the need to obtain individual permits
VII-2

from local air districts. Districts are pre-empted from permitting, registering, or regulating

portable engines and portable equipment units registered with the ARB. However, local districts

are responsible for enforcing the Program. The Statewide Portable Equipment Registration

Program Regulations can be found in sections 2450 through 2466, title 13, California Code of

Regulations.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires districts that are unable to achieve five

percent annual emission reductions to demonstrate to the ARB’s satisfaction that it has included

every feasible measure in its clean air plan and an expeditious adoption schedule for these

measures. ARB interprets the adoption of every feasible measure to mean, at a minimum, that

districts consider regulations that have been successfully implemented elsewhere. Districts

should also consider going beyond what has already been accomplished by evaluating new

technologies and innovative approaches that might offer potential emission reductions. In

addition, districts should consider not only technological factors, but social, environmental, and

energy factors within the district, as well as cost-effectiveness and the district’s ability to

realistically adopt, implement, and enforce measures. The use of RACT/BARCT standards on

existing stationary sources is one of the feasible measures required by the CCAA. Furthermore,

districts may require the repowering or replacement of IC engines with cleaner IC engines or

electric motors under every feasible measure. In these situations, it is recommended that districts

consider electrification whenever it is feasible in order to maximize emission reductions.

2. U.S. EPA IC Engine Regulations

A district’s ability to control emissions from stationary IC engines may be affected by

federal regulations for nonroad engines. Effective July 18, 1994, the U.S. EPA promulgated 40

CFR Part 89-- Control of Emissions from New and In-use Nonroad Engines. In 40 CFR 89.2,

U.S. EPA adopted a definition of nonroad engine that distinguishes between stationary and

nonroad sources for purposes of federal regulation. Under the federal definition, nonroad

engines are IC engines that are in or on equipment that is self-propelled or are portable.

However, if a portable IC engine remains at one location for more than 12 months (or, for a

seasonal source, the duration of the season), it is not a nonroad engine and may be considered a

stationary source. On the other hand, if the engine moves within 12 months (or, for a seasonal

source, during the season), even if the move is within the boundaries of a single site, the engine

may be considered a nonroad engine. Examples of nonroad engine applications are bulldozers,

lawnmowers, or agricultural engines that are on trailers. 40 CFR Part 89 should be consulted for

a more detailed explanation of the federal definition of nonroad engine.

Under the federal Clean Air Act and U.S. EPA definitions, a district may have adopted

definitions that differ from U.S. EPA definitions and therefore, in certain circumstances, may

consider a nonroad engine to be a stationary source in certain circumstances.

Under the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the U.S. EPA is authorized to

regulate newly manufactured nonroad engines. In general, the CAA amendments expressly

prohibit states (including districts) from adopting emissions standards or other control

technology requirements for nonroad engines [CAA, section 209(e)]. However, Congress

provided in the CAA that California, upon receiving authorization from the U.S. EPA, could
VII-3

adopt and enforce standards and regulations for most categories of nonroad engines if the

requirements are at least as protective as the applicable federal standards. (However, all states,

including California, are preempted from setting emission standards for new nonroad engines

that are less than 175 horsepower and are used in farm or construction vehicles or equipment).

In accordance with U.S. EPA preemption provisions, this RACT/BARCT determination

exempts from rule requirements engines that meet the U.S. EPA definition for new nonroad

engines that are less than 175 horsepower and used in construction or farm equipment or

vehicles.

Owners or operators of IC engines may also be subject to Title V of the Federal Clean

Air Act. Title V requires California air districts to develop and implement local operating permit

programs for major stationary sources. TitleV applicability may vary depending on a source’s

location and the type and potential amount of air pollutants emitted. In the San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), the major source applicability thresholds

are currently 50 tons per year (TPY) for NOX and VOC (If the district is reclassified from

serious to severe nonattainment with respect to national ambient air quality standards, the major

source thresholds for NOX and VOC will change from 50 TPY to 25 TPY). For PM 10 and SOX

the major source threshold in the SJVAPCD is 70 TPY.

B. Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants/Toxic Air Contaminants

1. Hazardous Air Pollutants/Toxic Air Contaminants Emitted

Fuels used in stationary IC engines and exhaust gases from these engines contain toxic

substances. These substances are labeled hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) by the U.S. EPA and

toxic air contaminants (TACs) by the ARB. A TAC is defined in Health and Safety Code as an

air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or

which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. In April 1993, the ARB

designated all HAPs listed in subsection (b) of Section 112 of the federal CAA as TACs. Toxic

substances differ from criteria pollutants such as NOx, CO, SOx, and particulate matter because

of the large number of substances that are potentially toxic and identified threshold or safe levels

for many toxics. In addition, toxic substances tend to be emitted in much smaller amounts than

criteria pollutants, but their toxicity tends to be much greater.

Emissions of toxic substances from the exhaust of natural gas-fired engines are the result

of incomplete combustion. These toxic substances include: formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs), acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylenes.

Recently, two-stroke and four-stroke, lean-burn engines were tested as part of U.S. EPA’s

Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking (ICCR) process. For the four-stroke SI engine,

formaldehyde was detected in all of the test runs while acrolein was found in less than half and at

levels usually a factor of 1,000 smaller than the formaldehyde. Similarly, formaldehyde was

found in all of the test runs on the two-stroke SI engine with significantly smaller amounts of

toluene, benzene, and a few PAHs. The rest of the compounds were not measured at detectable

levels.
VII-4

HAP emissions are also regulated by Title V. For sources HAPs in all districts, the major

source threshold is 10 TPY of a single HAP or 25 TPY of a combination of HAPs.

2. U.S. EPA Requirements

The source category list published by U.S. EPA under CAA section 112(b) requires the

MACT standard for stationary reciprocating IC engines to be promulgated by

November 15, 2000. Once U.S. EPA promulgates a MACT standard, it becomes an air toxic

control measure (ATCM) under state law, unless an ATCM for the source category has already

been adopted. The U.S. EPA developed the ICCR process to develop MACT standards for

combustion sources. This process, started in 1996, gathered representatives of industry,

environmental groups, and state and local regulatory agencies together to develop MACT

standards for industrial and commercial heaters, boilers, and steam generators, gas turbines, and

IC engines. U.S. EPA is planning on releasing a MACT standard for reciprocating IC engines

soon.

3. State and District Requirements

The State and districts have had, for a number of decades, the authority to control air

toxics that pose a health hazard. However, the formal framework for setting emission limits for

air toxics was not in place until enactment of the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and

Control Act (AB 1807) in 1983. In 1987, passage of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and

Assessment Act (AB 2588) expanded the role of the ARB and districts by requiring a statewide

air toxics inventory and assessment, and notification to local residents of significant risk from

nearby sources of air toxics. In 1992, SB 1731 required owners of certain significant risk

facilities identified under AB 2588 to reduce the risk below the level of significance.

4. Emission Rates of HAPs/TACs

A number of sources are available for estimating the emission rates for HAPs and TACs

from IC engines. Using the formaldehyde emission factors listed in Ventura County APCD’s

AB 2588 Combustion Emission Factors document, the 10 tons per year major source threshold

under the federal CAA may be exceeded if a facility has natural gas-fired engines with a

combined rating exceeding about 8,000 horsepower. If this major source threshold is exceeded

for an engine that is a stationary source, the engine is subject to federal MACT standards. More

recent source testing of engines using natural gas, landfill gas, or field gas indicates the 10 tons

per year may be exceed if a facility has engines with a combined rating as low as 4,000

horsepower. This is a worse plausible case, though, as these tests also indicate some facilities

may not exceed 10 tons until the combined horsepower rating is as high as 200,000. These data

demonstrate that emission rates of HAPs can vary greatly, depending on the type of gaseous fuel,

and the design and operating parameters of each individual engine.

5. Control of HAPs/TACs

The toxic substances of most concern emitted from stationary engines burning gaseous

fuels are VOCs. These VOCs are the result of incomplete combustion, and can be reduced by
VII-5

methods that either improve combustion inside the engine or destroy VOCs in the exhaust. The

VOC emission limits found in this determination will help limit emissions of toxic compounds

that are also VOCs.

One of the more popular and effective VOC exhaust control methods for IC engines is

the oxidation catalyst. Oxidation catalysts have been shown to reduce VOC emissions by over

90 percent for natural gas-fired engines. Testing conducted on SI engines fueled by liquified

petroleum gas and gasoline and with three-way catalysts have indicated substantial reductions in

emissions of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, and styrene, all classified as

VOCs and HAPs. U.S. EPA’s ICCR effort is in the process of testing natural-gas-fired IC

engines to determine the effectiveness of oxidation catalysts in controlling HAPs. This testing

also will include a rich burn engine with a three-way NSCR catalyst.

Engine modifications that promote complete combustion will reduce emissions of VOCs,

thereby also reducing emissions of toxic substances that are VOCs. These engine modifications

for natural gas-fired engines include operation of the engine with a lean (but not excessively

lean) air/fuel ratio, and the use of improved ignition systems. However, operating an engine

slightly lean will tend to maximize NOx emissions.
R-1

REFERENCES

1. "Stationary Internal Combustion Engines," Compliance Assistance Program, Compliance

Division, Air Resources Board, June 1998.

2. "Alternative Control Techniques Document -- NOx Emissions from Stationary Reciprocating

Internal Combustion Engines," Emission Standards Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research

Triangle Park, July, 1993.

3. Final Report "Evaluation of NOx Control Techniques for Gas-Fired Internal Combustion

Engines," prepared for the County of Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District by Arthur

D. Little, Inc., November, 1989.

4. Letter from Mike Lake of the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District to

Wilfred K. Nagamine, Hawaii State Department of Health, dated August 23, 1991.

5. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, "Staff Report - Proposed Revision to

Rule 74.9 Stationary Internal Combustion Engines," December, 1993.

6. Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, "Staff Report - Proposed Rule 333 -

Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines," December, 1991.

7. "Gas Engine Emissions Technology," Form 536, Waukesha Engine Division,

Dresser Industries, Inc., Waukesha, Wisconsin, October 1993.

8. "Staff Report Proposed Rule 1110.2 - Emissions from Gaseous- and Liquid-Fueled Internal

Combustion Engines," A. Rawuka, SCAQMD, July 11, 1990.

9. "Draft Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1110.2 -- Emissions from Gaseous- and

Liquid-Fueled Engines," Kien Huynh and Gregory Wood, SCAQMD,

December 7, 1995.

10. Staff Report for South Coast Air Quality Management District Proposed Rule 1110.2 -

Emissions from Gaseous and Liquid Fueled Internal Combustion Engines, July 11, 1990.

11. Personal Communication, George Arnos, Vice President, ENOX Technologies, Inc., Natick,

Massachusetts, August 9, 1995.

12. Personal Communication, B.L. Mikkelsen, Emissions Plus Inc., Houston, Texas, January 12,

1996.

13. Personal Communication, B.L. Mikkelsen, Emissions Plus Inc., Houston, Texas,

May 17, 1996.
R-2

REFERENCES (continued)

14. Personal Communication, Gregory M. Beshouri, Advanced Engine Technologies Corp,

Oakland, California, May 17, 1996.

15. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, "Phase III Rule Effectiveness Study,

VCAPCD Rule 74.9, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines," October 1, 1994.

16. Manufacturers of Emissions Controls Association (MECA). "Emission Control Technology

for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines: Status Report," July 1997.

17. "Children's Hospital Cost-Effectiveness for NSCR," Godfrey Aghoi, San Diego County

APCD, June 14, 1996.

18. Energy and Environmental Research. "NOx and VOC Species Profiles for Gas Fired

Stationary Source Combustion Sources," Contract number A132-104, prepared for the ARB,

January 19, 1994.

19. "Controlling Emissions from Stationary Internal Combustion Engines with Catalytic

Technology," Johnson Matthey, Catalytic Systems Division, Environmental Products, 1995.

20. Personal communication, Bill Clary, Miratech Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma,

June 18, 1999.

21. "Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Control of NOx Emissions," prepared by SCR

Committee, Institute of Clean Air Companies, Inc., November 1997.

22. Personal communication, Joseph P. Aleixo, DCL Industries, Inc., Concord, Ontario, Canada,

June 13, 1996.

23. Letter from Douglas F. Grapple, Air Quality Engineer, Santa Barbara County APCD to

Don Koeberlein, ARB, Subject: Draft Internal Combustion Engine RACT/BARCT, dated

September 10, 1997.

24. Memo from Godfrey Aghoi, Associate Engineer, San Diego County APCD, to Don

Koeberlein, ARB, Subject: Cost-Effectiveness of Internal Combustion Engines, dated

October 8, 1997.

25. Powers Engineering “Evaluation of Stationary Internal Combustion Engine Best Available

Retrofit Control Technology Rule Proposed by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District,” Prepared for Western States Petroleum Association, September 19, 1995.
R-3

REFERENCES (continued)

26. Reiss, R.; Chinkin, L.R.; Coe, D.L.; DiSogra, C. "Emission Inventory of Agricultural Internal

Combustion Engines Used for Irrigation in the SJVUAPCD," Final Report STI-95240-1569-

PDR, Prepared for San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control

District, April 1996.

27. California Air Resources Board. “Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology

and Best Available Control Technology, California Clean Air Act Guidance,” Stationary

Source Division, April 1990.

28. California Air Resources Board. “Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air

Contaminant,” Stationary Source Division: Sacramento, CA, April 1998.

29. Southwest Research Institute. “Three-way Catalyst Technology for Off-road Equipment

Powered by Gasoline and LPG Engines,” Contract Number 95-340, Prepared for the

California Air Resources Board, April 1999.

30. California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, “Sources and

Control of Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions,” Stationary Source Division and Mobile Source

Control Division, Sacramento, CA, August 1997.

31. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, “AB 2588 Combustion Emission Factors,”

August 24, 1995.

32. “First Field Installation for New Exhaust Emission Control,” Diesel and Gas Turbine

Worldwide, June 1993.

33. "Selective Non-catalytic Reduction (SNCR) for Controlling NOx Emissions," prepared by

SNCR Committee, Institute of Clean Air Companies, Inc., May 2000.

34. Sudduth, B.; Slone, R.; Cazzola, E. “NOxTECH Emissions Control Applications,”

NOxTECH, Inc., www.noxtech.com, July 2000.

35. U.S. EPA, “Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and

Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements Rule,” Office of Air

and Radiation, EPA420-D-00-001, May 2000.

36. California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, “Evaluation of

the Air Quality Performance Claims of Goal Line Environmental Technologies LLC SCONOx

System,” Equipment Precertification Program, November 1998.

37. Reyes, B.E.; Cutshaw, T.R. “SCONOx Catalytic Absorption System,” Goal Line

Environmental Technologies, December 1998.
R-4

REFERENCES (continued)

38. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, "Final Staff Report – Amendments

to Rule 4701 (Stationary Internal Combustion Engines)," December, 1996.

39. Letter from Robert D. Cothermann, Cooper Energy Services, Grove City, PA,

January 29, 1999.

40. Edgerton, S.; Lee-Greco, J.; Walsh, S. “Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion

Engines- Updated Information on NOX Emissions and Control Techniques,”

EC/R Incorporated, Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract Number 68-D98-026,

September 2000.

41. Staudt, J. “Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial

Boilers, Internal Combustion Engines: Technologies and Cost Effectiveness,” Andover

Technology Partners, Prepared for Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

(NESCAUM), December 2000.
A-1

APPENDIX A

DETERMINATION OF

RACT AND BARCT FOR STATIONARY SPARK-IGNITED IC ENGINES
A-2

DETERMINATION OF REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND

BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR STATIONARY

SPARK-IGNITED INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

I. Applicability

Except as provided in Section IV. (Exemptions), the provisions of this determination are

applicable to all stationary spark-ignited internal combustion engines with a current rating of 50

brake horsepower or greater, or a maximum fuel consumption of 0.52 million Btu per hour or

greater based on a brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) rating of 10,400 Btu per brake

horsepower-hour. For stationary spark-ignited internal combustion engines with different BSFC

ratings, the maximum fuel consumption should be adjusted accordingly.

II. Definitions

A. ANNUAL means any consecutive twelve-month period.

B. BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BARCT) means

Best Available Control Technology as defined in the California Health and Safety

Code, Section 40406.

C. CALENDAR YEAR means the time period from January 1 through December 31.

D. CYCLICALLY-LOADED ENGINE means an engine that under normal operating

conditions has an external load which varies by 40 percent or more of rated brake

horsepower during any load cycle or is used to power an oil well reciprocating

pump including beam-balanced or crank-balanced pumps.

E. DISASTER OR STATE OF EMERGENCY means a fire, flood, earthquake, or

other similar natural catastrophe.

F. DISTRIBUTED GENERATION (DG) refers to relatively small power plants,

such as IC engine gensets, which are used to generate electrical power that is

either fed into the power grid or used on-site. DG units are located throughout the

grid and are usually sited in or close to load centers or utility customers’ sites.

Distributed generation also refers to a mechanical drive system consisting of one or

more IC engines and electric motors, where use of the IC engines or electric

motors is interchangeable.

G. EMERGENCY STANDBY ENGINE is an engine which operates as a

temporary replacement for primary mechanical or electrical power during an

unscheduled outage caused by sudden and reasonably unforeseen natural disasters

or other events beyond the control of the operator. An engine shall not be

considered to be an emergency standby engine if it is used for purposes other than:

periodic maintenance, periodic readiness testing, readiness testing during and after

repair work, unscheduled outages, or to supply power while maintenance is

performed or repairs are made to the primary power supply. An engine shall not be

considered to be an emergency standby engine if it is used:

(1) to reduce the demand for electrical power when normal electrical power

line service has not failed, or

(2) to produce power for the utility electrical distribution system, or
A-3

(3) in conjunction with a voluntary utility demand reduction program or

interruptible power contract.

H. ENGINE is any spark-ignited reciprocating internal combustion engine.

I. EXEMPT VOC COMPOUNDS means carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,

carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, ammonium carbonate, and the

following compounds:

(1) methane,

 methylene chloride (dichloromethane),

 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform),

 trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11),

 dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12),

 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113),

 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC)-114,

 chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115),

 chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22),

 1,1,1-trifluoro-2,2-dichloroethane (HCFC-123),

 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b),

 1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b),

 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124),

 trifluoromethane (HFC-23),

 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134),

 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a),

 pentafluorethane (HFC-125),

 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a),

 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a),

 cyclic, branched, or linear completely methylated siloxanes,

 the following classes of perfluorocarbons:

(a) cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes;

(b) cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated ethers

with no unsaturations;

(c) cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated tertiary

amines with no unsaturations; and

(d) sulfur-containing perfluorocarbons with no unsaturations

and with the sulfur bonds to carbon and fluorine, and

(2) The following low-reactive organic compounds which have been exempted

by the U.S. EPA:

 acetone

 ethane

methyl acetate

 parachlorobenzotrifluoride (1-chloro-4-trifluoromethyl benzene)

perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene).

Methylated siloxanes and perfluorocarbon compounds shall be assumed to be

absent from a product or process unless a manufacturer or facility operator
A-4

identifies the specific individual compounds (from the broad classes of 

methylated siloxanes and perfluorocarbon compounds) and the amounts present

in the product or process and provides a validated test method which can

be used to quantify the specific compounds.

J. EXHAUST CONTROLS are devices or techniques used to treat an engine's

exhaust to reduce emissions, and include (but are not limited) to catalysts,

afterburners, reaction chambers, and chemical injectors.

K. FACILITY is one or more parcels of land in physical contact, or separated solely

by a public roadway:

(1) all of which are under the same ownership or operation, or which are

owned or operated by entities which are under common control; and

(2) belong to the same industrial grouping, either by virtue of falling within the

same two-digit standard industrial classification code or are part of a

common industrial process, manufacturing process, or connected process

involving a common raw material; and

(3) upon which one or more stationary engines operate.

L. FUEL means any substance which when burned or combusted in an SI engine

supplies power and which includes but is not limited to gasoline, natural gas,

methane, ethane, propane, butane, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

M. LEAN-BURN means a spark-ignited engine where the manufacturers original

recommended air-to-fuel ratio operating range is fuel-lean of stoichiometry, and

the engine normally operates with an exhaust oxygen concentration of greater than

2 percent.

N. NONROAD ENGINE means a nonroad engine as defined by the U.S. EPA in

40 CFR Part 89, Subpart A, Section 89.2. The term “nonroad” is synonymous

with offroad.

O. OFFROAD ENGINE means a nonroad engine.

P. PORTABLE ENGINE as defined in Health and Safety Code, Section 41751

means an engine which is designed and capable of being carried or moved from

one location to another. Indicators of portability include, but are not limited to,

wheels, skids, carrying handles, lifting eyes, dolly, trailer, or platform mounting.

The engine is not considered portable if the engine is attached to a foundation or

will reside at a fixed location for more than 12 consecutive months or operates

during the full annual operating period of a seasonal source.

Q. ppmv is parts per million by volume at dry conditions.

R. RATED BRAKE HORSEPOWER (bhp) of an engine is the maximum

continuous rating for that engine specified by the manufacturer, based on

SAE test 1349 or a similar standard, without taking into account any deratings.

S. REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) means an

emission limitation based upon “reasonably available” devices, systems, process

modifications, or other apparatus or techniques taking into account environmental

impacts, technological feasibility, and cost-effectiveness. RACT is required in

nonattainment areas that are classified as moderate for the State ozone standard.

T. RICH-BURN means a spark-ignited engine that is not a lean-burn engine.
A-5

U. SPARK-IGNITED ENGINE means a liquid or gaseous fueled engine designed to

ignite its air/fuel mixture by a spark across a spark plug.

V. STATIONARY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE is an engine which is

neither portable nor self-propelled and is operated at a single facility.

W. STOICHIOMETRY means the precise air-to-fuel ratio where sufficient oxygen is

supplied to completely combust fuel.

X. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) is any compound containing at

least one atom of carbon, except exempt compounds.

Y. WASTE GAS is any untreated, raw gas derived through a natural process, such as

anaerobic digestion, from the decomposition of organic waste at municipal solid

waste landfills or a publicly-owned waste water treatment facilities. Waste gas

includes landfill gas which is generated at landfills, digester gas which is generated

at sewage treatment facilities, or a combination of the two.
A-6

III. Requirements

A. RACT emissions, corrected to 15 percent oxygen on a dry basis and

averaged over 15 minutes, shall not exceed the following limits for the appropriate

engine type:

Table A-1

Summary of RACT Standards for

Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines

ppmv AT 15% O2

Spark-Ignited Engine Type % Control of NOX NOX VOC CO

Rich-Burn

Cyclically-loaded, Field Gas Fueled

All Other Engines

--

90

300

50

250

250

4,500

4,500

Lean-Burn

Two Stroke, Gaseous Fueled, Less

Than 100 Horsepower

All Other Engines

--

80

200

125

750

750

4,500

4,500

____________________________________________________________

(1) For NOx, either the percent control or the ppmv limit must be met by each

engine where applicable. The percent control option applies only if a

percentage is listed, and applies to engines using either combustion

modifications or exhaust controls. For engines with exhaust controls, the

percent control shall be determined by measuring concurrently the NOx

concentration upstream and downstream from the exhaust control. For

engines without external control devices, the percent control shall be based

on source test results for the uncontrolled engine and the same engine after

the control device or technique has been employed. In this situation, the

engine’s typical operating parameters, loading, and duty cycle shall be

documented and repeated at each successive post-control source test to

ensure that the engine is meeting the percent reduction limit. The ppmv

limits for VOC and CO apply to all engines.

(2) California Reformulated Gasoline shall be used as the fuel for all gasolinefired, spark-ignited engines.
A-7

B. BARCT emissions, corrected to 15 percent oxygen on a dry basis and averaged

over 15 minutes, shall not exceed the following limits for the appropriate engine

type:

Table A-2

Summary of BARCT Standards for

Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines

ppmv AT 15% O2

Spark-Ignited Engine Type % Control of NOX NOX VOC CO

Rich-Burn

Waste Gas Fueled

Cyclically-loaded, Field Gas Fueled

All Other Engines

90

--

96

50

300

25

250

250

250

4,500

4,500

4,500

Lean-Burn

Two Stroke, Gaseous Fueled, Less

Than 100 Horsepower

All Other Engines

--

90

200

65

750

750

4,500

4,500

_________________________________________________________________

(1) For NOx, either the percent control or the ppmv limit must be met by each

engine where applicable. The percent control option applies only if a

percentage is listed, and applies to engines using either combustion

modifications or exhaust controls. The percent control shall be determined

by measuring concurrently the NOx concentration upstream and

downstream from the exhaust control. For engines without external control

devices, the percent control shall be based on source test results for the

uncontrolled engine and the same engine after the control device or

technique has been employed. In this situation, the engine’s typical

operating parameters, loading, and duty cycle shall be documented and

repeated at each successive post-control source test to ensure that the

engine is meeting the percent reduction limit. The ppmv limits for VOC

and CO apply to all engines.

(2) California Reformulated Gasoline shall be used as the fuel for all gasolinefired, spark-ignited engines.
A-8

IV. Exemptions

A. The provisions of this determination shall not apply to:

(1) The operation of any engine while being used to preserve or protect

property, human life, or public health during the existence of a disaster or

state of emergency, such as a fire or flood.

(2) Portable Engines.

 (3) Nonroad engines excluding nonroad engines used in stationary

applications.

B. The provisions of this determination, except for Section VII.B.(2), shall

not apply to:

(1) Engines whose total annual hours of operation do not exceed 200 hours as

determined by a nonresettable elapsed operating time meter and which are

not used to generate electrical power that is either fed into the electrical

utility power grid or used to reduce electrical power purchased by a

facility; to generate mechanical power that is used to reduce electrical

power purchased by a facility; or in a distributed generation application; or

(2) Emergency standby engines that, excluding periods of operation during

unscheduled power outages, do not exceed 100 hours of operation

annually as determined by a nonresettable elapsed operating time meter.

During periods of non-emergency operation, these engines shall not

generate electrical power that is either fed into the electrical utility power

grid or used to reduce electrical power purchased by a facility; generate

mechanical power to reduce electrical power purchased by a facility; or be

used in a distributed generation application.

V. Compliance Schedule

The owner or operator of one or more stationary internal combustion engines shall

comply with the applicable parts of Sections III. and VII. of this determination in accordance with

the following schedule:

A. For each engine to be permanently removed from service and not replaced by

another IC engine:

(1) by (6 months after district rule adoption date), submit a statement to the

Air Pollution Control Officer identifying the engine to be removed;

(2) by (3 years after district rule adoption date), remove or replace the engine

with an electric motor.
A-9

B. For all other engines subject to this determination:

(1) by (6 months after district rule adoption date), submit an emission control

plan for Air Pollution Control Officer approval;

(2) by (9 months after district rule adoption date), receive approval from the

Air Pollution Control Officer for the emission control plan;

(3) by (1 year after district rule adoption date), have all required applications

for permits to construct submitted and deemed complete by the

Air Pollution Control Officer;

(4) by (2 years after district rule adoption date), have engines and stack

modifications, including applicable monitoring systems, under compliance

in accordance with an approved emission control plan.

VI. Test Methods

A. The following test methods shall be used to determine oxygen content, oxides of

nitrogen emissions, volatile organic compound emissions, and carbon monoxide

emissions during source tests:

O2: ARB Method 100 or U.S. EPA Method 3A

NOx: ARB Method 100 or U.S. EPA Method 7E

VOC: ARB Method 100 or U.S. EPA Method 25A or 25B

CO: ARB Method 100 or U.S. EPA Method 10

B. Alternative test methods which are shown to accurately determine the

concentration of NOx, VOC, and CO in the exhaust of IC engines may be used

upon the written approval of the Executive Officer of the California Air Resources

Board and the Air Pollution Control Officer.

VII. Administrative

A. Emission Control Plan

The owner or operator of a stationary internal combustion engine subject to both

Sections III and V.B. of this determination shall submit an emissions control plan

to the Air Pollution Control Officer for approval.

(1) The plan shall describe all actions, including a schedule of increments of

progress, which will be taken to meet the applicable emissions limitations in

Section III. and the compliance schedule in Section V.B. Such plan shall

also contain the following information for each engine where applicable:

(a) district permit or identification number;

(b) name of engine manufacturer;

(c) model designation;

(d) rated brake horsepower;
A-10

(e) engine type and fuel type (e.g., natural gas-fired rich-burn);

(f) total hours of operation in the previous one-year period, including

typical daily operating schedule;

(g) fuel consumption (cubic feet of gas or gallons of liquid) for the

previous one year period;

(h) stack modifications to facilitate continuous in-stack monitoring

and source testing;

(i) type of controls to be applied, including in-stack monitoring

specifications;

(j) the applicable emission limits; and

(k) documentation showing existing emissions of NOx, VOC, and CO.

(2) The emission control plan shall include an inspection and monitoring

(I&M) plan. The I&M plan shall include procedures requiring the owner

or operator to establish ranges for control equipment parameters, engine

operating parameters, and engine exhaust oxygen concentrations that

source testing has shown result in pollutant concentrations within the rule

limits. The inspection and monitoring plan shall include monthly emissions

checks by a procedure specified by the Air Pollution Control Officer. It is

recommended that engine owner/operators monitor NOx and oxygen

exhaust emission readings using a portable NOx analyzer. If a portable

analyzer is used, it shall be calibrated, maintained and operated in

accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and recommendations or

a protocol approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer. The applicable

control equipment parameters and engine operating parameters will be

inspected and monitored monthly in conformance with a regular inspection

schedule listed in the I&M plan. If an engine owner or operator or district

staff find an engine to be operating outside the acceptable range for control

equipment parameters, engine operating parameters, engine exhaust NOx,

CO, VOC or oxygen concentrations, the owner/operator is required to take

corrective actions on the noncompliant parameter(s) within 15 days. The

I&M plan shall also include preventive and corrective maintenance

procedures. Before any change in operations can be implemented, the

I&M plan must be revised as necessary, and the revised plan must be

submitted to and approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer.

B. Monitoring and Recordkeeping

(1) The owner or operator of one or more stationary internal combustion

engines subject to both Sections III, and V.B. of this determination shall

meet the following requirements:

(a) For each stationary internal combustion engine with a rated brake

horsepower of 1,000 or greater and which is permitted to operate

more than 2,000 hours per calendar year, the owner or operator

shall install, operate, and maintain in calibration a continuous NOx

and O2 monitoring system, as approved by the Air Pollution
A-11

Control Officer, to demonstrate compliance with the emissions

limits of this rule. This system shall determine and record exhaust

gas NOx concentrations in ppmv, corrected to 15 percent oxygen.

The continuous monitoring system may be a continuous emissions

monitoring system (CEMS), parametric emissions monitoring

system (PEMS), or an alternative approved by the Air Pollution

Control Officer. Adequate verification of the alternative continuous

monitoring system’s acceptability must be submitted to the Air

Pollution Control Officer. This would include data demonstrating

the system’s accuracy under typical operating conditions for the

specific application and any other information or data deemed

necessary in assessing the acceptability of the continuous

monitoring system. CEMS shall meet the applicable federal

requirements described in 40 CFR Part 60. These include the

performance specifications found in Appendix B, Specification 2,

the quality assurance requirements found in Appendix F, and the

reporting requirements of Parts 60.7(c), 60.7(d), and 60.13.

(b) Data collected through the I&M plan described in Section

VII.A.(2) shall be in a form approved by the Air Pollution Control

Officer, and shall have retrieval capabilities as approved by the Air

Pollution Control Officer. The monitoring system described in

Section VII.B.(1) shall have data gathering and retrieval capability

approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer. All data collected

pursuant to the requirements of Section VII.A.(2) and VII.B.(1)

shall be maintained for at least two years and made available for

inspection by the Air Pollution Control Officer or the Officer's

designee.

(c) The owner or operator shall arrange for and assure that an

emissions source test is performed on each stationary internal

combustion engine at least once every 24 months. In addition, the

owner or operator shall arrange for and assure that an initial

emissions source test is performed on each stationary internal

combustion engine to verify compliance with Section III. by the

date specified in Section V.B.(4). Emissions source testing shall be

conducted at an engine’s actual peak load and under the engine’s

typical duty cycle. Prior to any source test required by this rule, a

source test protocol shall be prepared and submitted to the Air

Pollution Control Officer. In addition to other information, the

source test protocol shall describe which critical parameters will be

measured, and how the appropriate range for these parameters shall

be established and incorporated into the I&M plan described in

Section VII.A.(2). The source test protocol shall be approved by

the Air Pollution Control Officer prior to any testing. VOC shall be

reported as methane. VOC, NOx, and CO concentrations shall be

reported in ppmv, corrected to 15 percent oxygen. For engines
A-12

using exhaust controls, NOx shall also be reported as a percent

reduction across the control device. All source test reports shall be

submitted to the Air Pollution Control Officer or the Officer’s

designee.

(d) During any quarter in which a source test is not performed, a

portable NOx analyzer shall be used to take NOx emission readings

to verify compliance with the emission limits or percent control

specified in Section III. All emission readings shall be taken at an

engine’s actual peak load and under the engine’s typical duty cycle.

The analyzer shall be calibrated, maintained and operated in

accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and

recommendations or a protocol approved by the Air Pollution

Control Officer. An instrument reading in excess of the emission

compliance values shall not be considered a violation, so long as the

engine is brought into compliance within 15 days of the initial outof-compliance reading. All NOx readings shall be reported to the

Air Pollution Control Officer or the Officer’s designee in a manner

specified by the Air Pollution Control Officer.

(2) Any engine subject to this determination including those subject to Section

IV.B. shall be required to install a nonresettable fuel meter and a

nonresettable elapsed operating time meter. The owner or operator may

use an alternative device, method, or technique in determining monthly fuel

consumption provided the alternative is approved by the Air Pollution

Control Officer. The owner or operator shall assure that these required

meters are maintained in proper operating condition and shall maintain an

engine operating log that includes, on a monthly basis, the total hours of

operation and fuel type (e.g, natural gas, gasoline, LPG) and quantity of

fuel used. The fuel meter shall be calibrated periodically per the

recommendations of the manufacturer. For emergency standby engines, all

hours of non-emergency and emergency operation shall also be reported

along with the fuel usage. This information shall be available for inspection

at any time, and shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control Officer at

the end of each calendar year in a manner and form approved by the Air

Pollution Control Officer.
B-1

APPENDIX B

DESCRIPTION OF SPARK-IGNITED IC ENGINE OPERATION

AND EMISSION CONTROLS
B-2

I. DESCRIPTION OF SPARK-IGNITED IC ENGINES

The main parts of a piston-type (also known as reciprocating) spark-ignited (SI) internal

combustion (IC) engine include pistons, combustion chambers, a crankshaft, and valves or ports. 

IC engines generate power from the combustion of an air/fuel mixture. The combusted mixture

drives the piston, which is connected by a rod to the crankshaft, so that the back-and-forth motion

of the piston is converted into rotational energy at the crankshaft. This rotational energy drives

power equipment such as pumps, compressors, or electrical generators.

There are several key aspects of engine design and operation that influence emissions and

emissions control. These include the basic design of the engine, the manner in which combustion

is initiated, the type of fuel used, the introduction of intake air, the air/fuel ratio, and the

operational mode of the engine. A brief description of these aspects is given below.

A. Basic Engine Design

Piston-type internal combustion engines are generally classified as either four or two

stroke. Four operations occur in all piston-type internal combustion engines: intake, compression,

power, and exhaust. Four stroke engines require two revolutions of the crankshaft to complete all

four operations, while two stroke engines require only one revolution.

In four stroke engines, a single operation is associated with each movement of the piston. 

During the intake stroke, the intake valve opens, and gas is drawn into the combustion chamber

and cylinder by the downward motion of the piston. In carbureted and indirect fuel injected

engines, fuel is mixed with air before being introduced into the combustion chamber, and thus the

gas drawn into the combustion chamber is an air/fuel mixture. In direct gas injection engines, the

fuel is injected into the combustion chamber while air is drawn in by the downward motion of the

piston. At or shortly after the end of this downward movement, the valves close and the

compression stroke begins with the pistons moving upward, compressing the air/fuel mixture. A

spark plug ignites the air/fuel mixture. During the power stroke, the hot, high-pressure gases

from combustion push the pistons downward. The exhaust stroke begins when the piston nears

its full downward position. At that point, the exhaust valves open, and the piston reverses its

motion, moving upward to push the exhaust gases out of the combustion chamber. Near the full

upward travel of the pistons, the exhaust valves close, the intake valves open, and the intake

stroke is repeated.

In a two stroke engine, instead of intake valves, there are one or more ports (i.e.,

openings) in each cylinder wall that are uncovered as the piston nears its full downward

movement. Two stroke engines use either exhaust valves similar to four stroke engines, or

exhaust ports located in each cylinder wall across from the intake ports. When the pistons reach

their full downward travel, both the intake ports and the exhaust ports or valves are open, and the

exhaust gases are swept out by the air/fuel mixture that is transferred into the cylinder through the

intake ports. In order to effect this transfer, the intake air must be pressurized. This operation is
B-3

often referred to as scavenging. The pressurization can result from introducing the air into a

sealed crankcase. An air/fuel mixture is pulled into the sealed crankcase through the upward

movement of the piston, and is pressurized by the downward movement of the piston. 

Alternatively, a supercharger or turbocharger can be used to compress the intake air. The

compression and power strokes for a two-stroke engine are similar to those for a four-stroke

engine.

B. Combustion Initiation

In SI engines, (also called Otto cycle), the fuel is usually mixed with intake air before

introduction into the combustion chamber, resulting in a relatively homogeneous air/fuel mixture

in the combustion chamber. Once the spark plug initiates combustion, the homogeneous mixture

propagates the flame throughout the combustion chamber during the power stroke.

C. Type of Fuel

SI engines can use natural gas, landfill gas, digester gas, field gas, refinery gas, propane,

methanol, ethanol, gasoline, or a mixture of these fuels. Natural gas consists almost exclusively of

methane. Field gas refers to the raw gas produced from oil or gas production fields and contains

varying amounts of hydrogen sulfide which can clog exhaust catalysts and render them ineffective

in controlling NOx. Refinery gas refers to the gas generated by oil refinery processing. Field gas

and refinery gas consist of mostly methane, but contain more of the heavier gaseous hydrocarbon

compounds than natural gas. Landfill gas is generated from the decomposition of waste materials

deposited in landfills. Landfill gas can vary from 25 to 60 percent methane, with the remainder

being mostly inert gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Digester gas is generated from the

anaerobic digestion of solids at sewage treatment plants. Digester gas is typically about

two-thirds methane, while the remaining one-third is mostly inert gases such as carbon dioxide. 

Significant amounts of gaseous sulfur compounds may also be present in landfill and

digester gas. The sulfur content of the fuel is important, as exhaust catalysts may be adversely

affected by high levels of sulfur. In addition, waste gases may contain methylated siloxanes which

could poison or mask exhaust catalysts.

D. Introduction of Intake Air

On many engines, the intake air is compressed by a supercharger or turbocharger before it

enters the combustion chamber. This compression can increase engine power substantially. 
B-4

The major parts of a turbocharger consist of a turbine and compressor. Exhaust gases

from the combustion chamber which are under high temperature and pressure pass through the

exhaust pipe into the turbine, causing the turbine blades to spin. The turbine is connected by a

shaft to a compressor. Intake air is directed into the compressor, where it is pressurized before

passing through the intake manifold into the combustion chamber. The turbocharger allows the

engine to pass a greater mass of air through the combustion chamber, which allows more fuel to

be added and more power to be produced. Turbocharging also improves the overall efficiency of

an engine. 

Superchargers work in a similar fashion to turbochargers, except a mechanical power

drive off the engine rather than exhaust gas powers the compressor. Less power is required to

run a turbocharger than a comparable supercharger, and therefore turbocharged engines tend to

be slightly more efficient than supercharged engines.

Engines not equipped with turbochargers or superchargers are referred to as naturally

aspirated. Two stroke engines sometimes use superchargers to displace exhaust with intake air,

but this design generally does not result in any significant pressurization of the intake air, and such

engines are also classified as naturally aspirated.

E. Air/Fuel Ratio

Another basic engine parameter is the air/fuel ratio. Stoichiometry is defined as the

precise air-to-fuel ratio where sufficient oxygen is supplied to completely combust fuel. A

stoichiometric air/fuel ratio provides exactly enough oxygen to fully atomize the fuel for complete

combustion. Rich of stoichiometry refers to fuel-rich combustion, i.e., operation at any air-to-fuel

ratio less than stoichiometry. Lean of stoichiometry refers to fuel-lean combustion, i.e., operation

at any air-to-fuel ratio numerically higher than stoichiometry.

Two-stroke, spark-ignited engines are lean-burn, while naturally aspirated, four-stroke SI

engines are generally rich-burn. Turbocharged, spark-ignited engines can be either rich-burn or

lean-burn, depending on design. Lean-burn engines tend to be more efficient but larger in size and

higher in capital cost than rich-burn engines of the same power output. Also, smaller engines tend

to be rich-burn, while larger engines tend to be lean-burn.

SI engines exhibit peak thermal efficiency (and also peak NOx emissions) at an air/fuel

ratio that is about 6 to 12 percent leaner than stoichiometric. Efficiency (and NOx emissions)

decrease if the mixture becomes leaner or richer than this peak efficiency ratio (see Figure B-1). 

If the mixture is enriched, NOx emissions can be reduced to about 50 percent of their peak value

before encountering problems with excessive emissions of CO, VOC, and possibly smoke. If the

mixture is leaned from the peak efficiency air/fuel ratio, significant NOx reductions are possible. 
B-5

Figure B-1: The Effect of Air-to-Fuel Ratio on NOx, CO, and HC Emissions

(Provided by GRI)

As the mixture is leaned, at some point the engine will have difficulty in initiating

combustion of the lean air/fuel mixture. One of the more popular methods of overcoming ignition

difficulties with lean mixtures is to incorporate precombustion chambers into the engine head. A

precombustion chamber is a small combustion chamber which contains the spark plug. A rich

mixture is introduced into the precombustion chamber, which is ignited by the spark plug.

Passageways from the precombustion chamber to the main combustion chamber allow the flame

front to pass into and ignite the lean mixture in the main combustion chamber. Precombustion

chambers used alone or in combination with other NOx reduction technologies are known as 

low-emission combustion. This approach is described in more detail later in this appendix.
B-6

Another method used to assist combustion of lean mixtures (especially in smaller engines)

is to redesign the intake manifold and combustion chamber to promote more

thorough mixing, so that a more uniform air/fuel mixture is present in the combustion chamber. A

third method is to use an improved ignition system that sparks either more frequently or

continuously.

F. Operational Mode

Reciprocating IC engines can be used in several operational modes. In many cases, they

are used continuously under a constant power load, shutting down only when there is a

breakdown, or when maintenance or repair work is required. Other engines operate cyclically,

changing their power output on a regular, frequent schedule. One of the more common cyclic

applications is an oil well pump, where an engine may operate at load for a time period varying

from several seconds to about 20 seconds, followed by an equal amount of time operating at idle.

Some engines may operate continuously, but for only part of the year. In many cases, this

intermittent operation is seasonal. In other cases, engines are portable, and are used only for a

specific, short-term need. In still other cases, engines are used infrequently, for emergency

purposes. Such engines may operate for no more than a few hours per year during an emergency,

and are also tested routinely, typically for less than an hour once a week. Other engines may

operate in modes that combine the characteristics of cyclic and continuous operations.

The operational mode of the engine is an important consideration when adopting control

regulations. The operational mode may impact operating parameters such as exhaust gas

temperature, which often must be taken into account when designing and applying controls. The

operational mode may also affect the impact of emissions on air quality. For instance, an engine

that operates only during summer, which is the peak ozone season, will have a much greater

impact on ambient air quality violations than an engine with the same annual emissions that

operates year round.

II. DESCRIPTION OF IC ENGINE CONTROLS

Combustion of fossil fuels results in emissions of criteria pollutants and their precursors

(i.e., NOx, CO, particulate matter, VOC, and sulfur oxides (SOx)). Controls for one pollutant

sometimes increases the emissions of one or more other pollutants. If this occurs, controls can

often be used for these other pollutants which will fully mitigate the increase. SOx is generally

controlled by limiting the sulfur content of the fuel and is not discussed further in this

determination, except as it affects emissions of other pollutants. 

The following discussion of controls emphasizes the control of NOx. NOx emissions from

stationary engines are generally far greater than for the other four pollutants. 
B-7

NOx is generated in internal combustion engines almost exclusively from the oxidation of

nitrogen in the air (thermal NOx) and from the oxidation of fuel-bound nitrogen (fuel NOx). The

generation of fuel NOx varies with the nitrogen content of the fuel and the air/fuel ratio. The

generation of thermal NOx varies with the air/fuel ratio, flame temperature, and residence time. 

Most fuels used in IC engines have relatively low fuel-bound nitrogen, so the principal NOx

generation mechanism is thermal NOx. Even in cases where a high nitrogen content fuel such as

crude oil or residual fuel oil is used, thermal NOx generation is generally far greater than fuel

NOx generation due to the high combustion temperatures present.

There are probably more different types of controls available to reduce NOx from IC

engines than for any other type of NOx source. These controls can be placed into one of four

general categories: combustion modifications, fuel switching, post combustion controls, and

replacement with a low emissions engine or electric motor. These controls are discussed in the

following sections. 

A. Combustion Modifications

Combustion modifications can reduce NOx formation by using techniques that change the

air/fuel mixture, reduce peak temperatures, or shorten the residence time at high temperatures. 

The most frequently used combustion modifications include retarding the ignition, leaning the

air/fuel ratio, adding a turbocharger and aftercooler, and adding exhaust gas recirculation. 

Emissions of CO, particulate matter, and VOC are generally the result of incomplete

combustion. They can be controlled by combustion modifications that increase oxygen,

temperature, residence time at high temperatures, and the mixing of air and fuel. Note, however,

that many of these modifications tend to increase NOx emissions. Care must be taken when

applying these modifications to assure that reductions in one pollutant do not result in an

unacceptable increase in other pollutants. These pollutants can also be controlled by post

combustion controls such as oxidation catalysts and particulate traps.

1. Ignition Timing Retard

Applicability: This technique can be used on all spark-ignited (SI) engines. The

technique has been widely used on motor vehicle engines, but is less popular on stationary source

engines. 

Principle: The ignition is retarded in SI engines by delaying the electrical pulse to the

spark plug. As a result, the spark plug fires later, resulting in more of the combustion taking place

as the piston begins its downward movement. This reduces both the magnitude and duration of

peak temperatures.

Typical Effectiveness: NOx reductions for ignition timing retard are approximately 15 to

30 percent. 
B-8

Limitations: SI engines are more sensitive than CI engines to operational problems

associated with timing retard, and SI engines with excessive retard tend to misfire and exhibit

poor transient performance. NOx reductions can be achieved with this technique, but there are

limitations. Ignition timing should be retarded per the engine manufacturer’s specifications and

recommendations in order to avoid problems during engine operation.

Other Effects: Ignition timing retard will result in greater fuel consumption and higher

exhaust temperatures, which could cause excessive exhaust valve wear. The maximum power

output of the engine is also reduced, but this reduction is generally minor. Ignition timing retard

will also result in greater emissions of VOC and HAPs.

Costs: This method has relatively low capital and operating costs. The cost of adjusting

timing to retard the ignition should be less than $300. 

 

2. Air/Fuel Ratio Changes

Applicability: This technique can be used on all SI engines, and has been used

extensively on a wide variety of engines.

Principle: NOx formation is a strong function of the air/fuel ratio as shown in

Figure B-1. Emissions of CO and VOC are also strong functions of the air/fuel ratio. 

Stoichiometry is achieved when the air/fuel ratio is such that all the fuel can be fully oxidized with

no residual oxygen remaining. NOx formation is highest when the air/fuel ratio is slightly on the

lean side of stoichiometric. At this point, both CO and VOC are relatively low. Adjusting the

air/fuel ratio toward either leaner or richer mixtures from the peak NOx formation air/fuel ratio

will reduce NOx formation. In the case of leaner mixtures, the excess air acts as a heat sink,

reducing peak temperatures, which results in reduced NOx formation. The excess air also allows

more oxygen to come into contact with the fuel, which promotes complete combustion and

reduces VOC and CO emissions. As the mixture continues to be leaned out, the reduced

temperatures may result in a slight increase in CO and VOC emissions. For extremely lean

mixtures, misfiring will occur, which increases VOC emissions dramatically.

Operating the engine on the lean side of the NOx formation peak is often preferred over

operating rich because of increased fuel efficiencies associated with lean operation. When

adjusting the air/fuel ratio, once an engine is leaned beyond the peak NOx air/fuel ratio, there is

approximately a 5 percent decrease in NOx for a 1 percent increase in intake air. However, this

rate of decrease in NOx becomes smaller as the mixture becomes leaner. Leaning the mixture

beyond the optimal air/fuel ratio associated with peak fuel efficiency will result in increased fuel

consumption. Compared to the most efficient air/fuel ratio, there is a fuel consumption penalty of

about 3 percent when an engine is leaned sufficiently to reduce NOx by 50 percent. Fuel

consumption increases exponentially if the mixture is leaned further.

NOx formation will also decrease if the mixture is richened from the peak NOx air/fuel
B-9

ratio. However, the effect on NOx is generally not as great as that associated with leaning the

mixture. With richer mixtures, the available oxygen preferentially combines with the fuel to form

carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O), leaving less oxygen available to combine with nitrogen to

form NOx. A mixture richer than stoichiometric will result in incomplete combustion. Nearly all

the oxygen will then combine with the fuel, emissions of CO and VOC will increase, and

reductions in peak temperatures will reduce NOx formation. There is a very rapid exponential

increase in CO and VOC emissions as the mixture becomes richer than stoichiometric.

The use of very lean air/fuel ratios may result in ignition problems. For this reason,

techniques designed to improve ignition are often combined with lean air/fuel ratios to control

NOx emissions and avoid increases in VOC emissions. These other techniques are described on

the following pages. 

Typical Effectiveness: When leaning of the mixture is combined with other techniques

such as low-emission combustion retrofit, NOx reductions greater than 80 percent are achievable,

along with reductions in CO and VOC emissions. If extremely lean mixtures are used in

conjunction with engine derating, NOx reductions well above 80 percent (less than 65 ppmv) are

achievable. For extremely lean mixtures the resulting reduced temperatures will tend to inhibit

oxidation, which will increase CO and VOC emissions to some degree. 

For rich mixtures, the NOx reduction potential is not as great as reductions for lean

mixtures. As the mixture is richened, emissions of CO and VOC increase to unacceptable levels

before the NOx decreases to levels achieved by leaning the mixture.

Limitations: If the air/fuel mixture is richened excessively, emissions of CO and VOC

increase dramatically. If the air/fuel ratio is leaned excessively, the flammability limit may be

exceeded, resulting in misfiring. When an engine misfires (i.e., fails to fire), uncombusted fuel

enters the exhaust, which dramatically increases VOC emissions.

Other Effects: None known.

Costs: Changing the air/fuel ratio of a SI engine should cost no more than $300. There is

generally a fuel penalty for rich-burn engines that are richened, but leaning the mixture may

reduce fuel consumption. These fuel effects vary with the engine and the degree of change in the

air/fuel mixture. 
B-10

3. Low-Emission Combustion/Precombustion Chamber Retrofit

Applicability: This control technology can be used on all SI engines, and has had wide

applications on a variety of engines. 

Principle: This method is used to enhance the effectiveness of the air/fuel ratio method

described previously. As indicated previously in the discussion of air/fuel ratio changes, leaning

the air/fuel mixture from the optimal NOx producing ratio will reduce NOx formation. The leaner

the mixture, the lower the NOx emissions. However, to obtain substantial reductions in NOx

emissions, engine modifications are needed to assure that the fuel will ignite and to minimize any

fuel consumption penalties. A number of engine manufacturers and NOx control equipment

manufacturers offer retrofit kits for some makes and models of lean-burn and rich-burn engines

that allow these engines to operate on extremely lean mixtures to minimize NOx emissions. These

retrofits are often referred to as low-emission combustion retrofits. 

On smaller engines, the cylinder head and pistons can be redesigned to promote improved

swirl patterns which result in thorough mixing. On larger engines, the use of a precombustion

chamber (also referred to as a prechamber) is needed to ignite the lean mixture. Combustion

begins in the smaller prechamber, which contains the spark plug and a rich air/fuel mixture. 

Combustion propagates into the larger main chamber, which contains a lean air/fuel mixture. The

resulting peak temperatures are lower due to: 1) the rich ignition mixture, 2) heat transfer losses

as combustion proceeds into the main chamber, and 3) the dilution effects of the excess air. 

Many precombustion chamber retrofits consist of replacing the existing engine heads with

new heads. However, some low cost prechamber retrofits are designed to use the existing

engine's head, with the prechambers fitted into the existing spark plug hole. Other prechamber

retrofits consist of a modified spark plug instead of a separate prechamber. The modified spark

plug has a small, built-in fuel nozzle which injects fuel toward the spark plug electrode. 

In order to achieve these leaner air/fuel ratios, additional amounts of air must be

introduced into the engine when using a given amount of fuel. For naturally aspirated engines, a

turbocharger often must be added to provide the additional air. In other cases, the existing

turbocharger may have to be replaced or modified to increase the air throughput.

Other equipment may also be used in a low-emission combustion retrofit, such as a high

energy ignition system to eliminate or minimize misfiring problems associated with lean operation,

a new or modified aftercooler, and an air/fuel ratio controller. This equipment is described in

more detail on the following pages.

Typical Effectiveness: For natural gas-fired engines, in almost all cases NOx emissions

can be reduced to less than 130 parts per million (ppm) (i.e., greater than an 80 percent reduction

over uncontrolled levels) with little or no fuel penalty. If engine parameters are adjusted and

carefully controlled and the maximum power output of the engine is derated, sustained emissions
B-11

below 65 ppm are achievable.

Limitations: NOx reductions of roughly 80 percent over uncontrolled levels are

achievable with little or no fuel penalty. However, if the engine is leaned further to reduce

emissions by more than about 80 percent, the fuel penalty increases exponentially. In some cases,

a turbocharger may be needed to provide increased air flow, but a properly sized turbocharger

may not be available for a retrofit. In other cases, the available retrofit parts may not allow the

engine to produce the same maximum power, and the engine must be derated. Beyond a certain

degree of leaning (and NOx reduction), misfiring will become a problem. 

In some cases, it may be cheaper to replace an existing engine with a new low-emission

combustion engine, rather than install a retrofit kit. This is especially true if the retrofit kit has to

be developed for that particular make and model of engine, or if the existing engine is old,

inefficient, or unreliable.

 Other Effects: At extremely lean air/fuel ratios, VOC and CO emissions tend to increase

slightly. Once the air/fuel mixture is sufficiently lean, misfiring may occur, in which case

VOC emissions can increase substantially. 

Costs: For the installation of precombustion chamber heads and related equipment on

large (~ 2,000 horsepower) engines, capital costs are about $400,000 per engine, and installation

costs are about $200,000. Costs are lower for smaller engines. In terms of dollars per rated

brake horsepower (bhp), costs are about $250/bhp for the large engines, and tend to be higher

than this for smaller engines.

For prechambers fitted inside the existing spark plug hole, capital costs are about $15,000

to $20,000 for engines in the 300 to 400 horsepower range. Capital costs for engines in the

2,000 horsepower range can exceed $200,000. 

4. Ignition System Improvements

Applicability: This control technology can be used on all SI engines. It has been applied

to only a limited number of engines and engine types. 

Principle: This method is used in conjunction with the use of lean air/fuel ratios to

reduce NOx emissions. It allows leaner mixtures to be used without misfiring problems. As

indicated previously, the leaner the air/fuel ratio, the lower the NOx emissions. However, at some

point in leaning the mixture, lean misfire begins to occur, and further NOx reductions are

impractical. In most engines during ignition, a nonuniform air/fuel mixture passes by the spark

plug. In standard ignition systems, the spark plug's firing duration is extremely short. If the spark

plug fires when this mixture is too lean to support combustion, a misfire occurs. If the spark plug

fires multiple times, or for a longer period of time, there is a greater chance that the proper air/fuel

mixture will pass by the spark plug and ignite the mixture. Improved ignition systems generally
B-12

use a higher voltage to fire the spark plug, in addition to multiple or continuous sparking of the

spark plug. This allows the use of leaner air/fuel ratios, resulting in lower NOx emissions. 

Typical Effectiveness: Emission reductions from a combination of leaning of the air/fuel

mixture and use of a continuous sparking ignition system approach but are generally less than a

precombustion chamber retrofit. NOx emissions can generally be reduced to about 200 ppm. 

Limitations: If the air/fuel ratio is leaned excessively, misfiring can occur. As with all

methods involving leaning, the engine's maximum power rating may have to be reduced unless a

turbocharger is retrofitted to naturally aspirated engines or the existing turbocharger is modified

or replaced to increase the throughput of combustion air. In many cases, a separate retrofit kit

must be developed for each make and model of engine, and only a few kits have been developed

so far.

Other Effects: At extremely lean air/fuel ratios, VOC and CO emissions tend to increase

slightly. If the air/fuel mixture is leaned excessively, misfiring may occur, in which case VOC

emissions can increase substantially. 

Costs: Costs are about two-thirds that of a precombustion chamber retrofit involving

head replacement. For large engines (~ 2000 horsepower), costs can be in excess of $200,000.

5. Turbocharging or Supercharging and Aftercooling

Applicability: This control method can be used on almost any engine and is widely used.

Principle: Turbochargers and superchargers compress the intake air of an engine before

this air enters the combustion chamber. Due to compression, the temperature of this air is

increased. This tends to increase peak temperatures, which increases the formation of NOx. 

However, the heat sink effect of the additional air in the cylinder, combined with the increased

engine efficiency from turbocharging or supercharging, generally results in a minor overall

decrease in NOx emissions per unit of power output. On the other hand, turbocharging or

supercharging can significantly increase the maximum power rating of an engine, which increases

the maximum mass emissions rate for NOx. Due to the high density of oxygen in the combustion

chamber, turbocharging or supercharging makes the combustion process more effective, which

tends to reduce emissions of CO and VOC.

On turbocharged or supercharged engines, the intake air temperature can be reduced by

aftercooling (also known as intercooling or charge air cooling). An aftercooler consists of a heat

exchanger located between the turbocharger or supercharger and combustion chamber. The heat

exchanger reduces the temperature of the intake air after it has been compressed by the

supercharger or turbocharger. Cooling the intake air reduces peak combustion temperatures, and

thereby reduces NOx emissions. The cooling medium can be water, either from the radiator or

from a source outside of the engine, or the cooling medium can be ambient air. The use of
B-13

radiator water generally results in the least amount of cooling, while the use of outside water or

ambient air results in the most cooling of the intake air. Using either a cooler source of water or

ambient air for the aftercooler can reduce the intake air temperature to as low as 90 oF. 

The cooling effects of the aftercooler increases the density of the intake air, which results

in a leaner air/fuel mixture in SI engines if no additional fuel is introduced. For engines already

using lean air/fuel mixtures, this leaner mixture will lower NOx emissions further.

Typical Effectiveness: NOx reductions from aftercooling range from about

3 to 35 percent. The percentage reduction is roughly proportional to the reduction in

temperature. Reductions in VOC and CO emissions also occur. 

Limitations: Turbochargers or superchargers may not be available for some engines. In

addition, some internal engine parts may have to be replaced or strengthened when adding a

supercharger or turbocharger.

Other Effects: Use of a supercharger or turbocharger increases the efficiency and

maximum power rating of an engine. Use of an aftercooler further increases the efficiency of an

engine, and can also increase the maximum power rating. At low loads and excessive temperature

reductions, an aftercooler can cause longer ignition delays, which increase emissions of VOC and

particulate matter. This emissions increase can be minimized if an aftercooler bypass is used to

limit cooling at low loads. 

Costs: The cost of retrofitting a naturally aspirated engine with a turbocharger and

related equipment varies from engine to engine. These costs vary not only because different sizes

of turbochargers are used for different engines, but also because different engines may require

more extensive internal modifications. 

For natural gas engines, costs of a turbocharger retrofit are typically $30,000 to $40,000

for engines in the 800 to 900 horsepower range. For natural gas engines in the 1,100 to

1,300 horsepower range, costs can vary from $35,000 to $150,000. 

In some cases, replacement of an existing engine with a new, low NOx emitting

turbocharged engine may result in lower overall costs than retrofitting the existing engine with a

turbocharger or supercharger. Although the capital cost of the new engine will generally be

greater than the retrofit cost for the existing engine, the new engine will reduce overall costs due

to increased efficiency, reduced down time, and reduced maintenance and repair costs. 

Except in cases where an engine's usage factor is very low, the improved fuel efficiency

associated with the use of turbochargers, superchargers, and aftercoolers generally results in a

cost savings.

6. Exhaust Gas Recirculation
B-14

Applicability: Exhaust gas recirculation, or EGR, can be used on all engine types. It has

been widely used on gasoline motor vehicle engines, but has been used infrequently on engines

used in other applications. 

Principle: EGR can be external or internal. In the case of external EGR, a portion of the

exhaust gas is diverted from the exhaust manifold and routed to the intake manifold before

reentering the combustion chamber. For internal EGR, an engine's operating parameters (such as

valve timing or supercharger pressure) are adjusted so that a greater amount of exhaust remains in

the cylinder after the exhaust stroke. 

EGR reduces NOx emissions by decreasing peak combustion temperatures through two

mechanisms: dilution and increased heat absorption. Dilution of the fuel/air mixture slows the

combustion process, thereby reducing peak temperatures. In addition, exhaust gases contain

significant amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor, which have a higher heat capacity than air.

 This means that, compared to air, carbon dioxide and water vapor can absorb greater amounts of

heat without increasing as much in temperature. 

Typical Effectiveness: NOx reductions are limited to about 30 percent before operation

of the engine is adversely affected.

Limitations: EGR will reduce an engine's peak power. This may be a serious problem

for engines required to operate at or near their peak power rating. The EGR system must be

designed and developed for each make and model of engine. An EGR retrofit kit is not available

for most engines.

Other Effects: EGR reduces engine efficiency. For example, fuel efficiency decreases

about 2 percent for a 12 percent decrease in NOx emissions. 

Costs: Costs are typically greater than for timing retard, but less than a turbocharger

retrofit.
B-15

7. Prestratified Charge

Applicability: This control technology is applicable to spark-ignited rich-burn engines. 

This method converts rich-burn engines into lean burn engines. It has been used on a number of

different engines, but is not as widely used as some of the most popular controls, such as lowemission combustion or NSCR catalysts. 

Principle: Rich-burn engines are typically four stroke naturally aspirated engines with no

intake/exhaust overlap. The major components of a prestratified charge (PSC) retrofit are the air

injectors. These injectors pulse air into the intake manifold in such a fashion that layers or zones

of air and the air/fuel mixture are introduced into the combustion chamber. Once inside the

combustion chamber, the top zone, near the spark plug, contains a rich air/fuel mixture. The

bottom zone is an air layer. The most recent version of the PSC system operates off of engine

vacuum, which allows the system to automatically compensate for varying power outputs. 

The PSC technique is very similar in concept to a precombustion chamber. Both have a

rich fuel mixture near the spark plug, and a lean mixture elsewhere in the combustion chamber. 

NOx emissions are low for PSC for the same reasons they are low for prechamber designs. 

Typical Effectiveness: PSC can achieve greater than 80 percent control of NOx for

power outputs up to about 70 or 80 percent of the maximum (uncontrolled) power rating using

air injection only. 

Limitations: In order for the engine to generate more than 70 or 80 percent of the

maximum (uncontrolled) power rating, the air injection rate must be reduced. This results in a

richer fuel mixture, which increases NOx emissions. To maintain high NOx control at high power

outputs, a turbocharger may have to be added or the existing turbocharger may have to be

modified or replaced to increase air throughput. Maximum emission reductions, even with use of

a turbocharger, are generally lower than can be accomplished with the use of an NSCR catalyst.

Other Effects: Fuel efficiency may be improved because PSC effectively converts a

rich-burn engine into a lean-burn engine.

Costs: For engines in the 300 to 900 horsepower range, retrofit costs are typically about 

$30,000. For engines in the 1100 to 1600 horsepower range, retrofit costs are about $40,000. 

However, costs can double if a turbocharger is added. Retrofits for even larger engines where a

turbocharger is added can cost as much as $160,000 to $190,000.

B. Fuel Switching

NOx emissions from IC engines can be reduced by switching to fuels that burn at lower

temperatures, such as methanol.
B-16

1. Methanol

Applicability: This control method is applicable to all engine types. Although a number

of motor vehicle engines have been converted to methanol fuel, very few stationary source engine

conversions have taken place. 

Principle: NOx emissions are generally lower for methanol than for other fuels for

several reasons. Methanol has a higher heat of vaporization than other fuels, and thus the process

of vaporization cools the air/fuel mixture significantly, resulting in lower peak temperatures. 

Methanol, being a partially oxygenated fuel, burns with a lower flame temperature, which also

reduces peak temperatures. Methanol fuel consists of only one type of molecule, which makes it

easier to optimize the combustion process in comparison to fuels consisting of a wide variety of

molecules, such as gasoline or diesel. Methanol and natural gas combustion produces almost no

particulate matter.

For rich-burn methanol engines, a relatively inexpensive three-way catalyst like that used

in gasoline-engined motor vehicles can be installed to control NOx. Methanol can also be used as

a fuel for lean-burn spark-ignited engines. Methanol has a wider range of flammability than many

other fuels, allowing a leaner mixture to be used, resulting in greater NOx reductions than is

possible with other fuels. 

Methanol can be used as a replacement fuel for gaseous and gasoline fueled engines with

only relatively minor engine modifications. 

Typical Effectiveness: NOx reductions from the conversion of an engine to methanol

fuel depend on the pre-conversion engine and fuel type. NOx reductions range from about 30

percent for the conversion of a natural gas engine. Reductions are even greater when the

conversion is accompanied by the addition of a catalyst.

Limitations: A retrofit kit must be developed for each make and model of engine. 

Currently, there are very few conversion kits available. The fuel and engine system must use

materials that are resistant to the corrosive action of methanol. Special lubricants must be used

to avoid excessive engine wear. Incomplete combustion of methanol produces formaldehyde, but

the use of an oxidation catalyst can reduce formaldehyde emissions to low levels.

Other Effects: None for SI engines.

Costs: Conversion costs for an automotive engine are on the order of $1,000. Costs for

converting stationary gasoline engines to methanol are expected to be similar. The largest cost

element is often is the fuel price differential between methanol and the fuel it replaces (e.g.,

natural gas or gasoline). Included in this price differential are transportation, storage, and

refueling costs associated with the use of methanol. 
B-17

C. Post Combustion Controls

Post combustion controls generally consist of catalysts or filters that act on the engine

exhaust to reduce emissions. Post combustion controls also include the introduction of agents or

other substances that act on the exhaust to reduce emissions, with or without the assistance of

catalysts or filters.

1. Oxidation Catalyst

Applicability: This control method is applicable to all engines. For stationary engines,

oxidation catalysts have been used primarily on lean-burn engines. Rich-burn engines tend to use

3-way catalysts, which combine nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR) for NOx control and an

oxidation catalyst for control of CO and VOC. The oxidation catalyst has been used on lean-burn

engines for nearly 30 years. Oxidation catalysts are used less frequently on stationary engines. In

the United States, only about 500 stationary lean-burn engines have been fitted with oxidation

catalysts.

Principle: An oxidation catalyst contains materials (generally precious metals such as

platinum or palladium) that promote oxidation reactions between oxygen, CO, and VOC to

produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. These reactions occur when exhaust at the proper

temperature and containing sufficient oxygen passes through the catalyst. Depending on the

catalyst formulation, an oxidation catalyst may obtain reductions at temperatures as low as 300 or

400 oF, although minimum temperatures in the 600 to 700 oF range are generally required to

achieve maximum reductions. The catalyst will maintain adequate performance at temperatures

typically as high as 1350 oF before problems with physical degradation of the catalyst occur. In

the case of rich-burn engines, where the exhaust does not contain enough oxygen to fully oxidize

the CO and VOC in the exhaust, air can be injected into the exhaust upstream of the catalyst. 

Typical Effectiveness: The effectiveness of an oxidation catalyst is a function of the

exhaust temperature, oxygen content of the exhaust, amount of active material in the catalyst,

exhaust flow rate through the catalyst, and other parameters. Catalysts can be designed to

achieve almost any control efficiency desired. Reductions greater than 90 percent for both CO

and VOC are typical. Reductions in VOC emissions can vary significantly and are a function of

the fuel type and exhaust temperature.

Limitations: A sufficient amount of oxygen must be present in the exhaust for the

catalyst to operate effectively. In addition, the effectiveness of an oxidation catalyst may be poor

if the exhaust temperature is low, which is the case for an engine at idle. Oxidation catalysts, like

other catalyst types, can be degraded by masking, thermal sintering, or chemical poisoning by

sulfur or metals. If the engine is not in good condition, a complete engine overhaul may be

needed to ensure proper catalyst performance. 
B-18

Sulfur, which can be found in fuels and lubricating oils, is generally a temporary poison,

and can be removed by operating the catalyst at sufficiently high temperatures. However, high

temperatures can damage the substrate material. Other ways of dealing with sulfur poisoning

include the use of low sulfur fuels or scrubbing of the fuel to remove the sulfur. Besides being a

catalyst poison, sulfur can also be converted into sulfates by the catalyst before passing through

the exhaust pipe. Catalysts can be specially formulated to minimize this conversion, but these

special formulations must operate over a relatively narrow temperature range if they are to

effectively reduce VOC and CO and also suppress the formation of sulfates. For engines operated

over wide power ranges, where exhaust temperatures vary greatly, special catalyst formulations

are not effective.

Metal poisoning is generally more permanent, and can result from the metals present in

either the fuel or lubricating oil. Specially formulated oils with low metals content are generally

specified to minimize poisoning, along with good engine maintenance practices. Metal poisoning

can be reversed in some cases with special procedures. Many catalysts are now formulated to

resist poisoning. 

Masking refers to the covering and plugging of a catalyst's active material by solid

contaminants in the exhaust. Cleaning of the catalyst can remove these contaminants, which

usually restores catalytic activity. Masking is generally limited to engines using landfill gas, diesel

fuel, or heavy liquid fuels, although sulfate ash from lubricating oil may also cause masking. 

Masking can be minimized by passing the exhaust through a particulate control device, such as a

filter or trap, before this material encounters the catalyst. In the case of landfill gas, the

particulate control device can act directly on the fuel before introduction into the engine.

Thermal sintering is caused by excessive heat and is not reversible. However, it can be

avoided by incorporating over temperature control in the catalyst system. Many manufacturers

recommend the use of over temperature monitoring and control for their catalyst systems. In

addition, stabilizers such as CeO2 or La2O3 are often included in the catalyst formulation to

minimize sintering. High temperature catalysts have been developed which can withstand

temperatures exceeding 1800 oF for some applications. This temperature is well above the highest

IC engine exhaust temperature that would ever be encountered. Depending on the design and

operation, peak exhaust temperatures for IC engines range from 550 to 1300 oF. 

Other recommendations to minimize catalyst problems include monitoring the pressure

drop across the catalyst, the use of special lubricating oil to prevent poisoning, periodic washing

of the catalyst, the monitoring of emissions, and the periodic laboratory analysis of a sample of

catalyst material.

Other Effects: A catalyst will increase backpressure in the exhaust, resulting in a slight

reduction in engine efficiency and maximum rated power. However, when conditions require an

exhaust silencer, the catalyst can often be designed to do an acceptable job of noise suppression

so that a separate muffler is not required. Under such circumstances, backpressure from the
B-19

catalyst may not exceed that of a muffler, and no reduction in engine efficiency or power occur. 

Often, engine manufacturers rate their engines at a given backpressure, and as long as the catalyst

does not exceed this backpressure, no reduction in the engine's maximum power rating will be

experienced.

Costs: Typical costs for an oxidation catalyst are 10 to 12 dollars per horsepower, or

slightly less than a nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR) catalyst. The cost for catalyst wash

service has been reported as $300 to $600 per cubic foot of catalyst material. 

2. Nonselective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR)

Applicability: This control method is applicable to all rich-burn engines, and is probably

the most popular control method for rich-burn engines. The first wide scale application of NSCR

technology occurred in the mid- to late-1970s, when 3-way NSCR catalysts were applied to

motor vehicles with gasoline engines. Since then, this control method has found widespread use

on stationary engines. NSCR catalysts have been commercially available for stationary engines

for over 15 years, and over 3,000 stationary engines in the U.S. are now equipped with NSCR

controls. Improved NSCR catalysts, called 3-way catalysts because CO, VOC, and NOx are

simultaneously controlled, have been commercially available for stationary engines for over

10 years. Over 1,000 stationary engines in the U.S. are now equipped with 3-way NSCR

controls. 

The dual bed NSCR catalyst is a variation of the 3-way catalyst. The dual bed contains a

reducing bed to control NOx, followed by an oxidizing bed to control CO and VOC. Dual bed

NSCR catalysts tend to be more effective than 3-way catalysts, but are also more expensive, and

have not been applied to as many engines as 3-way catalysts. Improved 3-way catalysts can

approach the control efficiencies of dual bed catalysts at a lower cost, and for this reason dual bed

catalysts have lost popularity to 3-way catalysts. 

Principle: The NSCR catalyst promotes the chemical reduction of NOx in the presence

of CO and VOC to produce oxygen and nitrogen. The 3-way NSCR catalyst also contains

materials that promote the oxidation of VOC and CO to form carbon dioxide and water vapor. 

To control NOx, CO, and VOC simultaneously, 3-way catalysts must operate in a narrow air/fuel

ratio band (15.9 to 16.1 for natural gas-fired engines) that is close to stoichiometric. An

electronic controller, which includes an oxygen sensor and feedback mechanism, is often

necessary to maintain the air/fuel ratio in this narrow band. At this air/fuel ratio, the oxygen

concentration in the exhaust is low, while concentrations of VOC and CO are not excessive.

For dual bed catalysts, the engine is run slightly richer than for a 3-way catalyst. The first

catalyst bed in a dual bed system reduces NOx. The exhaust then passes into a region where air is

injected before entering the second (oxidation) catalyst bed. NOx reduction is optimized in

comparison to a 3-way catalyst due to the higher CO and VOC concentrations and lower oxygen

concentrations present in the first (reduction) catalyst bed. In the second (oxidation) bed, CO and
B-20

VOC reductions are optimized due to the relatively high oxygen concentration present. Although

the air/fuel ratio is still critical in a dual bed catalyst, optimal NOx reductions are achievable

without controlling the air/fuel ratio as closely as in a 3-way catalyst. 

Typical Effectiveness: Removal efficiencies for a 3-way catalyst are greater than

90 percent for NOx, greater than 80 percent for CO, and greater than 50 percent for VOC. 

Greater efficiencies, below 10 parts per million NOx, are possible through use of an improved

catalyst containing a greater concentration of active catalyst materials, use of a larger catalyst to

increase residence time, or through use of a more precise air/fuel ratio controller. 

For dual bed catalysts, reductions of 98 percent for both NOx and CO are typical. 

The previously mentioned reduction efficiencies for catalysts are achievable as long as the

exhaust gases are within the catalyst temperature window, which is typically 700 to 1200 oF. For

many engines, this temperature requirement is met at all times except during startup and idling.

The percentage reductions are essentially independent of other controls that reduce the

NOx concentration upstream of the catalyst. Thus, a combination of combustion modifications

and catalyst can achieve even greater reductions.

Limitations: As with oxidation catalysts, NSCR catalysts are subject to masking, thermal

sintering, and chemical poisoning. In addition, NSCR is not effective in reducing NOx if the CO

and VOC concentrations are too low. NSCR is also not effective in reducing NOx if significant

concentrations of oxygen are present. In this latter case, the CO and VOC in the exhaust will

preferentially react with the oxygen instead of the NOx. For this reason, NSCR is an effective

NOx control method only for rich-burn engines. 

When applying NSCR to an engine, care must be taken to ensure that the sulfur content of

the fuel gas is not excessive. The sulfur content of pipeline-quality natural gas and LPG is very

low, but some oil field gases and waste gases can contain high concentrations. Sulfur tends to

collect on the catalyst, which causes deactivation. This is generally not a permanent condition,

and can be reversed by introducing higher temperature exhaust into the catalyst or simply by

heating the catalyst. Even if deactivation is not a problem, the water content of the fuel gas must

be limited when significant amounts of sulfur are present to avoid deterioration and degradation of

the catalyst from sulfuric acid vapor. 

For dual bed catalysts, engine efficiency suffers slightly compared to a 3-way catalyst due

to the richer operation of engines using dual bed catalysts.

In cases where an engine operates at idle for extended periods or is cyclically operated,

attaining and maintaining the proper temperature may be difficult. In such cases, the catalyst

system can be designed to maintain the proper temperature, or the catalyst can use materials that

achieve high efficiencies at lower temperatures. For some cyclically operated engines, these
B-21

design changes may be as simple as thermally insulating the exhaust pipe and catalyst.

Most of these limitations can be eliminated or minimized by proper design and

maintenance. For example, if the sulfur content of the fuel is excessive, the fuel can be scrubbed

to remove the sulfur, or the catalyst design or engine operation can be modified to minimize the

deactivation effects of the sulfur. Poisoning from components in the lube oil can be eliminated by

using specially formulated lube oils that do not contain such components. However, NSCR

applications on landfill gas and digester gas have generally not been successful due to catalyst

poisoning and plugging from impurities in the fuel.

 

Other Effects: A very low oxygen content in the exhaust must be present for NSCR to

perform effectively. To achieve this low oxygen content generally requires richening of the

mixture. This richening tends to increase CO and VOC emissions. However, use of a

3-way catalyst can reduce CO and VOC emissions to levels well below those associated with

uncontrolled engines.

Another effect of NSCR is increased fuel consumption. This increase is very slight when

compared to an uncontrolled rich-burn engine. However, when compared to a lean-burn engine,

a rich-burn engine uses 5 to 12 percent more fuel for the same power output. If a rich-burn

engine uses a dual bed catalyst, a further slight increase in fuel consumption is generally

experienced. 

Costs: The total installed cost of an NSCR system on an existing engine varies with the

size of the engine. The catalyst will cost about 8 to 15 dollars per horsepower, while air/fuel ratio

controllers vary in cost from about $3,500 to $7,000. Installation and labor costs generally range

from $1,000 to $3,000. For an 80 horsepower engine, total costs for installation may range from

$5,000 to $11,000. For an 1,100 horsepower engine, installed costs of $20,000 to $25,000 are

typical. 

3. Hybrid System

Applicability: This control method can be applied to all engines. This control method

was conceived by Radian Corporation, and has been developed by AlliedSignal and Beaird

Industries. There has been one field prototype demonstration in San Diego, and it appears that

the system has been offered commercially. However, there are no commercial applications of this

technique.

Principle: The hybrid system is a modification of the dual bed NSCR system. The hybrid

system adds a burner in the engine exhaust between the engine and the dual bed catalysts. The

burner is operated with an excess amount of fuel so that oxygen within the engine exhaust is

almost completely consumed, and large amounts of CO are generated. The exhaust then passes

through a heat exchanger to reduce temperatures before continuing on to a reducing catalyst. The

NOx reduction efficiency of the reducing catalyst is extremely high due to the high CO
B-22

concentration (the CO acts as a reducing agent to convert NOx into nitrogen gas. The exhaust

next passes through another heat exchanger, and air is added before the exhaust passes through an

oxidation catalyst. The oxidation catalyst is extremely efficient in reducing CO and VOC

emissions due to the excess oxygen in the exhaust. 

Typical Effectiveness: NOx concentrations as low as 3 to 4 ppm are achievable with this

system. Concentrations of CO and VOC are typical of systems using oxidation catalysts. 

Limitations: When the oxygen content of the engine's exhaust is high, such as for leanburn engines, the burner must use a large amount of fuel to consume nearly all the oxygen and

generate sufficient amounts of CO. Therefore, use of this method on lean-burn engines is only

practical in cogeneration applications, where heat generated by the burner can be recovered and

converted to useful energy.

Other Effects: For rich-burn engines, this method has a fuel penalty of about one to

five percent. However, for lean-burn engines, the fuel penalty could be equal to the uncontrolled

engine's fuel consumption. 

Costs: Costs are several times greater than for a simple NSCR catalyst. Capital costs

were reported in 1993 as $150,000 for a 470 brake horsepower engine.

4. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

Applicability: This method was patented in the U.S. in the 1950s, and there have been

over 700 applications of SCR to combustion devices worldwide. Some of these applications

include stationary IC engines. However, most of these applications are external combustion

devices such as boilers. SCR systems for IC engines have been commercially available for a

number of years, but there have only been a few dozen SCR retrofits of IC engines. SCR is

applicable to all lean-burn engines, including diesel engines. 

Principle: The exhaust of lean-burn engines contains high levels of oxygen and relatively

low levels of VOC and CO, which would make an NSCR type of catalyst ineffective at reducing

NOx. However, an SCR catalyst can be highly effective under these conditions. Oxygen is a

necessary ingredient in the SCR NOx reduction equation, and SCR performs best when the

oxygen level in the exhaust exceeds 2 to 3 percent. 

Differing catalyst materials can be used in an SCR catalyst, depending on the exhaust gas

temperature. Base metal catalysts are most effective at exhaust temperatures between 500 and

900 oF. Base metal catalysts generally contain titanium dioxide and vanadium pentoxide, although

other metals such as tungsten or molybdenum are sometimes used. Zeolite catalysts are most

effective at temperatures between 675 to over 1100 oF. Precious metal catalysts such as platinum

and palladium are most effective at temperatures between 350 and 550 oF. 
B-23

In SCR, ammonia (or, in some cases, urea) is injected in the exhaust upstream of the

catalyst. The catalyst promotes the reaction of ammonia with NOx and oxygen in the exhaust,

converting the reactants to water vapor and nitrogen gas. Ammonia injection can be controlled

by the use of a NOx monitor in the exhaust downstream of the catalyst. A feedback loop from the

monitor to the ammonia injector controls the amount injected, so that NOx reductions are

maximized while emissions of ammonia are minimized. To eliminate the use of a costly NOx

monitor, some applications use an alternative system that measures several engine parameters. 

Values for these parameters are then electronically converted into estimated NOx concentrations.

 

Typical Effectiveness: The NOx removal efficiency of SCR is typically above 80 percent

when within the catalyst temperature window.

Limitations: SCR can only be used on lean burn engines. Relatively high capital costs

make this method too expensive for smaller or infrequently operated engines. 

Some SCR catalysts are susceptible to poisoning from metals or silicon oxides that may be

found in the fuel or lubricating oil. Poisoning problems can be minimized by using specially

formulated lubricating oils that do not contain the problem metals, the use of fuels with low

metals or silicon oxides content, or the use of zeolite catalysts which are not as susceptible to

poisoning.

If platinum or palladium is used as an active catalyst material, the sulfur content of the

exhaust must be minimized to avoid poisoning of the catalyst. In addition, for all types of SCR

catalysts, high sulfur fuels will result in high sulfur oxides in the exhaust. These sulfur compounds

will react with the ammonia in the exhaust to form particulate matter that will either mask the

catalyst or be released into the atmosphere. These problems can be minimized by using low sulfur

fuel, a metal-based SCR system specially designed to minimize formation of these particulate

matter compounds, or a zeolite catalyst. 

Ammonia gas has an objectionable odor, is considered an air pollutant at low

concentrations, becomes a health hazard at higher concentrations, and is explosive at still higher

concentrations. Safety hazards can occur if the ammonia is spilled or there are leaks from

ammonia storage vessels. These safety hazards can be minimized by taking proper safety

precautions in the design, operation, and maintenance of the SCR system. Safety hazards can be

substantially reduced by using aqueous ammonia or urea instead of anhydrous ammonia. If a

concentrated aqueous solution of urea is used, the urea tank must be heated to avoid

recrystallization of the urea. In addition, if too much ammonia is injected into the exhaust,

excessive ammonia emissions may result. These emissions can be reduced to acceptable levels by

monitoring and controlling the amount of ammonia injected into the exhaust. 

SCR may also result in a slight increase in fuel consumption if the backpressure generated

by the catalyst exceeds manufacturer's limits.

Other Effects: None known.
B-24

Costs: SCR is one of the higher cost control methods due to the capital cost for the

catalyst, the added cost and complexity of using ammonia, and the instrumentation and controls

needed to carefully monitor NOx emissions and meter the proper amount of ammonia. Estimated

costs, however have been declining over the past several years. Currently, costs are estimated to

be about $50 to $125 per horsepower. 

Engines operated at a constant load may be able to eliminate the NOx monitor and

feedback ammonia metering system. In such cases, proper instrumentation must be used to

monitor ammonia and NOx when the SCR system is set up. Frequent checks are also needed to

assure that the setup does not change. Such a system was purchased in 1996 for a

1,300 horsepower diesel engine at a cost of approximately $100,000.

5. Lean NOx Catalyst

Applicability: This control method can be used on any lean-burn engine, although

development work has concentrated on diesel engines. This control method is still in the

development stage and is not commercially available, but may be available in a few years. 

Principle: A number of catalyst materials can be used in the formulation of lean NOx

catalysts. The constituents are generally proprietary. NOx reductions are generally minimal

unless a reducing agent (typically raw fuel) is injected upstream of the catalyst to increase catalyst

performance to acceptable levels. Depending on the catalyst formulation, this method can reduce

NOx, CO, and VOC simultaneously. 

Typical Effectiveness: Claims for NOx control efficiencies have ranged from 25 to 50

percent. Steady state testing on a diesel-fueled engine yielded NOx reductions of 17 to 44

percent.

Limitations: Use of a reducing agent increases costs, complexity, and fuel consumption.

 The reducing agent injection system must be carefully designed to minimize excess injection

rates. Otherwise, emissions of VOC and particulate matter can increase to unacceptable levels. 

Tests have shown that lean NOx catalysts produce significant amounts of nitrous oxide (N2O),

and that this production increases with increasing NOx reduction efficiencies and reducing agent

usage. This method is not commercially available, and is still in the development and

demonstration stage.

Other Effects: None known.

Costs: Since no systems have been sold commercially, costs are unknown, but would

probably exceed those for NSCR.

6. NOxTech
B-25

Applicability: This control method, formerly known as RAPRENOX, is applicable to

lean-burn engines. This technology can be applied to lean-burn gaseous fueled engines. 

However, this technology is relatively new, and there have only been a few commercial

applications. 

Principle: NOxTech uses a gaseous phase autocatalysis process to reduce NOx and other

pollutants. There is no catalyst. In this method a reagent and fuel are injected into a reactor

vessel with the exhaust stream of the engine. The fuel combusts and increases the exhaust

temperature to a range of 1,400 to 1,550 oF, where reactions between nitric oxide (NO) and the

reagent generate N2, CO2, and H2O. The reactor vessel is a large chamber which increases the

residence time of the constituent gases at high temperature. In the past, cyanuric acid has been

the reagent. More recent literature indicates that either urea or ammonia is used. 

Typical Effectiveness: NOx emission reductions of 80 to 90 percent are typical, and the

system can be designed to reduce NOx by well over 90 percent. This control method also

removes 80 percent or more of CO, VOCs, and PM as well with minimal reagent slip.

Limitations: With a recovery heat exchanger in the reactor, the fuel penalty is about 5 to

10 percent. There are versions which do not have the heat exchanger. In these versions,

significant amounts of fuel are used to heat the exhaust. Although this technology may be

economically attractive for cogeneration applications where the energy used to heat the exhaust is

recovered, the economics are less favorable for applications where the exhaust heat is not

recovered. This technology may not be economically attractive when an engine's power output

remains below 50 percent of full power. At low power outputs, exhaust temperatures are low,

and greater amounts of fuel must be used to achieve the required exhaust temperature. The size

of the reaction chamber may make applications difficult where there is a lack of room.

Other Effects: None known.

Costs: In general, the capital costs for this system are much lower than SCR, but

operating costs are significantly higher. Start-up costs are estimated to be in the range of $100 to

$200 per kilowatt.

7. Urea Injection

Applicability: This control method is applicable to all lean-burn engines and is also

known as selective noncatalytic reduction. It has been used on several boilers to control NOx, but

there have been no applications to internal combustion engines. 

Principle: Urea injection is very similar to cyanuric acid injection, as both chemicals

come in powder form, and both break down at similar temperatures to form compounds which

react with nitric oxide. Differences are that a high temperature heating system is not required for
B-26

urea injection. Instead, the urea is usually dissolved in water, and this solution is injected into the

exhaust stream.

Typical Effectiveness: Unknown.

Limitations: The temperature window for urea is higher than the highest exhaust

temperature of nearly all engines. Therefore, due to cost-effectiveness considerations, practical

applications of urea injection are limited to engines in cogeneration applications. Specifically,

these applications are limited to situations where supplemental firing is applied to the engine's

exhaust to increase its temperature, and the exhaust heat is recovered and used.

Other Effects: Unknown.

Costs: Unknown.

8. NOx Adsorber Technology (SCONOx)

Applicability: This NOx control method is applicable to diesel-fueled and lean burn

engines and is just entering the commercialization phase. It has been installed on gas turbines,

boilers, and steam generators previously. The first U.S. application of NOx adsorber technology

on a mobile source is the Honda Insight which is a hybrid vehicle. Multiple companies and

organizations are engaged in the development of the NOx adsorber technology. This discussion

will focus on SCONOx.

Principle: This system uses a single catalyst for the removal of NOx, VOC, and CO

emissions. This is a three step process in which initially the catalyst simultaneously oxidizes NO,

hydrocarbon, and CO emissions. In the second phase, NO2 is absorbed into the catalyst surface

through the use of a potassium carbonate coating. Unlike SCR, this technology does not require

a reagent such as ammonia or urea in reducing emissions. Finally, the catalyst undergoes

regeneration periodically to maintain maximum NOx absorption. The SCONOx system requires

natural gas, water, and electricity and operates at temperatures ranging from 300? to 700? F. 

The catalyst is regenerated by passing a dilute hydrogen reducing gas across its surface in

the absence of oxygen. The gases react with the potassium nitrites and nitrates to form potassium

carbonate which is the absorber coating on the surface of the catalyst. The exhaust from the

regeneration process is nitrogen and steam. This catalyst has multiple sections of catalyst. At any

given time, a certain percentage of the sections are in the oxidation/absorption cycle while the

remaining catalyst sections are being regenerated. In IC engine applications, one regeneration

approach has been to de-sorb the adsorber by running the engine in a fuel rich mode and passing

the exhaust through a three way catalyst to reduce the NOx.

Typical Effectiveness: Since this technology is just entering commercialization data is

very limited. Feasibility testing conducted by the manufacturer on a diesel engine rated less than
B-27

100 horsepower indicated that NOx reductions greater than 90 percent can be achieved. The

manufacturer intends to conduct further testing on a demonstration basis. As part of its

demonstration for California Environmental Technology Certification, this technology had NOx

emissions of 2 ppmv (approximately 98.6 control) on a natural gas-fired gas turbine.

Limitations: The system is sensitive to trace amounts of sulfur in the exhaust. In

certifying this technology with a gas turbine, it has been reported that the system achieves it

lowest NOx levels by adding a sulfur scrubber to the natural gas fuel. From this statement, it

would seem logical that the use of low sulfur diesel fuel would be recommended on IC engines.

Other Effects: Since a reagent is not required as with SCR, there will be no emissions of

ammonia which is a toxic compound which can cause health effects. The catalyst is regenerated

using hydrogen gas which is generated onsite through the use of a reformer. Hydrogen is

flammable and could be a potential safety hazard.

Costs: At this stage of development/commercialization, the cost for a single prototype is

estimated to be about $100,000. It is expected that mass production would drop prices

substantially.

D. Replacement

Another method of reducing NOx is to replace the existing IC engine with an electric

motor, or a new engine designed to emit very low NOx emissions. In some instances, the existing

engine may be integral with a compressor or other gear, and replacement of the engine will

require the replacement or modification of this other equipment as well.

Applicability: This control method is applicable to all engines. 

Principle: Rather than applying controls to the existing engine, it is removed and

replaced with either a new, low emissions engine or an electric motor.

Typical Effectiveness: New, low emissions engines can reduce NOx by a substantial

amount over older, uncontrolled engines. Potential NOx reductions of over 60 percent can be

realized by replacing existing SI engines with new certified low emission engines fueled by natural

gas or propane.

Another approach is to replace an engine with an electric motor. An electric motor

essentially eliminates NOx emissions associated with the removed engine, although there may be

minor increases in power plant emissions to supply electricity to the electric motor.

Limitations: In remote locations or where electrical infrastructure is inadequate, the

costs of electrical power transportation and conditioning may be excessive. Similarly, the cost of

replacing an engine with a natural gas fired unit could be prohibitive if a natural gas pipeline is not
B-28

in reasonably close proximity to the engine. In cases where the existing engine operates

equipment integral to the engines (such as some engine/compressors that share a common

crankshaft), both the engine and integral equipment often must be replaced. 

Certified Engines: Another issue to consider is associated with new engines certified to an

on road or off road emission standard. A certified engine’s NOx emission units is given in g/bhphr and is an average of the NOx concentrations measured under different operating conditions of

a given test cycle. So the certified engine’s NOx emissions could be higher or lower than its

certification value depending on the operating mode under which the engine is being tested. In

addition, on road test cycles are typically transient in nature which matches the duty cycle of a

mobile source whereas an off road cycle is steady state in nature. There is the possibility that the

emissions measured using ARB Test Method 100 or

U.S. EPA Test Method 7E on a certified engine in a stationary application may not match the

engine’s NOx certification numbers due to the differences between test cycles and the engine’s

operational duty cycle.

Other Effects: None known.

Costs: Costs of engine replacement with an electric motor or new low emissions engine

are highly variable, and depend on the size of the engine, the cost of electricity, electrical power

availability, accessibility of natural gas pipelines, useful remaining life for the existing engine, and

other factors.
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY OF DISTRICT IC ENGINE RULES
C-2

SUMMARY OF DISTRICT IC ENGINE RULES

Note that this appendix contains summaries of the district rules. Please refer to the actual

district rules for complete text.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Antelope Valley AQMD ........................................................................................C-3

Bay Area AQMD ...................................................................................................C-4

El Dorado County APCD.......................................................................................C-5

Kern County APCD ...............................................................................................C-6

Mojave Desert AQMD...........................................................................................C-7

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD...........................................................................C-8

San Diego County APCD.......................................................................................C-9

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD.........................................................................C-11

San Luis Obispo County APCD .............................................................................C-12

Santa Barbara County APCD .................................................................................C-13

Shasta County AQMD ...........................................................................................C-14

South Coast AQMD...............................................................................................C-15

Tehama County APCD...........................................................................................C-17

Ventura County APCD...........................................................................................C-18

Yolo-Solano AQMD..............................................................................................C-19
C-3

Rule/Measure/Date

Antelope Valley AQMD

Rule 1110.2

12/09/1994

Applicability All stationary engines > 50 bhp and all portable engines > 100 bhp

Limits Replace engines with an electric motor, or reduce emissions to the following:

For portable engines and stationary engines that generate electric power, are fired on

landfill gas or sewage digester gas, are used for pumping water (except aeration

facilities), are fueled by field gas, are integral engine compressors operating fewer

than 4000 hours per year, or are LPG-fueled:

NOx – engines > 500 bhp – 36 ppm @ 15% oxygen, engines > 50 and < 500 bhp – 45 ppm

@ 15% oxygen

VOC – 250 ppm @ 15% oxygen as methane

CO – 2000 ppm @ 15% oxygen

For all other stationary engines:

NOx – 36 ppm @ 15% oxygen

VOC – 250 ppm @ 15% oxygen as methane

CO – 2000 ppm @ 15% oxygen

Exemptions ? Engine operation during an officially declared disaster or state of emergency

? Agricultural operations

? Emergency standby engines which operate fewer than 200 hours per year

? Fire fighting and or flood control

? Research and testing

? Performance verification and testing

? Engines locate in some parts of Riverside County

? Auxiliary engines used to power engines or gas turbines during start up

? Supplemental engines which operate < 700 hours per year for snow making or ski lift

operation

Administrative

Requirements

? Engines > 1000 bhp and operating > 2 million bhp-hr. per year must use continuous

emissions monitoring for NOx and CO

? Monitoring system shall have data gathering and retrieval capability

? Maintain continuous monitoring records for two years

? Source testing of NOx, VOC, and CO every year

? Maintain operating log

? Emission control plan

Monitoring

Period

CEMS required for engines > 1000 bhp and > 2 million bhp-hr. per year

Source test every year

Test Methods NOx – EPA Method 20

CO – EPA Method 10

VOC – EPA Method 25
C-4

Rule/Measure/Date

Bay Area AQMD

Regulation 9, Rule 8

01/20/1993

Applicability > 250 bhp; partly or completely gaseous fueled

Limits CO – 2000 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Natural gas fuels

Rich-burn

NOx – 56 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Lean-burn

NOx – 140 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Waste-derived fuels

Rich-burn

NOx – 210 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Lean-burn

NOx – 140 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Exemptions ? Engines used solely as emergency standby sources of power

? Engines < 250 bhp

? Engines fired exclusively on liquid fuels

? Engines used in agricultural operations

? Engines < 1000 bhp and < 200 hrs/year operation

? Engines > 1000 bhp and < 100 hrs/year operation

Administrative

Requirements ? Maintain records of hours of operation for engines exempted due to low usage

Monitoring

Period Initial source test required by 3/31/97; results submitted by 5/31/97

Test Methods NOx – ST-13 A or B

CO – ST-6

VOC – ST-14
C-5

Rule/Measure/Date

El Dorado County APCD

Rule 233

10/18/1994

Applicability > 50 bhp, operated on gaseous fuels, LPG, or diesel

Limits CO – 2000 ppmv

Rich-Burn

NOx – 90 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Lean-Burn

NOx – 150 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Diesel

NOx – 600 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Exemptions ? Agricultural operations

? ? 50 bhp engines

? Engines operating < 200 hours per year

? Emergency standby engines (maintenance limited to 50 hours/year)

? Research and testing

? Test stands used for evaluating engine performance

? Diesel engines with permitted capacity < 15%

? Diesel engines used to power cranes and welding equipment

Administrative

Requirements

? Maintain inspection log

? Documentation supporting exemption

? Annual emissions report

Monitoring

Period Annual source test

Test Methods NOx – EPA Method 7E

CO – EPA Method 10

O2 – EPA Method 3A
C-6

Rule/Measure/Date

Kern County APCD

Rule 427

07/01/1999

Applicability > 50 bhp; all fuel types

Limits For engines > 50 bhp:

Follow required NOx minimization maintenance schedule

For engines > 250 bhp after 6/1/97:

CO – 2000 ppm @ 15% oxygen

Rich-Burn

NOx – 50 ppm @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction

Lean-Burn

NOx -- 125 ppm @ 15% oxygen or 80% reduction, or 2 gm/bhp-hr. if combustion

modification used exclusively (125 ppm if no means to measure shaft power output)

Diesel

600 ppm @ 15% oxygen or 30% reduction

If engine efficiency exceeds 30%, ppm limits adjusted higher

Exemptions ? Agricultural operations

? Emergency standby engines operated < 200 hours per year

? Engines used for fire fighting or flood control

? Laboratory engines used in research and testing

? Engines operated exclusively for performance verification and testing

? Portable engines not operated at the same site for more than one year

Administrative

Requirements

? Emission control plan required

? Engine service log

? Engine operating log for engines subject to emission limits

? Source test required every calendar year

Monitoring

Period

For engines > 250 hp:

For lean-burn and diesel engines, monitor NOx and CO concentrations, or if catalysts are

used, monitor flow rate of reducing compounds or air to fuel ratio

Source test annually or if Control Officer is provided with documentation related to NOx

emissions showing the engine has been operating as when last tested and the Control

Officer has no reason to suspect non-compliance:

Every two years; or by testing after no more than 1000 hours of operation

Test Methods NOx – EPA Method 7E or ARB Method 100

CO – EPA Method 10 or ARB Method 100

O2 – EPA Method 3 or 3A, or ARB Method 100
C-7

Rule/Measure/Date

Mojave Desert AQMD

Regulation 1160

10/26/1994

Applicability > 500 bhp, located in Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area

Limits CO – 4500 ppmv@ 15% oxygen

Rich-Burn

NOx – 50 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction

Lean-Burn

NOx – 140 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 80% reduction

Diesel

NOx – 700 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 30% reduction

VOC –106 ppmv@ 15% oxygen, except 255 ppmv @ 15% oxygen at SCG Newberry

Spring facility

Exemptions ? < 500 bhp

? Engines operating < 100 hours over four continuous calendar quarters

? Emergency engines

? Engines located outside of the Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area

Administrative

Requirements

? Emission control plan

? Maintain log on each engine recording fuel use, maintenance performed, and other

information required in Emission Control Plan

Monitoring

Period

Engine inspection required once every calendar quarter or after every 2,000 hours of

operation, whichever is more frequent

Source test required every 12 months

Test Methods NOx – EPA Method 7E

CO – EPA Method 10

VOC – EPA Methods 18, 25, and/or 25A

O2 – EPA Method 3A

Exempt Compounds – ASTM Method D 4457-85
C-8

Rule/Measure/Date

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD

Rule 412

06/01/1995

Applicability > 50 bhp, located at major stationary sources

Limits RACT Emission Limits after 7/1/95:

Rich-Burn

NOx – 50 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

CO – 4000 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

NMHC – 250 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Lean-Burn

NOx – 125 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

CO – 4000 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

NMHC – 750 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Diesel

NOx – 700 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

CO – 4000 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

NMHC – 750 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

NOx BARCT Emission Limits after 5/31/97:

Rich-Burn

25 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction

Lean-Burn

65 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction

Diesel

80 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction

Exemptions ? Emergency standby

? Agricultural operations

? Test stands

? Emission control evaluation

? Non road engines

? Motor vehicles

? Flight line engines

Administrative

Requirements ? Operational record required

Monitoring

Period Source test required every 8,760 hours of operation or every 5 years, whichever is shorter

Test Methods NMHC – EPA Method 25, or 25A and 18

For spark-ignited engines:

NOx, CO, O2 – ARB Method 100

For diesel engines:

NOx – EPA Method 7E

CO – EPA Method 10

O2 – EPA Method 3A
C-9

Rule/Measure/Date

San Diego County APCD

Rule 69.4

11/15/2000

Applicability > 50 bhp, located at major stationary source

Limits CO – 4500 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

NOx – 50 ppmv @ 15% oxygen, 0.9 g/bhp-hr or 90% reduction (rich-burn, all fuels except

waste-derived)

NOx – 125 ppmv @ 15% oxygen, 2.3 g/bhp-hr or 80% reduction (lean-burn, also engines

using waste-derived fuels)

NOx – 700 ppm @ 15% oxygen or 9.0 g/bhp-hr (diesel)

Exemptions ? Used in connection with a structure for not more than four families

? Agricultural operations

? Engines operated within a permitted test cell for gas turbines or IC engines

? Engines operated for < 200 hours per year

? Emergency standby engines operated < 52 hours per year for non-emergency purposes

? Emergency standby engines at nuclear generating stations operated < 200 hours per

year for non-emergency purposes

? Engines used in conjunction with military tactical support equipment

Administrative

Requirements

? Maintain maintenance records

? Keep operating log for engines exempt due to low usage

? Maintain monthly records for engine and control equipment parameters for three years

Monitoring

Period None mentioned

Test Methods SDCAPCD Test 100, ARB Method 100, or EPA equivalent
C-10

Rule/Measure/Date

San Diego County APCD

Rule 69.4.1

11/15/2000

Applicability Stationary engines rated > 50 bhp

Limits CO – 4500 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Rich Burn

NOx – 25 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 96% reduction (using fossil-derived gaseous fuel or

gasoline)

NOx – 50 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction (using waste-derived gaseous fuel)

VOC – 250 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Lean Burn

NOx – 65 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction (using gaseous fuel)

Diesel

NOx – 535 ppmv @ 15% oxygen, 6.9 g/bhp-hr or 90% reduction (high-use, new or

replacement low-use and new or replacement cyclic engines)

NOx – 700 ppmv @ 15% oxygen, 9.0 g/bhp-hr or 90% reduction (existing low-use or

existing cyclic engines)

Exemptions ? Used in connection with a structure for not more than four families

? Agricultural operations

? Engines operated within a permitted test cell for gas turbines or IC engines

? Engines operated for < 200 hours per year

? Emergency standby engines operated < 52 hours per year for non-emergency purposes

? Emergency standby engines at nuclear generating stations operated < 200 hours per

year for non-emergency purposes

? Military tactical support equipment

? Low-use diesel engines with any two of the following: turbocharging, aftercooling,

and retarding the injection timing by 4 degrees

Administrative

Requirements

? Maintain inspection and maintenance records

? Keep operating log for exempt engines

? Maintain monthly records for engine and control equipment parameters

? Non-resettable totalizing fuel meter and non-resettable totalizing time meter required

Monitoring

Period Source test every two years

Test Methods NOx, CO, CO2, O2 - SDCAPCD Test 100, ARB Method 100, or EPA equivalent

VOC – EPA Method 25A and/or 18

For engines certified by EPA or ARB:

In compliance until approved test method developed for NOx, CO, CO2, O2
C-11

Rule/Measure/Date

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD

Rule 4701

11/12/1998

Applicability Engine rated greater than 50 bhp and requiring a permit

Limits CO – 2000 ppmv@ 15% oxygen

For engines not owned by the Public Water District:

Rich-Burn except beam-balanced or crank-balanced pumping engines

NOx – 50 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction, VOC – 250 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Lean-Burn

NOx – 75 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 85% reduction, VOC – 750 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Diesel or dual-fuel

NOx -- 80 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction, VOC – 750 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

For engines owned by the Public Water District:

Rich-Burn except beam-balanced or crank-balanced pumping engines

NOx – 90 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 80% reduction

Lean-Burn

NOx -- 150 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 70% reduction

Diesel or dual-fuel

NOx – 600 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 20% reduction

For beam-balanced or crank-balanced pumping engines:

NOx – 300 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

For waste-gas engines:

NOx -- 125 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 80% reduction, VOC – 750 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Exemptions ? Agricultural operations

? Standby engines

? Engines used exclusively for fire fighting or flood control

? Laboratory engines used in research and testing

? Engines used for performance verification and testing

? Gas turbines

? Portable engines

? Natural gas-fired engines, when using other fuels during a natural gas curtailment, if

operated no more than 336 hours per year on the other fuel

? Military tactical equipment

? Transportable engines

? Engines rated at 50 bhp or fewer

Administrative

Requirements

? Emissions Control Plan required

? Maintain engine operating log

Monitoring Period ? For engines with external control devices, CEMS for NOx, CO, and O2, or alternate

monitoring system

? For engines without external control devices, monitor operational characteristics as

recommended by the manufacturer or emission control supplier

? Source test required every 24 months

? Annual testing of a representative sample of engines allowed for sites with multiple

identical engines

Test Methods NOx – EPA Method 7E or ARB Method 100

CO – EPA Method 10 or ARB Method 100

O2 – EPA Method 3 or 3A, or ARB Method 100

VOC – EPA Method 25 or 18, referenced as methane

Bhp – Any method approved by the APCO and U.S. EPA
C-12

Rule/Measure/Date

San Luis Obispo County APCD

Rule 431

11/13/1996

Applicability > 50 bhp

Limits CO – 4500 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Rich-Burn

NOx – 50 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction

Lean-Burn

NOx – 125 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 80% reduction

Diesel

NOx -- 600 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 30% reduction

Exemptions ? Agricultural operations

? < 50 bhp engines

? Engines operating < 200 hours per year

? Emergency standby engines (maintenance limited to 50 hours per year)

? Research and teaching

? Test stands used for evaluating engine performance

? Diesel engines used to power cranes and welding equipment

Administrative

Requirements

? Engine inspection plan required

? Inspection log required

Monitoring

Period Every 8,760 hours of operation or 3 years, whichever occurs first

Test Methods NOx – ARB Method 100

CO – ARB Method 100
C-13

Rule/Measure/Date

Santa Barbara County APCD

Rule 333

04/17/1997

Applicability Engines ? 50 bhp and requiring a permit

Limits Noncyclic Rich-Burn Engines

NOx – 50 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% control

ROC – 250 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

CO – 4500 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Noncyclic Lean-Burn Engines:

NOx – 125 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 80% control

ROC – 750 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

CO – 4500 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Cyclically-Operated Engines:

NOx – 50 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% control

ROC – 250 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

CO – 4500 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Diesel Engines:

NOx – 8.4 g/bhp-hr. or 797 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Exemptions ? Engines operating on fuel consisting of 75% or more landfill gas

? Engines exempt from permit

? Engines operating fewer than 200 hours per year

Administrative

Requirements

? Quarterly inspections with portable NOx monitor and inspection of engine operating

parameters

? Bienniel source tests

? Annual source tests for two consecutive years if engine is non-compliant

? Engine operating log

? Compliance plan

? Engine inspection and maintenance plan

Monitoring

Period Every two years

Test Methods NOx, CO, Oxygen – ARB Method 100

ROC – EPA Method 18 or 25

Fuel Composition – ASTM D-1945-81, ASTM D-3588-81, ASTM D-1072-80

Pollutant Emission Rate – EPA Method 19
C-14

Rule/Measure/Date

Shasta County AQMD

Rule 3.28

04/01/1997

Applicability Any gaseous, diesel, or any other liquid-fueled stationary internal combustion engine

within the borders of the District

Limits For engines > 50 bhp but < 300 bhp:

CO – 4500 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Rich-Burn

NOx – 640 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Lean-Burn

NOx – 740 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Diesel & all liquid-fired

NOx -- 600 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

For engines > 300 bhp:

CO – 4500 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Rich-Burn

NOx – 90 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Lean-Burn

150 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Diesel & all liquid-fueled

NOx – 600 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Exemptions ? Agricultural operations

? Emergency standby engines operated < 200 hours/year

? Any engine rated by the manufacturer < 50 bhp if maintained to manufacturers

specifications

? Gas turbine engines

? Engines operated exclusively for fire fighting or flood control

? Laboratory engines operated in research and testing

? Existing IC engines to be permanently replaced with electric motors or removed from

service by July 1, 1999 based upon a permit condition, contract, or binding agreement

with the District

? Portable IC engines which have been registered and certified under the state portable

equipment regulation

? Diesel IC engines manufactured prior to 1950 and operated less than 500 hours per

year

Administrative

Requirements ? Engine operating log for engines subject to emission limits

Monitoring

Period Annual source testing of emissions

Test Methods NOx – EPA Method 7E or ARB Method 100, or a method approved in writing by the

APCO using a portable analyzer

CO – EPA Method 10 or ARB Method 100, or a method approved in writing by the APCO

using a portable analyzer

O2 – EPA Method 3 or 3A, or ARB Method 100, or a method approved in writing by the

APCO using a portable analyzer
C-15

Rule/Measure/Date

South Coast AQMD

Rule 1110.1

10/04/1985

Applicability > 50 bhp, stationary, gaseous fueled engines only

Limits Rich-Burn

NOx – 90% reduction, initial test, 80% reduction thereafter, or 90 ppm at 15% oxygen

CO – 2000 ppm at 15% oxygen

Lean-Burn

NOx/General – 80% reduction, initial test, 70% reduction thereafter, or 150 ppm at 15%

oxygen

NOx/Optional (combustion mods only) – 2 grams per bhp-hr.

Exemptions ? Agricultural operations

? Emergency standby engines which operate fewer than 200 hours per year

? Fire fighting and or flood control

? LPG-fueled

? Research and testing

? Performance verification and testing

? Engines operating in the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Los Angeles and

Riverside Counties

Administrative

Requirements Control Plan

Monitoring

Period

N/A

Test Methods N/A
C-16

Rule/Measure/Date

South Coast AQMD

Rule 1110.2

11/14/1997

Applicability > 50 bhp, stationary and portable engines

Limits Permanently remove engine, replace engine with an electric motor, or reduce emissions to

the following: For stationary engines that generate electric power, are fired on landfill

gas or sewage digester gas, are used for pumping water (except aeration facilities), are

fueled by field gas, are integral engine compressors operating fewer than 4000 hours

per year, or are LPG-fueled:

NOx – engines > 500 bhp – 36 ppm @ 15% oxygen, engines > 50 and < 500 bhp – 45 ppm

@ 15% oxygen

VOC – 250 ppm @ 15% oxygen as methane

CO – 2000 ppm @ 15% oxygen

For all other stationary engines:

NOx – 36 ppm @ 15% oxygen

VOC – 250 ppm @ 15% oxygen as methane

CO – 2000 ppm @ 15% oxygen

For portable engines:

Meet state limits equivalent to those in the State portable engine registration program

Exemptions ? Agricultural operations

? Emergency standby engines which operate fewer than 200 hours per year

? Fire fighting and or flood control

? Research and testing

? Performance verification and testing

? Engines locate in some parts of Riverside County

? Auxiliary engines used to power engines or gas turbines during start up

Administrative

Requirements

? Engines > 1000 bhp and > 2 million bhp-hr. per year must use continuous emissions

monitoring for NOx

? Monitoring system shall have data gathering and retrieval capability

? Operational and non-resettable totalizing time meter required

? Source testing of NOx, VOC, and CO every 3 years

? Maintain operating log

Monitoring

Period

CEMS required for engines > 1000 bhp and > 2 million bhp-hr. per year

Source test every three years

Test Methods NOx – EPA Method 20 or District Method 100.1

CO – EPA Method 10 or District Method 100.1

VOC – EPA Method 25 or District Method 25.1
C-17

Rule/Measure/Date

Tehama County APCD

Rule 4.34

06/03/1997

Applicability Any gaseous, diesel, or any other liquid-fueled stationary internal combustion engine

within the borders of the District

Limits For engines > 50 bhp but < 300 bhp:

CO – 4500 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Rich-Burn

NOx – 640 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Lean-Burn

NOx – 740 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Diesel & all liquid-fired

NOx -- 600 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

For engines > 300 bhp:

CO – 4500 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Rich-Burn

NOx – 90 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Lean-Burn

NOx – 150 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Diesel & all liquid-fueled

NOx – 600 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Exemptions ? Agricultural operations

? Emergency standby engines operated < 200 hours/year

? Any engine rated by the manufacturer < 50 bhp if maintained to manufacturers

specifications

? Gas turbine engines

? Engines operated exclusively for fire fighting or flood control

? Laboratory engines operated in research and testing

? Existing IC engines to be permanently replaced with electric motors or removed from

service by July 1, 1999 based upon a permit condition, contract, or binding agreement

with the District

? Portable IC engines which have been registered and certified under the state portable

equipment regulation

? Diesel IC engines manufactured prior to 1950 and operated less than 500 hours per

year

Administrative

Requirements ? Engine operating log for engines subject to emission limits

Monitoring

Period Annual source testing of emissions

Test Methods NOx – EPA Method 7E or ARB Method 100, or a method approved in writing by the

APCO using a portable analyzer

CO – EPA Method 10 or ARB Method 100, or a method approved in writing by the APCO

using a portable analyzer

O2 – EPA Method 3 or 3A, or ARB Method 100, or a method approved in writing by the

APCO using a portable analyzer
C-18

Rule/Measure/Date

Ventura County APCD

Rule 74.9

11/14/2000

Applicability Gas-fired, LPG, or diesel-fueled stationary internal combustion engine > 50 bhp, if such

engines are not used in oil field drilling operations

Limits CO – 4500 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Ammonia – 20 ppmv

Rich-Burn

NOx – 25 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 96% control

ROC – 250 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Lean-Burn

NOx – 45 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 94% control

ROC – 750 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Diesel

NOx – 80 ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% control

ROC – 750 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Rich-Burn, waste gas

NOx – 50 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

ROC – 250 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Lean-Burn, waste gas

NOx – 125 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

ROC – 750 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Exemptions ? Engines rated less than 50 bhp

? Engines operated less than 200 hours per year

? Emergency standby engines operated only during emergencies and for no more than

50 hours per year for maintenance purposes

? Engines used in research and teaching

? Engine test stands used for evaluating engine performance

? < 100 bhp emitting NOx < 5 g/bhp-hr., used in cogeneration

? Diesel engines limited to 15% or less annual capacity factor

? Diesel engines used to power cranes and welding equipment

? Diesel engines operated on San Nicolas Island and Anacapa Island

Administrative

Requirements

? Engine Operator Inspection Plan

? Inspection log

? Annual usage

? Annual source test

Monitoring

Period Annual source test

Test Methods NOx, CO, Oxygen – ARB Method 100

ROC – EPA Method 18 or 25, reference to methane

Heating value of fuel oil – ASTM D240-87

Heating value of gaseous fuels – ASTM D1826-77

Ammonia – BAAQMD Method ST-1B
C-19

Rule/Measure/Date

Yolo-Solano AQMD

Rule 2.32

08/10/1994

Applicability > 50 bhp, operated on gaseous fuels, LPG, or diesel

Limits CO – 2000 ppmv @ 15% oxygen

5/31/95 limits:

NOx – 9.5 gm/bhp-hr. or 640 ppmv @ 15% oxygen (rich-burn), 10.1 gm/bhp-hr. or 740

ppmv @ 15% oxygen (lean-burn), 9.6 gm/bhp-hr. or 700 ppmv @ 15% oxygen (diesel)

If 5/31/95 limits not met, then following limits apply by 5/31/97:

NOx – 90 ppmv @ 15% oxygen (rich-burn), 150 ppmv @ 15% oxygen (lean-burn), 600

ppmv @ 15% oxygen (diesel)

If 5/31/95 and 5/31/97 limits not met, engine must be removed by 5/15/99

Exemptions ? Agricultural operations

? < 50 bhp engines

? Engines operating < 200 hours per year

? Emergency standby engines (maintenance limited to 50 hours/year)

? Research and teaching

? Test stands used for evaluating engine performance

? Diesel engines with permitted capacity < 15%

? Diesel engines used to power cranes and welding equipment

Administrative

Requirements

? Engine operator inspection plan required

? Inspection log required

Monitoring

Period Annual source test

Test Methods NOx – EPA Method 7E

CO – EPA Method 10

O2 – EPA Method 3A

Heating value of oil – ASTM Method D240-87

Heating value of gaseous fuel – ASTM Method D1826-77
D-1

APPENDIX D

EMISSIONS DATA
D-2

Following are tables summarizing emissions data for IC engines. Table D-1 summarizes

data from the ARB Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Clearinghouse for IC engines.

This Clearinghouse maintains a list of BACT determinations. These determinations are made for

new or modified stationary sources with emissions increases above certain specified levels. Also

included in this list are permit limits in cases where BACT was not required. Although these data

are for new engines, in many cases existing engines can be retrofitted with the same technology

with similar NOx reduction results.

 Table D-2 summarizes source test data for IC engines from the Ventura County Air

Pollution Control District. All engines were gas-fired. Following is an explanation of the

meaning for each column in Table D-2:

MANUFACTURER - engine manufacturer

MODEL - engine model designated by the manufacturer

HORSEPOWER - maximum continuous brake horsepower rating of engine

R/L – an "r" signifies a rich-burn engine; an "l" signifies a lean-burn engine.

CONTROLS - description of controls on engine; "baseline" indicates the source test was

a baseline test on an uncontrolled engine.

ST - status of engine; d = deleted, c = operational, m = electrified.

NOX IN - NOx emissions in parts per million by volume (ppmv) dry, corrected to

15 percent oxygen, before the exhaust control device. In some cases, for

prestratified (PSC) engines, the "NOX IN" lists NOx emissions in ppmv with the

PSC system turned off. If exhaust controls are not used, or emissions were only

measured after the control device, this value is listed as "0".

NOX OUT - NOx emissions in ppmv dry, corrected to 15 percent oxygen, in the exhaust 

for engines not using exhaust controls, after the control device for engines using

exhaust controls.

NOX REDUCED - the percentage reduction in NOx

CO OUT - carbon monoxide emissions in ppmv dry, in the exhaust for engines not using

exhaust controls, after the control device for engines using exhaust controls.

NMHC PPM - nonmethane hydrocarbons in parts per million of carbon, dry, in the

exhaust for engines not using exhaust controls, after the control device for engines using ex

DATE TEST - date of the source test, month/day/year

O2% - oxygen concentration of the exhaust in percent

NMHC 15% O2 - nonmethane hydrocarbons in parts per million of carbon, dry, corrected

to 15 percent oxygen, in the exhaust (after the control device for engines using

exhaust controls).
D-3

CO 15% O2 - carbon monoxide emissions in ppmv dry, corrected to 15 percent oxygen, in

the exhaust for engines not using exhaust controls, after the control device for

engines using exhaust controls.

QST - exhaust flow rate in cubic feet per minute at standard conditions.

****** - value exceeds space allotted.

Table D-3 summarizes source test data from Santa Barbara County, while Table D-4

summarizes source test data from San Diego County. Table D-5 summarizes source test data

from the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD.
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BACT CLEARINGHOUSE

D-1-1

Equipment or Process: I.C. Engine - Landfill or Digester Gas Fired

 Project Name & A/C Issue Date & BACT AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION CONTROL LEVELS

Description ARB File No. VOC/HC NOx SOx CO PM/PM10

Minnesota Methane

Tajiguas Corporation

4314 bhp Caterpillar

model 3616 landfill gasfired IC engine driving

3 MW electric generator

with exhaust routed

through

afterburner/standby

flare

1/9/98

(A/C no. 9788)

A330-846-98

District Contact:

Steve Sterner

Santa Barbara County

APCD

(805) 961-8886

sterners@sbcapcd.org

Lean-burn IC

engine, equipped

with spark/torch

ignition controls,

fuel/air ratio

controls and an

intake air

turbocharger and

intercooler.

0.24 g/bhp-hr

(equivalent to 20

ppmvd @ 3% O2

as Hexane)

Lean-burn IC

engine, equipped

with spark/torch

ignition controls,

fuel/air ratio

controls and an

intake air

turbocharger and

intercooler.

92 ppmvd at 3%

oxygen

0.59 g/bhp-hr

(Equivalent to 92

ppmvd at 3%

oxygen)

Fuel pretreatment

system to remove

gas

condensate and filter

gas of particulates

0.34 g/bhp-hr

(equivalent to 0.053

g/dscf & 0.073

lb/MMbtu)

Monterey Bay Regional

Waste

Management District

1274 hp Jenbacher

model JGS 320

GS-LL IC engine fired

on landfill gas

11/4/96

(A/C no. 8521 and

8522)

A330-760-97

District Contact:

Jerry Steele

Monterey Bay Unified

APCD

(408) 647-9411

Lean-burn

combustion

technology

1.2 g/bhp-hr

213.45 lbm/day

for three engines
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BACT CLEARINGHOUSE

D-1-2

Equipment or Process: I.C. Engine - Landfill or Digester Gas Fired (cont.)

Project Name & A/C Issue Date & BACT AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION CONTROL LEVELS

Description ARB File No. VOC/HC NOx SOx CO PM/PM10

City of Stockton

Muncipal Utilities

Dept. Regional Waste

Water Control Facility

2760 bhp Waukesha

model 12V-AT27GL IC

engine fired on

natural gas, digester

gas, or a combination

thereof

11/22/96

(A/C no. N-811-15-0)

A330-725-96

District Contact:

George Heinen

San Joaquin Valley

Unified

APCD

(559) 230-5909

Lean-burn

engine with a

precombustion

chamber

0.75 g/bhp-hr

109.5 lbm/day

Lean-burn engine

with a

precombustion

chamber

1.25 g/bhp-hr

182.5 lbm/day

Chemical addition

to the digester

sludge to reduce the

influent fuel

hydrogen sulfide

content by 90%

0.1 g/bhp-hr

13.9 lbm/day

(Hydrogen sulfide

emissions shall be

no more than 120

ppmv in digester

gas)

Lean-burn engine

with a

precombustion

chamber

2 g/bhp-hr

292.1 lbm/day

Digester gas or

natural gas fuel or

any blend of

digester gas and

natural gas

0.1 g/bhp-hr

14.6 lbm/day

Napa Sanitation District

913 hp Waukesha

model 5900GL IC

engine fired on digester

gas with supplementary

natural gas

3/26/93

(A/C no. 9006)

A330-579-93

District Contact:

Ted Hull

Bay Area AQMD

(415) 749-4919

Lean-burn

combustion control

1.25 g/bhp-hr

Addition of iron

salts to the digester

sludge to reduce

H2S concentrations

of digester gas to

less than 300 ppmv

0.30 g/bhp-hr

Pacific Energy Otay

Mesa Landfill

2650 hp CooperSuperior model

16SGTA lean-burn

engine-generator

set with 1850 KW

capacity

2/25/92

(A/C no. 891039)

A330-545-92

District Contact:

Bob Batten

San Diego Co. APCD

(619) 694-3316

Prechamber

combustion and

automatic

air-to-fuel ratio

controller

0.8 g/bhp-hr

4.7 lbm/hr
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BACT CLEARINGHOUSE

D-1-3

Equipment or Process: I.C. Engine - Landfill or Digester Gas Fired (cont.)

Project Name & A/C Issue Date & BACT AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION CONTROL LEVELS

Description ARB File No. VOC/HC NOx SOx CO PM/PM10

City of Ventura

Wastewater

Treatment Plant

773 bhp Waukesha

F3521GL lean-burn

reciprocating engine

fired on digester or

natural gas and

producing 550 KW

12/31/86

(A/C no. 1377-1)

A330-164-87

District Contact:

Keith Duval

Ventura Co. APCD

(805) 654-2845

Kerby@vcapcd.org

Engine design

2 g/bhp-hr

Poppy Ridge Partners

Two 865 hp Waukesha

reciprocating engines

fired on digester gas

(cogeneration)

9/16/86

(A/C nos. 8501 thru

8504)

A330-154-86

District Contact:

Aleta Kennard

Sacramento

Metropolitan AQMD

(916) 366-2107

Pre-stratified

charge emission

control system

2.0 g/bhp-hr

SF Southeast Treatment

Plant

7300 hp reciprocating

engine fired on

sewage sludge gas

(cogeneration)

5/86

(A/C no. 30456)

A330-150-86

District Contact:

Steve Hill

Bay Area AQMD

(415) 771-6000

Clean-burn engine

2.0 g/bhp-hr
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BACT CLEARINGHOUSE

D-1-4

Equipment or Process: I.C. Engine - Landfill or Digester Gas Fired (cont.)

Project Name & A/C Issue Date & BACT AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION CONTROL LEVELS

Description ARB File No. VOC/HC NOx SOx CO PM/PM10

Genstar Gas Recovery

Systems

Two 2650 hp CooperSuperior lean-burn IC

engines fired on landfill

gas

12/2/85

(A/C no. 30970)

A330-109-86

District Contact:

Craig Ullery

Bay Area AQMD

(415) 771-6000

Stratified charge

combustion

1.5 g/hp-hr

Genstar Gas Recovery

Systems

Two 1100 hp CooperSuperior lean-burn IC

engines fired on landfill

gas

8/29/85

(A/C no. 30893)

A330-108-86

District Contact:

Craig Ullery

Bay Area AQMD

(415) 771-6000

Stratified charge

combustion

1.5 g/hp-hr
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BACT CLEARINGHOUSE

D-1-5

Equipment or Process: Spark Ignition, Natural Gas

Project Name & A/C Issue Date & BACT AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION CONTROL LEVELS

Description ARB File No. VOC/HC NOx SOx CO PM/PM10

Kaiser Permanente

Health Plan, Inc.

171 bhp four Tecodrive

model 7400LE

natural-gas sparkignition

engines use to drive two

compressors/chillers

that will provide

cooling for the facility

12/14/99

(A/C No.: 362406)

A310-963-00

District Contact:

Roy Olivares

South Cost AQMD

(909) 396-2208

rolivares@aqmd.gov

Miratech

model MN11T-04F

catalytic

converter and

Tecodrive

air/fuel ratio

controller

0.15 g/bhp-hr

Miratech model

MN-11T-04F

catalytic converter

and Tecodrive

air/fuel ratio

controller

0.15 g/bhp-hr

Miratech model

MN-11T-04F

catalytic converter

and Tecodrive

air/fuel ratio

Controller

0.60 g/bhp-hr

Crestline Village Water

District

93 bhp Ford model

LSG875 natural

gas-fired spark-ignition

engine use to drive an

electrical generator.

Unit is used for backup

generation, allowed

to operate more than

200 hr/yr.

11/16/99

(A/C No.: 361525)

A330-937-00

District Contact:

Roy Olivares

South Coast AQMD

(909) 396-2208

roliveras@aqmd.gov

Miratech 3-

way catalytic

converter and

air/fuel

ratio controller

0.15 g/bhp-hr

Miratech 3-way

catalytic converter

and air/fuel

ratio controller

0.15 g/bhp-hr

Miratech 3-way

catalytic converter

and air/fuel

ratio controller

0.6 g/bhp-hr

Orange County Flood

Control District

750 bhp Waukesha

model L5790G

spark-ignition engine

used to drive an

emergency flood

control pump

n.d.

(A/C No.: 359876)

A340-916-00

District Contact:

Roy Olivare

South Coast

AQMD(909)

396-2208

rolivares@aqmd.gov

Miratech 3-

way catalytic

converter and

air/fuel

ratio controller

0.15 g/bhp-hr

Miratech 3-way

catalytic converter

and air/fuel

ratio controller

0.15 g/bhp-hr

Miratech 3-way

catalytic converter

and air/fuel

ratio controller

0.6 g/bhp-hr
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BACT CLEARINGHOUSE

D-1-6

Equipment or Process: Spark Ignition, Natural Gas (cont.)

Project Name & A/C Issue Date & BACT AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION CONTROL LEVELS

Description ARB File No. VOC/HC NOx SOx CO PM/PM10

Saba Petroleum,

Inc./Bell

Compressor Plant

The engine is turbocharged and

inter-cooled and is

configured in a

rich burn mode. The

compressor is rated at

3.073 MMSCFD.

10/12/98

(A/C no. 9975)

A330-857-98

District Contact:

Michael Goldman

Santa Barbara County

APCD

(805) 961-8821

goldmanm@sbcapcd.org

3-way Catalytic

Converter and

Electric

Air/Fuel Ratio

Controller

0.30 g/bhp-hr

0.0766

lb/MMBtu/hr

Voluntary

information on

controls. BACT not

required.

3-way Catalytic

Converter and

Electric

Air/Fuel Ratio

Controller

0.15 g/bhp-hr

10 ppmvd @

15% O2

Filed gas

Total sulfur

content not to

exceed 239

ppmv

Voluntary

information on

control. BACT

not

required

3-way Catalytic

Converter and

Electric

Air/Fuel Ratio

Controller

0.75 g/bhp-hr

83 ppmvd @

15% O2

Voluntary

information on

controls. BACT

not

required.

Kaiser Permanente

Medical Center

160 bhp John Deere

model

6076AFN30 natural

gas-fueled

clean-burn, IC engine

limited to 1070

scf/hr gas usage

9/2/97

(A/C no. C-709-13-0)

A330-783-97

District Contact:

George Heinen

San Joaquin Valley

Unified APCD

(559) 230-5909

Natural gas firing

150 @ 15% O2

(equivalent to 0.78

g/bhp-hr)

Natural gas firing

55 ppmv @ 15%

(equivalent to 0.72

g/bhp-hr)

Natural gas firing

148 ppmv @ 15%

O2 (equivalent to

1.24

g/bhp-hr)
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BACT CLEARINGHOUSE

D-1-7

Equipment or Process: Spark Ignition, Natural Gas (cont.)

Project Name & A/C Issue Date & BACT AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION CONTROL LEVELS

Description ARB File No. VOC/HC NOx SOx CO PM/PM10

Toys "R" Us

82 bhp Ford model no.

LGC-649

natural-gas fired, richburn emergency IC

engine driving a Kohler

39 KW electrical

generator.

Operation limited to

emergency use and 200

hr/yr for testing and

maintenance

11/27/96

(A/C no. C-2942-1-0)

A330-763-97

District Contact:

George Heinen

San Joaquin Valley

Unified APCD

(559) 230-5909

No control

No limit

(Expected emission

level of 14.56

g/bhp-hr)

No control

No limit (Expected

emission level of

0.78 g/bhp-hr)

City of Clovis

365 bhp, gas-fired

Caterpillar model

no. G3406TA rich-burn

IC engine

11/8/96

(A/C no. C-2958-1-0)

A330-762-97

District Contact:

George Heinen

San Joaquin Valley

Unified APCD

(559) 230-5909

Houston

Industrial

Silencing model

DN/S-3656PH

three-way

catalyst and

natural-gas firing

1.3 lbm/day

(Equivalent to

0.068 g/bhp-hr

or 30 ppmvd at

15% oxygen)

Houston Industrial

Silencing model

DN/S-3656PH

three-way catalyst,

oxygen controller,

and natural-gas

firing

0.33 g/bhp-hr

(Equivalent to 25

ppmvd at 15%

oxygen)

Natural gas firing

0.04 lbm/day

(Equivalent to

0.60 lbm/MMscf)

Houston Industrial

Silencing model

DN/S-3656PH

three-way catalyst,

positive crankcase

ventilation, oxygen

controller, and

natural-gas firing

10.8 lbm/day

(Equivalent to 2.0

g/bhp-hr or 70

ppmvd at

15% oxygen)

Natural gas firing and

positive crankcase

ventilation

4.4 lbm/day

(Equivalent to 0.23

g/bhp-hr)
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BACT CLEARINGHOUSE

D-1-8

Equipment or Process: Spark Ignition, Natural Gas (cont.)

Project Name & A/C Issue Date & BACT AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION CONTROL LEVELS

Description ARB File No. VOC/HC NOx SOx CO PM/PM10

Vintage Petroleum

Company

Clark Avenue Oil and

Gas Production Facility

Thirteen 117 to 186

bhp, natural-gas

Waukesha engines used

to power oil wellhead

pumping units and

produced water pumps.

Natural gas heat

content from 900 to

1200 btu/scf.

2/4/97

(A/C no. 9682)

A330-759-97

District Contact:

Steve Sterner

Santa Barbara Co.

APCD

(805) 961-8886

sterners@sbcapcd.org

Johnson-Matthey

model MX-10

non-selective

catalyst;

Blackhawk

Services fuel/air

ratio controller;

and positive

crankcase

ventilation

73 ppmv at 15%

oxygen

Johnson-Matthey

model MX-10

non-selective

catalyst;

Blackhawk

Services fuel/air

ratio controller;

and positive

crankcase

ventilation

215 ppmv at 15%

oxygen

Gill's Onions

Six 130 hp rich-burn,

natural gas-fired,

Caterpillar model 3306,

TA internal combustion

engines

5/18/95

(A/C no. 7018-110)

A330-645-95

District Contact:

Kerby Zozula

Ventura County

APCD

(805) 645-1421

Kerby@vcapcd.org

Houston

Industrial model

DN/S 1004PC

DeNOx Silencer

three-way catalyst

103 ppmvd at

15% oxygen

(Equivalent to

0.60 g/bhp-hr)

Houston Industrial

model DN/S

1004PC

DeNOx Silencer

three-way catalyst

9 ppmvd at 15%

oxygen

(Equivalent to 0.15

g/bhp-hr)
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BACT CLEARINGHOUSE

D-1-9

Equipment or Process: Spark Ignition, Natural Gas (cont.)

Project Name & A/C Issue Date & BACT AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION CONTROL LEVELS

Description ARB File No. VOC/HC NOx SOx CO PM/PM10

Western Municipal

Water District

525 hp, rich-burn

Caterpillar model

no. 3512 reciprocating

engine fired on natural

gas; LPG firing allowed

during natural gas

curtailment

6/1/91

(App. no. 223469)

A330-453-90

District Contact:

Permit Services

South Coast AQMD

(909) 396-3385

Nonselective

catalytic reduction

1.5 g/bhp/hr

23 lbm/day

Western Municipal

Water District

525 hp, rich-burn

Caterpillar model

no. 3512 reciprocating

engine fired

on natural gas; LPG

firing allowed

during natural gas

curtailment

6/1/91

(App. no. 223467)

A330-452-90

District Contact:

Permit Services

South Coast AQMD

(909) 396-3385

Nonselective

catalytic reduction

1.5 g/bhp/hr

23 lbm/day

Western Municipal

Water District

525 hp, rich-burn

Caterpillar model

no. 3512 reciprocating

engine fired

on natural gas; LPG

firing allowed

during natural gas

curtailment

6/1/91

(App. no. 223464)

A330-451-90

District Contact:

Permit Services

South Coast AQMD

(909) 396-3385

Nonselective

catalytic reduction

1.5 g/bhp/hr

23 lbm/day
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BACT CLEARINGHOUSE

D-1-10

Equipment or Process: Spark Ignition, Natural Gas (cont.)

Project Name & A/C Issue Date & BACT AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION CONTROL LEVELS

Description ARB File No. VOC/HC NOx SOx CO PM/PM10

Exxon San Joaquin

Production Co.

Compressors driven by

four 525 hp, naturally

aspirated, gas-fired

Caterpillar Model No.

G-398 reciprocating

engines at a natural gas

processing plant

4/25/88

(A/C nos. 2066012

thru 2066015)

A350-281-88

District Contact:

Tom Goff

Kern Co. APCD

(now the San Joaquin

Valley Unified APCD)

(805) 862-5200

Three-way nonselective catalyst

with air fuel

ratio controller

1.0 g/bhp-hr

27.84 lbm/day/unit

San Diego Marriott

Hotel-Tower 1

1150 hp Caterpillar

low-emission

Model 3516TA leanburn gas engine

with 800 KW generator

and waste-heat recovery

(cogeneration)

3/9/87

(A/C no. 850810)

A330-279-88

District Contact:

Bob Batten

San Diego Co. APCD

(619) 694-3316

Lean-burn

technology

1.4 g/bhp-hr

280 ppmvd at 3%

oxygen

California Dept. of

Corrections,

Corcoran Prison

Two gas-fired, leanburn Alco Model

12V-251-SI

reciprocating

engine-generator sets

with total rated input of

31.46 MMBtu/hr and

output of 3 MW and

540,000 lbm/hr hot

water (cogeneration)

12/18/87

(A/C nos. 7815C and

7815D)

A330-276-88

District Contact:

George Heinen

Kings Co. APCD

(now the San Joaquin

Valley Unified APCD)

(559) 230-5909

Lean-burn torch

ignition system

incorporated

in engine design

0.75 g/bhp-hr

0.22 lbm/MMBtu
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BACT CLEARINGHOUSE

D-1-11

Equipment or Process: Spark Ignition, Natural Gas (cont.)

Project Name & A/C Issue Date & BACT AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION CONTROL LEVELS

Description ARB File No. VOC/HC NOx SOx CO PM/PM10

Shell California

Production, Inc.

600 hp gas-fired Clark

model HRA-6 IC leanburn engine

11/14/84

(App. no. 147853)

A330-208-87

District Contact:

Permit Services

South Coast AQMD

(909) 396-3385

Selective catalytic

reduction

100 lbm/day

70% control

Tri County Sun Energy

Sheraton Hotel

195 bhp Caterpillar

Model No.

G3306-TA

reciprocating engine

producing 130 KW

8/7/86

(A/C no. 1369-1)

A330-165-87

District Contact:

Keith Duval

Ventura Co. APCD

(805) 654-2845

Kerby@vcapcd.org

Nonselective

catalytic reduction

50 ppmvd at 15%

oxygen

Shell California

Production, Inc.

225 hp Caterpillar

model no. G342

reciprocating engine

used as a vapor

recovery compressor

12/2/85

(A/C no. 0041-6)

A330-107-86

District Contact:

Keith Duval

Ventura Co. APCD

(805) 654-2045

Kerby@vcapcd.org

Nonselective

catalytic reduction

Least restrictive of

90% control, 50

ppmvd or

0.805 g/hp-hr
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BACT CLEARINGHOUSE

D-1-12

Equipment or Process: Spark Ignition, Alternative Fuels

Project Name & A/C Issue Date & BACT AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION CONTROL LEVELS

Description ARB File No. VOC/HC NOx SOx CO PM/PM10

Disneyland Resort

193 hp Ford model

LSG-875R-6003-C

gasoline-fired

spark-ignition engine

use to drive an

emergency fire pump.

Limited to 200 hr/yr of

operation.

10/21/99

(P/O No.: F22234 (no

authority to construct

issued -

exempt standby unit))

A330-929-00

District Contact:

Roy Olvares

South Coast AQMD

(909) 396-2208

rolivares@aqmd.gov

Two banks of

Carsound Exhaust

Systems, Inc. 3-

way catalytic

converters (model

no. 298035) and

an air/fuel ratio

controller (model

KAT2000)

0.15 g/bhp-hr

Two banks of

Carsound Exhaust

Systems,

Inc. 3-way catalytic

converters (model

no. 298035) and an

air/fuel ratio

controller (model

KAT2000)

0.15 g/bhp-hr

Two banks of

Carsound Exhaust

Systems,

Inc. 3-way

catalytic

converters (model

no. 298035) and an

air/fuel ratio

controller (model

KAT2000)

0.6 g/bhp-hr

Bakersfield Cellular

Telephone Co.

72 hp Generac model

94A01244-s

propane-fired

emergency IC engine

driving electrical

generator

7/20/95

(A/C no. S-2836-1-0)

A330-663-95

District Contact:

George Heinen

San Joaquin Valley

Unified APCD

(559) 230-5909

Three-way catalyst

No limit

(Equivalent to 80%

control efficiency)

Western Environmental

Engineers

Company

Petroleum tank

degassing operation

using two 175 hp Ford

LSG-875 gas-fired IC

engines fired on tank

vapors with LPG

auxiliary fuel

5/2/95

(A/C no. S-2482-1-0)

A350-642-95

District Contact:

George Heinen

San Joaquin Valley

Unified

APCD

(559) 230-5909

Carsound twostage, three-way

catalyst and

air fuel

monitoring

100 ppmv at 15%

oxygen

(Equivalent to

95% control)

Carsound twostage, three-way

catalyst an

air-fuel monitoring

50 ppmv at 15%

oxygen

(Equivalent to 90%

control)

LPG as auxiliary

fuel to tank

vapors

0.08 lbm/MMBtu

Carsound twostage, three-way

catalyst and

air-fuel monitoring

150 ppmv at 15%

oxygen

LPG as auxiliary fuel

to tank vapors

0.1 lbm/MMBtu
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BACT CLEARINGHOUSE

D-1-13

Equipment or Process: Spark Ignition, Alternative Fuels (cont.)

Project Name & A/C Issue Date & BACT AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION CONTROL LEVELS

Description ARB File No. VOC/HC NOx SOx CO PM/PM10

Kenneth Harper and

Associates

Propane-fired, Ford

model DGU-90

6-cylinder, 300 cid IC

engine used in

underground tank

degassing; unit is to

be operated 8 to 10

hours/day

5/10/91

(App. no. 228999)

A430-557-92

District Contact:

John Yee

South Coast AQMD

(909) 396-2531

Oxidation catalyst

98.6% control

efficiency

Shell Pipeline

Corporation

82 hp Cummins-Oman

45EM propane-fired IC

engine driving

emergency generator

11/15/91

(A/C no. 4048020)

A330-501-91

District Contact:

Tom Goff/

Glenn Stevens

San Joaquin Valley

Unified APCD

(805) 862-5200

Three-way

catalyst and

blowby gas gas

recirculation

10% control

efficiency

Three-way catalyst

60% control

efficiency

Low sulfur fuel

No limit

Three-way catalyst

96% control

efficiency

De La Guerra Power,

Inc.

380 hp General Motors

500 cubic inch IC

engine fired on

scrubbed

casing gas limited to

110 hp output

11/12/91

(A/C no. 0249003)

A330-490-91

District Contact:

Tom Goff/

Glenn Stevens

San Joaquin Valley

Unified APCD

(805) 862-5200

Three-way

catalyst and

crankcase blowby

recirculation

70% control

efficiency

Three-way catalyst

90% control

efficiency

Three-way catalyst

70% control

efficiency
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BACT CLEARINGHOUSE

D-1-14

Equipment or Process: Spark Ignition, Alternative Fuels (cont.)

Project Name & A/C Issue Date & BACT AND CORRESPONDING EMISSION CONTROL LEVELS

Description ARB File No. VOC/HC NOx SOx CO PM/PM10

Richmond Exploration

Corporation

200 hp Waukesha IC

engine fired on

propane and natural gas

used for nitrogen gas

injection in tertiary oil

recovery

11/12/91

(A/C no. 4232005)

A330-486-91

District Contact:

Tom Goff

San Joaquin Valley

Unified APCD

(805) 862-5200

Houston

Industrial

Silencing

 three-way

catalyst

0.44 lbm/hr

Houston Industrial

Silencing

three-way

catalyst

0.66 lbm/hr

90 ppmvd at 15%

oxygen

Richmond Exploration

Corporation

200 hp Waukesha

propane fired

engine used for gas

injection in tertiary

oil recovery and using

natural gas

backup fuel

10/24/91

(A/C no. 4232005)

A330-486-91

District Contact:

Tom Goff/

Lynard Scandura

San Joaquin Valley

Unified APCD

(805) 862-5200

Houston

Industrial

Silencing

three-way

catalyst

0.44 lbm/hr

Houston Industrial

Silencing

three-way

catalyst

0.66 lbm/hr

90 ppmvd at 15%

oxygen

American Cogenics of

California, Inc.

(El Roblar Ranch)

Two 700 hp Caterpillar

G398TAHC

reciprocating engines

each with Maxim/12

silencer and 464

kilowatt generators;

engines use rich burn

combustion of field gas

limited to 300

ppm hydrogen sulfide

7/17/90

(A/C no. 8016)

A330-440-90

District Contact:

Sanjib Mukherji

Santa Barbara Co.

APCD

(805) 961-8800

Nonselective

catalytic reduction

50 ppmvd at 15%

oxygen;

92% minimum

1.245 lbm/hr/unit

(Equivalent to

0.79 g/bhp-hr)
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha F3521GL 773 waste&nat gas 0.000 24.000 0.000 481.000 229.000 6/3/1993 9.600 119.000 251.000 1995.000

Worthington 58-2 950 l None 151.000 151.000 0.000 308.000 206.400 12/11/1986 11.100 124.261 185.429 0.000

0 0.000 146.700 0.000 1.370 1611.850 1/22/1991 0.365 0.000 0.400 25.320

Waukesha VRG 220 48 r 0.000 13.000 0.000 3447.000 29.000 4/19/1994 0.200 8.000 982.000 7.850

Worthington 58-2 1000 l None 52.000 52.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10/21/1987 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ford LSG-875 150 0.000 1.000 0.000 373.000 4.900 6/23/1994 0.100 1.400 105.000 250.000

Waukesha VRG 220U 48 r NSCR 0.000 1.000 0.000 3002.000 1.000 3/12/1992 0.010 1.000 847.000 45.000

Waukesha 74 r None - ERC 339.000 339.000 0.000 2191.000 123.500 9/10/1987 0.280 35.337 631.000 96.460

Worthington 58-2 950 l None 151.000 151.000 0.000 339.000 291.200 12/11/1986 11.500 182.774 212.777 0.000

Waukesha 74 r None - ERC 247.000 247.000 0.000 2665.000 201.000 9/10/1987 0.510 58.161 776.000 97.070

White G-8258 625 r Engelhard Deoxo 572.000 5.000 99.100 6000.000 258.000 12/17/1982 0.010 72.867 1694.591 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Lo NOx 44 758.000 3.000 99.600 9990.000 20.800 11/24/1986 0.100 5.900 2833.702 0.000

White G-8258 625 r Engelhard Deoxo 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.000 165.000 12/17/1982 0.200 47.029 59.855 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Lo NOx 44 519.000 4.000 99.200 9053.000 22.500 11/24/1986 0.200 6.413 2580.324 0.000

Worthington 58-2 1000 l None 136.000 136.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10/20/1987 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Worthington 58-2 1000 l None 425.000 425.000 0.000 410.000 166.100 12/11/1986 9.600 86.725 214.071 0.000

White G-8258 625 r Engelhard Deoxo 2.000 2.000 0.000 11300.000 270.000 12/17/1982 0.010 76.257 3191.479 0.000

Worthington 58-2 1000 l None 195.000 195.000 0.000 331.000 81.900 12/12/1986 11.000 48.809 197.263 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Cat Conv 565.000 4.000 99.300 0.000 0.000 10/22/1987 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r catalyst 311.000 3.000 99.000 28400.000 17.000 12/31/1985 0.100 4.822 8055.769 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM Denox c 0.000 12.000 0.000 1133.000 0.000 7/29/1993 0.800 50.200 333.000 26.000

38 0.000 289.000 0.000 0.350 619.000 1/17/1991 2.450 0.000 0.100 7.600

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r EngelhardTorvex 449.000 3.000 99.300 4050.000 357.000 2/9/1982 0.050 101.022 1146.043 0.000

Waukesha 74 r None - ERC 189.000 189.000 0.000 2183.000 318.000 9/10/1987 0.470 91.836 634.000 96.780

Waukesha VRG 220 48 r None 0.000 32.000 0.000 7452.000 810.000 8/6/1993 0.010 229.000 2105.000 5.000

Waukesha 145GZ 90 0.000 2.000 0.000 44935.000 7020.000 9/1/1988 11.500 0.000 0.000 218.000

Waukesha VRG 220 48 r None 0.000 9.000 0.000 8225.000 130.000 8/6/1993 3.900 45.000 2855.000 5.000

Waukesha VRG 220 48 r None 0.000 4.000 0.000 4673.000 117.000 8/6/1993 2.200 37.000 1474.000 4.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r EngelhardTorvex 315.000 8.000 97.500 20915.000 22.400 12/12/1986 0.100 6.354 5932.620 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Lo NOx 44 461.000 4.000 99.100 13414.000 18.000 12/1/1986 0.100 5.106 3804.933 0.000

Worthington 58-2 1000 l None 96.000 96.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10/20/1987 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha VRG 220 25 r Catalyst 29.000 1.000 97.500 13313.000 248.000 2/23/1990 0.100 70.000 3776.000 14.000

Waukesha VRG 220 48 r 0.000 42.000 0.000 1.000 266.000 8/1/1994 6.400 108.000 1.000 34.330

Waukesha VRG 220 48 r 0.000 25.000 0.000 1.000 138.000 8/25/1994 6.200 55.000 1.000 10.300

Continental F226 30 234.400 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/16/1986 3.380 0.000 0.000 100.800

Continental F226 30 424.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/15/1986 3.160 0.000 0.000 91.200

Continental F226 30 128.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/15/1986 2.950 0.000 0.000 93.510

D-2-1
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

38 0.000 154.000 0.000 2.920 45.000 1/17/1991 7.080 0.000 1.250 17.810

Continental F226 30 438.700 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/16/1986 4.560 0.000 0.000 73.800

Ford LSG-875 150 0.000 6.000 0.000 1.000 32.500 6/23/1994 0.100 9.200 1.000 245.000

Waukesha VRG 220 48 r 0.000 6.000 0.000 5997.000 154.000 6/6/1994 0.200 44.000 1709.000 9.000

Waukesha VRG 220 48 r 0.000 8.000 0.000 630.000 307.000 6/6/1994 11.800 199.000 408.000 11.820

Continental F226 30 276.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/16/1986 4.810 0.000 0.000 57.600

0 0.000 25.600 0.000 1.600 1445.000 1/22/1991 5.745 0.000 0.650 42.660

Continental F226 30 550.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/15/1986 3.200 0.000 0.000 67.200

0 0.000 6.000 0.000 289.330 1032.550 1/22/1991 15.950 0.000 345.350 116.220

Ford GSG-649 126 r Auto Catalyst 0.000 6.000 0.000 20.000 28.000 9/15/1992 2.700 9.000 7.000 97.000

Continental F226 30 242.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/16/1986 3.010 0.000 0.000 70.200

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r NSCR 438.300 131.300 70.000 13000.000 3800.000 6/4/1986 0.500 3800.000 3769.000 0.000

0 0.000 93.650 0.000 301.600 30.050 1/22/1991 14.540 0.000 242.450 70.060

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR 0.000 11.000 0.000 300.000 284.000 6/4/1992 0.100 80.000 127.000 38.000

Ford GSG-649 126 r Auto Catalyst 0.000 19.000 0.000 29.000 27.000 9/15/1992 3.400 9.000 10.000 100.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r NSCR c 0.000 5.800 0.000 8006.100 30.900 7/10/1997 0.210 8.800 2283.600 1133.000

Ford 460V8 108 r NSCR c 0.000 10.000 0.000 2806.000 103.000 1/23/1997 0.010 29.000 793.000 110.000

Waukesha L7042G- 585 r NSCR Englehard 0.000 8.000 0.000 5839.000 169.000 10/26/1995 1.100 50.000 1740.000 594.000

Waukesha L7042G- 585 r NSCR Englehard 0.000 9.000 0.000 6024.000 94.000 10/26/1995 0.100 27.000 1707.000 585.000

325 r c 0.000 5.700 0.000 2766.500 295.600 4/11/1997 0.255 84.500 790.700 665.300

Waukesha L7042G- 585 r NSCR Englehard 0.000 18.000 0.000 6974.000 168.000 10/26/1995 0.200 48.000 1986.000 547.000

Caterpillar G-379-A 295 r NSCR c 0.000 2.000 0.000 2928.000 108.000 11/26/1996 0.010 31.000 827.000 381.000

Waukesha VRG 220 80 0.000 43.400 0.000 1.000 199.000 10/12/1995 6.700 83.000 0.400 7.250

Waukesha VRG 220 80 0.000 29.600 0.000 4.000 226.000 10/12/1995 4.700 82.000 1.500 6.470

Waukesha VRG 220 80 0.000 28.100 0.000 7.000 87.000 9/19/1995 3.800 30.000 2.400 4.000

Tecogen CM-60 89 r NSCR c 0.000 3.000 0.000 4054.000 19.000 11/13/1996 0.100 5.000 1150.000 113.000

Waukesha VRG 220 80 0.000 31.300 0.000 1.700 356.000 9/19/1995 6.500 146.000 0.700 4.890

Ford 460V8 108 r NSCR c 0.000 10.000 0.000 2332.000 8.200 1/23/1997 0.010 2.300 659.000 110.000

Caterpillar G-3306TA 194 r NSCR 0.000 6.000 0.000 5041.000 80.000 3/12/1997 0.010 23.000 1423.000 225.000

White G-8258 625 r NSCR 0.000 7.200 0.000 6077.400 3.400 7/29/1997 0.250 1.000 1736.800 699.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 52.000 0.000 226.000 1120.000 11/26/1996 13.400 881.000 178.000 490.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 34.000 0.000 185.000 558.000 11/26/1996 14.400 506.000 168.000 548.000

Caterpillar G-3408 375 r NSCR 0.000 6.580 0.000 2037.000 0.000 5/15/1997 0.060 31.100 577.000 2442.000

Waukesha L5790GV 738 r NSCR c 0.000 5.700 0.000 2856.400 0.000 7/10/1997 0.110 0.000 810.500 353.000

48 None 0.000 16.700 0.000 5.500 51.900 3/26/1997 7.020 22.100 2.300 0.000

48 None 0.000 12.900 0.000 51.800 362.600 3/26/1997 10.300 179.800 28.800 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-8 225 r NSCR - ECS 0.000 9.000 0.000 649.000 60.000 5/5/1996 0.010 17.000 183.000 245.000

D-2-2
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

48 None 0.000 17.600 0.000 41.700 157.900 3/26/1997 7.010 67.100 17.700 0.000

Continental F226 30 281.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/16/1986 4.090 0.000 0.000 117.000

Waukesha F3521GC 773 0.000 88.000 0.000 542.000 0.000 8/8/1996 8.900 0.000 266.000 2282.000

Enterprise GSG-6 465 r NSCR c 0.000 15.000 0.000 13532.000 0.000 3/14/1997 0.100 0.000 3838.000 0.000

48 None 0.000 18.600 0.000 129.300 101.900 3/26/1997 6.700 42.300 53.700 0.000

White G-8258 625 r NSCR 0.000 10.800 0.000 8947.200 6.300 7/29/1997 0.350 1.800 2568.400 717.000

48 None 0.000 42.100 0.000 1559.700 77.800 3/26/1997 4.180 27.500 550.400 0.000

Caterpillar G-3408 375 r NSCR 0.000 7.880 0.000 2857.000 0.000 5/15/1997 0.750 26.800 836.000 2694.000

48 None 0.000 11.500 0.000 33.800 394.200 3/26/1997 8.650 189.800 16.300 0.000

48 None 0.000 15.300 0.000 283.200 283.100 3/26/1997 8.890 129.500 139.200 0.000

48 None 0.000 9.200 0.000 159.200 128.200 3/26/1997 12.090 43.200 106.600 0.000

Waukesha 145GZ 90 0.000 6.000 0.000 50000.000 774.000 9/1/1988 1.300 0.000 0.000 74.000

Continental F226 30 46.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/16/1986 6.760 0.000 0.000 85.200

Continental F226 30 233.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/16/1986 9.160 0.000 0.000 112.800

Ford 460V8 108 r NSCR c 0.000 10.000 0.000 3857.000 2.100 1/23/1997 0.010 0.600 1090.000 110.000

Waukesha VRG 220 80 0.000 32.700 0.000 16.000 355.000 10/12/1995 6.800 149.000 6.700 6.900

Waukesha 725 c 0.000 2.300 0.000 722.400 27.000 3/8/1997 0.020 7.600 204.100 0.000

Caterpillar G-3306TA 194 r NSCR (?) c 0.000 5.000 0.000 2096.000 4.200 11/18/1997 0.010 1.200 592.000 238.000

Caterpillar G-379-A 295 r NSCR 0.000 23.000 0.000 4456.000 169.000 11/29/1995 0.200 48.000 1270.000 207.000

Caterpillar G-342 235 l None m 0.000 356.000 0.000 0.000 406.000 1/31/1991 0.500 0.000 0.000 167.480

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-6 165 r HoustonInd Cat c 457.000 29.000 93.700 7358.000 100.000 3/4/1988 0.010 28.365 2087.125 163.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-6 165 r Houston Cat 0.000 22.500 0.000 4266.000 103.000 11/4/1993 0.004 29.100 1204.000 178.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-6 165 r NSCR 0.000 26.700 0.000 9527.000 204.000 9/26/1991 0.030 54.500 2692.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-8 225 r NSCR 0.000 12.400 0.000 563.000 186.000 9/26/1991 0.020 48.600 160.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-8 225 r NSCR c 709.000 14.000 98.000 3350.000 270.000 1/29/1992 0.100 80.000 950.000 302.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-6 165 r NSCR c 391.000 17.000 95.700 2050.000 130.000 1/29/1992 0.100 40.000 600.000 177.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-6 165 r NSCR Houston 0.000 8.110 0.000 1494.000 59.000 11/30/1994 0.010 17.000 422.000 185.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-8 225 r NSCR c 0.000 12.200 0.000 2440.000 244.000 8/11/1992 0.340 60.000 676.000 244.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-6 165 r NSCR c 0.000 7.090 0.000 1088.000 89.000 8/11/1992 0.400 26.000 313.000 167.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-6 165 r NSCR 0.000 8.000 0.000 4039.000 101.000 11/29/1995 0.010 28.000 1140.000 167.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-8 225 r HoustonInd Cat c 564.000 32.000 94.300 8613.000 84.000 12/10/1987 0.010 23.942 2454.913 273.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-8 225 r Houston Cat 0.000 14.700 0.000 1778.000 108.000 11/4/1993 0.056 30.400 503.000 283.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-8 225 r NSCR 591.000 38.000 93.500 0.000 0.000 6/5/1986 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-8 225 r NSCR Houston 0.000 10.700 0.000 2097.000 72.000 11/30/1994 0.120 20.000 595.000 185.000

Ingersoll-Rand JVG-8 225 r NSCR Houston 0.000 10.700 0.000 2097.000 72.000 6/7/1994 0.120 20.000 595.000 185.000

White G-8258 750 r ECS NSCR 0.000 39.100 0.000 11383.000 225.000 11/4/1993 0.020 63.600 3217.000 777.000

White G-8258 750 r NSCR ESC 0.000 51.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 6/7/1994 0.010 0.000 1901.000 771.000

D-2-3
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

White G-8258 750 r ECS NSCR c 0.000 31.600 0.000 7320.000 109.000 8/11/1992 0.290 31.000 2139.000 730.000

White G-8258 750 r ECS NSCR c 643.000 60.000 90.700 1750.000 90.000 1/29/1992 0.100 30.000 500.000 737.000

White G-8258 750 r NSCR 509.000 50.500 90.100 1960.000 121.000 9/26/1991 3.000 34.000 554.000 0.000

White G-8258 750 r NSCR 1921.000 61.000 0.000 4000.000 46.200 2/14/1986 0.300 0.000 0.000 670.000

White G-8258 750 r NSCR c 0.000 0.800 0.000 2305.000 1.400 11/18/1997 0.010 0.400 651.000 656.000

White G-8258 750 r NSCR - ECS 0.000 25.000 0.000 4577.000 91.000 11/29/1995 0.010 26.000 1292.000 685.000

White G-8258 750 r NSCR - ECS c 0.000 0.300 0.000 977.000 185.000 11/26/1996 0.010 52.000 276.000 925.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-4 150 r NSCR c 359.000 26.000 92.600 8264.000 135.000 8/31/1990 0.100 38.000 2333.000 169.000

Caterpillar G-379-A 295 r Houston Ind CC c 786.000 31.000 96.100 3686.000 184.000 12/10/1987 0.010 52.956 1060.849 224.000

Caterpillar G-379-A 295 r NSCR 0.000 38.800 0.000 2220.000 100.000 11/30/1994 0.050 29.000 628.000 180.000

Caterpillar G-379-A 295 r NSCR 878.000 62.000 92.900 422.000 344.000 9/26/1991 0.120 56.000 120.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-379-A 295 r 0.000 39.100 0.000 3049.000 129.000 11/4/1993 0.020 36.400 861.000 246.000

Caterpillar G-379-A 295 r NSCR c 0.000 15.000 0.000 4966.000 25.000 11/18/1997 0.010 7.000 1402.000 264.000

Ajax DP-115 115 0.000 12.000 0.000 192.000 2053.000 10/30/1987 13.500 0.000 0.000 554.000

Ajax DP-115 115 441.000 0.000 0.000 1113.000 1114.000 10/30/1987 15.600 0.000 0.000 607.000

Ajax DP-115 115 399.000 0.000 0.000 345.000 304.000 10/30/1987 18.100 0.000 0.000 1320.000

Minnepls-Moline HUA 97 r None d 0.000 101.000 0.000 34816.000 133.000 12/22/1987 3.600 0.000 0.000 48.000

Minnepls-Moline 605A 113 r None d 0.000 542.000 0.000 8894.000 149.000 12/22/1987 0.700 0.000 0.000 42.000

Caterpillar G-3306 67 r NSCR 0.000 1.000 0.000 9739.000 45.000 12/20/1991 0.100 13.000 2749.000 135.000

Caterpillar G-3306 67 r R-B NSCR c 393.000 23.000 94.100 18477.000 76.000 12/11/1989 0.100 22.000 5229.000 193.000

Waukesha F3521GU 391 r NSCR 0.000 5.000 0.000 1324.000 33.000 5/17/1994 0.200 12.000 377.000 254.000

Waukesha F3521GU 391 r NSCR 0.000 5.000 0.000 212.000 7.800 11/30/1994 0.100 2.200 60.000 510.000

Waukesha F3521GU 391 r R-B SCR 215.400 4.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 9/23/1993 0.300 105.300 8833.300 576.000

Waukesha F3521GU 391 r R-B NSCR c 174.000 4.000 97.900 39107.000 106.000 12/11/1989 0.010 30.000 11040.000 585.000

Waukesha F3521GU 391 r R-B NSCR c 495.000 22.000 95.500 11992.000 82.000 6/11/1990 0.100 23.000 3401.000 528.000

Waukesha F3521GU 375 r NSCR c 0.000 7.000 0.000 224.000 4.200 3/7/1997 1.600 1.300 68.000 555.000

Minnepls-Moline 605-HUA 117 r d 149.500 0.000 0.000 10333.500 0.000 10/27/1988 1.650 0.000 0.000 2340.000

Waukesha 145 195 r d 338.000 0.000 0.000 10240.500 0.000 10/27/1988 3.000 0.000 0.000 3507.000

Waukesha 145 195 r d 340.000 0.000 0.000 10655.000 0.000 10/27/1988 1.050 0.000 0.000 964.500

Waukesha 140GZ 116 r PSC d 840.000 24.000 97.100 154.000 137.000 12/21/1986 9.100 68.500 77.000 0.000

Waukesha 140GZ 116 r PSC 183.500 0.000 0.000 7257.500 0.000 10/28/1988 0.600 0.000 0.000 2166.500

Waukesha 140GZ 116 r PSC 636.500 0.000 0.000 8262.000 0.000 10/28/1988 0.700 0.000 0.000 3236.500

Waukesha 140GZ 116 r PSC 951.000 0.000 0.000 6179.500 0.000 10/24/1988 1.250 0.000 0.000 3240.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 23.200 0.000 381.200 84.700 9/27/1994 8.500 40.300 181.500 0.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 13.000 0.000 450.600 7.500 2/4/1991 9.290 3.700 228.800 563.012

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 36.880 0.000 414.630 430.000 7/30/1992 8.480 204.270 196.990 292.192

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 17.960 0.000 521.390 467.000 8/25/1993 9.080 233.000 260.260 299.232

D-2-4
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC c 0.000 24.000 0.000 292.000 85.300 6/27/1989 8.170 2.947 135.000 516.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 31.400 0.000 355.000 265.000 9/14/1995 8.600 127.000 170.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC c 954.000 63.000 93.400 388.000 27.500 12/12/1991 2.120 12.840 181.000 575.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r NSCR c 0.000 0.470 0.000 488.210 17.000 4/7/1997 0.040 4.840 138.900 538.300

Caterpillar G-398 330 r PSC 0.000 29.600 0.000 367.000 88.300 6/27/1996 8.400 41.700 174.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r Baseline c 898.000 898.000 0.000 349.000 104.900 6/19/1986 1.900 32.574 108.374 154.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 14.010 0.000 390.140 235.000 8/25/1993 8.760 114.000 189.610 321.693

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 44.000 44.000 0.000 396.000 208.900 11/24/1986 8.800 101.860 193.091 0.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 14.000 0.000 466.000 113.500 3/23/1987 9.000 56.273 231.042 204.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC c 0.000 42.000 0.000 370.000 122.500 6/27/1989 9.580 3.610 192.000 548.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 21.100 0.000 405.200 104.700 9/27/1994 9.300 53.300 206.500 0.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 29.230 0.000 442.670 376.670 7/30/1992 8.570 180.240 211.740 294.325

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 25.600 0.000 342.000 325.000 9/14/1995 9.900 174.000 183.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 31.300 0.000 450.400 290.000 2/4/1991 9.490 150.000 232.900 585.810

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC c 0.000 30.000 0.000 361.000 0.000 10/13/1992 8.140 0.000 167.070 0.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r NSCR c 0.000 0.130 0.000 191.180 5.800 4/7/1997 0.160 1.660 54.720 541.400

Caterpillar G-398 330 r PSC 0.000 29.100 0.000 343.000 86.500 6/27/1996 8.000 39.600 157.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 24.160 0.000 387.590 476.670 11/17/1992 8.650 229.580 186.640 312.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 14.000 0.000 354.000 134.000 3/3/1988 8.300 62.746 165.762 192.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 23.000 0.000 359.000 46.600 3/23/1987 8.600 22.353 172.203 197.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 41.270 0.000 442.840 149.000 8/25/1993 10.110 81.000 242.160 338.893

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC c 0.000 39.000 0.000 380.000 0.000 5/15/1990 8.400 0.000 179.000 199.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC c 0.000 43.000 0.000 285.000 53.300 6/27/1989 8.790 1.712 139.000 516.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 32.570 0.000 333.670 676.670 7/30/1992 8.650 325.000 160.640 296.247

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 31.600 0.000 340.000 256.000 9/14/1995 8.500 122.000 162.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 31.000 0.000 496.300 205.000 2/4/1991 10.190 115.300 273.400 627.380

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC c 852.000 68.000 92.100 351.000 10.000 12/12/1991 1.310 4.450 156.000 410.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r PSC 0.000 35.400 0.000 346.100 109.000 9/27/1994 8.500 51.900 165.300 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 330 r PSC 0.000 32.400 0.000 359.000 113.700 6/27/1996 8.600 54.500 173.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-379 330 r NSCR c 0.000 0.100 0.000 462.010 12.900 4/7/1997 0.120 3.690 131.980 540.300

Caterpillar G-398 500 r PSC 0.000 28.820 0.000 506.500 536.000 8/25/1993 9.260 272.000 256.670 352.920

Caterpillar G-398 500 r PSC 0.000 29.300 0.000 406.800 155.300 9/26/1994 8.400 73.300 192.500 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 500 r PSC 0.000 25.670 0.000 467.920 366.670 7/30/1992 12.020 243.620 310.720 431.494

Caterpillar G-398 500 r PSC 0.000 45.700 0.000 388.000 299.000 9/14/1995 8.200 139.000 180.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 500 r NSCR c 0.000 0.040 0.000 481.090 7.900 4/7/1997 0.020 2.250 136.770 831.700

Caterpillar G-398 500 r PSC 0.000 60.000 0.000 374.000 66.000 6/27/1996 7.800 29.700 168.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 500 r PSC d 0.000 25.000 0.000 434.000 0.000 10/13/1992 8.500 0.000 206.690 0.000

D-2-5
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Caterpillar G-398 500 r PSC 0.000 14.260 0.000 402.320 224.000 8/25/1993 7.950 102.000 183.230 312.240

Caterpillar G-398 500 r PSC 0.000 39.000 0.000 397.100 198.200 9/27/1994 8.900 97.400 195.400 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 500 r PSC 0.000 26.270 0.000 473.170 98.000 7/30/1992 8.590 46.970 226.810 311.264

Caterpillar G-398 500 r PSC 0.000 31.800 0.000 357.000 212.000 9/14/1995 8.300 99.200 167.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 500 r PSC d 0.000 29.000 0.000 384.000 0.000 10/13/1992 8.060 0.000 176.390 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 500 r NSCR c 0.000 0.040 0.000 321.320 9.100 4/7/1997 0.030 2.590 91.390 832.100

Caterpillar G-398 500 r PSC 0.000 39.600 0.000 624.000 394.000 6/27/1996 9.000 116.000 308.000 0.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 25.360 0.000 381.990 235.000 8/25/1993 7.590 104.000 169.260 786.761

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 44.000 0.000 275.000 44.000 10/20/1987 6.700 18.282 114.261 1117.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 30.100 0.000 280.800 36.500 2/4/1991 6.320 14.900 113.600 1086.830

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 49.600 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/22/1993 9.400 211.000 210.600 1421.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC heat/cogen c 0.000 43.000 0.000 190.000 173.700 6/27/1989 7.450 6.582 83.200 1042.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC heat/cogen c 0.000 36.000 0.000 341.000 0.000 10/13/1992 6.920 0.000 144.110 0.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 34.700 0.000 425.400 25.600 9/26/1994 7.500 11.300 187.100 0.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 34.900 0.000 405.000 110.000 9/14/1995 7.200 47.200 174.000 0.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 23.430 0.000 343.580 27.330 7/30/1992 6.740 11.390 143.160 722.757

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC c 0.000 31.000 0.000 249.000 6.000 6/24/1997 6.800 2.500 104.000 2176.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 33.700 0.000 424.000 26.100 6/27/1996 7.600 11.600 188.000 0.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 36.500 0.000 381.060 84.000 8/25/1993 7.370 37.000 166.170 784.748

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC heat/cogen c 0.000 19.000 0.000 209.000 41.000 6/27/1989 7.120 1.626 89.300 1145.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 38.700 0.000 271.000 119.000 9/14/1995 7.500 52.600 120.000 0.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC heat/cogen c 0.000 7.000 0.000 330.000 0.000 10/13/1992 8.630 0.000 158.760 0.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 24.000 0.000 324.700 17.400 9/26/1994 7.400 7.600 141.600 0.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 32.580 0.000 335.940 34.670 7/30/1992 7.190 14.920 144.520 746.480

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 25.100 0.000 236.600 39.000 2/4/1991 6.580 16.200 97.500 1022.430

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC c 0.000 28.000 0.000 249.000 5.900 6/24/1997 7.100 2.500 106.000 2223.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 23.000 0.000 237.000 23.300 6/27/1996 7.300 10.100 103.000 0.000

Waukesha P9390G 796 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 845.000 50.000 94.100 334.000 40.000 3/24/1987 6.900 16.857 140.757 915.000

Waukesha P9390G 796 r PSC AirEGR DGEC c 0.000 39.000 0.000 323.000 43.000 12/29/1987 9.000 21.319 160.143 1140.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC heat/cogen c 0.000 22.000 0.000 202.000 30.000 6/27/1989 6.770 1.251 84.300 992.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC Heat/Cogen c 0.000 20.000 0.000 267.000 0.000 5/15/1990 7.500 0.000 118.000 2386.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 47.200 0.000 241.900 16.400 9/26/1994 6.500 6.700 99.200 0.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 695.000 0.000 409.000 0.000 5/31/1985 0.600 0.000 0.000 574.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 29.030 0.000 334.970 23.670 7/30/1992 6.070 9.420 133.220 690.104

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 27.660 0.000 353.290 70.000 8/25/1993 7.080 30.000 150.830 780.944

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 38.600 0.000 249.000 66.500 9/14/1995 8.000 30.400 114.000 0.000

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC 0.000 25.400 0.000 246.800 41.500 2/4/1991 6.390 16.900 100.300 1050.510

D-2-6
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha P9390G 800 r PSC c 0.000 29.000 0.000 274.000 5.700 6/24/1997 6.600 2.400 113.000 2092.000

Caterpillar G-353 250 r 0.000 29.000 0.000 208.000 0.000 4/28/1992 2.000 3.000 63.000 169.000

Caterpillar G-353 250 r JM Cat Convertr 0.000 4.000 0.000 4356.000 30.000 8/13/1993 0.100 8.000 1235.000 217.000

Caterpillar G-353 250 r NSCR 647.000 5.000 0.000 6113.000 22.000 3/27/1991 0.100 6.000 1734.000 193.000

Caterpillar G-353 250 r JM CC c 0.000 29.000 0.000 208.000 0.000 3/27/1992 2.000 3.000 63.000 169.000

Clark HRA-3 330 l None m 0.000 269.000 0.000 230.000 1007.000 2/19/1991 13.800 0.000 192.000 1328.000

Clark HRA-3 330 l None m 0.000 342.000 0.000 274.000 1794.000 2/19/1991 14.600 0.000 256.000 1418.000

Clark HRA-6 660 l Nergas SCR c 1094.000 180.000 83.500 246.000 346.800 12/22/1986 14.200 305.391 216.627 0.000

Clark HRA-6-M 660 l Nergas SCR c 0.000 33.000 0.000 159.000 243.000 5/4/1993 13.300 189.000 123.000 2767.000

Clark HRA-6 660 l Nergas SCR c 885.000 104.000 88.200 301.000 245.500 5/6/1988 13.600 132.305 243.274 2770.000

Clark HRA-6 660 l Nergas SCR c 636.000 55.000 91.352 481.000 260.000 5/2/1989 13.100 196.667 363.833 2187.000

Clark HRA-6 660 l Nergas SCR c 1312.000 166.000 87.300 239.000 0.000 4/23/1990 13.100 0.000 180.000 2246.000

Clark HRA-6-M 660 l SCR Nergas 1089.000 77.000 92.900 301.000 72.000 4/22/1991 12.200 48.000 203.000 1984.000

Clark HRA-6 660 l Nergas SCR c 562.000 64.000 88.612 167.000 300.000 6/12/1992 14.400 273.000 152.000 631.000

Clark HRA-6 660 l None m 1113.000 0.000 0.000 207.000 339.000 2/19/1991 13.000 0.000 155.000 2877.000

Clark HRA-6 660 l Nergas SCR m 52.000 52.000 0.000 296.000 211.000 8/27/1993 13.200 163.000 228.000 2318.000

Clark HRA-6-M 660 l SCR Nergas 1100.000 124.000 88.700 705.000 126.000 4/22/1991 12.600 89.000 498.000 2080.000

Clark HRA-6 660 l Nergas SCR c 1159.000 155.000 86.600 290.000 200.900 8/26/1988 13.500 160.177 231.216 2770.000

Clark HRA-6 660 l Nergas SCR c 672.000 82.000 87.800 284.000 227.000 3/26/1987 14.100 196.956 246.412 0.000

Clark HRA-6-M 660 l Nergas SCR c 0.000 51.000 0.000 352.000 246.000 5/4/1993 12.700 177.000 253.000 2582.000

Clark HRA-6 660 l Nergas SCR c 619.000 72.000 88.400 267.000 112.500 5/23/1989 13.900 95.000 225.000 2642.000

Clark HRA-6 660 l Nergas SCR c 1237.000 222.000 82.100 256.000 0.000 4/23/1990 13.000 0.000 191.000 2246.000

Clark HRA-6 660 l Nergas SCR c 679.000 83.000 87.776 402.000 387.000 6/12/1992 15.200 401.000 416.000 719.000

Clark HRA-6 660 l None m 0.000 342.000 0.000 125.000 1616.000 2/19/1991 14.800 0.000 122.000 2799.000

Clark HRA-6 660 l None m 0.000 304.000 0.000 389.000 1003.000 2/19/1991 13.750 0.000 321.000 2358.000

Waukesha F817GU 90 r Cat Conv c 0.000 11.000 0.000 2162.000 181.000 5/4/1993 0.100 52.000 613.000 10.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 350 r TWC m 81.000 48.000 40.700 12786.000 638.000 8/25/1988 8.900 313.683 6286.450 99.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 350 r TWC m 195.000 2.000 99.000 21339.000 109.000 1/7/1988 1.500 33.149 6489.696 129.000

Cooper Bessemer GMVA-8 1100 l Clean Burn ECS c 0.000 238.000 0.000 81.000 0.000 2/6/1987 16.510 0.000 108.614 0.000

Cooper Bessemer GMVA-8 1100 l Clean Burn ESC c 218.000 218.000 0.000 123.000 0.000 8/22/1986 0.000 0.000 164.932 0.000

Cooper Bessemer GMVA-8 1100 l Clean Burn ECS c 65.000 65.000 0.000 120.000 47.000 5/5/1986 16.800 67.634 172.683 0.000

Cooper Bessemer GMVA-8 1100 l Clean Burn ESC c 0.000 96.920 0.000 0.000 0.000 5/8/1987 16.710 0.000 0.000 5992.300

Cooper Bessemer GMVA-8 1110 l Clean Burn ESC c 71.000 71.000 0.000 141.000 0.000 10/31/1986 0.000 0.000 189.068 0.000

Cooper Bessemer GMVA-8 1100 l Clean Burn ECS c 64.000 64.000 0.000 130.000 29.000 2/6/1986 16.600 39.791 178.372 0.000

Cooper Bessemer GMVA-8 1100 l Clean Burn ESC c 0.000 1096.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10/30/1989 15.400 0.000 0.000 5021.000

Cooper Bessemer GMVA-8 1100 l Clean Burn ESC c 0.000 248.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1/8/1988 16.560 0.000 0.000 7500.000

Cooper Bessimer GMVA-8 717 l Clean Burn 0.000 910.770 0.000 0.000 0.000 7/27/1984 15.130 0.000 53.120 4818.000

D-2-7
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Cooper Bessimer GMVA-8 717 l Clean Burn 0.000 604.840 0.000 0.000 0.000 9/28/1984 15.960 0.000 154.320 5487.000

Cooper Bessemer GMVA-8 1100 l Clean Burn ESC c 0.000 302.000 0.000 59.000 43.000 1/13/1989 16.070 0.755 72.300 5499.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn 0.000 42.000 0.000 365.000 42.900 8/9/1994 7.600 19.000 162.000 5504.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Lndfl Gas 0.000 50.000 0.000 325.000 193.000 6/1/1994 7.400 0.000 142.000 4416.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Landfill Gas 0.000 31.320 0.000 210.010 8.300 5/28/1991 8.520 0.000 100.080 636.000

Superior 16SGTA 2550 l Landfill Gas 0.000 46.450 0.000 361.090 19.750 2/3/1992 7.910 8.970 164.310 6122.100

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn 0.000 42.400 0.000 0.000 0.000 11/17/1993 8.300 0.000 191.000 5535.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Landfill Gas 0.000 52.000 0.000 303.000 26.000 7/21/1993 7.800 12.000 136.000 6575.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 52.000 52.000 0.000 307.000 0.000 8/25/1987 0.000 0.000 152.210 0.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 0.000 45.000 0.000 374.000 0.000 12/20/1988 8.440 0.000 177.095 5368.620

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 0.000 44.000 0.000 237.000 19.800 6/1/1990 7.980 0.700 8.384 6377.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 42.000 42.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8/14/1986 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 0.000 35.000 0.000 287.000 0.000 10/6/1988 11.600 0.000 182.075 5143.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 0.000 79.300 0.000 0.000 0.000 6/16/1989 7.400 3.600 119.100 5175.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 0.000 30.000 0.000 339.000 0.000 1/26/1988 8.200 0.000 168.076 5826.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 0.000 24.000 0.000 323.000 0.000 4/26/1988 8.300 0.000 160.143 4936.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 0.000 49.000 0.000 362.000 0.000 8/18/1988 7.900 0.000 179.479 4367.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 1 Landfill Gas c 0.000 40.500 0.000 315.600 110.280 12/7/1995 7.760 49.670 140.700 5669.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 1 Landfill Gas c 0.000 53.200 0.000 397.400 56.500 3/12/1996 7.980 25.900 181.400 5929.500

Superior 16SGTA 2650 1 Landfill Gas c 0.000 44.000 0.000 423.260 457.000 7/15/1997 7.870 20.700 193.270 5505.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Landfill Gas 0.000 45.000 0.000 324.000 24.000 7/21/1993 7.400 10.000 142.000 6502.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn 0.000 40.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 11/17/1993 7.800 0.000 192.000 5779.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 0.000 78.000 0.000 362.000 21.900 6/1/1990 8.040 0.769 12.710 5055.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 0.000 70.600 0.000 268.000 0.000 12/20/1988 8.260 0.000 125.095 5394.550

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 39.000 39.000 0.000 331.000 0.000 8/25/1987 0.000 0.000 164.109 0.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 43.000 43.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8/14/1986 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 0.000 75.000 0.000 377.000 0.000 4/26/1988 7.100 0.000 186.916 4513.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 0.000 76.000 0.000 356.000 0.000 1/26/1988 7.600 0.000 176.504 5564.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 0.000 89.000 0.000 434.000 0.000 8/18/1988 7.000 0.000 215.176 4130.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 0.000 77.000 0.000 407.000 0.000 10/7/1988 8.900 0.000 200.108 6415.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn e 0.000 81.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 6/16/1989 7.500 4.200 141.000 5214.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn 0.000 28.000 0.000 357.000 42.300 8/9/1994 7.300 18.400 155.000 5531.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Landfill Gas 0.000 39.830 0.000 263.490 10.600 5/28/1991 8.550 0.000 125.840 556.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Lndfl Gas 0.000 38.000 0.000 367.000 102.000 6/1/1994 8.100 0.000 170.000 4977.000

Superior 16SGTA 2550 l Landfill Gas 0.000 54.890 0.000 386.290 15.760 2/3/1992 8.040 7.230 177.220 6178.400

Superior 16SGTA 2650 1 Landfill Gas c 0.000 37.500 0.000 290.800 35.800 7/15/1997 7.610 15.900 130.200 5343.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 1 Landfill Gas c 0.000 48.700 0.000 388.600 19.000 3/12/1996 7.920 8.700 176.500 6127.000

D-2-8
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha GMVA-8 165 r ECS NOx Control 174.000 19.000 89.100 30000.000 394.100 6/15/1987 1.000 116.844 8894.472 0.000

Waukesha GMVA-8 165 r ECS NOx Control 384.000 23.000 94.000 9283.000 0.000 7/2/1986 0.000 0.000 2752.246 0.000

Ajax DP-230 230 l 0.000 8.000 0.000 174.000 2342.000 9/24/1987 17.600 4187.212 311.091 1592.000

Ajax DP-230 230 l 0.000 7.000 0.000 133.000 2365.000 9/24/1987 16.300 3033.370 170.587 1101.000

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR c 691.000 18.000 97.400 1528.000 0.000 5/27/1987 0.400 0.000 433.423 490.100

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 635.000 1.000 99.800 12229.000 0.000 10/19/1987 0.010 0.000 3468.803 471.800

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR c 1074.000 16.000 98.500 9980.000 14.500 2/4/1987 0.010 4.236 2818.669 531.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 391.400 17.600 0.000 4790.000 0.000 6/29/1988 0.400 0.000 1358.702 519.200

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r NSCR 410.000 24.000 94.000 12454.000 182.000 4/5/1991 0.400 53.000 3584.000 419.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 736.000 16.000 0.000 710.000 0.000 3/22/1988 0.010 0.000 201.394 519.200

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 769.000 16.000 97.900 466.000 0.000 12/8/1987 0.010 0.000 132.183 440.900

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 448.000 8.000 98.000 9561.000 0.000 6/5/1989 0.100 0.000 26990.383 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 513.000 5.000 99.000 10040.000 0.000 12/12/1989 0.100 0.000 28342.584 593.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 458.000 21.000 95.000 11524.000 0.000 9/13/1989 0.100 0.000 32531.866 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 425.000 6.000 99.000 13772.000 0.000 4/9/1990 0.100 0.000 38877.895 594.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 591.000 16.000 99.000 5550.000 0.000 3/30/1989 0.100 2.000 15667.464 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 565.000 38.000 93.000 6332.000 0.000 9/19/1990 0.100 0.000 17875.024 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 648.600 15.000 0.000 2774.000 0.000 6/29/1988 0.010 0.000 786.856 591.200

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 641.000 18.000 97.200 5714.000 0.000 9/22/1987 0.100 0.000 1620.798 635.800

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 571.000 29.000 94.900 10921.000 0.000 12/8/1987 0.010 0.000 3097.784 581.200

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r Woodward Govern m 596.000 18.000 97.000 8957.000 0.000 3/10/1987 0.010 0.000 2540.688 640.000

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR m 597.000 55.000 90.800 5300.000 0.000 5/27/1987 0.100 0.000 1503.365 687.900

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 582.000 64.000 0.000 8896.000 0.000 3/22/1988 0.010 0.000 2523.385 591.200

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 532.000 44.000 92.000 9310.000 0.000 4/9/1990 0.100 0.000 26281.818 593.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 629.000 31.000 95.000 5475.000 0.000 6/30/1989 0.100 31.000 15455.742 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 513.000 12.000 97.000 8482.000 0.000 3/30/1989 0.100 12.000 23944.402 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 690.000 18.000 97.000 2800.000 0.000 12/12/1989 0.100 0.000 7904.306 591.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 669.000 14.000 98.000 1680.000 0.000 9/13/1989 0.100 0.000 4742.584 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 171.000 5.000 97.000 44446.000 0.000 3/9/1990 0.100 0.000 125469.569 599.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 1227.000 0.000 0.000 525.000 0.000 12/1/1982 5.000 0.000 195.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r NSCR 596.000 34.000 94.000 5315.000 162.000 4/5/1991 0.100 46.000 1508.000 666.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 452.000 37.000 91.000 13440.000 0.000 9/19/1990 0.100 0.000 37940.670 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 628.000 5.000 99.200 11033.000 0.000 12/16/1982 0.600 0.000 9753.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 657.600 55.600 0.000 2175.000 0.000 6/29/1988 0.010 0.000 616.947 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 630.000 53.000 91.600 7607.000 0.000 9/22/1987 0.010 0.000 2157.755 592.300

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r Woodward Govern c 618.000 43.000 93.000 7329.000 0.000 3/10/1987 0.010 0.000 2078.899 599.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r NSCR 498.000 1.000 99.000 2329.000 61.000 6/5/1991 0.010 17.000 657.000 555.000

D-2-9
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 674.000 50.000 93.500 3028.000 0.000 12/8/1987 0.010 0.000 858.904 598.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhard CC 0.000 5.000 0.000 4689.000 470.000 9/16/1993 0.100 134.000 1330.000 325.000

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR 0.000 3.000 0.000 10018.000 190.000 8/29/1994 0.400 55.000 2883.000 479.000

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR c 583.000 45.000 92.300 3123.000 0.000 5/27/1987 0.200 0.000 885.851 590.200

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 697.000 47.000 0.000 558.000 0.000 3/22/1988 0.010 0.000 158.279 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 52.000 4.000 92.000 40855.000 0.000 6/5/1989 0.100 0.000 115332.297 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 626.000 5.000 99.000 1420.000 0.000 9/13/1989 0.100 0.000 4008.612 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 640.000 46.000 93.000 3665.000 0.000 3/9/1990 0.200 0.000 5173.086 592.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 71.000 10.000 87.000 41720.000 0.000 3/30/1989 0.100 9.000 117774.163 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 619.000 67.000 89.000 3500.000 0.000 12/12/1989 0.100 0.000 9880.383 592.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 0.000 3.000 0.000 2645.000 0.000 10/1/1992 1.500 0.000 806.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 282.000 2.600 99.000 975.000 0.000 4/20/1983 0.010 0.000 0.000 1125.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 0.000 3.000 0.000 7061.000 653.000 6/19/1992 0.100 185.000 2003.000 350.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 700.600 0.850 0.000 4875.000 0.000 4/6/1982 0.100 0.000 1386.000 1051.000

Waukesha L7042G- 585 r NSCR c 0.000 2.300 0.000 118.000 61.000 11/27/1996 0.010 17.000 33.000 396.000

Waukesha L7042G- 513 r NSCR c 970.000 8.000 99.200 14746.000 42.000 2/24/1987 0.010 11.862 4164.739 616.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 617.000 12.000 0.000 6480.000 0.000 3/22/1988 0.010 0.000 1838.077 525.200

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR c 839.000 3.000 99.600 201.000 0.000 5/29/1987 0.010 0.000 57.014 501.200

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 694.000 22.000 96.800 2738.000 0.000 12/8/1987 0.010 0.000 776.644 546.900

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 620.000 20.000 96.800 4750.000 0.000 9/22/1987 0.400 0.000 1347.356 573.900

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 684.500 12.800 0.000 7556.000 0.000 6/29/1988 0.100 0.000 2143.288 525.200

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 372.000 17.000 96.000 16830.000 0.000 12/28/1989 0.200 0.000 23755.263 593.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 442.000 9.000 98.000 18620.000 0.000 3/5/1990 0.100 0.000 52563.636 595.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 337.000 11.000 97.000 21040.000 0.000 6/5/1989 0.100 0.000 59395.215 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 495.000 21.000 96.000 1735.000 0.000 3/31/1989 0.100 20.000 4897.847 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 363.000 12.000 97.000 17438.000 0.000 9/14/1989 0.100 0.000 49226.890 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 360.000 20.000 94.000 15294.000 0.000 9/19/1990 0.200 0.000 21587.225 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 407.000 13.000 96.700 5000.000 0.000 6/6/1990 0.010 0.000 1410.000 595.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r NSCR 424.000 20.000 95.000 703.000 22.000 6/5/1991 0.010 6.000 198.000 556.000

Waukesha L7042G- 838 r NSCR 0.000 12.000 0.000 2272.000 187.000 8/19/1994 0.100 53.000 644.000 468.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 714.000 6.000 99.200 390.000 0.000 12/8/1987 0.010 0.000 110.625 532.300

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhard CC 0.000 7.000 0.000 4482.000 35.000 9/16/1993 0.100 10.000 1271.000 357.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 706.000 42.000 0.000 4000.000 0.000 3/22/1988 0.010 0.000 1134.615 456.900

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 576.000 15.000 97.400 4021.000 0.000 9/22/1987 0.300 0.000 1140.572 563.200

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 637.700 8.000 0.000 8874.000 0.000 6/29/1988 0.100 0.000 2517.144 456.900

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR c 691.000 11.000 98.400 3806.000 0.000 5/29/1987 0.200 0.000 1079.587 609.000

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR c 1204.000 5.000 99.600 11498.000 74.000 2/9/1987 0.010 20.900 3247.401 677.000

D-2-10
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 210.000 5.000 97.000 28600.000 0.000 6/5/1989 0.100 0.000 80736.842 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 252.000 12.000 95.000 22600.000 0.000 3/31/1989 0.100 12.000 63799.043 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 254.000 4.000 98.000 25525.000 0.000 12/28/1989 0.100 0.000 72056.220 595.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 185.000 2.000 99.000 29800.000 0.000 9/14/1989 0.100 0.000 84124.402 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 243.000 15.000 94.000 33766.000 0.000 3/5/1990 0.200 0.000 47660.144 597.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 0.000 12.000 0.000 6496.000 0.000 10/1/1992 1.100 0.000 1940.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 0.000 19.000 0.000 6875.000 2399.000 6/19/1992 0.500 694.000 1988.000 228.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 565.000 44.000 91.000 2576.000 0.000 9/19/1990 0.200 0.000 3635.981 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r NSCR 583.000 23.000 96.000 4246.000 31.000 6/5/1991 0.010 9.000 1199.000 532.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r NSCR-Englehard 0.000 18.000 0.000 2154.000 0.000 4/1/1996 0.010 0.000 608.000 428.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 635.000 17.000 0.000 4120.000 0.000 3/22/1988 0.010 0.000 1168.654 537.200

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 660.000 10.000 98.500 6098.000 0.000 12/8/1987 0.100 0.000 1729.721 588.900

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 668.000 21.000 96.900 679.000 0.000 9/22/1987 1.200 0.000 192.601 567.600

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR m 950.000 3.000 99.700 9896.000 170.000 2/10/1987 0.400 48.927 2848.117 749.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 557.200 11.900 0.000 13388.000 0.000 6/29/1988 0.100 0.000 3797.558 537.200

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 865.000 14.000 94.000 27100.000 0.000 9/14/1989 0.100 0.000 76502.392 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 464.000 32.000 93.000 12050.000 0.000 3/31/1989 0.100 32.000 34016.746 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 497.000 27.000 95.000 11150.000 0.000 3/5/1990 0.100 0.000 31476.077 594.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 472.000 15.000 97.000 6564.000 0.000 12/28/1989 0.100 0.000 18529.952 591.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 213.000 12.000 94.000 28500.000 0.000 6/5/1989 0.100 0.000 80454.545 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 505.000 32.000 94.000 10872.000 0.000 9/19/1990 0.100 0.000 30691.292 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r NSCR 499.000 26.000 95.000 10438.000 154.000 6/5/1991 0.010 44.000 2947.000 632.000

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r Woodward Govern c 235.000 11.000 95.300 34064.000 0.000 3/10/1987 0.010 0.000 9662.385 645.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 227.200 10.500 0.000 29600.000 0.000 6/29/1988 0.100 0.000 8396.154 553.900

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 206.000 16.000 0.000 26500.000 0.000 3/22/1988 0.010 0.000 7516.827 553.900

Waukesha L7042G- 838 r NSCR 0.000 32.000 0.000 7241.000 60.000 8/19/1994 0.100 17.000 2054.000 511.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhard CC 0.000 25.000 0.000 7920.000 306.000 9/16/1993 0.100 87.000 2247.000 524.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 255.000 23.000 91.000 26400.000 0.000 12/8/1987 0.010 0.000 7488.462 562.500

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 280.000 18.000 93.600 38164.000 0.000 9/22/1987 0.200 0.000 10825.370 630.800

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR c 333.000 27.000 91.900 21453.000 0.000 5/29/1987 0.010 0.000 6085.226 621.700

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 144.000 3.000 98.000 34450.000 0.000 3/31/1989 0.100 2.000 97251.196 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 103.000 5.000 95.000 38019.000 0.000 9/14/1989 0.100 0.000 107326.364 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 127.000 11.000 91.000 43335.000 0.000 12/28/1989 0.400 0.000 30583.313 597.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 498.000 21.000 96.000 10920.000 0.000 4/9/1990 0.100 0.000 30826.794 594.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 116.000 6.000 95.000 40920.000 0.000 6/5/1989 0.100 0.000 115515.789 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 0.000 0.300 0.000 871.000 0.000 12/16/1982 0.010 0.000 762.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 560.000 47.000 91.000 7489.000 0.000 9/19/1990 0.100 0.000 21141.196 0.000

D-2-11
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 33.000 0.500 98.500 825.000 0.000 4/20/1983 0.010 0.000 0.000 1125.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 915.000 0.000 0.000 535.000 0.000 12/1/1982 4.800 0.000 196.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 0.000 14.000 0.000 3416.000 0.000 10/1/1992 1.400 0.000 1036.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 0.000 15.000 91.900 5000.000 0.000 6/6/1990 0.010 0.000 1410.000 594.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 0.000 32.000 0.000 10302.000 1201.000 6/19/1992 0.100 341.000 2922.000 336.000

Waukesha L7042G- 585 r NSCR c 0.000 1.000 0.000 58.000 94.000 11/27/1996 0.010 26.000 16.000 616.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r NSCR-Englehard 0.000 47.000 0.000 7775.000 0.000 5/6/1996 0.010 0.000 2195.000 511.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r NSCR 462.000 10.000 0.000 29516.000 0.000 2/14/1986 0.100 0.000 0.000 566.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 573.000 18.940 0.000 4604.000 0.000 4/6/1982 0.100 0.000 1309.000 1051.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 1339.000 1274.000 4.850 1075.000 0.000 4/20/1983 2.730 0.000 0.000 1880.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 263.400 0.010 0.000 30984.000 0.000 6/29/1988 0.010 0.000 8788.731 608.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 353.000 0.010 100.000 21295.000 0.000 12/8/1987 0.010 0.000 6040.409 622.200

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 207.000 2.000 0.000 31801.000 0.000 3/22/1988 0.010 0.000 9020.476 608.600

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r Woodward Govern m 475.000 0.010 100.000 15027.000 0.000 3/10/1987 0.010 0.000 4262.466 678.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 357.000 3.000 99.200 21143.000 0.000 9/22/1987 0.010 0.000 5997.293 675.400

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR m 338.000 3.000 99.100 13750.000 0.000 5/27/1987 0.200 0.000 3900.240 659.100

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 157.000 1.000 99.000 37638.000 0.000 6/5/1989 0.100 0.000 106250.813 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 191.000 2.000 99.000 34850.000 0.000 12/12/1989 0.100 0.000 98380.383 596.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 179.000 2.000 99.000 27950.000 0.000 9/13/1989 0.100 0.000 78901.914 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 202.000 1.000 99.000 34200.000 0.000 3/30/1989 0.100 0.010 96545.455 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 627.000 2.000 99.700 4100.000 0.000 12/16/1982 0.700 0.000 3608.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 1239.000 0.000 0.000 333.000 0.000 12/1/1982 4.200 0.000 118.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR c 677.000 2.000 99.700 2137.000 0.000 5/28/1987 0.010 0.000 606.168 691.300

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 766.000 17.000 97.800 789.000 0.000 12/8/1987 0.010 0.000 223.803 668.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 605.000 10.000 0.000 3825.000 0.000 3/22/1988 0.010 0.000 1084.976 614.900

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhard CC 0.000 9.000 0.000 8675.000 423.000 9/16/1993 0.300 121.000 2485.000 378.000

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r Woodward Govern c 345.000 38.000 89.000 23572.000 0.000 3/10/1987 0.010 0.000 6686.288 740.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 531.000 8.000 98.500 9950.000 0.000 9/22/1987 0.010 0.000 2822.356 675.300

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC c 618.900 8.500 0.000 2480.000 0.000 6/29/1988 0.100 0.000 703.462 614.900

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 439.000 7.000 99.000 8985.000 0.000 12/12/1989 0.100 0.000 25364.354 592.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 380.000 7.000 98.000 20320.000 0.000 6/5/1989 0.100 0.000 57362.679 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 410.000 11.000 97.000 22045.000 0.000 3/9/1990 0.100 0.000 62232.297 595.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 285.000 10.000 96.000 18834.000 0.000 9/13/1989 0.100 0.000 53167.751 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 394.000 6.000 98.000 19400.000 0.000 3/31/1989 0.100 5.000 54765.550 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 699.000 17.000 97.000 2513.000 0.000 9/19/1990 0.100 0.000 7094.115 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 1501.000 0.000 0.000 402.000 0.000 12/1/1982 2.500 0.000 129.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r NSCR 398.000 5.000 99.000 12808.000 90.000 4/5/1991 0.600 26.000 3723.000 663.000

D-2-12
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 0.000 0.300 0.000 1200.000 0.000 12/16/1982 0.010 0.000 1049.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 0.000 10.000 0.000 2802.000 1085.000 6/19/1992 0.100 308.000 795.000 353.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR c 0.000 3.000 0.000 9591.000 0.000 10/1/1992 1.200 0.000 2879.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r NSCR-Englehard 0.000 10.000 0.000 6303.000 0.000 4/1/1996 0.010 0.000 1779.000 393.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 335.000 6.000 98.200 21143.000 0.000 9/22/1987 0.010 0.000 5997.293 665.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 386.000 7.000 0.000 16850.000 0.000 3/22/1988 0.010 0.000 4779.567 561.900

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR m 512.000 8.000 98.400 6700.000 0.000 5/28/1987 0.600 0.000 1900.481 662.900

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 283.000 1.000 99.600 23295.000 0.000 12/8/1987 0.010 0.000 6607.716 586.200

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r Woodward Govern m 180.000 0.010 100.000 33955.000 0.000 3/10/1987 0.010 0.000 9631.466 607.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 254.800 1.100 0.000 31795.000 0.000 6/29/1988 0.010 0.000 9018.774 561.900

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 144.000 3.000 97.000 35740.000 0.000 3/30/1989 0.100 3.000 100892.823 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 163.000 4.000 98.000 30500.000 0.000 9/13/1989 0.100 0.000 86100.478 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 135.000 1.000 99.000 39900.000 0.000 6/5/1989 0.100 0.000 112636.364 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 154.000 4.000 98.000 23447.000 0.000 12/12/1989 0.100 0.000 66190.096 595.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 1507.000 0.000 0.000 467.000 0.000 12/1/1982 3.600 0.000 160.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r NSCR 708.000 47.000 93.000 7081.000 93.000 6/5/1991 0.010 0.000 1999.000 579.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 674.000 33.000 94.000 3041.000 0.000 9/19/1990 0.200 0.000 4292.321 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 0.000 0.600 0.000 1740.000 0.000 12/16/1982 0.010 0.000 1521.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR m 1614.000 2.000 99.900 16055.000 63.000 2/6/1987 0.010 17.793 4534.442 669.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 767.000 1.000 0.000 20550.000 0.000 3/22/1988 0.010 0.000 5829.087 534.900

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 765.200 4.600 0.000 4340.000 0.000 6/29/1988 0.100 0.000 1231.058 534.900

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 539.000 1.000 99.800 14460.000 0.000 12/8/1987 0.010 0.000 4101.635 489.000

Waukesha L7042G- 858 r NSCR m 773.000 1.000 99.900 213.000 0.000 5/29/1987 0.010 0.000 60.418 611.400

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Engelhardt CC m 494.000 2.000 99.600 38164.000 0.000 9/22/1987 0.010 0.000 10825.370 643.900

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 493.000 6.000 99.000 25500.000 0.000 6/30/1989 0.100 5.000 71985.646 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 489.000 1.000 99.000 18775.000 0.000 3/31/1989 0.100 0.010 53001.196 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 385.000 3.000 99.000 20210.000 0.000 9/14/1989 0.100 0.000 57052.153 547.600

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 409.000 13.000 97.000 27734.000 0.000 12/12/1989 0.100 0.000 78292.153 595.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 559.000 1.000 99.000 29389.000 0.000 3/9/1990 0.100 0.000 82964.163 596.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r Englehard NSCR m 477.000 1.000 99.000 281.000 0.000 9/19/1990 1.300 0.000 61.020 0.000

Waukesha L7042G- 775 r NSCR 519.000 9.000 98.000 4926.000 68.000 6/5/1991 0.010 0.000 1391.000 526.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 17.200 0.000 159.000 0.000 5/24/1988 8.600 0.000 72.162 539.400

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 27.700 0.000 137.000 0.000 9/14/1988 8.100 0.000 62.177 689.800

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r PSC c 0.000 21.000 0.000 201.000 135.000 12/15/1994 8.300 63.000 94.000 633.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 0.000 52.300 0.000 224.800 185.300 8/28/1992 7.400 0.000 98.200 537.100

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 0.000 48.200 0.000 326.700 420.500 1/18/1991 10.300 0.000 0.000 619.100

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 78.700 0.000 61.000 0.000 4/25/1988 15.500 0.000 27.685 1772.000

D-2-13
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 814.000 44.000 94.600 0.000 0.000 5/17/1989 6.600 0.000 0.000 673.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 814.000 45.000 94.400 186.000 0.000 9/20/1989 6.590 0.000 7.968 623.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 814.000 20.000 97.543 0.000 0.000 2/22/1989 7.800 0.000 0.000 497.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 814.000 31.000 96.200 288.000 0.000 3/20/1990 7.600 0.000 10.698 340.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 67.200 0.000 212.000 52.000 12/21/1988 7.900 23.600 96.215 388.600

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 814.000 67.000 91.800 180.000 0.000 12/13/1989 7.000 0.000 7.259 352.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 814.000 13.500 98.340 196.000 0.000 9/24/1991 8.900 0.000 6.217 668.800

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 814.000 52.000 93.700 217.000 0.000 7/17/1990 7.800 0.000 7.854 525.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 814.000 71.800 91.200 170.000 0.000 12/3/1991 9.200 0.000 5.216 596.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r None c 1118.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/17/1986 2.690 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC 814.090 54.870 93.260 178.400 0.000 1/8/1988 8.340 0.000 0.000 703.040

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r PSC 0.000 112.000 0.000 219.000 1133.000 12/15/1994 13.400 891.000 172.000 1085.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 10.000 0.000 138.000 0.000 9/14/1988 9.400 0.000 69.590 609.900

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 40.800 0.000 94.000 0.000 5/24/1988 12.900 0.000 47.402 609.900

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 78.600 0.000 85.000 0.000 4/15/1988 12.300 0.000 42.863 867.900

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r PSC 0.000 80.000 0.000 153.000 195.000 5/4/1995 13.100 149.000 116.000 994.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 1429.000 77.000 95.000 191.000 0.000 12/13/1989 7.200 0.000 7.489 309.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 1429.000 58.000 95.900 0.000 0.000 5/17/1989 8.800 0.000 0.000 540.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 1429.000 34.000 97.621 0.000 0.000 2/22/1989 9.200 0.000 0.000 432.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 53.500 0.000 199.000 14.000 12/21/1988 9.200 7.060 100.350 374.600

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 1429.000 37.000 97.400 249.000 0.000 9/20/1989 8.650 0.000 8.126 464.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC 0.000 44.900 0.000 315.800 280.600 8/28/1992 9.400 0.000 161.500 542.500

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 1422.820 95.160 93.300 145.500 0.000 7/22/1987 8.500 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 1429.000 96.600 93.200 555.000 0.000 12/3/1991 9.150 0.000 17.123 507.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC 0.000 67.800 0.000 164.700 15.500 1/18/1991 7.400 0.000 0.000 506.900

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 1429.000 46.400 96.750 391.000 0.000 9/24/1991 8.800 0.000 12.543 644.400

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 1429.000 45.000 96.900 276.000 0.000 7/17/1990 8.300 0.000 9.387 536.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r PSC 1138.700 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/17/1986 3.460 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 68.000 0.000 108.000 0.000 4/16/1988 11.900 0.000 49.395 833.800

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 80.800 0.000 93.000 0.000 5/24/1988 8.700 0.000 42.535 442.600

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 21.300 0.000 152.000 0.000 9/14/1988 8.700 0.000 69.519 605.600

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 33.500 0.000 184.000 28.800 12/21/1988 8.400 13.594 86.848 334.600

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 1090.000 26.000 97.615 0.000 0.000 2/22/1989 7.800 0.000 0.000 510.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 1090.000 22.000 97.900 0.000 0.000 5/17/1989 7.800 0.000 0.000 583.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 1090.000 68.000 93.800 152.000 0.000 9/20/1989 7.700 0.000 5.573 608.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC 1090.360 82.020 92.480 210.000 0.000 1/8/1988 9.290 0.000 0.000 627.910

Ingersoll-Rand 8UG1386 300 r 1207.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/17/1986 3.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

D-2-14
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r PSC 0.000 51.000 0.000 219.000 222.000 12/15/1994 12.300 152.000 150.000 888.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 991.000 19.000 98.100 177.000 0.000 3/19/1990 11.200 0.000 4.461 751.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 991.000 93.000 90.100 153.000 0.000 7/17/1990 13.100 0.000 3.297 881.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 991.000 61.900 93.750 202.000 0.000 9/24/1991 10.000 0.000 5.702 712.400

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC 0.000 77.400 0.000 206.800 185.300 8/28/1992 10.000 0.000 112.300 542.300

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC 0.000 47.400 0.000 136.000 374.000 1/18/1991 10.900 0.000 0.000 766.400

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r PSC c 991.000 50.200 94.900 306.000 0.000 12/3/1991 10.300 0.000 8.387 526.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r Mone 982.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/17/1986 6.600 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG 300 r None s 1130.700 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/17/1986 1.620 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-8 440 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 85.800 0.000 176.000 0.000 4/15/1988 7.200 0.000 76.353 760.300

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-8 440 r PSC c 1260.910 83.400 93.390 159.200 0.000 1/8/1988 8.280 0.000 0.000 673.690

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-8 440 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 68.600 0.000 160.000 0.000 5/24/1988 7.500 0.000 69.412 458.600

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-8 440 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 70.300 0.000 160.000 0.000 9/14/1988 7.500 0.000 69.412 604.500

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-8 440 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 1261.000 67.000 94.687 0.000 0.000 2/22/1989 7.300 0.000 0.000 691.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-8 440 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 0.000 77.500 0.000 184.000 82.800 12/21/1988 7.300 35.921 79.824 360.500

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-8 440 r PSC c 1261.000 87.000 93.100 137.000 0.000 9/20/1989 8.000 0.000 4.834 784.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-8 440 r PSC c 1261.000 94.000 92.500 0.000 0.000 5/18/1989 9.100 0.000 0.000 865.000

Waukesha 6LR077T 495 218.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/15/1986 1.680 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha 6LR077T 495 343.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12/15/1986 1.790 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn 0.000 36.800 0.000 179.200 395.200 8/27/1992 14.010 0.000 153.700 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 51.000 51.000 0.000 102.000 1589.000 8/7/1987 13.600 1284.260 82.438 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 60.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5/17/1989 13.500 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 42.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3/20/1990 13.300 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 33.000 0.000 111.000 680.000 6/14/1990 13.300 14.433 2.356 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 38.000 0.000 83.000 0.000 12/12/1989 15.900 0.000 1.474 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 38.000 0.000 116.000 0.000 9/19/1989 13.200 0.000 2.481 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 40.000 0.000 124.000 307.000 9/23/1991 13.200 6.566 2.652 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn 0.000 48.000 0.000 165.000 885.000 11/29/1995 12.200 600.000 112.000 440.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 35.000 35.000 0.000 177.000 0.000 2/9/1987 0.000 0.000 132.190 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 25.000 0.000 129.000 0.000 9/13/1988 13.900 0.000 110.304 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 44.400 0.000 0.000 0.000 6/10/1988 14.400 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 56.000 56.000 0.000 150.000 0.000 4/23/1987 0.000 0.000 112.025 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 55.000 55.000 0.000 131.000 990.000 8/6/1987 13.000 739.367 97.835 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 78.000 78.000 0.000 170.000 0.000 7/3/1986 0.000 0.000 126.962 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 49.600 0.000 150.000 0.000 4/18/1988 15.100 0.000 128.261 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 51.000 51.000 0.000 144.000 0.000 10/2/1986 0.000 0.000 107.544 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 71.000 0.000 125.000 0.000 12/12/1989 14.400 0.000 2.450 0.000

D-2-15
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 57.200 57.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 2/21/1989 14.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 83.500 0.000 157.800 75.300 12/1/1988 14.900 74.045 155.367 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 38.000 0.000 134.000 775.000 6/14/1990 14.200 15.407 2.664 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 38.000 0.000 106.000 0.000 9/19/1989 13.700 0.000 2.184 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 60.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5/17/1989 14.800 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 37.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3/20/1990 13.600 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 25.000 0.000 113.000 275.000 9/23/1991 13.700 5.667 2.328 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn 0.000 40.000 0.000 110.000 1840.000 3/30/1983 16.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn 0.000 49.500 0.000 146.300 566.800 8/27/1992 14.400 0.000 133.500 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 78.200 0.000 159.000 0.000 4/18/1988 15.600 0.000 159.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 39.000 39.000 0.000 113.000 0.000 1/9/1987 0.000 0.000 113.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 28.000 28.000 0.000 155.000 0.000 4/22/1987 0.000 0.000 155.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 28.000 28.000 0.000 195.000 0.000 10/2/1986 0.000 0.000 195.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 60.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 6/10/1988 15.600 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 53.000 53.000 0.000 129.000 862.000 8/6/1987 14.200 759.075 113.597 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 17.700 0.000 133.000 0.000 9/13/1988 14.800 0.000 133.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 49.000 49.000 0.000 227.000 0.000 7/2/1986 0.000 0.000 227.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn 0.000 61.000 0.000 135.000 155.000 12/1/1994 13.540 124.000 108.000 717.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 60.900 60.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 2/21/1989 15.400 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 55.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5/17/1989 13.100 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 41.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3/20/1990 14.200 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 44.400 0.000 154.600 129.000 12/1/1988 15.400 138.382 165.200 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 38.000 0.000 165.000 0.000 12/12/1989 13.200 0.000 3.529 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 45.000 0.000 156.000 1026.000 6/14/1990 14.700 19.703 2.996 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 32.000 0.000 172.000 0.000 9/19/1989 13.800 0.000 3.518 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn 0.000 40.000 0.000 110.000 297.000 10/8/1982 15.600 0.000 0.000 1270.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn 0.000 58.000 0.000 75.000 5200.000 3/30/1983 14.300 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn 0.000 39.500 0.000 100.800 367.700 8/27/1992 13.200 0.000 77.500 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 45.000 0.000 176.000 674.000 9/23/1991 13.100 14.524 3.793 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn 0.000 49.000 0.000 149.000 512.000 11/29/1995 13.600 414.000 120.000 541.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 20.600 0.000 93.000 0.000 9/13/1988 15.500 0.000 79.522 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 35.400 0.000 165.000 0.000 4/18/1988 15.200 0.000 141.087 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 28.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6/10/1988 14.300 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 46.000 46.000 0.000 119.000 0.000 1/9/1987 0.000 0.000 101.754 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 18.000 18.000 0.000 103.000 0.000 10/2/1986 0.000 0.000 88.072 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 30.000 30.000 0.000 119.000 0.000 4/22/1987 0.000 0.000 101.754 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 60.000 60.000 0.000 110.000 768.000 8/7/1987 14.600 719.238 103.016 0.000

D-2-16
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 30.000 30.000 0.000 106.000 0.000 7/2/1986 0.000 0.000 90.638 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 38.000 0.000 156.000 0.000 12/12/1989 13.700 0.000 3.214 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 61.000 0.000 141.000 1357.000 6/14/1990 15.100 25.369 2.636 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 28.000 28.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2/21/1989 13.200 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 45.000 0.000 128.000 0.000 9/19/1989 13.630 0.000 2.651 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 38.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5/17/1989 12.700 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 45.400 0.000 158.600 23.200 12/1/1988 15.500 25.348 173.722 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 27.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3/20/1990 14.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn 0.000 48.100 0.000 292.800 216.200 8/27/1992 14.600 0.000 274.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn c 0.000 30.000 0.000 219.000 679.000 9/23/1991 13.700 13.991 4.513 0.000

Ajax DCP-180 180 l Clean Burn 0.000 26.000 0.000 97.000 565.000 11/29/1995 13.100 427.000 73.000 491.000

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 80 r NSCR 0.000 3.000 0.000 3305.000 115.000 6/15/1994 0.100 32.000 933.000 39.000

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 80 r NSCR 0.000 0.200 0.000 223.000 342.000 7/28/1994 0.100 97.000 63.000 73.000

Minneple-Moline 800-6A 80 r NSCR 740.000 4.000 0.000 674.640 0.000 4/18/1991 0.010 2.300 190.000 66.570

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 80 r NSCR c 0.000 6.400 0.000 627.500 72.500 5/21/1993 0.025 20.620 178.430 28.500

Minneple-Moline 800-6A 80 r NSCR c 0.000 8.450 0.000 1693.750 119.850 5/21/1993 0.210 34.090 485.770 28.800

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 80 r NSCR 0.000 6.000 0.000 582.000 15.000 7/13/1992 0.010 4.280 164.400 30.000

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 80 r NSCR c 0.000 13.000 0.000 199.000 102.850 7/13/1992 0.050 29.000 56.240 45.000

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 80 r NSCR c 0.000 20.030 0.000 2547.100 843.800 5/21/1993 0.015 239.750 723.920 28.500

Minneple-Moline 800-6A 80 r NSCR 0.000 2.000 0.000 984.000 330.000 6/14/1994 0.100 93.000 278.000 40.000

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 80 r NSCR c 0.000 6.000 0.000 1999.000 4.400 6/23/1992 0.010 1.230 564.000 0.000

Minneple-Moline 800-6A 80 r NSCR 190.000 0.001 0.000 1515.850 0.000 4/18/1991 0.010 6.200 428.000 42.607

Ajax K-6700D 180 l d 0.000 53.700 0.000 153.000 0.000 6/24/1986 17.200 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax K-6700D 180 l d 0.000 57.600 0.000 160.000 0.000 6/24/1986 18.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-140 140 l Clean Burn(?) c 0.000 9.820 0.000 367.260 963.100 5/21/1993 12.940 715.400 272.790 336.000

Ajax DCP-140 140 l 0.000 14.270 0.000 20024.000 623.300 10/11/1991 14.660 586.520 189.500 455.000

Ajax DCP-140 140 l Unknown 0.000 33.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 3/15/1989 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ajax DCP-140 140 l Unknown-Clean? c 0.000 68.800 0.000 348.000 153.000 9/19/1990 14.860 2.907 339.450 0.000

Ajax DCP-140 140 l c 0.000 6.000 0.000 456.000 631.000 7/13/1992 13.700 518.000 374.000 395.000

Caterpillar G-342 225 r ECS Cat Conv c 436.000 2.000 99.500 17596.000 93.000 12/19/1987 0.100 26.380 4991.173 222.000

Caterpillar G-342 225 r ESC NSCR c 618.000 17.000 97.200 3211.000 0.000 10/4/1989 0.070 0.000 909.500 0.000

Caterpillar G-342 225 r ECS Cat Conv c 442.600 13.300 97.100 0.000 0.000 8/3/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-342 225 r ECS NSCR c 395.000 1.000 99.500 11212.000 110.000 7/28/1992 0.120 31.200 3183.400 186.000

Caterpillar G-342 225 r NSCR 542.000 6.000 0.000 8385.000 119.000 8/7/1991 0.400 34.000 2413.000 191.000

Caterpillar G-342 225 r NSCR EMS 42N/10 712.000 5.000 99.300 7475.000 117.000 3/14/1986 0.100 0.000 0.000 214.000

Caterpillar G-342 225 r ESC NSCR c 566.000 15.000 97.360 7353.000 37.000 8/9/1990 0.380 26.300 2113.850 205.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV 660 l NergasGNA deNOx d 304.000 151.000 50.300 0.000 0.000 10/23/1987 15.300 0.000 0.000 3161.000

D-2-17
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Cooper Bessemer GMV 660 l NergasGNA deNOx d 0.000 154.650 0.000 0.000 0.000 8/4/1988 15.150 0.000 0.000 3141.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV 660 l Nergas 63.000 37.000 41.000 132.000 3800.000 1/29/1986 15.100 3800.000 0.000 732.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r NSCR 0.000 1.700 0.000 9158.000 105.800 7/11/1995 0.030 25.600 2588.600 655.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Cat Conv d 625.000 9.000 99.000 0.000 0.000 10/20/1987 1.100 0.000 0.000 899.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Cat Conv d 406.400 38.200 90.600 0.000 0.000 8/5/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r NSCR d 715.000 28.000 96.140 2567.000 1.500 10/4/1989 0.010 0.850 725.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Lo NOx 44 d 514.000 19.000 96.300 9383.000 30.500 12/3/1986 0.010 8.614 2650.057 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Cat Conv d 81.000 3.000 96.000 0.000 0.000 10/23/1987 0.050 0.000 0.000 979.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r NSCR d 389.000 48.000 87.550 11058.000 37.500 10/5/1989 0.020 23.900 3124.700 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Cat Conv d 320.600 18.300 94.400 0.000 0.000 8/12/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Cat Conv d 248.000 12.000 95.000 0.000 0.000 10/22/1987 0.010 0.000 0.000 857.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Lo NOx 44 d 501.000 4.000 99.200 10854.000 22.300 12/2/1986 0.010 6.298 3065.515 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Cat Conv d 161.600 2.900 98.100 0.000 0.000 8/4/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r NSCR d 546.000 29.000 94.750 7400.000 25.100 10/5/1989 0.070 16.000 2096.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Cat Conv d 645.000 32.000 95.000 0.000 0.000 10/20/1987 0.010 0.000 0.000 890.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Lo NOx 44 d 461.000 0.000 1.000 13287.000 22.300 12/2/1986 0.010 6.298 3752.671 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Cat Conv d 181.700 9.200 94.900 0.000 0.000 8/4/1988 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r NSCR d 512.000 19.000 96.330 8533.000 23.800 10/5/1989 0.050 14.800 2415.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Lo NOx 44 d 393.000 4.000 99.000 18242.000 25.800 12/3/1986 0.100 7.318 5174.413 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Cat Conv d 778.000 10.000 98.700 0.000 0.000 10/23/1987 0.010 0.000 0.000 977.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Cat Conv d 277.800 13.200 95.300 0.000 0.000 8/9/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Lo Nox 44 d 443.000 1.000 99.800 11983.000 18.600 12/3/1986 0.010 5.253 3384.380 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r NSCR d 587.000 25.000 95.660 7222.000 4.000 10/4/1989 0.010 2.550 2039.400 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Cat Conv d 115.600 7.300 93.700 0.000 0.000 8/4/1988 0.190 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Cat Conv 643.000 25.000 96.000 0.000 0.000 10/20/1987 0.200 0.000 0.000 1333.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Lo NOx 44 d 426.000 19.000 95.500 15775.000 20.000 12/1/1986 0.100 5.673 4474.639 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r ECS Cat Conv d 156.800 5.600 96.200 0.000 0.000 8/5/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r NSCR d 503.000 40.000 92.080 4775.000 28.800 10/5/1989 0.010 18.120 1348.000 0.000

White G-8258 625 r ECS Cat Conv d 117.000 22.000 81.200 0.000 0.000 10/21/1987 1.000 0.000 0.000 990.770

White G-8258 625 r ECS Lo NOx 44 d 369.000 24.000 93.500 16945.000 18.700 12/5/1986 0.100 5.304 4806.514 0.000

White G-8258 625 r ECS Cat Conv d 326.000 28.900 91.100 0.000 0.000 8/5/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

White G-8258 625 r ECS Cat Conv c 108.000 12.000 88.900 0.000 0.000 10/19/1987 0.030 0.000 0.000 853.000

White G-8258 625 r ECS Lo NOx 44 c 497.000 22.000 95.600 13750.000 22.500 12/4/1986 0.010 6.355 3883.437 0.000

White G-8258 625 r ESC Lo NOx 44 0.000 19.000 0.000 9131.000 20.000 10/6/1993 0.100 6.000 2578.000 693.000

White G-8258 625 r NSCR 244.000 2.000 99.300 10624.000 10.000 9/13/1991 0.100 3.000 2999.000 1085.000

White G-8258 625 r HIS c 451.000 46.000 89.860 14363.000 18.200 10/2/1989 0.010 11.180 4055.400 0.000

White G-8258 625 r HIS c 268.000 8.000 97.015 23750.000 0.000 3/23/1989 0.010 0.000 6704.000 800.000

D-2-18
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

White G-8258 625 r ECS Cat Conv c 248.400 1.800 99.300 0.000 0.000 8/3/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

White G-8258 625 r ESC 0.000 11.000 0.000 8807.000 47.000 8/2/1994 0.700 14.000 2572.000 691.000

White G-8258 625 r NSCR 281.000 6.120 97.800 10779.000 18.000 8/22/1991 0.370 10.200 3045.000 780.000

White G-8258 625 r HIS c 1052.000 1.000 99.630 9203.000 29.000 8/15/1990 0.010 17.000 2598.000 651.000

White G-8258 625 r HIS c 1765.000 2.000 99.510 5162.000 31.000 8/9/1990 0.010 18.860 1457.000 651.000

White G-8258 625 r HIS c 362.000 12.000 96.600 9121.000 25.000 7/28/1992 0.110 7.210 2588.600 672.000

White G-8258 625 r NSCR 0.000 1.090 0.000 10103.600 15.700 7/11/1995 0.180 3.900 2875.900 718.000

White G-8258 625 r ECS Cat Conv d 154.000 39.000 74.700 0.000 0.000 10/21/1987 0.900 0.000 0.000 1008.000

White G-8258 625 r ECS Lo NOx 44 d 585.000 47.000 92.000 11750.000 18.100 12/5/1986 0.100 5.134 3332.933 0.000

White G-8258 625 r ECS Cat Conv d 303.300 22.700 92.400 0.000 0.000 8/5/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

White G-8258 625 r ECS Lo NOx 44 d 306.000 27.000 91.200 18950.000 20.400 12/5/1986 0.100 5.787 5375.240 0.000

White G-8258 625 r ECS Cat Conv d 165.000 27.000 83.600 0.000 0.000 10/21/1987 0.300 0.000 0.000 966.160

White G-8258 625 r ECS Cat Conv d 595.700 50.000 91.600 0.000 0.000 8/5/1988 0.270 0.000 0.000 0.000

White G-8258 625 r ESC Lo NOx 44 0.000 15.000 0.000 6573.000 126.000 10/6/1993 0.100 36.000 1855.000 671.000

White G-8258 625 r ECS Cat Conv c 324.000 38.000 88.300 0.000 0.000 10/19/1987 0.010 0.000 0.000 858.000

White G-8258 625 r ECS Lo NOx 44 c 478.000 19.000 96.000 14000.000 17.000 12/4/1986 0.010 4.801 3954.045 0.000

White G-8258 625 r NSCR 408.000 27.600 93.200 6453.000 60.000 8/22/1991 0.190 48.800 1822.000 720.000

White G-8258 625 r NSCR c 390.000 39.000 89.980 13426.000 21.000 10/2/1989 0.050 13.130 3798.400 0.000

White G-8258 625 r ECS Cat Conv c 507.200 36.100 92.900 0.000 0.000 8/3/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

White G-8258 625 r NSCR c 333.000 35.000 89.360 7967.000 33.750 8/9/1990 0.010 23.560 2250.000 717.000

White G-8258 625 r ESC 0.000 39.000 0.000 10872.000 67.000 8/2/1994 0.100 19.000 3084.000 703.000

White G-8258 625 r NSCR c 666.000 18.000 97.400 13024.000 14.600 7/28/1992 0.030 4.120 3682.200 667.000

White G-8258 625 r NSCR 0.000 14.610 0.000 7142.600 22.700 7/11/1995 0.070 5.500 2022.900 673.800

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-12 660 r Cat Control d 537.000 6.000 98.900 3600.000 110.000 2/9/1982 0.100 31.202 1021.154 0.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r Cat Conv c 662.450 37.640 0.000 0.000 0.000 2/22/1988 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r JM Cat 0.000 0.300 0.000 6169.000 112.000 10/27/1993 0.100 32.000 1750.000 572.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r Cat Conv c 318.900 26.100 91.800 0.000 0.000 8/2/1988 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r MEI Cat Muffler c 572.000 39.000 93.200 12573.000 131.000 12/1/1987 0.100 37.159 3566.380 907.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR c 215.000 40.000 81.395 0.000 0.000 3/22/1989 0.030 0.000 0.000 518.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR c 613.000 44.000 92.840 13033.000 104.000 10/6/1989 0.010 77.250 3681.400 0.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR c 694.000 44.000 93.700 2643.000 84.000 7/29/1992 0.040 23.840 748.000 575.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR 492.000 33.000 93.000 8238.000 156.000 9/13/1991 0.100 44.000 2326.000 813.000

Waukesha L7042GU 900 r MEI Cat 0.000 1.000 0.000 4586.000 67.000 5/25/1994 0.100 23.000 1301.000 1041.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR c 554.000 31.000 94.280 7947.000 79.000 8/6/1990 0.010 56.000 2244.000 582.000

Waukesha L7042GU 900 r 0.000 12.000 0.000 4499.000 260.000 6/18/1997 0.300 75.000 1289.000 556.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR 0.000 1.400 0.000 3862.200 36.700 7/12/1995 0.060 8.900 1093.200 553.900

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r Cat Conv c 426.200 27.600 93.400 0.000 0.000 8/10/1988 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000

D-2-19
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR 504.000 14.000 97.000 10963.000 178.000 9/13/1991 0.100 51.000 3110.000 869.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r MEI Cat Muffler c 711.000 73.000 89.600 10993.000 135.000 12/11/1987 0.100 38.293 3118.207 1290.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r Cat Conv c 594.970 27.650 0.000 0.000 0.000 2/22/1988 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042GU 900 r MEI Cat 0.000 1.000 0.000 2128.000 34.000 5/25/1994 0.100 12.000 601.000 1104.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r JM Cat 0.000 1.000 0.000 8061.000 37.000 10/7/1993 0.100 11.000 2287.000 672.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR c 564.000 42.000 92.530 13483.000 75.200 10/7/1989 0.010 53.630 3808.900 0.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR c 676.000 62.000 90.680 14050.000 135.800 8/6/1990 0.070 101.000 3979.000 757.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR c 497.000 18.000 96.400 3189.000 116.000 7/29/1992 0.040 33.000 902.000 548.000

Waukesha L7042GU 900 r 0.000 19.000 0.000 8035.000 40.000 6/18/1997 0.100 11.000 2268.000 538.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR 0.000 11.800 0.000 736.800 61.500 7/12/1995 0.740 16.000 215.600 509.100

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r Cat Conv c 841.500 11.500 98.600 0.000 0.000 8/1/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r MEI Cat Muffler c 67.000 7.000 89.600 37612.000 307.000 12/1/1987 0.100 87.082 10668.790 931.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r Cat Conv c 209.870 18.430 0.000 0.000 0.000 2/22/1988 0.240 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR c 845.000 49.000 94.201 4460.000 0.000 3/23/1989 0.010 0.000 1257.000 517.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR 494.000 45.000 91.000 8352.000 249.000 9/13/1991 0.100 70.000 2358.000 860.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR c 598.000 30.000 94.900 12524.000 107.000 7/29/1992 0.050 30.000 3544.000 594.000

Waukesha L7042GU 900 r MEI Cat 0.000 1.000 0.000 598.000 32.000 5/25/1994 0.100 10.000 169.000 1002.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR c 793.000 18.000 97.670 2522.000 78.000 8/6/1990 0.010 53.000 712.000 741.000

Waukesha L7042GU 900 r 0.000 10.000 0.000 87.000 14.000 6/18/1997 0.100 4.000 25.000 627.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r NSCR 0.000 23.200 0.000 2979.200 77.600 7/12/1995 0.040 18.800 842.700 751.000

Waukesha L7042GU 1250 r JM Cat 0.000 3.000 0.000 1357.000 379.000 10/27/1993 0.100 108.000 385.000 496.000

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR c 641.500 56.900 91.140 720.000 0.000 8/31/1990 0.040 0.000 203.600 298.400

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR 397.000 59.000 85.000 3400.000 0.000 3/15/1994 0.030 0.000 961.000 306.000

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR c 671.000 38.000 94.000 1106.000 0.000 3/16/1993 0.030 56.000 313.000 264.000

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR c 655.000 38.000 94.170 4800.000 590.000 9/19/1989 0.030 167.000 1357.000 287.700

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR c 684.000 45.000 93.430 1443.000 370.000 5/22/1990 0.020 104.500 407.700 301.300

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR 675.000 16.000 98.000 3267.000 0.000 6/12/1991 0.020 17.000 923.000 290.700

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR 0.000 20.000 0.000 1462.000 195.000 3/27/1995 0.040 55.000 414.000 237.000

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR c 660.000 41.000 94.000 3343.000 0.000 3/10/1992 0.090 0.000 948.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197FU 0 r NSCR c 0.000 38.000 0.000 1046.000 53.000 3/17/1997 0.030 15.000 296.000 231.000

Waukesha F1197FU 0 r NSCR 0.000 23.000 0.000 1127.500 145.000 3/27/1996 0.030 41.000 319.000 232.000

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR c 734.000 30.000 96.000 1725.000 0.000 3/17/1993 0.030 58.000 488.000 275.000

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR 733.000 19.000 97.000 1455.000 0.000 3/17/1994 0.030 0.000 411.000 280.800

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR c 647.000 17.000 97.340 4331.000 430.000 5/22/1990 0.030 122.000 1224.000 301.600

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR c 714.000 46.000 93.620 1900.000 485.000 9/19/1989 0.040 137.000 537.000 291.800

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR c 462.500 21.200 95.410 4200.000 0.000 8/31/1990 0.040 0.000 1187.900 312.100

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR c 612.000 37.000 94.000 3043.000 0.000 3/11/1992 0.070 0.000 862.000 0.000

D-2-20
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR 724.000 10.000 99.000 1230.000 0.000 6/13/1991 0.020 34.000 348.000 283.470

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR 0.000 21.000 0.000 1918.000 167.000 3/28/1995 0.050 47.000 543.000 229.000

Waukesha F1197FU 0 r NSCR c 0.000 12.000 0.000 2829.000 125.000 3/20/1997 0.020 35.000 799.000 233.000

Waukesha F1197FU 0 r NSCR 0.000 31.000 0.000 1741.500 71.000 3/27/1996 0.040 20.000 492.000 230.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r Cat Converter c 0.000 17.000 0.000 3439.000 126.000 2/15/1994 0.100 36.000 971.000 389.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r PSC Prestrat Ch c 0.000 32.000 0.000 4202.000 171.000 3/5/1993 0.200 49.000 1198.000 331.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 492.000 45.000 90.900 600.000 790.000 12/28/1987 8.800 385.207 292.562 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r NSCR(removePSC) c 0.000 8.000 0.000 2062.000 46.900 7/6/1989 0.090 147.108 584.700 465.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 787.300 46.300 94.155 435.600 0.000 1/30/1989 7.830 0.000 196.600 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r PSC PreStrat Ch c 677.000 43.000 93.648 665.000 185.600 3/3/1989 8.100 85.550 306.523 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r ESC NSCR c 0.000 74.000 0.000 3725.000 799.000 5/17/1990 0.300 229.000 1067.000 410.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r ESC NSCR c 0.000 40.000 0.000 5500.000 53.000 12/19/1991 0.200 15.000 1568.000 230.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r ESC NSCR c 0.000 25.000 0.000 4859.000 0.000 5/11/1990 0.050 0.000 1375.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r NSCR c 0.000 33.000 0.000 4837.000 216.000 6/20/1995 0.100 61.000 1365.000 434.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r NSCR c 0.000 60.000 0.000 2200.000 0.000 8/19/1991 0.007 0.000 621.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r ESC NSCR c 0.000 21.000 0.000 1432.000 118.000 10/19/1990 0.040 33.000 405.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r NSCR c 0.000 28.400 0.000 5843.400 225.200 7/31/1996 0.290 64.500 1673.100 416.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r NSCR 0.000 4.700 0.000 978.500 43.400 2/14/1997 0.030 12.300 276.600 445.200

Caterpillar G-398 412 r Cat Converter c 0.000 28.000 0.000 6035.000 51.000 3/5/1993 0.100 5.000 1712.000 379.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r NSCR c 0.000 31.000 0.000 2000.000 0.000 8/19/1991 0.008 0.000 565.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r Cat Converter c 0.000 44.000 0.000 11988.000 108.000 2/21/1994 0.100 31.000 3392.000 410.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r NSCR c 0.000 46.000 0.000 12560.000 227.000 6/20/1995 0.100 64.000 3563.000 463.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r Cat Converter c 475.000 31.000 93.500 15571.000 228.000 4/26/1988 0.030 64.394 4397.745 369.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r ECS NSCR c 0.000 24.000 0.000 3755.000 60.770 12/7/1990 0.050 17.000 1063.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r ECS NSCR c 591.000 26.000 95.700 7891.000 168.000 12/19/1991 0.100 48.000 2227.000 305.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r ECS NSCR c 0.000 37.000 0.000 820.000 0.000 5/11/1990 0.010 0.000 231.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r NSCR c 0.000 9.000 0.000 765.900 113.500 7/31/1996 0.750 33.300 224.300 579.300

Caterpillar G-398 412 r Cat Converter c 0.000 6.000 0.000 9211.000 211.000 2/21/1994 0.100 60.000 2613.000 417.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r Cat Converter c 0.000 8.000 0.000 4450.000 109.000 3/5/1993 0.100 31.000 1262.000 365.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r Cat Converter c 0.000 37.000 0.000 12369.000 213.000 5/10/1994 0.100 60.000 3492.000 415.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r Cat Converter c 85.300 10.500 0.000 30538.000 0.000 4/26/1988 0.010 0.000 8662.221 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r NSCR c 628.000 17.000 97.300 8015.000 0.000 7/27/1988 0.100 0.000 2273.486 363.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r ESC NSCR c 0.000 20.000 0.000 10731.000 315.000 10/19/1990 0.060 89.000 3037.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r ECS NSCR c 0.000 18.000 0.000 2961.000 0.000 5/11/1990 0.010 0.000 836.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r NSCR c 0.000 17.000 0.000 9428.000 303.000 6/20/1995 0.100 86.000 2674.000 397.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r ECS NSCR c 617.000 39.000 93.700 3484.000 111.000 12/19/1991 0.100 32.000 986.000 224.000

Caterpillar G-398 412 r NSCR c 0.000 35.000 0.000 2500.000 0.000 8/19/1991 0.009 0.000 706.000 0.000

D-2-21
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Caterpillar G-398 412 r NSCR c 0.000 3.600 0.000 1009.600 50.700 7/31/1996 0.150 14.400 287.100 444.500

Cooper Bessemer GMV-8 800 l SCR 669.000 44.000 0.000 310.000 1099.000 3/17/1988 13.800 0.000 0.000 4115.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV-8 800 l SCR 400.000 105.000 0.000 230.000 1058.000 5/10/1991 11.500 664.000 144.000 1032.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV-8 800 l Nergas SCR m 683.000 61.000 90.200 1535.000 595.000 6/19/1989 11.700 381.000 986.000 1257.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV-8 800 l Kleenaire m 553.000 85.000 84.629 618.000 0.000 11/14/1988 14.100 0.000 536.206 0.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV-8 800 l Kleenaire m 609.000 77.000 87.400 262.000 1468.000 3/13/1987 13.700 1202.944 214.694 0.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV-8 800 l Kleenaire m 660.000 98.000 85.200 527.000 0.000 1/8/1988 13.500 0.000 420.176 0.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV-8 800 l Nergas SCR m 532.000 58.000 89.200 456.000 776.000 3/2/1990 12.600 551.000 324.000 3984.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV-8 800 l Kleenaire m 576.000 38.000 93.403 1688.000 0.000 9/9/1988 12.900 0.000 1443.362 0.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV-8 800 l Kleenaire m 818.000 108.000 86.800 524.000 0.000 6/10/1987 0.000 0.000 429.389 0.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV-8 800 l Kleenaire m 638.000 46.000 92.790 795.000 0.000 6/23/1988 13.600 0.000 679.783 0.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV-8 800 l Kleenaire m 1100.000 83.000 92.500 300.000 434.000 8/3/1987 10.900 256.060 177.000 0.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV-8 800 l Kleenaire m 779.000 132.000 83.100 730.000 2110.000 8/26/1987 13.200 1616.753 559.351 0.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV-8 800 l SCR 377.000 67.000 82.000 719.000 0.000 2/24/1989 12.700 0.000 0.000 0.000

Cooper Bessemer GMV-8 800 l Nergas SCR m 0.000 45.000 0.000 560.000 0.000 6/20/1990 12.700 0.000 403.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey s 139.000 32.000 76.978 30917.000 0.000 6/13/1988 0.010 0.000 8769.726 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey s 43.000 1.000 97.674 77346.000 0.000 12/14/1988 0.100 0.000 21939.490 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey s 39.000 28.000 28.205 49856.000 0.000 9/14/1988 0.010 0.000 14141.850 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey s 359.000 4.000 98.886 8966.000 0.000 3/1/1988 0.010 0.000 2543.240 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r NSCR s 100.000 40.000 60.000 39533.000 0.000 11/8/1989 0.100 0.000 11160.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EngelhardTorvex s 407.000 2.000 99.500 12896.000 44.000 12/30/1987 0.010 12.427 3642.240 1457.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey s 404.000 3.000 99.300 11871.000 44.000 12/23/1987 0.100 12.427 3352.748 1438.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r NSCR s 148.000 24.000 83.800 30833.000 70.000 6/7/1989 0.010 20.000 8725.000 250.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey s 277.000 10.000 96.390 22335.000 0.000 3/17/1988 0.010 0.000 6308.114 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey s 306.000 0.100 99.900 19769.000 62.000 12/23/1987 0.010 17.511 5583.394 2532.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r catalyst 57.000 22.000 61.404 47968.000 104.000 12/7/1988 0.100 29.500 13606.310 304.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey s 92.000 18.000 80.435 42813.000 0.000 9/16/1988 0.100 0.000 12091.750 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey s 129.000 41.000 68.217 30861.000 0.000 6/13/1988 0.010 0.000 8716.127 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EngelhardTorvex d 298.000 7.000 97.700 16649.000 38.000 12/23/1987 0.100 10.779 4722.553 1569.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r NSCR d 136.000 28.000 79.100 28399.000 0.000 6/23/1989 0.010 0.000 8036.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EnglehardTorvex d 245.000 5.000 97.959 16193.000 55.000 12/7/1988 0.100 15.601 4593.207 256.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EngelhardTorvex d 196.000 3.000 98.469 19858.000 0.000 2/26/1988 0.010 0.000 5632.798 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EnglehardTorvex d 431.000 9.000 97.912 5912.000 0.000 6/13/1988 0.010 0.000 1676.962 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EngelhardTorvex d 304.000 13.000 95.724 12538.000 0.000 9/14/1988 0.010 0.000 3556.452 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r NSCR s 217.000 43.000 80.300 25962.000 0.000 9/1/1989 0.200 0.000 7400.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EngelhardTorvex s 242.000 14.000 94.215 21038.000 0.000 12/6/1988 0.100 0.000 5967.510 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EngelhardTorvex s 260.000 6.000 97.692 19219.000 0.000 2/26/1988 0.010 0.000 5451.543 0.000

D-2-22
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EngelhardTorvex s 127.000 1.000 99.213 30345.000 0.000 6/17/1988 0.010 0.000 8607.476 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r NSCR s 276.000 22.000 92.000 21544.000 0.000 11/9/1989 0.100 0.000 6082.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r NSCR 117.000 10.000 91.400 27721.000 0.000 3/1/1989 0.010 0.000 0.000 259.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r catalyst d 64.000 17.000 73.400 79106.000 63.500 3/19/1986 0.100 18.012 22438.720 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r catalyst d 26.000 15.000 42.300 50561.000 0.000 6/16/1986 0.000 0.000 14341.820 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey d 337.000 16.000 95.300 10132.000 0.000 9/30/1987 0.000 0.000 2873.981 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r NSCR d 334.000 1.000 100.000 8033.000 1320.000 11/8/1989 0.100 373.000 2268.000 253.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey d 77.000 1.000 98.700 33500.000 0.000 9/25/1986 0.000 0.000 9502.404 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey d 105.000 27.000 74.286 37521.000 0.000 6/17/1988 0.010 0.000 10642.980 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey d 412.000 2.000 99.500 13700.000 0.000 3/4/1987 0.000 0.000 3886.058 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey d 90.000 39.000 56.667 38313.000 0.000 3/18/1988 0.010 0.000 10867.630 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey d 109.000 5.000 95.413 34922.000 0.000 9/16/1988 0.010 0.000 9905.760 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey d 277.000 35.000 87.400 16731.000 33.000 1/8/1988 0.010 9.361 4725.366 252.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r JohnsonMatthey d 149.000 2.000 98.700 33500.000 23.200 12/10/1986 0.010 6.552 9461.465 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EngelhardTorvex 0.000 8.000 0.000 9603.000 74.000 8/20/1993 0.100 21.000 2724.000 70.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r NSCR s 213.000 17.000 91.800 27904.000 0.000 6/7/1989 0.100 0.000 7934.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EngelhardTorvex s 103.000 3.000 97.087 37413.000 45.000 12/6/1988 0.100 12.764 10612.340 290.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EngelhardTorvex s 226.000 6.000 97.345 21313.000 0.000 9/14/1988 0.010 0.000 6045.514 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EngelhardTorvex s 216.000 4.000 98.148 20758.000 0.000 6/17/1988 0.010 0.000 5888.087 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EngelhardTorvex s 357.000 6.000 98.319 11808.000 0.000 3/17/1988 0.010 0.000 3349.385 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r NSCR s 369.000 25.000 93.000 15504.000 40.000 11/9/1989 0.100 11.000 4377.000 317.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r EngelhardTorvex s 259.000 5.000 98.100 19573.000 33.000 12/31/1987 0.100 9.320 5528.037 1756.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r NSCR s 79.000 22.000 72.500 39860.000 0.000 9/1/1989 0.100 0.000 11252.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r NSCR 296.000 9.000 96.900 13862.000 0.000 3/10/1989 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r NSCR s 0.000 30.000 0.000 1669.000 45.000 12/5/1991 0.200 13.000 476.000 101.000

Ingersoll-Rand XVG-8 300 r NSCR 0.000 21.000 0.000 2131.000 23.000 11/4/1992 3.300 8.000 714.000 117.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r catalyst s 169.000 5.000 97.000 73381.000 41.300 3/19/1986 0.400 11.886 21119.410 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r catalyst s 153.000 2.000 98.700 23640.000 0.000 6/18/1986 0.000 0.000 6705.577 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r 0.000 18.000 0.000 4072.000 40.000 1/18/1993 0.500 12.000 1178.000 213.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r JohnsonMatthey s 344.000 13.000 96.200 35991.000 0.000 2/18/1987 0.000 0.000 10208.990 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r JohnsonMatthey s 67.000 12.000 82.090 43638.000 0.000 2/26/1988 0.200 0.000 12378.090 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r JohnsonMatthey s 58.000 25.000 56.897 47027.000 115.000 12/6/1988 0.300 32.937 13468.900 361.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r JohnsonMatthey s 69.000 20.000 71.014 48248.000 0.000 6/13/1988 0.300 0.000 13685.730 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r JohnsonMatthey s 69.000 23.000 66.667 49218.000 0.000 9/14/1988 0.300 0.000 13960.880 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r JohnsonMatthey s 91.000 7.000 92.300 21303.000 0.000 6/9/1987 0.000 0.000 6042.678 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r JMI NSCR s 105.000 0.010 99.700 32675.000 0.000 6/7/1989 0.010 0.000 9246.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r JohnsonMatthey s 283.000 30.000 89.400 16875.000 70.000 12/29/1987 0.010 19.770 4766.036 0.000

D-2-23
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r NSCR s 272.000 1.000 99.600 23600.000 0.000 9/11/1986 0.000 0.000 6694.231 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r JohnsonMatthey s 142.000 9.000 93.700 24372.000 0.000 9/18/1987 0.000 0.000 7014.380 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r NSCR s 103.000 1.000 99.200 39946.000 0.000 9/6/1989 0.100 0.000 11277.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r NSCR s 390.000 1.000 99.200 12500.000 36.000 11/9/1989 0.100 10.000 3546.000 383.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r JohnsonMatthey s 65.000 1.000 98.500 48800.000 128.900 12/9/1986 0.200 36.740 13909.180 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r JMI NSCR s 0.000 3.000 0.000 139.000 6.000 12/16/1991 0.200 2.000 40.000 143.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r 88.000 28.000 68.700 51129.000 0.000 3/1/1989 0.600 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r catalyst 260.000 17.000 93.500 18990.000 0.000 6/16/1986 0.000 0.000 5386.587 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r Dupont 22-19PR5 432.000 61.000 85.900 9300.000 0.000 4/2/1982 0.000 0.000 2637.981 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r JohnsonMatthey 42.000 1.000 97.600 51900.000 0.000 8/28/1986 0.000 0.000 14721.630 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-10 550 r JohnsonMatthey 180.000 1.000 99.400 16400.000 0.000 12/9/1986 0.000 0.000 4651.923 0.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r NSCR 0.000 16.000 0.000 3104.000 33.000 1/3/1991 0.100 9.000 876.000 419.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r Engelhard c 127.000 1.000 99.300 48096.000 0.000 2/21/1989 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r EngelhardTorvex 0.000 17.000 0.000 10269.000 2.000 9/20/1993 0.100 0.500 2913.000 101.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r NSCR 0.000 36.000 0.000 8830.000 1.000 3/25/1992 0.300 1.000 2529.000 724.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r EngelhardTorvex c 183.000 3.000 98.400 7641.000 12.000 9/18/1987 0.400 3.454 2199.117 0.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r EngelhardTorvex c 164.000 3.000 98.171 18019.000 0.000 11/14/1988 0.100 0.000 5111.159 0.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r NSCR c 156.000 1.000 99.400 31722.000 0.000 6/22/1989 0.100 0.000 9020.000 0.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r Engelhard Cat c 137.000 0.010 99.800 24700.000 0.000 1/15/1988 0.010 0.000 6976.065 0.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r NSCR c 415.000 2.000 100.000 10150.000 0.000 11/17/1989 0.100 0.000 2865.000 0.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r Engelhard Cat c 245.000 1.000 99.592 3785.000 0.000 6/23/1988 0.010 0.000 1073.630 0.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r Engelhard Cat c 102.000 1.000 99.020 18288.000 58.000 9/9/1988 0.100 0.000 5187.462 0.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r NSCR c 328.000 12.000 96.900 9437.000 48.000 8/31/1989 0.100 13.000 2664.000 432.000

Waukesha L5790GV 738 r NSCR Engelhard 0.000 29.000 0.000 5454.000 195.000 8/9/1995 0.100 55.000 1547.000 520.000

Waukesha L5790GV 738 r EngelhardTorvex 0.000 4.000 0.000 14922.000 10.100 8/24/1994 0.010 2.900 4212.000 551.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r NSCR c 0.000 65.000 0.000 6671.000 176.000 3/11/1992 0.100 50.000 1883.000 0.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r NSCR c 0.000 17.000 0.000 6855.000 0.000 12/2/1991 0.200 0.000 1935.000 0.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r NSCR c 224.000 6.000 97.500 19403.000 0.000 6/20/1990 0.100 0.000 5477.000 0.000

Waukesha L5790GU 738 r NSCR 222.000 1.000 0.000 23087.000 0.000 3/17/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 34.000 0.000 428.000 90.000 8/18/1993 10.900 53.000 253.000 4203.000

Waukesha F7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 24.000 0.000 573.000 276.000 7/24/1992 10.500 157.000 325.000 3670.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 36.000 0.000 431.000 206.000 11/15/1989 10.100 113.000 233.000 2008.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 59.000 59.000 0.000 582.000 0.000 2/10/1989 9.500 0.000 301.211 2115.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 46.000 46.000 0.000 513.000 175.000 6/17/1987 10.000 94.725 277.679 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 990 l Clean Burn c 47.000 47.000 0.000 516.000 0.000 1/20/1988 0.000 0.000 279.303 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 995 l Clean Burn c 0.000 79.000 0.000 609.000 0.000 3/31/1988 10.100 0.000 329.642 2306.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 49.000 0.000 603.000 0.000 9/15/1988 9.900 0.000 326.394 2109.000

D-2-24
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 47.000 47.000 0.000 487.000 0.000 9/17/1987 0.000 0.000 263.606 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1117 l Clean Burn c 0.000 58.000 0.000 620.000 0.000 7/13/1988 10.200 0.000 335.596 2258.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 90.000 0.000 630.000 0.000 2/15/1990 10.000 0.000 332.000 1933.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 55.000 0.000 606.000 0.000 7/6/1989 10.600 0.000 0.000 2102.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 29.000 0.000 623.000 0.000 8/22/1990 10.200 0.000 344.000 2177.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 37.000 0.000 488.000 242.600 6/21/1991 10.000 131.300 264.000 1960.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 28.000 0.000 563.000 98.000 8/18/1993 9.900 53.000 302.000 4192.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 44.000 44.000 0.000 524.000 176.000 6/17/1987 10.200 97.047 288.935 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1051 l Clean Burn c 0.000 50.000 0.000 535.000 0.000 7/13/1988 10.400 0.000 295.000 2370.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1012 l Clean Burn c 0.000 50.000 0.000 465.000 0.000 3/31/1988 10.300 0.000 256.402 2447.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 46.000 0.000 496.000 203.000 9/21/1989 9.600 106.000 252.000 1918.000

Waukesha L7042GL 937 l Clean Burn c 131.000 131.000 0.000 572.000 0.000 1/20/1988 0.000 0.000 315.402 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 52.000 0.000 604.000 0.000 9/15/1988 10.600 0.000 333.047 2029.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 61.000 0.000 527.000 0.000 11/15/1989 9.800 0.000 288.000 2074.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 92.000 0.000 570.000 0.000 2/15/1990 9.400 0.000 292.000 2010.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1129 l Clean Burn c 22.000 22.000 0.000 489.000 0.000 9/17/1987 0.000 0.000 269.636 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 58.000 58.000 0.000 541.000 0.000 2/10/1989 9.600 0.000 282.469 2213.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 37.000 0.000 483.000 0.000 7/6/1989 10.800 0.000 0.000 2165.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 13.000 0.000 420.000 78.000 11/4/1992 8.500 37.000 200.000 2516.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 117.000 0.000 501.000 168.000 12/5/1991 9.200 85.000 255.000 1922.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 38.000 0.000 559.000 0.000 5/22/1990 9.800 0.000 287.000 2025.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 46.000 0.000 598.000 179.000 8/22/1990 10.200 99.000 330.000 2140.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 36.000 0.000 488.000 15.000 11/4/1992 9.000 7.000 242.000 2423.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 74.000 0.000 564.000 225.000 10/1/1991 9.800 120.000 300.000 2054.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 47.300 0.000 546.000 118.600 3/27/1987 9.900 0.000 0.000 2186.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 34.000 0.000 550.000 84.000 8/19/1993 10.400 47.000 309.000 3659.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 64.000 0.000 601.000 0.000 12/13/1988 10.400 0.000 0.000 1911.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 39.000 0.000 595.000 210.000 8/23/1994 10.300 117.000 331.000 2349.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1164 l Clean Burn c 125.000 125.000 0.000 484.000 0.000 9/28/1987 0.000 0.000 261.982 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 77.000 0.000 623.000 0.000 7/14/1988 9.900 0.000 337.220 2150.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 53.000 0.000 500.000 0.000 9/20/1989 9.500 0.000 263.000 2001.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 60.000 0.000 588.000 0.000 6/14/1989 9.800 0.000 16.938 1831.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 56.000 0.000 462.000 0.000 11/29/1989 9.600 0.000 248.000 1894.000

Waukesha L7042GL 959 l Clean Burn c 87.000 87.000 0.000 574.000 0.000 1/15/1988 0.000 0.000 310.697 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 46.000 0.000 528.000 204.000 2/27/1990 10.600 117.000 302.000 1992.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 47.000 47.000 0.000 427.000 0.000 6/16/1987 0.000 0.000 231.128 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 984 l Clean Burn c 0.000 98.000 0.000 568.000 198.000 3/31/1988 10.200 109.178 313.196 2236.000

D-2-25
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 45.000 45.000 0.000 517.000 233.000 3/13/1989 10.200 128.477 285.075 1828.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 73.000 73.000 0.000 594.000 173.700 3/16/1987 9.700 91.503 312.911 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 63.000 0.000 585.000 0.000 9/21/1988 10.500 0.000 316.651 2248.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 35.000 0.000 438.000 308.000 8/9/1995 10.000 166.000 237.000 1828.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 c 0.000 12.800 0.000 491.100 172.400 7/1/1997 11.220 105.100 299.400 2708.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 43.000 0.000 491.000 83.000 8/19/1993 10.900 49.000 290.000 3297.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 54.000 54.000 0.000 554.000 189.600 3/18/1987 10.300 105.532 308.358 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1067 l Clean Burn c 98.000 98.000 0.000 508.000 0.000 1/18/1988 0.000 0.000 302.747 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 40.000 40.000 0.000 438.000 0.000 6/16/1987 0.000 0.000 261.030 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 987 l Clean Burn c 0.000 84.000 0.000 513.000 171.000 3/31/1988 10.200 94.290 282.869 2188.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1120 l Clean Burn c 45.000 45.000 0.000 443.000 0.000 10/8/1987 0.000 0.000 264.010 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 52.000 0.000 530.000 0.000 6/14/1989 9.700 0.000 15.424 1966.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 72.000 72.000 0.000 521.000 197.000 3/13/1989 9.500 101.956 269.640 2124.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1062 l Clean Burn c 0.000 63.000 0.000 542.000 0.000 7/14/1988 10.100 0.000 323.010 2067.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 136.000 0.000 610.000 0.000 9/21/1988 10.000 0.000 363.535 2185.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 93.000 0.000 494.000 0.000 11/29/1989 9.500 0.000 256.000 1899.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 85.000 0.000 569.000 0.000 9/20/1989 9.100 0.000 280.000 2021.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 69.000 0.000 592.000 107.000 12/2/1991 9.600 56.000 301.000 1914.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 119.000 0.000 593.000 0.000 6/5/1990 9.200 0.000 292.000 2143.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 31.000 0.000 512.000 0.000 9/5/1990 10.400 0.000 288.000 1973.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 57.000 0.000 491.000 329.000 8/9/1995 10.600 188.000 281.000 1733.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 86.000 0.000 572.000 206.000 8/23/1994 10.200 114.000 315.000 2053.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 46.000 0.000 464.000 60.000 11/4/1992 9.900 32.000 249.000 2174.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 50.000 0.000 611.000 0.000 12/13/1988 10.300 0.000 0.000 2044.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 c 0.000 9.200 0.000 501.500 199.400 7/1/1997 11.330 123.000 309.300 2519.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 41.000 0.000 525.000 99.000 8/19/1993 10.000 54.000 284.000 3883.000

Waukesha L7042GL 979 l Clean Burn c 173.000 173.000 0.000 556.000 0.000 1/18/1988 0.000 0.000 331.354 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 61.000 0.000 525.000 0.000 9/21/1988 10.500 0.000 312.879 2230.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 115.000 0.000 541.000 206.000 11/29/1989 9.700 113.000 275.000 1864.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 48.000 0.000 556.000 0.000 2/27/1990 10.000 0.000 285.000 1945.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 44.000 44.000 0.000 520.000 239.400 3/18/1987 10.300 133.251 289.434 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1058 l Clean Burn c 84.000 84.000 0.000 450.000 0.000 10/8/1987 0.000 0.000 268.182 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 90.000 90.000 0.000 611.000 0.000 3/13/1989 9.300 0.000 310.767 1983.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 52.000 0.000 480.000 0.000 9/20/1989 9.800 0.000 255.000 2008.000

Waukesha L7042GL 964 l Clean Burn c 0.000 88.000 0.000 507.000 169.000 3/31/1988 10.100 92.324 276.972 2055.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 47.000 47.000 0.000 468.000 0.000 6/16/1987 0.000 0.000 278.909 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 56.000 0.000 594.000 19.000 11/4/1992 10.200 10.000 328.000 2196.000

D-2-26
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 57.000 0.000 605.000 0.000 9/5/1990 10.100 0.000 331.000 1980.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 28.000 0.000 147.000 0.000 6/5/1990 9.100 0.000 74.000 1749.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 58.000 0.000 504.000 329.000 8/9/1995 10.300 183.000 281.000 1624.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 34.000 0.000 507.000 179.000 8/23/1994 10.800 105.000 296.000 2663.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 81.000 0.000 603.000 194.000 10/1/1991 9.400 100.000 309.000 1974.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 c 0.000 9.200 0.000 538.000 214.500 7/1/1997 11.060 128.600 322.500 2350.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 42.000 0.000 437.000 132.000 8/18/1993 11.100 80.000 263.000 4728.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 26.000 0.000 542.000 398.000 7/24/1992 11.500 250.000 340.000 2215.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 26.000 26.000 0.000 516.000 184.000 6/17/1987 10.100 100.519 281.889 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1007 l Clean Burn c 0.000 72.000 0.000 464.000 0.000 3/31/1988 10.000 0.000 251.156 2322.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 37.000 0.000 484.000 0.000 9/21/1989 10.600 0.000 275.000 2094.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1138 l Clean Burn c 71.000 71.000 0.000 471.000 0.000 9/17/1987 0.000 0.000 254.945 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 16.000 0.000 514.000 0.000 3/2/1990 9.800 0.000 268.000 1861.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 126.000 126.000 0.000 603.000 0.000 2/10/1989 8.700 0.000 291.615 1966.000

Waukesha L7042GL 929 l Clean Burn c 77.000 77.000 0.000 446.000 0.000 12/17/1987 0.000 0.000 241.413 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 47.000 0.000 448.000 0.000 9/15/1988 10.300 0.000 242.495 2003.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1048 l Clean Burn c 0.000 71.000 0.000 478.000 0.000 7/13/1988 10.100 0.000 258.734 2240.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 80.000 0.000 632.000 0.000 5/22/1990 9.000 0.000 308.000 1734.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 39.000 0.000 404.000 0.000 7/6/1989 11.400 0.000 0.000 2296.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 34.000 0.000 528.000 0.000 8/22/1990 10.200 0.000 291.000 1990.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 67.000 0.000 571.000 184.400 6/21/1991 9.000 91.400 283.000 1795.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 45.000 0.000 545.000 63.000 8/19/1993 10.600 50.000 312.000 3300.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 67.000 67.000 0.000 474.000 0.000 6/16/1987 0.000 0.000 282.485 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 42.000 0.000 465.000 0.000 6/14/1989 10.500 0.000 12.502 2056.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1005 l Clean Burn c 104.000 104.000 0.000 500.000 0.000 1/15/1988 0.000 0.000 297.980 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1235 l Clean Burn c 55.000 55.000 0.000 451.000 0.000 9/28/1987 0.000 0.000 268.778 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 45.000 45.000 0.000 525.000 287.700 3/16/1987 10.200 158.638 289.486 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 48.000 0.000 404.000 230.000 9/20/1989 10.000 125.000 209.000 2057.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 60.000 60.000 0.000 500.000 0.000 3/13/1989 10.200 0.000 275.701 1964.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 104.000 0.000 470.000 0.000 11/29/1989 10.100 0.000 243.000 1958.000

Waukesha L7042GL 941 l Clean Burn c 0.000 92.000 0.000 505.000 187.000 3/31/1988 10.400 105.076 283.762 2169.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 52.000 0.000 476.000 295.000 8/9/1995 10.300 164.000 265.000 1733.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 67.000 0.000 455.000 200.000 10/1/1991 9.100 100.000 288.000 1936.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 54.000 0.000 463.000 20.000 11/4/1992 11.000 12.000 276.000 2641.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 36.000 0.000 466.000 0.000 9/5/1990 10.600 0.000 267.000 2037.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 73.000 0.000 548.000 187.000 8/23/1994 10.200 103.000 302.000 2328.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 c 0.000 6.400 0.000 485.500 197.800 7/1/1997 11.250 121.000 297.000 2691.000

D-2-27
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 71.000 0.000 499.000 0.000 12/13/1988 10.400 0.000 0.000 1928.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 35.000 0.000 421.000 148.000 8/18/1993 12.400 102.000 292.000 6380.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 46.000 0.000 619.000 330.000 7/24/1992 10.800 193.000 362.000 2553.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn 0.000 95.000 0.000 562.000 179.500 6/21/1991 10.000 97.100 304.000 1960.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1077 l Clean Burn c 56.000 56.000 0.000 454.000 0.000 9/17/1987 0.000 0.000 245.743 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 39.000 0.000 440.000 0.000 9/21/1989 10.300 0.000 240.000 2128.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1029 l Clean Burn c 90.000 90.000 0.000 490.000 0.000 12/17/1987 0.000 0.000 277.981 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1081 l Clean Burn c 0.000 36.000 0.000 537.000 0.000 7/13/1988 10.900 0.000 304.644 2456.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 68.000 0.000 506.000 202.000 11/15/1989 10.000 110.000 271.000 2074.000

Waukesha L7042GL 941 l Clean Burn c 0.000 57.000 0.000 456.000 0.000 3/31/1988 10.700 0.000 258.692 2317.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 50.000 0.000 539.000 0.000 2/27/1990 10.200 0.000 306.000 2109.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 77.000 77.000 0.000 533.000 0.000 2/10/1989 9.200 0.000 268.778 1983.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1100 l Clean Burn c 36.000 36.000 0.000 486.000 170.000 6/17/1987 10.200 93.738 267.981 0.000

Waukesha L7042GL 1108 l Clean Burn c 0.000 42.000 0.000 534.000 0.000 5/22/1990 10.000 0.000 281.000 2087.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r NSCR 100.000 2.000 0.000 24765.000 30.000 11/28/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Catalyst c 351.000 17.000 95.200 9700.000 23.400 10/28/1986 0.010 6.609 2739.588 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM Denox 250 c 62.000 20.000 67.700 5949.000 10.000 1/19/1988 3.300 3.352 1994.267 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM Denox c 0.000 31.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7/29/1993 1.500 96.900 3724.000 45.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r NSCR 71.000 11.000 83.900 0.000 0.000 6/27/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r NSCR 100.000 48.000 52.100 1152.000 0.000 7/2/1991 0.600 0.000 325.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JohnsonMatthey c 141.000 13.000 90.780 34978.000 0.000 3/30/1988 0.010 0.000 9969.575 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM NSCR c 271.000 15.000 94.000 13510.000 89.000 11/30/1989 0.700 26.000 3946.000 185.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JohnsonMatthey c 76.000 35.000 53.947 49476.000 0.000 9/8/1988 0.200 0.000 14101.860 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JohnsonMatthey c 168.000 7.000 95.833 43173.000 0.000 2/14/1989 0.200 0.000 12305.350 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM NSCR c 205.000 5.000 97.700 11869.000 0.000 9/8/1989 0.600 0.000 3450.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM NSCR c 102.000 11.000 87.000 18600.000 0.000 6/19/1989 1.100 0.000 5556.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JohnsonMatthey c 35.000 20.000 42.900 50747.000 0.000 2/19/1987 0.000 0.000 14332.570 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JohnsonMatthey 39.000 20.000 48.700 24553.000 0.000 6/11/1987 0.000 0.000 7664.693 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JohnsonMatthey c 221.000 13.000 94.100 5769.000 0.000 9/30/1987 0.000 0.000 1629.349 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM NSCR c 0.000 41.000 0.000 14019.000 0.000 2/28/1990 0.700 0.000 3958.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM NSCR c 194.000 31.000 84.000 12042.000 0.000 8/29/1990 0.800 0.000 3399.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM NSCR c 0.000 27.000 0.000 2317.000 408.000 6/5/1992 4.000 142.000 809.000 55.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM NSCR c 201.000 31.000 84.500 14958.000 0.000 5/21/1990 1.000 0.000 4435.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM NSCR c 0.000 18.000 0.000 6154.000 30.000 12/10/1991 0.700 9.000 1797.000 45.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EngelhardTorvex c 265.000 5.000 98.100 20549.000 24.000 1/19/1988 0.100 6.808 5828.803 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EngelhardTorvex c 0.000 36.000 0.000 7576.000 0.000 7/29/1993 1.900 609.200 2353.000 35.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EngelhardTorvex c 486.000 19.000 96.091 9958.000 0.000 2/14/1989 0.100 0.000 2824.625 0.000

D-2-28
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 101.000 12.000 88.300 29742.000 0.000 11/30/1989 0.300 0.000 8396.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EngelhardTorvex c 142.000 30.000 78.873 42196.000 0.000 9/8/1988 0.100 0.000 11969.060 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 247.000 28.000 89.000 30462.000 0.000 6/19/1989 0.100 0.000 8662.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 0.000 10.000 0.000 4733.000 22.000 2/28/1990 0.100 6.000 1560.000 271.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EngelhardTorvex c 236.000 35.000 85.169 27802.000 0.000 3/30/1988 0.010 0.000 7924.242 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r NSCR 0.000 3.000 0.000 1796.000 80.000 7/2/1991 0.200 23.000 512.000 1851.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 304.000 14.000 95.500 15516.000 0.000 5/21/1990 0.100 0.000 4380.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 303.000 16.000 94.700 8589.000 0.000 8/29/1990 0.100 0.000 2425.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 0.000 45.000 0.000 2607.000 710.000 6/5/1992 2.400 133.000 831.000 50.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 0.000 14.000 0.000 1619.000 0.000 12/10/1991 1.000 0.000 480.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r NSCR 134.000 15.000 88.900 0.000 0.000 6/27/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r NSCR 319.000 10.000 0.000 14012.000 20.000 11/28/1988 0.300 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM Denox 250 c 87.000 35.000 59.800 22784.000 131.000 1/19/1988 0.900 38.645 6721.280 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Catalyst c 572.000 29.000 94.900 8000.000 23.200 10/28/1986 0.010 6.552 2259.454 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM NSCR c 79.000 19.000 77.000 8213.000 0.000 6/19/1989 3.600 0.000 2807.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JohnsonMatthey c 107.000 23.000 78.500 8487.000 0.000 9/30/1987 0.000 0.000 2396.999 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JohnsonMatthey c 120.000 16.000 86.667 31722.000 22.300 2/17/1989 0.400 6.418 9129.746 324.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM NSCR c 75.000 12.000 84.600 35305.000 0.000 9/8/1989 0.100 0.000 10014.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JohnsonMatthey c 119.000 32.000 73.109 45003.000 0.000 3/30/1988 0.010 0.000 12826.940 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JohnsonMatthey c 117.000 12.000 89.744 26907.000 0.000 9/8/1988 0.300 0.000 7706.374 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JohnsonMatthey c 64.000 34.000 46.900 32750.000 0.000 2/19/1987 0.000 0.000 9249.641 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JohnsonMatthey 63.000 27.000 57.100 16721.000 0.000 6/11/1987 0.000 0.000 5219.783 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM NSCR c 106.000 5.000 94.800 15652.000 0.000 5/21/1990 0.400 0.000 4505.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r NSCR 199.000 16.000 92.200 10458.000 0.000 7/2/1991 1.000 0.000 2952.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM NSCR c 88.000 7.000 91.600 5907.000 72.000 8/29/1990 5.500 28.000 2263.000 274.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM NSCR c 0.000 35.000 0.000 813.000 349.000 6/5/1992 5.400 133.000 309.000 60.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r JM NSCR c 36.000 9.000 75.600 7677.000 9.000 12/13/1991 4.100 3.000 2696.000 125.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r NSCR 69.000 18.000 73.400 0.000 0.000 6/27/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l None m 194.000 0.000 0.000 176.000 122.000 12/6/1990 14.430 2.387 160.000 1126.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l SCR m 249.000 50.000 0.000 352.000 0.000 7/1/1988 14.600 0.000 0.000 0.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l catalyst m 220.000 67.000 69.500 485.000 0.000 4/28/1986 0.000 0.000 485.000 0.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l SCR m 221.000 69.000 0.000 345.000 248.000 11/28/1988 14.700 0.000 0.000 2598.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l Englehard SCR m 161.000 55.000 67.000 190.000 0.000 6/16/1989 14.200 0.000 167.000 0.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l EngelhardTorvex m 199.000 61.000 69.347 374.000 0.000 3/15/1989 14.800 0.000 361.738 0.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l Torvex Cat m 303.000 63.000 79.208 273.000 0.000 3/18/1988 14.700 0.000 273.000 0.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l Torvex Cat m 238.000 39.000 83.600 410.000 269.700 12/17/1986 13.100 204.004 310.128 0.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l SCR m 259.000 90.000 65.300 460.000 0.000 8/27/1986 0.000 0.000 460.000 0.000

D-2-29
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Clark HRA-32 350 l Torvex m 293.000 52.000 82.300 208.000 0.000 6/11/1987 0.000 0.000 208.000 0.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l Torvex Cat m 556.000 111.000 80.000 214.000 0.000 10/8/1987 0.000 0.000 214.000 0.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l Torvex m 373.000 111.000 70.200 450.000 537.000 12/15/1987 14.200 472.881 396.269 0.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l Torvex m 211.000 50.000 76.300 289.000 0.000 2/26/1987 0.000 0.000 289.000 0.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l Englehard SCR m 336.000 100.000 70.200 452.000 0.000 10/30/1989 12.700 0.000 325.000 0.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l EngelhardTorvex m 314.000 75.000 76.115 365.000 0.000 9/9/1988 14.900 0.000 358.917 0.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l None m 373.000 0.000 0.000 216.000 132.000 12/6/1990 15.280 2.439 227.000 1320.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l None m 992.000 0.000 0.000 438.000 139.000 12/6/1990 14.460 2.714 401.000 1572.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l None m 243.000 0.000 0.000 164.000 0.000 5/26/1989 13.900 0.000 138.000 0.000

Clark HRA-32 350 l None m 79.000 0.000 0.000 209.000 90.000 12/6/1990 15.010 1.693 209.000 1032.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r catalyst m 266.000 20.000 92.500 19899.000 28.100 3/20/1986 0.200 8.009 5671.696 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r catalyst m 236.000 10.000 95.800 16646.000 0.000 6/9/1986 0.000 0.000 4767.544 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r Torvex m 412.000 13.000 96.800 8812.000 0.000 9/29/1987 0.000 0.000 2523.825 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r JMI NSCR m 168.000 10.000 94.300 21475.000 0.000 9/7/1989 0.500 0.000 6211.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r Torvex m 176.000 8.000 95.500 25400.000 0.000 8/27/1986 0.000 0.000 7274.757 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r EngelhardTorvex m 332.000 7.000 97.892 11596.000 0.000 2/14/1989 0.200 0.000 3305.140 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r Torvex m 242.000 4.000 98.300 17600.000 20.600 12/10/1986 0.010 5.818 4970.799 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r JMI NSCR m 417.000 11.000 97.400 1166.000 0.000 2/22/1990 6.700 0.000 329.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r EngelhardTorvex m 318.000 16.000 94.969 14257.000 0.000 2/18/1988 0.600 0.000 4083.316 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r EngelhardTorvex m 326.000 20.000 93.865 27066.000 0.000 8/23/1988 0.100 0.000 7677.375 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r JohnsonMatthey m 201.000 5.000 97.500 12249.000 0.000 6/10/1987 0.000 0.000 3459.507 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r Torvex m 562.000 10.000 98.200 2757.000 22.000 12/15/1987 0.300 6.301 789.626 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r Torvex m 227.000 5.000 97.800 17381.000 0.000 2/26/1987 0.000 0.000 4978.053 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r JMI NSCR m 245.000 10.000 95.900 10950.000 24.000 5/15/1990 1.900 7.000 3400.000 419.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r JMI NSCR m 319.000 6.000 98.200 7996.000 29.000 10/19/1990 0.100 9.000 2395.000 387.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r NSCR 579.000 20.000 97.000 5051.000 0.000 11/17/1988 0.300 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r NSCR 259.000 38.000 85.200 0.000 0.000 6/10/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r catalyst m 372.000 19.000 94.900 1299.000 2.600 4/7/1986 0.100 0.738 368.466 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r catalyst m 355.000 7.000 98.000 8409.000 0.000 6/9/1986 0.000 0.000 2385.245 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r NSCR m 322.000 15.000 97.700 16204.000 0.000 11/30/1989 0.100 0.000 4574.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r JohnsonMatthey m 342.000 6.000 98.200 4562.000 0.000 6/10/1987 0.000 0.000 1294.029 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r JohnsonMatthey m 433.000 2.000 99.500 9383.000 22.200 3/19/1987 0.010 6.270 2650.057 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r JohnsonMatthey m 177.000 3.000 98.300 9440.000 0.000 9/29/1987 0.000 0.000 2677.692 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r JM NSCR m 142.000 10.000 93.000 24662.000 0.000 6/15/1989 0.500 0.000 7105.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r EngelhardTorvex m 263.000 3.000 98.859 8489.000 14.600 2/17/1989 0.100 4.141 2407.938 140.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r JohnsonMatthey m 358.000 4.000 98.883 9005.000 23.000 2/18/1988 0.010 6.524 2554.303 357.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r JohnsonMatteny m 372.000 1.000 99.700 11800.000 0.000 12/17/1986 0.000 0.000 3347.115 0.000

D-2-30
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r JohnsonMatthey m 373.000 21.000 94.400 1040.000 0.000 12/15/1987 0.000 0.000 295.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r NSCR m 251.000 2.000 99.200 20300.000 0.000 8/28/1986 0.000 0.000 5758.173 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r JohnsonMatthey m 207.000 2.000 99.034 19110.000 0.000 8/23/1988 0.100 0.000 5420.625 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r JMI NSCR m 307.000 11.000 96.500 9092.000 0.000 10/3/1990 0.100 0.000 2567.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r NSCR 195.000 1.000 99.600 17462.000 0.000 11/17/1988 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-6 330 r NSCR 261.000 5.000 98.300 0.000 0.000 6/10/1988 0.400 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha 145GKU 90 r EngelhardTorvex d 312.000 2.000 99.400 9032.000 64.000 11/12/1987 0.300 18.330 2586.835 61.000

Waukesha 145GKU 65 r EngelhardTorvex d 389.000 1.000 99.743 5192.000 0.000 2/18/1988 0.010 0.000 1487.029 0.000

Waukesha 145GKU 90 r Englehard d 99.000 5.000 95.200 30485.000 149.000 9/7/1989 0.100 42.000 8606.000 247.000

Waukesha 145GKU 90 r Englehard d 517.000 5.000 99.000 5477.000 0.000 6/15/1989 0.100 0.000 1550.000 0.000

Waukesha 145GKU 90 r Englehard NSCR d 174.000 8.000 95.100 11427.000 0.000 5/14/1990 0.100 0.000 3226.000 0.000

Waukesha 145GKU 90 r Englehard NSCR d 143.000 3.000 97.900 5322.000 0.000 10/3/1990 0.100 0.000 1502.000 0.000

Waukesha 145GKU 90 r NSCR 448.000 11.000 97.400 9288.000 0.000 11/17/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha 145GKU 90 r EngelhardTorvex d 386.000 6.000 98.400 531.000 6.000 11/12/1987 0.010 1.695 149.971 64.000

Waukesha 145GKU 90 r EngelhardTorvex d 515.000 31.000 93.981 7288.000 50.800 2/17/1989 0.100 14.410 2067.269 92.000

Waukesha 145GKU 90 r Englehard d 404.000 28.000 93.000 15454.000 0.000 6/15/1989 0.100 0.000 4373.000 0.000

Waukesha 145GKU 90 r Englehard d 465.000 26.000 94.500 10377.000 0.000 9/15/1989 0.100 0.000 2929.000 0.000

Waukesha 145GKU 90 r Englehard d 430.000 16.000 96.200 15216.000 0.000 12/1/1989 0.100 0.000 4295.000 0.000

Waukesha 145GKU 90 r Engelhard d 561.000 42.000 92.500 5596.000 28.000 2/22/1990 0.300 8.000 1603.000 260.000

Waukesha 145GKU 65 r EngelhardTorvex d 457.000 19.000 95.842 1373.000 0.000 2/18/1988 0.010 0.000 389.457 0.000

Waukesha 145GKU 90 r EngelhardTorvex d 421.000 9.000 97.862 1973.000 0.000 8/23/1988 0.100 0.000 559.649 0.000

Waukesha 145GKU 90 r NSCR d 319.000 16.000 94.900 0.000 0.000 6/10/1988 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r NSCR 91.000 47.000 48.900 0.000 0.000 6/10/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r NSCR 151.000 6.000 0.000 25556.000 0.000 12/15/1988 0.400 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EngelhardTorvex c 747.000 39.000 94.800 3913.000 39.000 11/10/1987 0.010 11.015 1105.156 134.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EngelhardTorvex c 0.000 22.000 0.000 5635.000 0.000 7/29/1993 0.900 120.300 1662.000 26.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EnglehardTorvex c 102.000 7.000 93.137 34192.000 0.000 1/31/1989 0.100 0.000 9698.692 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 98 r EngelhardTorvex c 146.000 44.000 69.863 37144.000 0.000 2/17/1988 0.010 0.000 10848.990 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard c 177.000 25.000 85.600 41128.000 0.000 11/16/1989 0.300 0.000 11610.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard c 95.000 3.000 97.300 42908.000 121.000 9/7/1989 0.200 35.000 12230.000 155.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EngelhardTorvex c 90.000 33.000 63.333 46981.000 155.000 8/22/1988 0.700 45.272 13722.170 208.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 154.000 29.000 81.000 36554.000 0.000 2/20/1990 0.100 0.000 10319.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard c 104.000 23.000 79.000 40004.000 0.000 6/8/1989 0.700 0.000 11712.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 0.000 4.000 0.000 944.000 552.000 6/4/1992 4.100 194.000 332.000 54.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard c 190.000 47.000 75.400 13723.000 133.000 12/13/1991 0.200 38.000 3911.000 101.000

Waukesha F1187GU 150 r JM NSCR c 225.000 15.000 93.300 15118.000 0.000 5/15/1990 0.100 0.000 4288.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard c 0.000 2.000 0.000 1596.000 13.000 12/10/1991 0.100 4.000 453.000 45.000

D-2-31
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 489.000 11.000 97.900 1386.000 12.000 10/3/1990 0.100 3.000 391.000 165.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EngelhardTorvex 449.000 17.000 96.200 11389.000 19.000 11/10/1987 0.010 5.366 3216.616 119.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard c 31.000 9.000 68.000 41520.000 0.000 6/8/1989 0.500 0.000 12037.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EngelhardTorvex c 33.000 18.000 45.455 43474.000 272.000 8/22/1988 0.200 77.527 12391.140 308.000

Waukesha F1197GU 98 r EngelhardTorvex c 488.000 8.000 98.361 5562.000 0.000 2/17/1988 0.010 0.000 1577.683 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard c 40.000 18.000 55.300 64198.000 0.000 11/16/1989 0.100 0.000 18123.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EnglehardTorvex c 98.000 3.000 96.939 24949.000 0.000 1/31/1989 0.100 0.000 7076.880 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard c 39.000 11.000 71.300 45385.000 146.000 9/7/1989 0.100 41.000 12812.000 231.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 117.000 36.000 69.700 19385.000 0.000 2/20/1990 0.100 0.000 5472.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 565.000 35.000 93.900 7025.000 28.000 10/11/1990 0.200 11.000 2002.000 222.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 62.000 38.000 38.100 35199.000 0.000 5/14/1990 0.200 0.000 10033.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r NSCR 96.000 3.000 0.000 25673.000 0.000 12/15/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r NSCR 287.000 34.000 88.200 0.000 0.000 6/10/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EngelhardTorvex 479.000 3.000 99.400 12239.000 10.000 11/10/1987 0.700 2.921 3574.757 131.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard c 90.000 17.000 81.100 40411.000 323.000 9/7/1989 0.100 91.000 11408.000 173.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard c 90.000 33.000 63.600 55231.000 0.000 11/16/1989 0.100 0.000 15592.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EngelhardTorvex c 436.000 27.000 93.807 9000.000 0.000 2/14/1989 0.100 0.000 2552.885 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 98 r EngelhardTorvex c 211.000 34.000 83.886 24920.000 0.000 2/17/1988 0.010 0.000 7102.802 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard c 355.000 6.000 98.000 10133.000 0.000 6/8/1989 0.100 0.000 2867.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 68.000 48.000 30.200 36891.000 0.000 2/20/1990 0.600 0.000 10414.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r EngelhardTorvex c 231.000 14.000 93.939 31471.000 136.000 8/22/1988 0.100 38.577 8926.870 136.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard c 190.000 8.000 95.700 13342.000 0.000 5/15/1990 0.100 0.000 3785.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r Englehard NSCR c 481.000 18.000 96.200 2702.000 48.000 10/11/1990 0.200 14.000 770.000 86.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r NSCR 36.000 27.000 19.700 0.000 0.000 6/10/1988 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 150 r NSCR 195.000 25.000 0.000 24961.000 0.000 11/17/1988 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-8 440 r ECS Cat Convert 358.000 1.000 99.700 2495.000 17.000 12/18/1987 0.010 4.801 704.667 356.000

Caterpillar G-3306 195 r Engelhardt NSCC d 370.000 35.000 90.500 11589.000 26.000 4/21/1987 0.001 7.340 3273.102 0.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-8 440 r NSCR m 240.000 0.500 99.583 16223.000 55.000 9/18/1989 0.100 15.000 4580.000 343.000

Ingersoll-Rand SVG-8 440 r NSCR m 519.000 30.000 94.200 3062.000 35.600 2/6/1989 0.010 10.049 864.392 277.000

Enterprise GSG-6 465 r LoNOx Cat Conv 0.000 31.000 0.000 8884.000 212.000 12/17/1993 0.100 60.000 2520.000 506.000

Enterprise GSG-6 465 r LoNOx 43N-10 CC c 29.000 2.000 93.100 39248.000 153.000 4/15/1987 0.100 43.399 11132.850 0.000

Enterprise GSG-6 465 r NSCR 0.000 14.000 0.000 11980.000 25.000 12/9/1994 0.100 7.000 3398.000 467.000

Enterprise GSG-6 465 r NSCR 0.000 21.000 0.000 2602.000 54.000 12/14/1992 0.100 15.000 738.000 456.000

Enterprise GSG-6 465 r LONOx Cat Conv c 39.000 1.000 97.400 45265.000 0.000 6/15/1988 1.000 0.000 12839.590 447.000

Enterprise GSG-6 465 r ESC NSCR c 93.000 1.000 98.500 67445.000 70.000 10/26/1989 0.400 20.000 22230.000 884.000

Enterprise GSG-6 465 r ESC NSCR c 361.000 5.000 98.700 13047.000 22.000 11/21/1990 1.000 6.000 3868.000 950.000

Enterprise GSG-6 465 r LONOx Cat Conv c 0.000 17.000 0.000 11015.000 0.000 9/16/1992 0.700 0.000 3225.000 0.000

D-2-32
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Enterprise GSG-6 465 r ESC NSCR c 0.000 17.000 0.000 7727.000 1.000 3/13/1992 0.300 1.000 2213.000 485.000

Enterprise GSG-6 465 r NSCR - ECS c 0.000 14.000 0.000 12518.000 2.200 12/10/1996 0.100 0.600 3585.000 432.000

Enterprise GSM-6 550 r NSCR 0.000 23.000 0.000 12461.000 6.000 4/8/1992 0.300 2.000 4107.000 427.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r ECS LoNox CC c 561.000 3.000 99.500 6360.000 30.200 1/14/1987 0.100 8.566 1804.038 0.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r ECS LowNOx CC 0.000 21.000 0.000 10986.000 387.000 3/11/1993 0.100 110.000 3116.000 405.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r NSCR 0.000 9.000 0.000 4951.000 52.000 3/27/1995 0.100 15.000 1404.000 464.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r ECS LowNOx CC 0.000 6.000 0.000 3155.000 17.000 3/14/1994 0.100 5.000 895.000 432.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r ESC NSCR c 625.000 29.000 95.400 3661.000 31.000 10/25/1989 0.200 9.000 1043.000 364.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r ESC LoNOx CC c 674.000 12.000 98.489 7478.000 45.000 12/27/1988 0.200 12.826 0.000 456.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r ESC NSCR c 457.000 22.000 95.100 7831.000 65.000 11/20/1990 0.200 18.000 2232.000 365.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r ESC LoNOx CC c 0.000 37.000 0.000 4219.000 0.000 9/18/1992 0.300 0.000 1232.000 0.000

Enterprise GSG-6 500 r NSCR - ECS 0.000 8.000 0.000 4938.000 65.000 3/13/1996 0.010 18.000 1394.000 395.000

Enterprise GSG-6 500 r NSCR c 0.000 17.000 0.000 13827.000 39.000 3/14/1997 0.010 11.000 3903.000 439.000

Enterprise GSG-6 500 r NSCR - ECS c 0.000 23.000 0.000 7422.000 0.000 12/23/1996 0.010 0.000 2100.000 0.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r ECS LowNox CC 0.000 15.000 0.000 11375.000 86.000 3/11/1993 0.100 24.600 3227.000 400.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r ECS LoNox CC c 237.000 2.000 99.200 33400.000 81.400 12/30/1986 0.100 23.089 9474.038 0.000

Enterprise GSG-6 530 r ECS LoNOx CC 0.000 15.000 0.000 10641.000 21.000 3/14/1994 0.100 6.000 3018.000 432.000

Enterprise GSM-6 550 r NSCR 0.000 47.000 0.000 10465.000 157.000 4/8/1992 0.100 45.000 2968.000 422.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r ESC LoNOx CC c 317.000 16.000 94.953 15164.000 110.900 3/28/1989 0.500 32.074 4385.667 487.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r ESC NSCR c 325.000 22.000 93.200 16836.000 105.000 10/25/1989 0.300 30.000 4822.000 479.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r NSCR 0.000 8.000 0.000 6984.000 122.000 3/27/1995 0.100 34.000 1972.000 436.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r ESC LoNOx CC c 0.000 19.000 0.000 14581.000 0.000 9/18/1992 0.100 0.000 4146.000 0.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r ESC NSCR c 611.000 19.000 96.900 5885.000 2.000 11/27/1990 0.010 1.000 1763.000 500.000

Enterprise GSG-6 500 r NSCR - ECS c 0.000 33.000 0.000 13761.000 0.000 12/23/1996 0.010 0.000 3894.000 0.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r NSCR c 0.000 12.000 0.000 12440.000 74.000 3/14/1997 0.010 21.000 3512.000 433.000

Enterprise GSG-6 520 r NSCR - ECS 0.000 48.000 0.000 5879.000 110.000 3/13/1996 0.100 31.000 1668.000 466.000

Enterprise GSM-8 300 r LoNOx 43N-10 CC 0.000 20.000 0.000 139.000 139.000 3/14/1994 0.100 39.000 39.000 215.000

Enterprise GSM-8 300 r LoNOx 43N-10 CC c 131.000 2.000 98.500 38839.000 103.000 4/22/1987 0.200 29.357 11070.050 0.000

Enterprise GSG-8 300 r LoNOx 43N-10 CC 0.000 34.000 0.000 9962.000 386.000 3/11/1993 0.050 109.000 2819.000 218.000

Enterprise GSM-8 300 r NSCR 0.000 8.000 0.000 10160.000 467.000 3/27/1995 0.400 134.000 2924.000 348.000

Enterprise GSM-8 300 r ESC NSCR c 428.000 35.000 91.700 41247.000 200.000 10/27/1989 0.100 57.000 11644.000 115.000

Enterprise GSM-8 300 r LONOx Cat Conv c 33.000 7.000 78.800 50049.000 0.000 6/16/1988 0.100 0.000 14265.170 427.000

Enterprise GSM-8 300 r LoNOx 43N-10 CC c 0.000 30.000 0.000 15622.000 0.000 9/16/1992 0.100 0.000 4442.000 0.000

Enterprise GSM-8 300 r ESC NSCR c 367.000 1.000 99.700 11170.000 182.000 12/11/1990 0.010 51.000 3153.000 114.000

Enterprise GSM-8 300 r ESC NSCR c 0.000 36.000 0.000 4929.000 146.000 5/1/1992 0.100 41.000 1398.000 187.000

Enterprise GSM-8 300 r NSCR c 0.000 16.000 0.000 5140.000 20.000 3/14/1997 0.010 5.700 1451.000 341.000

Enterprise GSG-8 300 r NSCR - ECS c 0.000 42.000 0.000 12941.000 0.000 12/23/1996 0.100 0.000 3662.000 0.000

D-2-33
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Enterprise GSM-8 300 r NSCR - ECS 0.000 9.000 0.000 5030.000 443.000 3/13/1996 0.010 125.000 1420.000 298.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR 0.000 10.000 0.000 9621.000 142.000 6/29/1994 0.010 40.000 2716.000 503.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r HIS Corp c 152.000 1.000 99.300 35820.000 83.200 3/30/1987 0.010 23.498 10116.710 331.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r HIS NSCR c 0.000 5.000 0.000 4200.000 13.000 6/24/1993 0.100 4.000 1191.000 485.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR HIS 0.000 32.000 0.000 7386.000 170.000 8/2/1995 0.500 49.000 2138.000 439.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r Houston NSCR c 606.000 29.000 95.215 9679.000 0.000 12/27/1989 0.100 0.000 2732.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r Houston NSCR c 0.000 3.000 0.000 580.000 1.000 4/7/1992 0.100 1.000 165.000 484.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r Houston NSCR c 0.000 2.000 0.000 4140.000 1.000 6/10/1992 0.100 1.000 2001.000 525.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r HIS NSCR 312.000 3.400 0.000 0.000 0.000 6/23/1987 0.100 0.000 0.000 404.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR 539.000 17.000 0.000 13521.000 0.000 4/24/1991 0.100 0.000 3817.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r Houston NSCR c 603.000 7.000 98.800 4067.000 60.000 9/6/1990 0.100 17.000 1148.000 383.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR c 0.000 5.000 0.000 4742.000 2.500 7/25/1996 0.100 0.070 1340.000 434.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR 0.000 3.000 0.000 14917.000 7.200 8/27/1997 0.001 2.000 4211.000 464.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r HIS NSCR c 0.000 7.000 0.000 5472.000 14.000 6/24/1993 0.100 4.000 1552.000 485.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r HIS Corp c 402.000 13.000 96.800 20650.000 59.000 3/30/1987 0.300 16.898 5914.320 336.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r HIS Corp DN/C c 331.000 18.000 94.600 23950.000 121.000 4/14/1988 0.010 34.174 6764.241 1047.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR 0.000 22.000 0.000 4143.000 66.000 11/13/1991 0.100 19.000 1175.000 182.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r Houston NSCR c 300.000 41.000 86.333 25643.000 0.000 12/27/1989 0.100 0.000 7239.000 0.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r HIS Corp c 315.000 10.000 96.825 19111.000 113.000 5/11/1989 0.010 32.053 5408.000 449.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR HIS 0.000 12.000 0.000 12377.000 145.000 8/2/1995 0.400 42.000 3562.000 438.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR 348.000 21.000 0.000 13172.000 155.000 4/24/1991 0.100 44.000 3736.000 279.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r Houston NSCR c 312.000 45.000 85.700 21471.000 108.000 5/4/1990 0.100 31.000 6074.000 495.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r Houston NSCR c 0.000 13.000 0.000 3469.000 1.000 6/10/1992 1.200 1.000 1039.000 554.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR 0.000 16.000 0.000 1537.000 97.000 6/29/1994 0.100 27.000 434.000 503.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR 0.000 43.000 0.000 4238.000 9.500 8/27/1997 0.001 2.700 1196.000 607.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR c 0.000 36.000 0.000 13139.000 92.000 7/25/1996 0.010 26.000 3709.000 648.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r HIS NSCR c 0.000 14.000 0.000 9281.000 40.000 6/24/1993 0.100 11.000 2633.000 485.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r HIS Corp DN/C c 277.000 16.000 94.200 24270.000 152.000 4/14/1988 0.010 42.930 6854.619 349.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR 0.000 13.000 0.000 2835.000 181.000 7/17/1991 0.100 52.000 807.000 344.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r HIS Corp c 121.000 11.000 90.909 35721.000 190.000 5/11/1989 0.010 53.894 10132.400 449.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r HoustonInd NSCR c 874.000 21.000 97.600 3872.000 42.000 7/26/1990 0.100 12.000 1093.000 362.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r Houston NSCR c 0.000 33.000 0.000 8044.000 1.000 6/10/1992 0.100 1.000 2282.000 545.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r HIS NSCR 81.200 0.400 0.000 34855.000 162.000 6/23/1987 0.100 0.000 0.000 404.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR HIS 0.000 6.000 0.000 4915.000 53.000 8/2/1995 0.200 15.000 1401.000 449.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r Houston NSCR c 592.000 11.000 98.100 6435.000 29.000 9/6/1990 0.100 8.000 1817.000 382.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r HIS NSCR 294.800 2.320 0.000 19890.000 128.300 6/23/1987 0.100 0.000 0.000 404.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR 0.000 31.000 0.000 6274.000 131.000 6/29/1994 0.100 37.000 1771.000 503.000

D-2-34
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR c 0.000 11.000 0.000 307.000 220.000 8/13/1996 0.100 62.000 87.000 702.000

Caterpillar G-398 420 r NSCR 0.000 12.000 0.000 14360.000 30.600 8/27/1997 0.001 8.600 4054.000 737.000

Waukesha F2895 420 r NSCR 241.000 30.000 0.000 12708.000 0.000 4/24/1991 0.100 0.000 3587.000 0.000

Waukesha F2895 420 r NSCR 0.000 1.000 0.000 9079.000 88.000 11/13/1991 0.100 25.000 2575.000 225.000

Waukesha F2895 420 r Houston NSCR c 0.000 9.000 0.000 8319.000 25.000 6/24/1993 0.100 7.000 2360.000 485.000

Waukesha F2839 420 r NSCR HIS 0.000 7.000 0.000 6681.000 283.000 8/2/1995 0.200 81.000 1904.000 449.000

Waukesha F2895 420 r Houston NSCR c 0.000 5.000 0.000 5094.000 1.000 6/10/1992 0.300 1.000 1459.000 533.000

Waukesha F2895 420 r NSCR Houston 0.000 19.000 0.000 654.000 79.000 6/29/1994 0.100 22.000 185.000 503.000

Waukesha F2895G 420 r NSCR c 0.000 15.000 0.000 1487.000 13.000 7/25/1996 0.010 4.000 420.000 792.000

Waukesha F2895G 420 r NSCR 0.000 14.000 0.000 17446.000 18.300 8/27/1997 0.001 5.200 4925.000 821.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC 0.000 34.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 3/22/1994 6.500 9.800 214.300 174.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC Cat Conv c 0.000 39.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4/2/1993 7.300 36.900 268.000 249.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC-digester gs 0.000 12.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 6/9/1994 7.500 0.000 42.800 0.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC Cat Conv c 0.000 30.000 0.000 514.000 35.000 12/1/1988 6.400 14.241 209.145 190.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC Cat Conv c 0.000 27.000 0.000 428.000 132.000 12/10/1987 5.500 50.571 163.974 194.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC heat/cogen c 0.000 39.000 0.000 583.000 40.000 12/13/1989 6.500 16.000 238.000 415.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC heat/cogen c 0.000 25.410 0.000 452.840 10.000 1/9/1992 5.700 3.880 175.770 183.283

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC 0.000 48.000 0.000 547.000 143.000 2/28/1991 6.400 58.000 222.000 331.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC 0.000 21.600 0.000 0.000 0.000 3/28/1995 5.500 2.100 200.000 230.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC c 0.000 42.300 0.000 611.800 18.400 3/27/1997 6.950 7.800 258.800 228.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC 0.000 34.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 2/23/1996 4.800 28.900 162.000 228.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC 0.000 40.000 0.000 453.000 173.000 2/28/1991 6.100 69.000 180.000 323.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC 0.000 47.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 3/22/1994 4.100 10.200 230.000 162.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC 0.000 43.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 3/28/1995 6.500 5.100 205.100 235.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC Cat Conv c 0.000 41.000 0.000 484.000 24.000 12/1/1988 5.800 9.377 189.113 179.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC heat/cogen c 0.000 45.000 0.000 606.000 38.000 12/13/1989 6.500 16.000 247.000 415.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC Cat Conv c 0.000 16.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4/2/1993 6.800 21.300 193.000 266.000

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC heat/cogen c 0.000 36.980 0.000 567.080 12.500 1/9/1992 5.990 4.940 237.290 182.955

Waukesha F817GU 190 r PSC 0.000 35.400 0.000 0.000 0.000 2/23/1996 4.600 27.500 211.000 226.000

Waukesha 145GZU 100 r PSC PreStrat Ch 0.000 24.000 0.000 18456.000 96.600 10/14/1988 15.100 98.266 18774.210 210.000

Waukesha 145GZU 100 r PSC 53.000 56.000 0.000 56000.000 287.000 5/5/1988 0.010 81.058 15816.180 124.000

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 160 r 0.000 591.000 0.000 641.000 139.000 5/18/1988 4.100 0.000 0.000 25.000

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 160 r NSCR HIS 738.000 54.000 92.700 4810.000 38.000 3/15/1990 0.100 11.000 1364.000 80.000

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 160 r NSCR 0.000 0.700 0.000 658.000 217.000 5/25/1995 0.100 62.000 187.000 71.000

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 160 r HIS c 0.000 1.680 0.000 1388.100 126.600 5/21/1993 0.025 36.000 394.720 58.300

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 160 r NSCR 505.000 19.000 0.000 9004.000 55.000 5/6/1991 0.010 16.000 2542.000 100.000

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 160 r HIS, DN/S1475 c 0.000 7.000 0.000 3877.000 76.000 3/11/1992 0.100 21.000 1095.000 91.000

D-2-35
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 160 r HIS, DN S1475 c 561.000 5.000 99.000 21125.000 225.000 12/5/1991 0.020 63.880 5969.230 89.000

Tecogen CM-60 80 r None e 0.000 222.860 0.000 257.000 37.500 4/12/1989 4.800 0.000 15.115 149.000

Tecogen CM-60 80 r None e 0.000 246.000 0.000 249.500 61.500 5/31/1989 4.200 0.000 16.602 135.700

Tecogen CM-60 79 r None e 0.000 177.000 0.000 338.000 23.000 3/29/1989 3.200 2.029 29.818 146.000

Waukesha F1197GU 137 r NSCR c 0.000 39.000 0.000 3297.000 71.500 9/30/1991 0.302 0.000 945.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 137 r NSCR c 0.000 11.000 0.000 6015.000 231.000 3/5/1993 0.400 67.000 1731.000 135.000

Waukesha F1197GU 137 r Cat c 0.000 43.000 0.000 6101.000 68.000 2/15/1994 0.100 19.000 1731.000 98.000

Ajax DCP-115 140 l None d 0.000 89.000 0.000 198.000 3400.000 5/17/1990 14.700 3235.000 188.000 422.000

Waukesha F1197GU 137 r NSCR c 0.000 10.000 0.000 1399.000 77.000 6/20/1995 0.100 22.000 397.000 111.000

Waukesha F1197GU 137 r NSCR c 0.000 33.000 0.000 7000.000 0.000 8/19/1991 0.040 0.000 1984.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 137 r NSCR c 0.000 12.100 0.000 2545.800 54.700 7/31/1996 0.580 15.900 739.300 152.700

Waukesha F1197GU 137 r NSCR c 0.000 3.000 0.000 1381.000 141.000 3/5/1993 0.100 40.000 392.000 230.000

Waukesha F1197GU 137 r Cat c 0.000 25.000 0.000 3346.000 51.000 2/15/1994 0.300 14.000 958.000 99.000

Waukesha F1197GU 137 r NSCR c 0.000 39.200 0.000 5004.000 195.000 9/30/1991 0.026 0.000 1415.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 137 r NSCR c 0.000 17.000 0.000 4000.000 0.000 8/19/1991 0.025 0.000 1131.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197GU 137 r NSCR c 0.000 18.000 0.000 2417.000 136.000 6/20/1995 0.100 39.000 686.000 111.000

Waukesha F1197GU 137 r NSCR c 0.000 11.500 0.000 3053.780 149.750 9/18/1990 0.010 42.280 862.070 180.000

Waukesha F1197GU 137 r NSCR c 0.000 12.000 0.000 3435.500 26.300 7/31/1996 0.450 7.600 991.300 131.500

Tecogen CM-60 86 r NSCR Motorola 0.000 14.000 0.000 1430.000 43.000 12/2/1994 0.100 12.000 406.000 133.000

Tecogen CM-75 108 r NSCR 0.000 28.000 0.000 2378.000 0.000 7/16/1991 0.100 0.000 674.000 0.000

Tecogen CM-60 86 r NSCR Motorola 0.000 39.000 0.000 9733.000 423.000 12/2/1993 0.700 123.000 2843.000 119.000

Tecogen CM-75 108 r NSCR 0.000 1.000 0.000 8754.000 90.000 12/20/1991 0.300 26.000 2507.000 122.000

Tecogen CM-75 108 r NSCR 0.000 19.000 0.000 5977.000 710.000 12/16/1992 0.100 201.000 1696.000 115.000

Tecogen CM-75 108 r Englehard Cat c 606.000 64.000 89.500 5095.000 21.000 3/30/1989 0.100 59.282 14383.014 156.000

Tecogen CM-60 86 r NSCR c 0.000 16.000 0.000 6606.000 13.000 12/19/1997 2.300 4.100 2095.000 112.000

Tecogen CM-60 89 r NSCR c 0.000 0.800 0.000 280.000 2.200 12/20/1996 0.010 0.060 79.000 102.000

Tecogen CM-60 86 r NSCR 0.000 11.000 0.000 2086.000 110.000 12/22/1995 0.100 31.000 592.000 113.000

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn 0.000 85.000 0.000 470.000 0.000 3/18/1994 10.300 0.000 262.000 2607.200

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 31.000 0.000 476.000 0.000 3/18/1993 10.300 388.000 265.000 2651.000

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 13.000 0.000 567.000 5300.000 5/24/1990 11.500 3326.000 356.000 2971.000

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 9.500 0.000 660.000 0.000 9/6/1990 12.250 0.000 450.200 3014.500

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn 0.000 124.000 0.000 538.000 362.000 3/29/1995 10.330 202.000 300.000 2397.000

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 11.000 0.000 650.000 0.000 3/12/1992 12.000 0.000 431.000 0.000

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn 0.000 14.000 0.000 645.000 0.000 6/13/1991 11.800 425.000 418.000 3312.150

Superior 8GTLB 0 l Pre-Comb Chmbr c 0.000 66.000 0.000 518.000 263.000 3/17/1997 10.340 147.000 289.000 2328.000

Superior 8GTLB 0 l Pre-Comb Chambr 0.000 75.000 0.000 568.000 141.000 3/26/1996 10.690 81.000 328.000 2486.000

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 26.000 0.000 639.000 0.000 3/18/1993 9.750 201.000 338.000 2432.000

D-2-36
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn 0.000 15.000 0.000 428.000 0.000 3/18/1994 11.250 0.000 262.000 2796.200

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 32.000 0.000 450.000 3380.000 5/24/1990 10.830 1979.000 264.000 2471.000

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 19.000 0.000 443.000 0.000 3/12/1992 11.380 0.000 274.000 0.000

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn 0.000 36.000 0.000 438.000 0.000 6/13/1991 10.940 291.000 259.000 2683.150

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 15.800 0.000 480.000 0.000 9/5/1990 10.820 0.000 281.000 1965.700

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn 0.000 23.000 0.000 409.000 417.000 3/28/1995 11.100 251.000 246.000 2499.000

Superior 8GTLB 0 l Pre-Comb Chambr 0.000 68.000 0.000 580.000 142.000 3/26/1996 10.440 80.000 327.000 2362.000

Superior 8GTLB 0 l Pre-Comb Chmbr c 0.000 38.000 0.000 490.000 246.000 3/20/1997 10.220 136.000 271.000 2041.000

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 7.000 0.000 432.000 0.000 3/16/1993 11.030 270.000 258.000 2628.000

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn 0.000 15.000 0.000 360.000 0.000 3/18/1994 11.000 0.000 215.000 2727.600

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 23.000 0.000 436.000 2650.000 5/23/1990 10.780 1544.000 254.000 2628.000

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn 0.000 21.000 0.000 414.000 548.000 3/28/1995 11.250 335.000 253.000 2676.000

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 17.000 0.000 402.000 0.000 3/12/1992 11.200 0.000 245.000 0.000

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn 0.000 18.000 0.000 465.000 0.000 6/14/1991 11.120 279.000 281.000 2894.480

Superior 8GTLB 1100 l Clean Burn c 0.000 14.100 0.000 510.000 0.000 9/6/1990 11.250 0.000 311.800 2796.300

Superior 8GTLB 0 l Pre-Comb Chambr 0.000 46.000 0.000 463.000 135.000 3/26/1996 10.720 78.000 268.000 2362.000

Superior 8GTLB 0 l Pre-Comb Chmbr c 0.000 43.000 0.000 440.000 216.000 3/21/1997 10.570 123.000 251.000 2454.000

Tecogen CM-200 291 l Engelhard Cat c 0.000 97.000 0.000 2880.000 110.000 3/17/1993 1.100 33.000 857.000 386.000

Cummins GTA-855 291 l Englehard Cat c 354.000 10.000 97.200 26701.000 48.000 12/7/1989 0.100 16.000 7574.000 358.000

Tecogen CM-200 291 l Englehard Cat c 646.000 36.000 94.500 1433.000 13.000 4/13/1990 0.100 4.000 405.000 370.000

Tecogen CM-75 108 r Dual Englehards d 0.000 32.800 83.000 23000.000 125.000 8/24/1989 0.500 70.574 12985.646 141.000

Tecogen CM-75 108 r Dual Englehards d 572.000 99.000 82.800 11000.000 27.000 3/30/1989 0.100 76.220 31052.632 141.000

Tecogen CM-60 87 r NSCR 0.000 14.000 0.000 8548.000 25.000 12/16/1992 0.100 7.000 2425.000 127.000

Tecogen CM-60 87 r NSCR 0.000 1.000 0.000 1966.000 10.000 2/8/1991 0.100 3.000 555.000 121.000

Tecogen CM-60 87 r NSCR 0.000 8.000 0.000 1745.000 0.000 7/16/1991 0.100 0.000 496.000 0.000

Tecogen CM-60 87 r NSCR Motorola 0.000 47.000 0.000 6217.000 16.000 12/2/1994 0.010 4.500 1755.000 128.000

Tecogen CM-60 86 r NSCR Motorola 0.000 26.000 0.000 5100.000 173.000 12/2/1993 0.100 49.000 1447.000 131.000

Tecogen CM-60 87 r NSCR 0.000 6.000 0.000 3933.000 14.000 11/8/1991 0.100 4.000 1116.000 123.000

Tecogen CM-60 85 r Dual Engelhards c 0.000 10.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9/18/1992 0.000 0.000 968.000 0.000

Tecogen CM-60 86 r NSCR 0.000 11.000 0.000 11245.000 128.000 12/22/1995 0.010 36.000 3174.000 117.000

Tecogen CM-60 89 r NSCR c 0.000 20.000 0.000 2828.000 9.900 12/20/1996 0.010 2.800 798.000 121.000

Tecogen C-60 86 r NSCR c 0.000 8.200 0.000 7941.000 5.400 12/19/1997 0.010 1.500 2242.000 108.000

Tecogen CM-MarkV 87 r EGR e 0.000 382.000 0.000 630.000 130.000 12/16/1994 4.600 47.000 228.000 139.000

Tecogen C-60 87 r None e 0.000 165.000 0.000 306.000 28.000 9/20/1989 3.660 9.650 105.000 138.700

Tecogen C-60 87 r None e 0.000 192.000 0.000 264.000 35.000 9/20/1989 3.860 12.000 92.000 138.700

Tecogen CM-MarkV 87 r EGR e 0.000 297.000 0.000 1305.000 98.000 12/16/1994 2.200 31.000 412.000 123.000

Waukesha F3521GL 616 l Clean Burn 0.000 41.000 0.000 479.000 331.000 6/20/1991 9.700 175.000 252.000 1355.000

D-2-37
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha F3521GL 616 l Clean Burn 0.000 66.000 0.000 604.000 1028.000 7/17/1992 9.200 518.000 305.000 2520.000

Waukesha F3521GL 616 l Clean Burn 0.000 38.000 0.000 380.000 111.000 8/20/1993 10.400 63.000 214.000 2370.000

Waukesha F3521GL 616 l Clean Burn c 0.000 34.000 0.000 544.000 255.000 5/7/1990 9.800 135.000 294.000 976.000

Waukesha L3521GL 616 l Clean Burn 0.000 48.000 0.000 490.000 462.000 8/9/1995 9.900 248.000 263.000 1814.000

Waukesha F3521GL 616 l Clean Burn 0.000 65.000 0.000 562.000 151.000 8/24/1994 9.800 80.000 296.000 1832.000

Waukesha F3521GL 616 c 0.000 41.300 0.000 574.000 182.400 7/24/1997 11.150 110.400 347.400 1231.000

Waukesha F3521GL 616 l Clean Burn 0.000 22.000 0.000 49.000 116.000 7/17/1992 10.500 66.000 28.000 2523.000

Waukesha F3521GL 616 l Clean Burn 0.000 29.000 0.000 465.000 216.000 8/20/1993 11.500 136.000 292.000 2571.000

Waukesha F3521GL 616 l Clean Burn 0.000 11.000 0.000 382.000 339.000 6/20/1991 10.300 189.000 213.000 2179.000

Waukesha F3521GL 616 l Clean Burn c 0.000 35.000 0.000 530.000 224.000 5/7/1990 9.700 121.000 282.000 1006.000

Waukesha F3521GL 616 l Clean Burn 0.000 61.000 0.000 572.000 234.000 8/24/1994 9.400 120.000 293.000 1646.000

Waukesha L3521GL 616 l Clean Burn 0.000 62.000 0.000 583.000 683.000 8/9/1995 9.100 342.000 292.000 1582.000

Waukesha F3521GL 616 c 0.000 28.200 0.000 558.900 157.200 7/24/1997 11.370 97.300 345.800 1413.000

Minneple-Moline 800-6A 80 r NSCR 0.000 43.820 93.300 428.760 0.000 6/19/1991 0.040 10.520 121.270 58.700

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 160 r HIS NSCR 0.000 1.000 0.000 1030.000 101.800 6/14/1994 0.010 28.700 291.000 68.000

Minnepls-Moline 800-6A 160 r 0.000 538.000 0.000 771.000 208.000 5/18/1988 7.500 0.000 0.000 25.000

Tecogen CM-75 109 r NSCR 0.000 40.000 0.000 13041.000 8.300 1/24/1995 0.100 2.300 3681.000 122.000

Tecogen CM-75 109 r Engelhard Cat 0.000 22.000 0.000 4426.000 28.000 10/26/1993 0.100 8.000 1256.000 115.000

Tecogen CM-75 108 r Englehard Cat c 0.000 39.000 0.000 1583.000 0.000 6/18/1992 1.500 0.000 481.000 8364.000

Tecogen CM-75 109 r NSCR-Engelhard c 0.000 3.000 0.000 1922.000 88.000 8/15/1996 0.010 25.000 543.000 111.000

Tecogen CM-60 87 r NSCR 0.000 42.000 0.000 10175.000 27.000 1/24/1995 0.100 7.600 2876.000 141.000

Tecogen CM-60 87 r Engelhard Cat 0.000 8.000 0.000 1240.000 116.000 10/26/1993 0.200 33.000 352.000 105.000

Tecogen CM-60 87 r Englehard Cat c 0.000 9.000 0.000 551.000 0.000 6/18/1992 1.100 0.000 164.000 7484.000

Tecogen CM-60 87 r Englehard Cat c 7452.000 10.000 98.700 5143.000 6.000 6/18/1990 0.100 2.000 1452.000 117.000

Tecogen CM-60 89 r NSCR-Engelhard c 0.000 5.000 0.000 4688.000 146.000 8/15/1996 0.010 41.000 1323.000 108.000

Waukesha VGR 330 26 r None m 0.000 21.000 0.000 52250.000 6800.000 1/17/1991 5.660 0.000 0.000 35.000

Waukesha VGR 330 26 r None m 0.000 551.000 0.000 4585.000 289.000 1/17/1991 1.510 0.000 0.000 74.000

Waukesha VGR 330 26 r None m 0.000 742.000 0.000 330.000 243.000 1/17/1991 6.040 0.000 0.000 58.000

Waukesha VGR 330 26 r None m 0.000 1071.000 0.000 910.000 614.000 1/17/1991 1.660 0.000 0.000 28.000

Tecogen CM-60 87 r Engelhard Cat 0.000 6.000 0.000 638.000 21.000 10/26/1993 0.200 6.000 181.000 102.000

Tecogen CM-60 87 r Englehard Cat c 732.000 1.000 99.800 2653.000 11.000 6/18/1990 0.100 3.000 777.000 115.000

Tecogen CM-60 87 r Englehard Cat c 0.000 1.000 0.000 1271.000 0.000 6/18/1992 1.000 0.000 377.000 6361.000

Tecogen CM-60 87 r NSCR 0.000 34.000 0.000 8880.000 13.000 1/24/1995 0.100 3.700 2510.000 141.000

Tecogen CM-60 89 r NSCR-Engelhard c 0.000 9.000 0.000 538.000 222.000 8/15/1996 0.010 63.000 152.000 101.000

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR c 725.000 36.000 95.000 1150.000 0.000 3/15/1993 0.030 59.000 495.000 280.000

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR 728.000 26.000 96.000 2873.000 0.000 3/17/1994 0.030 0.000 812.000 292.500

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR 611.000 7.000 99.000 4750.000 0.000 6/12/1991 0.020 27.000 1342.000 284.870

D-2-38
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR 0.000 43.000 0.000 2831.000 310.000 3/27/1995 0.030 88.000 800.000 254.000

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR c 992.000 53.000 94.670 1346.000 265.000 5/23/1990 0.030 74.900 380.500 289.200

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR c 749.000 47.000 93.740 2400.000 400.000 9/20/1989 0.030 113.000 678.000 288.200

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR 626.000 28.000 96.000 3728.000 402.000 6/11/1991 0.030 114.000 1057.000 284.680

Waukesha F1197GU 186 r NSCR c 575.000 23.000 96.000 4330.000 0.000 3/10/1992 0.160 0.000 1232.000 0.000

Waukesha F1197FU 0 r NSCR c 0.000 45.000 0.000 1555.000 51.000 3/18/1997 0.020 14.000 439.000 240.000

Waukesha F1197FU 0 r NSCR 0.000 33.000 0.000 2156.000 70.000 3/27/1996 0.030 20.000 610.000 231.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r ESC 0.000 3.000 0.000 2066.000 110.000 8/2/1994 0.100 26.000 583.000 640.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r ESC 882.110 63.970 92.580 622.960 24.310 10/20/1988 0.030 6.870 176.110 811.290

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r NSCR 754.000 69.000 0.000 2438.000 47.000 8/7/1991 0.100 13.000 688.000 706.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r ESC c 391.000 49.000 87.430 14558.000 54.000 10/6/1989 0.030 32.700 4115.200 0.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r ESC c 322.000 28.000 91.080 7917.000 84.000 8/9/1990 0.010 51.800 2236.000 728.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r ECS NSCR c 571.000 46.000 92.000 9963.000 70.000 7/27/1992 0.040 19.860 2818.000 728.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r ESC 0.000 2.000 0.000 4326.000 1830.000 10/5/1993 0.100 517.000 1221.000 747.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r ESC Model 45 0.000 36.000 0.000 5770.000 50.000 10/6/1993 0.100 14.000 1629.000 672.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r ESC Model 45 c 588.000 31.000 94.660 8648.000 8.800 10/2/1989 0.010 4.180 2442.700 0.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r ESC Model 45 c 622.000 52.000 92.540 14201.000 86.000 8/9/1990 0.020 53.300 4013.000 749.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r ESC NSCR c 835.650 48.560 0.000 1000.000 33.650 12/20/1988 0.080 9.540 283.380 729.800

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r NSCR 671.000 45.000 0.000 8062.000 57.000 8/7/1991 0.300 16.000 2309.000 772.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r ESC 0.000 6.000 0.000 383.000 30.000 8/25/1994 0.200 8.400 109.000 676.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r ECS NSCR c 782.000 65.000 91.700 10017.000 43.000 7/27/1992 0.060 12.000 2836.000 766.000

Waukesha L5790GU 748 r NSCR 0.000 0.790 0.000 6705.500 77.500 7/11/1995 0.030 18.800 1896.100 643.600

Waukesha H-2000 227 r m 0.000 542.850 0.000 143.000 4773.000 2/1/1991 18.020 0.000 241.900 1014.000

Waukesha F1197GU 200 r None m 0.000 882.000 0.000 399.000 128.000 1/16/1991 2.120 0.000 0.000 229.000

Waukesha F1197GU 200 r None m 0.000 535.000 0.000 15850.000 197.000 1/16/1991 0.280 0.000 0.000 228.000

Waukesha F1197GU 200 r None m 0.000 958.000 0.000 515.000 120.000 1/16/1991 2.850 0.000 0.000 250.000

Waukesha F1197GU 200 r None m 0.000 613.000 0.000 11450.000 205.000 1/16/1991 0.680 0.000 0.000 251.000

Waukesha F1197GU 200 r None m 0.000 155.000 0.000 52450.000 276.000 1/16/1991 0.570 0.000 0.000 227.000

Waukesha F1197GU 200 r None m 0.000 758.000 0.000 3415.000 370.000 1/16/1991 0.320 0.000 0.000 235.000

Waukesha F1197GU 200 r None m 0.000 1166.000 0.000 345.000 108.000 1/16/1991 1.250 0.000 0.000 217.000

Waukesha F1197GU 200 r None m 0.000 575.000 0.000 13250.000 162.000 1/16/1991 0.590 0.000 0.000 244.000

Waukesha F1197GU 200 r None m 0.000 860.000 0.000 464.000 201.000 1/16/1991 0.700 0.000 0.000 219.000

Waukesha F1197GU 200 r None m 0.000 896.000 0.000 591.000 265.000 1/16/1991 0.910 0.000 0.000 241.000

Waukesha F1197GU 200 r None m 0.000 270.000 0.000 15000.000 273.000 1/16/1991 0.130 0.000 0.000 272.000

68 None m 0.000 81.000 0.000 637.000 5667.000 1/29/1991 9.740 0.000 336.000 32.300

68 None m 0.000 5.250 0.000 587.000 420.000 1/29/1991 6.220 0.000 236.000 54.490

68 None m 0.000 201.000 0.000 1361.000 1729.000 1/28/1991 4.250 0.000 483.000 20.540

D-2-39
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

68 None m 0.000 238.000 0.000 1615.000 1215.000 1/25/1991 3.900 0.000 0.000 16.000

68 None m 0.000 143.000 0.000 779.000 2814.000 1/28/1991 7.140 0.000 334.000 36.060

68 None m 0.000 6.400 0.000 643.000 632.000 1/28/1991 6.730 0.000 268.000 44.890

68 None m 0.000 21.500 0.000 1201.000 1109.000 1/24/1991 6.150 0.000 480.000 39.410

68 None m 0.000 109.000 0.000 1270.000 1153.000 1/23/1991 4.630 0.000 461.000 26.500

68 None m 0.000 22.800 0.000 0.000 2251.000 1/23/1991 7.140 0.000 0.000 28.600

68 None m 0.000 208.000 0.000 1004.000 1216.000 1/30/1991 5.130 0.000 376.000 30.880

68 None m 0.000 13.800 0.000 880.000 1087.000 1/30/1991 6.330 0.000 357.000 29.680

68 None m 0.000 98.800 0.000 972.000 964.000 1/23/1991 5.440 0.000 371.000 27.120

68 None m 0.000 8.110 0.000 1096.000 1210.000 1/31/1991 7.060 0.000 467.000 28.720

68 None m 0.000 3.830 0.000 994.000 1672.000 1/24/1991 6.960 0.000 421.000 25.060

68 None m 0.000 5.870 0.000 738.000 509.000 1/29/1991 5.600 0.000 285.000 31.530

Waukesha VRG 310U 68 r None m 0.000 5.210 0.000 630.000 3303.000 1/30/1991 6.450 0.000 259.000 39.000

Waukesha VRG 310U 68 r None m 0.000 232.000 0.000 3574.000 908.000 1/31/1991 1.790 0.000 1103.000 24.290

Waukesha VRG 310U 68 r None m 0.000 55.100 0.000 237.000 1866.000 1/24/1991 14.070 0.000 204.000 63.080

68 None m 0.000 98.000 0.000 1025.000 1720.000 1/23/1991 4.200 0.000 0.000 28.000

68 None m 0.000 81.000 0.000 568.000 857.000 1/21/1991 7.100 0.000 0.000 55.000

68 None m 0.000 62.000 0.000 587.000 5355.000 1/22/1991 10.400 0.000 0.000 39.000

74 None m 0.000 111.000 0.000 33450.000 3150.000 1/23/1991 1.500 0.000 0.000 20.000

74 None m 0.000 49.000 0.000 43400.000 8170.000 1/22/1991 4.000 0.000 0.000 30.000

74 None m 0.000 19.000 0.000 147.000 4050.000 1/22/1991 11.400 0.000 0.000 70.000

53 None m 0.000 2.000 0.000 397.000 1235.000 1/25/1991 11.600 0.000 0.000 72.000

48 None m 0.000 24.000 0.000 679.000 909.000 1/21/1991 5.500 0.000 0.000 27.000

Waskesha VGR232U 42 r None m 0.000 390.000 0.000 3770.000 1999.000 1/31/1991 1.530 0.000 1148.000 20.810

42 None m 0.000 63.000 0.000 1395.000 1635.000 1/22/1991 4.500 0.000 0.000 18.000

42 None m 0.000 431.000 0.000 1420.000 7455.000 1/24/1991 8.200 0.000 0.000 24.000

26 None m 0.000 41.600 0.000 2587.000 1528.000 1/28/1991 4.050 0.000 906.000 13.110

26 None m 0.000 731.000 0.000 1210.000 1935.000 1/24/1991 13.100 0.000 0.000 43.000

26 None m 0.000 286.000 0.000 1140.000 1277.000 1/28/1991 2.810 0.000 374.000 20.050

26 None m 0.000 27.000 0.000 854.000 1235.000 1/24/1991 8.300 0.000 0.000 18.000

Waukesha FCU 19 r None m 0.000 55.500 0.000 0.000 21.000 1/30/1991 2.180 0.000 0.000 20.920

Milleapolis-Mol 336A-4A 60 r None m 0.000 401.000 0.000 729.000 7863.000 1/29/1991 7.640 0.000 324.000 31.470

60 None m 0.000 22.000 0.000 660.000 256.000 1/24/1991 2.800 0.000 0.000 23.000

60 None m 0.000 215.000 0.000 1422.000 1789.000 1/23/1991 6.630 0.000 588.000 23.250

60 None m 0.000 170.000 0.000 950.000 757.000 1/24/1991 8.620 0.000 456.000 30.720

53 None m 0.000 1071.000 0.000 824.000 889.000 1/21/1991 4.000 0.000 0.000 44.000

Minneapolis-Mol 283-4A 28 r None m 0.000 5.180 0.000 1018.000 1115.000 1/31/1991 7.930 0.000 463.000 21.640

D-2-40
Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSE RICH/ CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST

POWER LEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Caterpillar G-342C 225 r NSCR - HIS 128.000 19.000 0.000 7614.000 72.000 2/23/1994 0.100 20.000 2149.000 263.000

Caterpillar G-342C 225 r NSCR Houston 0.000 12.000 0.000 5164.000 41.000 2/23/1995 0.010 12.000 1458.000 227.000

Caterpillar G-342C 225 r Houston NSCR c 0.000 9.000 0.000 2515.000 16.000 12/22/1992 0.100 4.000 713.000 183.000

Caterpillar G-342C 225 r NSCR 0.000 15.000 0.000 7822.000 55.000 9/9/1991 0.100 16.000 2213.000 203.000

Caterpillar G-342C 225 r NSCR c 0.000 15.000 0.000 10951.000 9.000 6/19/1997 0.100 3.000 3091.000 209.000

Caterpillar G-342C 225 r NSCR 0.000 14.000 0.000 12225.000 268.000 3/11/1996 0.100 76.000 3451.000 214.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn 0.000 51.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 11/17/1993 8.300 0.000 190.000 6127.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Landfill Gas 0.000 44.000 0.000 431.000 32.000 7/21/1993 8.100 15.000 199.000 7315.000

Superior 16SGTA 2550 l Landfill Gas 0.000 53.560 0.000 324.470 13.630 2/3/1992 8.040 6.250 148.860 6332.900

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Lndfl Gas 0.000 32.000 0.000 302.000 125.000 6/1/1994 7.400 0.000 139.000 5078.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 l Clean Burn 0.000 36.000 0.000 338.000 26.600 8/9/1994 7.600 11.800 150.000 5592.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 1 Landfill Gas c 0.000 50.300 0.000 365.500 89.700 7/23/1996 7.740 40.400 163.800 6011.300

Superior 16SGTA 2650 1 Landfill Gas c 0.000 33.300 0.000 385.500 49.200 7/15/1997 7.710 22.000 174.000 5794.000

Superior 16SGTA 2650 1 Landfill Gas c 0.000 46.300 0.000 280.800 64.400 3/12/1996 7.870 29.200 127.200 5875.000

D-2-41
TABLE D-3

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD ICE SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL

MAX CONTINUOUS 

bhp RATING

rich burn 

(r)/lean burn 

(l), r=0, l=1 CONTROLS FUEL TEST DATE

NOx (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

CO (ppmv) @ 15% 

O2)

ROCa (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC D. Gas 12/3/1993 22.20 259.00 12.00

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC D. Gas 12/2/1993 32.00 135.00 1.30

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC D. Gas 12/2/1993 23.80 182.00 144.00

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC D. Gas 7/20/1995 23.51 183.56 0.89

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC D. Gas 7/19/1995 34.67 157.00 29.60

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC D. Gas 7/19/1995 22.35 169.00 32.00

Mpls Moline HEB 46 0 None Field Gas 11/12/1991 467.00

Waukesha 140 49.5 0 None Field Gas 11/4/1991 723.00

Waukesha 140 49.5 0 PSC Field Gas 11/4/1991 195.70

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 None Field Gas 11/4/1991 1412.00

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 11/4/1991 632.00

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 None Field Gas 11/5/1991 420.70

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 11/5/1991 134.30

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 None Field Gas 11/6/1991 415.70

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 11/6/1991 306.70

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 None Field Gas 11/6/1991 585.70

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 11/6/1991 137.00

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 None Field Gas 11/7/1991 66.20

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 11/7/1991 8.90

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 None Field Gas 11/13/1991 841.00

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 11/13/1991 6.00

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 None Field Gas 11/14/1991 71.30

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 11/14/1991 49.80

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 None Field Gas 11/13/1991 648.00

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 11/13/1991 7.40

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 None Field Gas 11/12/1991 380.70

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 11/12/1991 29.30

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 None Field Gas 11/11/1991 194.70

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 11/11/1991 3.90

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 None Field Gas 11/11/1991 85.50

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 11/11/1991 7.60

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 None Field Gas 11/15/1991 285.70

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 11/15/1991 8.80

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 11/4/1991 840.70

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 None Field Gas 11/4/1991 81.90

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 None Field Gas 11/6/1991 53.50

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 None Field Gas 11/4/1991 70.50

Waukesha 145 49.5 0 None Field Gas 11/8/1991 889.00

Waukesha 145 49.5 0 PSC Field Gas 11/8/1991 413.30

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 None Field Gas 11/8/1991 763.70

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 11/8/1991 290.30

Waukesha 140 49.5 0 None Field Gas 11/14/1991 631.70

Waukesha 140 49.5 0 PSC Field Gas 11/14/1991 384.80

Waukesha WAK 49.5 0 None Field Gas 11/15/1991 79.50

Waukesha WAK 49.5 0 PSC Field Gas 11/15/1991 11.60

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 None Field Gas 11/7/1991 191.70

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 PSC Field Gas 11/7/1991 48.90

D-3-1
TABLE D-3

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD ICE SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL

MAX CONTINUOUS 

bhp RATING

rich burn 

(r)/lean burn 

(l), r=0, l=1 CONTROLS FUEL TEST DATE

NOx (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

CO (ppmv) @ 15% 

O2)

ROCa (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 PSC Field Gas 10/26/1993 128.00

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/25/1993 174.00

Waukesha 140 49.5 0 PSC Field Gas 10/21/1993 19.90

Waukesha 145 49.5 0 PSC Field Gas 10/25/1993 206.00

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/27/1993 5.78

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/27/1993 18.30

Waukesha 145 49.5 0 PSC Field Gas 10/28/1993 37.00

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/27/1993 38.40

Waukesha 140 49.5 0 PSC Field Gas 10/26/1993 252.00

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/27/1993 35.10

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/28/1993 4.39

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/28/1993 6.87

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/25/1993 910.00

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/22/1993 93.00

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/22/1993 154.00

Waukesha WAK 49.5 0 PSC Field Gas 10/21/1993 26.20

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/25/1993 70.10

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/26/1993 203.00

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/25/1994 85.00

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/25/1994 85.00

Waukesha 140 49.5 0 PSC Field Gas 10/24/1994 19.40

Waukesha 140 49.5 0 PSC Field Gas 10/25/1994 201.00

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/26/1994 89.70

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/26/1994 57.70

Waukesha WAK 49.5 0 PSC Field Gas 10/25/1994 24.30

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/26/1994 135.00

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/25/1994 232.00

Waukesha 145 49.5 0 PSC Field Gas 10/24/1994 59.40

Waukesha WAK 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/24/1994 417.00

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/27/1994 8.06

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/27/1994 81.70

Waukesha 145 49.5 0 PSC Field Gas 10/27/1994 57.00

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/27/1994 7.96

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/27/1994 31.80

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/27/1994 8.15

Waukesha 145 49.6 0 PSC Field Gas 10/27/1994 8.81

Clark RA-4 400 1 None Field Gas 11/2/1992 164.87 100.93

Clark RA-4 400 1 None Field Gas 11/3/1992 799.27 481.20

Mpls Moline HEB 46 0 None Field Gas 11/4/1992 14775.00

Mpls Moline HEB 46 0 None Field Gas 10/20/1993 86.60

Waukesha 140 82 0 None Field Gas 10/20/1993 269.00 15.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 None Field Gas 10/13/1993 312.00 144.00 19.00

Mpls Moline HEB 46 0 None Field Gas 10/19/1994 412.00

Caterpillar G342 225 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/20/1992 28.70 149.00 70.00

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/20/1992 11.70 277.00 78.00

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/20/1992 15.80 255.00 70.00

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/21/1992 20.60 165.00 61.00

D-3-2
TABLE D-3

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD ICE SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL

MAX CONTINUOUS 

bhp RATING

rich burn 

(r)/lean burn 

(l), r=0, l=1 CONTROLS FUEL TEST DATE

NOx (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

CO (ppmv) @ 15% 

O2)

ROCa (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/5/1994 35.30 255.00 71.00

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/5/1994 23.10 254.00 166.00

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/5/1994 15.40 327.00 552.00

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/20/1992 16.20 217.00 42.00

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/5/1994 31.60 209.00 29.00

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/14/1992 20.40 324.00 125.00

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/13/1992 9.10 197.00 182.00

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/14/1992 18.60 225.00 85.00

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/13/1992 15.10 372.00 509.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/13/1992 10.60 150.00 35.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 11/6/1992 4.05 302.00 122.00

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/15/1992 23.70 137.00 38.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/14/1992 19.00 170.00 55.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/13/1992 8.70 211.00 65.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/15/1992 17.30 126.00 53.00

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/20/1993 26.30 227.00 88.00

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/20/1993 70.00 170.00 70.00

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/20/1993 23.10 181.00 47.00

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/20/1993 171.70

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/20/1993 21.70 135.00 44.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/20/1993 31.40 109.00 22.00

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/20/1993 28.50 207.00 60.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/20/1993 13.80 117.00 18.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/20/1993 33.70 185.00 38.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/20/1993 12.10 159.00 49.00

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/18/1994 21.00 267.00 174.00

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/18/1994 25.00 168.00 77.00

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/19/1994 21.80 207.00 91.00

Mpls Moline 165 25 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/18/1994 25.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/19/1994 15.60 108.00 46.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/19/1994 33.00 189.00 53.00

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/18/1994 16.50 318.00 306.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/19/1994 30.50 114.00 19.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/19/1994 32.50 189.00 53.00

Waukesha 195 63 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/21/1994 23.00 110.00 39.00

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/15/1992 18.00 194.00 90.00

Mpls Moline 425 39 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/16/1992 15.50 305.00 96.00

Mpls Moline 425 39 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/19/1992 10.40 211.00 89.00

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/19/1992 12.20 202.00 52.00

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/16/1992 12.70 154.00 31.00

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/19/1992 14.50 239.00 51.00

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/16/1992 16.50 211.00 72.00

Waukesha 145 49 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/15/1992 19.70 369.00 109.00

Waukesha 145 49 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/16/1992 22.00 248.00 59.00

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/13/1993 14.50 185.00 64.00

Mpls Moline 425 39 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/14/1993 33.00 406.00 155.00

Mpls Moline 425 39 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/15/1993 21.20 197.00 47.00

D-3-3
TABLE D-3

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD ICE SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL

MAX CONTINUOUS 

bhp RATING

rich burn 

(r)/lean burn 

(l), r=0, l=1 CONTROLS FUEL TEST DATE

NOx (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

CO (ppmv) @ 15% 

O2)

ROCa (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/15/1993 17.30 212.00 155.00

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/14/1993 12.20 230.00 31.00

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/15/1993 23.30 224.00 37.00

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/14/1993 25.80 261.00 44.00

Waukesha 145 49 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/13/1993 26.80 326.00 74.00

Waukesha 145 49 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/14/1993 13.80 381.00 101.00

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 11/3/1994 7.10 302.00 120.00

Clark HRA-6T 792 1 LB Adj. Field Gas 1/8/1993 80.30 375.00 1265.00

Clark HRA-6T 792 1 LB Adj. Field Gas 1/8/1993 97.30 360.00 2080.00

Clark HRA-6T 792 1 LB Adj. Field Gas 4/13/1995 43.49 210.00 306.00

Clark HRA-6T 792 1 LB Adj. Field Gas 4/13/1995 33.20 199.00 296.00

Clark HRA-6T 792 1 LB Adj. Field Gas 4/28/1993 78.70 206.00 229.00

Clark HRA-6T 792 1 LB Adj. Field Gas 4/28/1993 24.60 2.42 644.00

Clark HRA-6T 792 1 LB Adj. Field Gas 4/13/1995 56.90 341.00 309.00

Clark HRA-6T 792 1 LB Adj. Field Gas 4/13/1995 29.50 218.00 269.00

Mpls Moline 425 39 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/20/1993 7.90 288.00 196.46

Mpls Moline 425 39 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/19/1993 16.00 302.00 61.31

Mpls Moline 425 39 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/19/1993 13.70 252.00 80.47

Mpls Moline 425 39 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/16/1993 29.00 248.00 69.66

Mpls Moline HEB 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/20/1993 73.00 314.00 108.24

Mpls Moline HEB 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/19/1993 11.20 229.00 85.69

Mpls Moline HEB 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/20/1993 22.70 224.00 66.36

Mpls Moline HEB 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/19/1993 17.90 207.00 40.78

Waukesha 190 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/16/1993 25.60 175.00 37.49

Waukesha 2475 301 0 None Field Gas 7/12/1993 25.70 126.00 50.05

Mpls Moline 425 39 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/15/1993 12.30 213.00 80.04

Mpls Moline 425 39 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/13/1993 7.70 250.00 25.19

Mpls Moline 425 39 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/13/1993 13.70 184.00 74.39

Mpls Moline 425 39 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 3/13/1993 14.70 148.00 64.32

Mpls Moline 425 39 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/14/1993 17.20 291.00 71.95

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/16/1993 16.60 251.00 55.47

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/15/1993 14.60 177.00 46.64

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/15/1993 23.50 129.00 25.95

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/13/1993 25.10 250.00 98.37

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/15/1993 17.00 190.00 70.09

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/14/1993 20.00 158.00 35.44

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/16/1993 18.60 279.00 51.50

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/16/1993 20.00 195.00 66.76

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/14/1993 27.50 172.00 34.16

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/12/1993 20.00 184.00 52.72

Mpls Moline 605 46 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/14/1993 24.00 202.00 47.94

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/21/1993 3.60 524.00 3.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/25/1993 0.50 1157.00 54.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/28/1993 0.80 2870.00 29.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/22/1993 2.60 209.00 5.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/23/1993 0.60 2228.00 22.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/24/1993 2.40 4032.00 30.00

D-3-4
TABLE D-3

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD ICE SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL

MAX CONTINUOUS 

bhp RATING

rich burn 

(r)/lean burn 

(l), r=0, l=1 CONTROLS FUEL TEST DATE

NOx (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

CO (ppmv) @ 15% 

O2)

ROCa (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/22/1993 13.40 763.00 18.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/23/1993 0.70 1308.00 41.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/21/1993 11.50 988.00 7.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/27/1993 0.60 5930.00 82.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/22/1993 5.10 1354.00 18.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/20/1993 6.30 535.00 20.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/27/1993 0.20 2570.00 42.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/27/1993 1.00 3788.00 70.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/23/1993 19.70 5538.00 51.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/28/1993 0.60 367.00 1.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/25/1993 7.00 1060.00 51.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/26/1993 3.30 2569.00 19.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/24/1993 5.10 2005.00 43.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/26/1993 0.70 1397.00 24.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/25/1993 0.30 847.00 88.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/26/1995 1.80 647.10 20.50

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/26/1995 4.10 2445.00 34.90

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/27/1995 11.20 1212.00 15.10

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/27/1995 14.00 1283.00 8.10

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/26/1995 8.00 79.30 1.80

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/27/1995 7.96 1636.00 19.20

Clark RA-4 400 1

Intake air water inj. sys. 

& ign. timing retard Field Gas 4/13/1994 81.10 100.00 154.00

Clark RA-4 400 1 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 7/13/1994 44.50 98.60 278.00

Buda 6MO 174 0 NSCR Field Gas 3/29/1994 12.60 272.00 25.00

Buda 8MO 174 0 NSCR Field Gas 3/29/1994 2.60 134.00 9.00

Buda 6MO 174 0 NSCR Field Gas 3/29/1994 1.00 98.00 0.20

Buda 6MO-672 135 0 NSCR Field Gas 3/29/1994 8.60 160.00 15.00

Lufkin L1770 125 0 NSCR Field Gas 3/29/1994 18.80 32.96 390.58

Clark HRA-8 880 1

Fuel charge shrouding 

inj. sys. Field Gas 3/22/1996 172.00 753.00 881.00

Clark HRA-8 880 1

Fuel charge shrouding 

inj. sys. Field Gas 2/11/1994 108.00 274.00 392.00

Clark RA-4 400 1

Fuel charge shrouding 

inj. sys. Field Gas 3/28/1994 52.00 425.00 550.00

Clark RA-4 400 1

Fuel charge shrouding 

inj. sys. Field Gas 3/28/1994 100.00 111.00 137.00

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 11/21/1994 19.90 299.00 174.00

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 1/6/1995 23.40 159.00 35.00

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/17/1995 20.50 333.00 998.00

Waukesha 145 131 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 10/21/1992 20.50 333.00 998.00

Clark HRA-6T 792 1 LB Adj. Field Gas 4/17/1997 112.00 358.00 336.00

Clark HRA-6T 792 1 LB Adj. Field Gas 4/18/1997 86.00 286.00 438.00

Clark HRA-6T 792 1 LB Adj. Field Gas 4/17/1997 44.00 233.00 405.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 8/14/1997 11.00 941.00 9.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 8/14/1997 3.00 1063.00 14.00

D-3-5
TABLE D-3

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD ICE SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL

MAX CONTINUOUS 

bhp RATING

rich burn 

(r)/lean burn 

(l), r=0, l=1 CONTROLS FUEL TEST DATE

NOx (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

CO (ppmv) @ 15% 

O2)

ROCa (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 8/14/1997 10.00 94.00 3.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 8/15/1997 2.00 462.00 0.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 8/15/1997 2.00 268.00 2.00

Clark HRA-6T 792 1 LB Adj. Field Gas 4/18/1997 94.00 252.00 313.00

Buda 6MO 174 0 NSCR Field Gas 8/15/1997 0.00 471.00 13.00

Clark RA-4 400 1

Intake air water inj. sys. 

& ign. timing retard Field Gas 1/9/1996 73.40 451.00 257.00

Buda 6MO 174 0 NSCR Field Gas 3/26/1996 18.10 287.00 2.50

Buda 6MO-672 135 0 NSCR Field Gas 3/26/1996 0.30 196.00 1.80

Clark HRA-8 880 1

Fuel charge shrouding 

inj. sys. Field Gas 4/15/1996 123.00 565.00 719.00

Clark HRA-8 880 1

Fuel charge shrouding 

inj. sys. Field Gas 4/15/1996 123.00 565.00 719.00

Waukesha 6LRZ 410 0 NSCR Field Gas 4/7/1997 10.10 12.00 0.00

Waukesha F-1197G WAK 190 0 NSCR Field Gas 5/30/1997 0.90 4.10 1.90

Caterpillar G342 225 0 Lean-out adj. Field Gas 4/7/1997 0.60 9.70 0.00

Waukesha 2475 301 0 Lean Adj. Tune Field Gas 11/24/1997 42.10 154.20 10.40

Caterpillar G398-TAHC 713 0 NSCR Field Gas 12/15/1997 3.60 165.00 0.14

Waukesha F-1197 186 0 NSCR Field Gas 3/27/1997 8.76 107.70 11.02

Waukesha F-1197 186 0 NSCR Field Gas 3/27/1997 1.11 30.05 10.08

Caterpillar G398-TAHC 713 0 NSCR Field Gas 9/9/1999 65.00

Waukesha F-1197G WAK 190 0 NSCR Field Gas 5/4/1999 29.00 1.00 5.00

Clark RA-4 400 1

Intake air water inj. sys. 

& ign. timing retard Field Gas 4/28/1998 94.00 474.00 415.00

Waukesha F-1197G WAK 190 0 NSCR Field Gas 5/8/1998 4.00 17.00 0.70

Clark HRA-8 880 1

Fuel charge shrouding 

inj. sys. Field Gas 5/26/1998 161.00 691.00

Clark HRA-8 880 1

Fuel charge shrouding 

inj. sys. Field Gas 6/10/1998 125.00 617.00 333.00

Waukesha F3521Gsi 747 0 NSCR Field Gas 1/14/1999 10.00 41.00

Buda 6MO 174 0 NSCR Field Gas 4/27/1999 5.00 510.00 6.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 4/27/1999 6.00 667.00 1.00

Clark HRA-6T 792 1 LB Adj. Field Gas 4/28/1999 99.00 351.00 376.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 4/28/1999 78.00 350.00 462.00

Waukesha F1197 195 0 NSCR Field Gas 4/27/1999 11.00 368.00 7.00

Caterpillar G-342 NAHCR 225 0 NSCR Field Gas 6/11/1999 0.86 58.00 11.00

Waukesha F-1197G WAK 190 0 NSCR Field Gas 7/16/1999 9.00 40.00 2.00

Waukesha F-1197G WAK 190 0 NSCR Field Gas 5/4/1999 29.00 1.00 5.00

Waukesha 2475 301 0 Lean Adj. Tune Field Gas 8/6/1999 27.00 175.00 16.00

Caterpillar G398-TAHC 713 0 NSCR Field Gas 12/15/1997 0.60 87.00 0.16

Caterpillar G398-TAHC 713 0 NSCR Field Gas 10/1/1999 4.00 48.00 1.10

Cummins NT855G4 375 1 None JP-5 4/15/1993 638.00

Caterpillar 3306DITA 200 1 None JP-5 4/15/1993 428.00

Cummins NT855G4 375 1 None JP-5 4/15/1993 503.00

Cummins NT855G4 375 1 None JP-5 5/11/1995 653.00

Caterpillar 3306DITA 200 1 None JP-5 5/11/1995 546.00

D-3-6
TABLE D-3

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD ICE SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL

MAX CONTINUOUS 

bhp RATING

rich burn 

(r)/lean burn 

(l), r=0, l=1 CONTROLS FUEL TEST DATE

NOx (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

CO (ppmv) @ 15% 

O2)

ROCa (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

GMC 471 140 1 None JP-5 12/15/1992 507.00

GMC 671 160 1 None JP-5 12/15/1992 594.00

GMC 671 160 1 None JP-5 12/15/1992 293.00

GMC 671 160 1 None JP-5 12/15/1992 578.00

GMC 471 140 1 None JP-5 2/1/1995 397.00

GMC 671 160 1 None JP-5 2/1/1995 632.00

GMC 671 160 1 None JP-5 2/1/1995 484.00

GMC 671 160 1 None JP-5 2/1/1995 359.00

Caterpillar 3306DITA 200 1 None JP-5 5/12/1997 637.00

Cooper 8SGTB 1300 1

NOx clean-burn; CO 

and ROC catalytic 

conv. Nat Gas 1/28/1999 42.60 0.76 11.20

Cooper-Bessemer GMVA-10 1800 1 CB Comb. PUC NG 4/13/1994 34.40 286.00 149.40

Cooper-Bessemer GMVA-10 1800 1 CB Comb. PUC NG 12/14/1992 38.00 303.00 10.38

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 410 0 PSC PUC NG 12/15/1992 112.00 84.00 123.00

Cooper-Bessemer GMVA-10 1800 1 CB Comb. PUC NG 2/3/1994 330.00 161.90

Cooper-Bessemer GMVA-10 1800 1 CB Comb. PUC NG 12/16/1993 38.94 420.30 253.70

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 410 0 PSC PUC NG 2/3/1994 59.60 88.47 94.85

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 410 0 PSC PUC NG 2/4/1994 70.00 78.00 107.00

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 410 0 PSC PUC NG 12/15/1993 85.70 90.45 202.03

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/25/1992 5.64 1051.00 5.86

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/25/1992 6.51 913.88 9.31

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/25/1992 13.36 545.61 11.25

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/25/1992 2.40 1097.00 5.48

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 PUC NG 9/25/1992 18.22 605.17 6.83

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/25/1992 11.87 502.03 4.99

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/25/1992 29.78 1320.12 29.78

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/7/1994 8.42 833.15 6.21

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/1/1993 1.72 1058.00 6.16

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/31/1993 24.02 793.00 13.35

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/1/1993 3.43 850.00 5.76

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/30/1993 32.00 279.00 6.53

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/2/1993 3.00 1232.00 4.00

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/31/1993 12.00 1213.00 15.00

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/14/1994 8.52 1080.00 4.00

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/15/1994 2.71 842.00 2.16

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/14/1994 5.74 562.00 5.64

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/15/1994 43.00 835.00 3.05

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/13/1994 23.00 717.00 6.34

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/16/1994 13.00 1211.00 1.41

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/13/1994 21.40 768.00 9.46

Cooper Bessemer GMVA-12 2172 1

Clean Burn 

Combustion NOx 

abatement system PUC NG 12/17/1991

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC PUC NG 12/3/1993 38.30 139.00 17.70

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC PUC NG 12/2/1993 29.90 156.00 30.70

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC PUC NG 12/2/1993 40.70 172.00 46.60

D-3-7
TABLE D-3

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD ICE SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL

MAX CONTINUOUS 

bhp RATING

rich burn 

(r)/lean burn 

(l), r=0, l=1 CONTROLS FUEL TEST DATE

NOx (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

CO (ppmv) @ 15% 

O2)

ROCa (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

Waukesha VRG220U 48 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/8/1995 2.00 4153.00 72.00

Waukesha VRG220U 48 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/4/1994 0.34 49.93 24.77

Waukesha 6-MZA-683 58 0 Lean burn adj. PUC NG 9/2/1993 35.00 172.00 66.00

Cooper Bessemer GMV-10C 1100 1

TC and Cleanburn 

Burners PUC NG 9/5/1995 26.00 273.00 435.00

Cooper Bessemer GMV-10C 1100 1

TC and Cleanburn 

Burners PUC NG 8/12/1994 37.74 141.69 378.11

Ingersoll-Rand 8XVG 300 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/12/1994 4.00 340.00 5.70

Ingersoll-Rand 8XVG 440 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/12/1994 13.60 663.00 4.40

Ingersoll-Rand 8XVG 440 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/12/1994 16.20 919.00 31.80

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/7/1995 0.09 894.00 45.00

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/8/1995 1.00 1250.00 110.00

Waukesha 6-WAK-79A 170 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/5/1995 1.00 64.00 8.00

Waukesha 145 GZU 144 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/6/1995 4.00 856.00 15.00

Waukesha 6-WAK-79A 170 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/6/1995 0.04 862.00 15.00

Waukesha 6-WAK-79A 170 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/6/1995 1.00 64.00 3.00

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/6/1995 7.00 1923.00 70.00

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/7/1995 0.24 3638.00 107.00

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/7/1995 0.14 2371.00 67.00

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/7/1995 13.00 1804.00 104.00

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/6/1994 13.40 1763.77 27.50

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/6/1994 10.76 879.85 21.11

Waukesha 6-WAK-79A 170 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/7/1994 9.31 909.83 11.75

Waukesha 145 GZU 144 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/8/1994 0.22 1019.57 22.11

Waukesha 6-WAK-79A 170 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/7/1994 1.74 124.61 14.05

Waukesha 6-WAK-79A 170 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/7/1994 1.94 81.09 26.47

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/5/1994 1.40 1838.07 7.50

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/5/1994 3.79 656.07 10.34

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/5/1994 5.11 1183.65 20.93

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/6/1994 3.43 410.94 14.22

Cooper-Bessemer GMVA-10 1800 1 CB Comb. PUC NG 12/13/1995

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 410 0 PSC PUC NG 12/13/1995

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 410 0 PSC PUC NG 12/13/1995

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/29/1995 12.00 919.00 14.00

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/29/1995 3.00 972.00 4.31

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/30/1995 9.00 933.00 7.00

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/1/1995 37.00 959.00 16.00

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/31/1995 15.00 1144.00 4.00

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/29/1995 8.00 593.00 8.00

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/29/1995 16.00 508.00 12.00

Waukesha VRG220U 48 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/29/1997 0.13 1480.23 45.30

Cooper Bessemer GMV-10C 1100 1

TC and Cleanburn 

Burners PUC NG 8/28/1997 10.36 356.94 480.78

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/2/1997 5.62 2266.88 191.98

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/2/1997 4.63 3948.60 129.23

Waukesha 6-WAK-79A 170 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/27/1997 8.94 328.25 5.94

Waukesha 145 GZU 144 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/28/1997 1.92 125.94 16.67

D-3-8
TABLE D-3

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD ICE SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL

MAX CONTINUOUS 

bhp RATING

rich burn 

(r)/lean burn 

(l), r=0, l=1 CONTROLS FUEL TEST DATE

NOx (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

CO (ppmv) @ 15% 

O2)

ROCa (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

Waukesha 6-WAK-79A 170 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/27/1997 20.27 3015.83 39.39

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/25/1997 9.18 3190.47 115.48

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/26/1997 0.05 849.89 70.56

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/26/1997 1.22 1460.38 95.44

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/10/1996 11.34 975.98 22.74

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/11/1996 1.77 989.64 5.80

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/16/1996 27.21 147.05 6.59

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/12/1996 4.15 1025.04 11.59

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/11/1996 43.12 1268.96 5.17

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/12/1996 5.78 831.61 14.03

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/10/1996 22.06 1167.11 39.56

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/26/1997 0.58 3035.93 178.76

Waukesha 6-WAK-79A 170 0 NSCR PUC NG 8/28/1997 5.17 459.19 32.51

Ingersoll-Rand 8XVG 300 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/4/1996 15.10 755.80 11.60

Ingersoll-Rand 8XVG 440 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/4/1996 5.40 765.50 1.50

Ingersoll-Rand 8XVG 440 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/4/1992 29.70 868.20 16.10

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 410 0 PSC PUC NG 12/10/1996

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/4/1997 7.42 644.00 10.36

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/3/1997 3.31 1179.52 8.10

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/4/1997 6.30 1229.61 13.34

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/3/1997 14.02 596.70 6.27

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/3/1997 33.85 942.57 6.12

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/4/1997 13.55 1074.57 17.42

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/5/1997 9.33 1012.87 18.03

Cooper-Bessemer GMVA-10 1800 1 CB Comb. PUC NG 12/10/1996 332.00 154.00

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 410 0 PSC PUC NG 1/7/1998 65.00 101.00

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 410 0 PSC PUC NG 12/10/1996 85.00 48.00

Waukesha VRG330U 74 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/16/1999 15.00 1402.00 106.00

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/17/1998 31.00 1512.00 11.00

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/5/1997 98.71 1237.16 15.40

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 410 0 PSC PUC NG 12/10/1996 65.00 39.90

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 410 0 PSC PUC NG 1/21/1998 91.00 70.00

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 410 0 PSC PUC NG 1/7/1998 93.00 332.00

Cooper-Bessemer GMVA-10 1800 1 CB Comb. PUC NG 1/6/1998 320.00 175.00

Cooper-Bessemer GMVA-10 1800 1 CB Comb. PUC NG 12/8/1998 42.90 342.70

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 410 0 PSC PUC NG 12/9/1998 69.20 33.00

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 410 0 PSC PUC NG 1/21/1998 83.80 61.50

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/15/1998 7.00 183.00 16.00

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/14/1998 40.00 430.00 5.00

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/15/1998 5.00 929.00 21.00

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/17/1998 5.00 929.00 21.00

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/17/1998 5.00 302.00 6.00

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/18/1998 2.00 791.00 6.00

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/20/1999 21.00 1193.00 5.36

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/20/1999 11.00 215.00 4.38

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/22/1999 15.00 620.00 2.20

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/21/1999 18.00 555.00 3.62

D-3-9
TABLE D-3

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD ICE SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL

MAX CONTINUOUS 

bhp RATING

rich burn 

(r)/lean burn 

(l), r=0, l=1 CONTROLS FUEL TEST DATE

NOx (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

CO (ppmv) @ 15% 

O2)

ROCa (ppmv @ 15% 

O2)

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/21/1999 13.00 661.00 3.65

Ingersoll Rand LVG-82 650 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/20/1999 16.00 994.00 10.61

Ingersoll Rand KVG-62 660 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/21/1999 4.00 888.00 4.33

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 440 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/29/1998 9.00 1264.00 6.00

Ingersoll-Rand 8SVG 440 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/29/1998 1.00 2248.00 18.00

Ingersoll-Rand 8XVG 300 0 NSCR PUC NG 4/29/1998 5.00 103.00 6.00

Waukesha VRG220U 48 0 NSCR PUC NG 9/17/1999 0.15 344.00 28.00

Caterpillar 3316 4231 0

Lean Burn Tune and 

Afterburner Waste Gas 2/25/1999 10.35 0.10

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC Waste Gas 9/16/1997 39.32 172.87 19.24

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC Waste Gas 9/16/1997 37.82 164.98 25.52

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC Waste Gas 9/17/1997 39.94 157.40 26.14

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC Waste Gas 5/19/1999 45.00 131.00 20.00

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC Waste Gas 5/20/1999 39.00 147.00 30.00

Waukesha F2895GU 275 0 PSC Waste Gas 5/20/1999 40.00 126.00 12.00

D-3-10
Table D-4

SAN DIEGO COUNTY APCD

SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL HORSE R/L FUEL CONTROLS TEST NOX NOX NOX NOX

POWER DATE LIMIT 3%O2 15%O2 % Reduction

Caterpillar 3516 SITA 1150 l Natural Gas Turbocharged, Aftercooled 1/91 290@3%O2 318 104

3/91 251 83

10/91 270 89

6/92 659 217

10/92 286 94

5/93 542 179

11/93 298 98

5/94 319 105

11/94 255 85

9/95 246 81

Caterpillar 3516 SITA 1150 l Natural Gas Turbocharged, Aftercooled 1/91 290@3%O2 323 107

3/91 245 81

10/91 292 96

6/92 315 104

9/92 211 70

12/92 220 73

5/93 625 206

11/93 237 78

5/94 347 114

11/94 208 68

9/95 216 71

Caterpillar 3516 SITA 1150 l Natural Gas Turbocharged, Aftercooled 4/91 290@3%O2 183 60

10/91 1088 359

12/91 208 69

7/92 319 105

9/92 241 79

10/92 316 104

5/93 217 72

12/93 201 66

5/94 272 90

11/94 212 70

10/95 194 64

D-4-1
Table D-4

SAN DIEGO COUNTY APCD

SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL HORSE R/L FUEL CONTROLS TEST NOX NOX NOX NOX

POWER DATE LIMIT 3%O2 15%O2 % Reduction

Caterpillar 3516 SITA 1150 l Natural Gas Turbocharged, Aftercooled 6/92 290@3%O2 327 108

9/92 201 66

12/92 201 66

5/93 228 75

12/93 234 77

5/94 340 112

1/95 180 59

10/95 222 73

Caterpillar 3512 TA-90 860 l Natural Gas Turbocharged, Aftercooled 10/90 280@3%O2 387 128

1/91 220 73

1/92 231 76

1/93 256 84

6/93 314 104

7/93 205 68

1/94 251 83

8/94 240 79

2/95 246 81

7/95 238 78

12/95 232 77

Cooper Superior 16 SGTA 2650 l Landfill Gas Prechamber 4/91 177@3%O2 220 73

12/91 94 31

6/92 219 72

1/93 125 41

7/93 63 21

3/94 100 33

8/94 123 41

4/95 121 40

Cooper Superior 16 SGTA 2650 l Landfill Gas Prechamber 10/92 177@3%O2 134 44

1/93 126 42

7/93 71 23

2/94 113 37

8/94 114 38

D-4-2
Table D-4

SAN DIEGO COUNTY APCD

SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL HORSE R/L FUEL CONTROLS TEST NOX NOX NOX NOX

POWER DATE LIMIT 3%O2 15%O2 % Reduction

4/95 108 35

De Laval 1905 l Digester Gas SCR 8/90 850@3%O2 72 24 56

11/91 107 36 67

De Laval 1905 l Digester Gas SCR 9/88 859@3%O2 91 30 72

8/90 74 25 80

11/91 81 27 85

Caterpillar 3516 TA 1150 l Natural Gas Turbocharged, Aftercooled 4/91 280@3%O2 179 59

11/91 208 69

6/92 237 78

11/92 353 116

12/92 211 69

6/93 180 59

1/94 240 79

7/94 237 78

12/94 191 63

7/95 161 53

1/96 302 100

Caterpillar 3516 TA 1150 l Natural Gas Turbocharged, Aftercooled 3/92 280@3%O2 231 76

6/92 231 76

11/92 242 80

6/93 179 59

1/94 217 72

7/94 239 79

12/94 320 106

7/95 190 63

1/96 246 81

Caterpillar 3516 TA 1150 l Natural Gas Turbocharged, Aftercooled 5/98 280@3%O2 179 60

Caterpillar G 399 850 l Natural Gas Turbocharged, Aftercooled 10/90 275@3%O2 210 69

10/91 263 87

3/92 697 177

5/92 230 76

8/92 181 60

D-4-3
Table D-4

SAN DIEGO COUNTY APCD

SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL HORSE R/L FUEL CONTROLS TEST NOX NOX NOX NOX

POWER DATE LIMIT 3%O2 15%O2 % Reduction

3/93 262 86

10/93 241 79

3/94 154 51

10/94 187 62

5/95 215 71

8/95 178 58

Caterpillar 3512 TA-90LE 860 l Natural Gas Turbocharged, Aftercooled 8/92 275@3%O2 223 74

10/93 240 79

3/94 387 128

4/94 287 95

7/94 236 78

10/94 311 103

2/95 233 77

8/95 182 60

Caterpillar G 399 930 l Natural Gas Turbocharged, Aftercooled 10/90 275@3%O2 217 72

10/91 254 84

3/92 623 205

5/92 236 78

8/92 183 60

10/93 173 57

3/94 258 85

10/94 142 47

5/95 144 48

8/95 187 62

Caterpillar G 399 930 l Natural Gas Turbocharged, Aftercooled 10/91 275@3%O2 272 90

8/92 254 84

3/93 148 49

11/93 185 61

3/94 203 67

5/95 100 33

8/95 224 74

Caterpillar G 399 930 l Natural Gas Turbocharged, Aftercooled 5/98 275@3%O2 180 60

D-4-4
Table D-4

SAN DIEGO COUNTY APCD

SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL HORSE R/L FUEL CONTROLS TEST NOX NOX NOX NOX

POWER DATE LIMIT 3%O2 15%O2 % Reduction

Waukesha L7042G 674 r Natural Gas Maxim Catalyst, A/F cont. 1/88 300@3%O2 3 1

1/88 4 1

6/89 191 64

9/91 57 19

3/92 28 9

Waukesha L7042G 674 r Natural Gas Maxim Catalyst, A/F cont. 6/87 300@3%O2 2 1

6/89 20 7

9/90 40 13

9/91 2326 775

12/91 2 1

2/92 8 3

Waukesha L7042G 674 r Natural Gas Maxim Catalyst, A/F cont. 6/87 300@3%O2 1 0

6/89 2 1

9/90 307 102

9/91 208 69

12/91 1 0

2/92 5 2

Waukesha L7042G 674 r Natural Gas Maxim Catalyst, A/F cont. 2/98 300@3%O2 167.1 56

Waukesha VHP 7100G 674 r Natural Gas Englehard Catalyst, A/F con. 6/86 230@3%O2 3 1

2/87 0 0

5/88 27 9

6/89 1196 399

8/89 122 41

6/90 72 24

6/92 133 44

Waukesha VHP 7100G 674 r Natural Gas Englehard Catalyst, A/F con. 6/86 230@3%O2 2 1

2/87 0 0

5/88 46 15

6/89 528 176

8/89 100 33

6/90 129 43

6/92 115 38

D-4-5
Table D-4

SAN DIEGO COUNTY APCD

SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL HORSE R/L FUEL CONTROLS TEST NOX NOX NOX NOX

POWER DATE LIMIT 3%O2 15%O2 % Reduction

Caterpillar G379 HCNA 329 r Natural Gas Johnson-Mattey Catalyst 10/88 245@3%O2 12 4

10/91 8 3

3/93 14 5

11/93 2 1

10/94 40 13

3/94 11 4

8/95 18 6

Caterpillar G379 HCNA 329 r Natural Gas Johnson Matthey Catalyst 10/91 245@3%O2 4 1

2/92 20 7

10/93 11 4

3/94 32 11

10/94 53 18

5/95 21 7

10/95 109 36

Caterpillar G379 HCNA 329 r Natural Gas Johnson Matthey Catalyst 10/90 245@3%O2 36 12

10/91 4 1

3/93 158 53 94.2

4/93 38 13

10/93 4 1 99.8

11/94 110 37 95

5/95 188 63 93

10/95 96 32 96

Caterpillar G399 950 r Natural Gas Englehard Catalyst 4/88 215@3%O2 121 40

6/90 920 307

8/91 193 64

12/91 175 58

6/92 135 45

Caterpillar G399 950 r Natural Gas Englehard Catalyst 2/88 215@3%O2 223 74

2/90 368 123

6/90 206 69

12/91 260 87

4/92 149 48

D-4-6
Table D-4

SAN DIEGO COUNTY APCD

SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL HORSE R/L FUEL CONTROLS TEST NOX NOX NOX NOX

POWER DATE LIMIT 3%O2 15%O2 % Reduction

6/92 141 47

Caterpillar G399 950 r Natural Gas Englehard Catalyst 3/88 215@3%O2 159 53

2/90 829 276

12/91 119 40

Caterpillar G399 950 r Natural Gas Englehard Catalyst 2/88 168 56

2/90 1570 523

12/91 372 124

Caterpillar G399 915 r Natural Gas Englehard Catalyst 2/85 456@3%O2 15 5

3/87 3500 1167

12/88 1308 436

12/89 160 53

1/90 334 111

2/90 213 71

7/91 781 260

11/91 71 24

8/92 849 283

1/93 64 21

3/93 1345 448

5/93 6 2

9/93 12 4

2/94 42 14

Caterpillar G399 915 r Natural Gas Englehard Catalyst 9/94 456@3%O2 146 49

3/95 261 87

8/95 0 0

1/96 6 2

Caterpillar G399 915 r Natural Gas Englehard Catalyst 11/86 456@3%O2 330 110

3/87 83 28

12/88 1358 453

12/89 814 271

1/90 388 129

2/90 257 86

7/91 726 242

D-4-7
Table D-4

SAN DIEGO COUNTY APCD

SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL HORSE R/L FUEL CONTROLS TEST NOX NOX NOX NOX

POWER DATE LIMIT 3%O2 15%O2 % Reduction

11/91 173 58

8/92 995 332

1/93 0 0

2/93 2 1

9/93 80 27

2/94 243 81

9/94 20 7

4/95 0 0

8/95 9 3

1/96 24 8

Caterpillar G398NA-HCR 499 r Natural Gas Englehard Cat., A/F control 3/85 285 137 46 95.3

7/91 150 50

8/92 394 131

2/93 89 30

3/93 1091 364

4/93 112 37

9/93 105 35

3/94 84 28

8/94 103 34

3/95 0 0

2/96 12 4

Caterpillar G399 915 r Natural Gas Johnson Matthey Cat., A/F 5/88 230@3%O2 6 2 99.8

4/90 81 27

5/90 40 13

12/91 7 2

6/92 29 10

12/92 10 3

5/93 10 3

1/94 12 4

6/94 12 4

1/95 63 21

6/95 16 5

D-4-8
Table D-4

SAN DIEGO COUNTY APCD

SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL HORSE R/L FUEL CONTROLS TEST NOX NOX NOX NOX

POWER DATE LIMIT 3%O2 15%O2 % Reduction

11/95 183 61

Caterpillar G399 915 r Natural Gas Johnson Matthey Cat., A/F 5/88 230@3%O2 8 3 99.7

4/90 154 51

5/90 104 35

6/90 116 39

7/90 13 4

12/91 11 4

1/92 43 14

6/92 54 18

5/93 15 5

Caterpillar G399 915 r Natural Gas Johnson Matthey Cat., A/F 1/94 230@3%O2 20 7

6/94 30 10

2/95 223 74

6/95 20 7

12/95 11 4

Waukesha VHP 7100G 1130 r Natural Gas Waukesha Catalyst, A/F 7/89 230@3%O2 109 36

10/90 193 64

3/91 197 66

6/92 178 59

3/93 1 0

5/93 6 2

3/94 110 37

12/94 51 17

5/95 25 8

9/95 28 9

Waukesha VHP 7100G 1130 r Natural Gas Waukesha Catalyst, A/F 7/89 230@3%O2 110 37

7/90 208 69

6/92 172 57

5/93 204 68

3/94 13 4

12/94 7 2

5/95 23 8

D-4-9
Table D-4

SAN DIEGO COUNTY APCD

SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL HORSE R/L FUEL CONTROLS TEST NOX NOX NOX NOX

POWER DATE LIMIT 3%O2 15%O2 % Reduction

9/95 89 30

Waukesha F 2695G 463 r Natural Gas Engelhard Catalyst 4/89 300@3%O2 67 22

11/89 52 17

Waukesha F 2695G 463 r Natural Gas Engelhard Catalyst 4/89 300@3%O2 148 49

11/89 368 123

12/89 48 16

Waukesha F 2695G 463 r Natural Gas Engelhard Catalyst 2/89 180@3%O2 700 233

3/89 40 13

Waukesha F 2695G 463 r Natural Gas Engelhard Catalyst 3/89 180@3%O2 400 133

5/90 97 32

5/90 109 36

Waukesha VHP 7100G 1131 r Natural Gas Maxim Catalyst 12/90 303@3%O2 45 15

Engelhard Catalyst 12/91 54 18

6/92 307 102

10/92 51 17

6/93 33 11

2/94 107 36

6/94 131 44

12/94 154 51

7/95 20 7

11/95 20 7

Waukesha VHP 7100G 1131 r Natural Gas Maxim Catalyst 12/89 303@3%O2 935 312

Engelhard Catalyst 2/90 132 44

6/92 1156 385

10/92 60 20

6/93 22 7

3/94 75 25

6/94 136 45

12/94 78 26

7/95 90 30

11/95 89 30

Caterpillar G399 915 r Natural Gas Johnson Matthey Catalyst 12/84 ? 74 25

D-4-10
Table D-4

SAN DIEGO COUNTY APCD

SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL HORSE R/L FUEL CONTROLS TEST NOX NOX NOX NOX

POWER DATE LIMIT 3%O2 15%O2 % Reduction

6/87 240@3%O2 656 219

4/88 1692 564

9/88 212@3%O2 132 44

12/89 2 1

12/91 26 9

7/92 4 1

1/93 6 2

Caterpillar G399 915 r Natural Gas Johnson Matthey Catalyst 7/93 212@3%O2 18 6

1/94 3 1

9/94 150 50

2/95 5 2

7/95 102 34

1/96 9 3

Caterpillar G399 915 r Natural Gas Johnson Matthey Catalyst 2/85 ? 23 8

1/87 240@3%O2 463 154

4/88 1692 564

9/88 212@3%O2 4 1

12/89 386 129

4/90 4 1

5/91 52 17

7/92 3 1

1/93 3 1

7/93 30 10

2/94 87 29

9/94 312 104

2/95 8 2

7/95 134 45

1/96 4 1

Caterpillar G398 HCNA 499 r Natural Gas Maxim Catalyst, A/F cont. 7/89 292@3%O2 470 157

5/90 18 6

or 9/90 21 7

5/92 418 139

D-4-11
Table D-4

SAN DIEGO COUNTY APCD

SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURER MODEL HORSE R/L FUEL CONTROLS TEST NOX NOX NOX NOX

POWER DATE LIMIT 3%O2 15%O2 % Reduction

Radian Hybrid System 10/92 5 2 99.9

6/93 47 15 98.7

2/95 15 5 99.6

7/95 102 34 96.8

11/95 80 27 97

Caterpillar G398 HCNA 499 r Natural Gas Maxim Catalyst, A/F cont. 2/88 292@3%O2 156 52 94

7/89 400 133

5/90 9 3

5/92 57 19

11/92 77 26 95

1/93 49 16 98

8/94 12 4 99.5

2/95 6 2 100

7/95 15 5 99

11/95 3 1 100

Caterpillar G398 HCNA 499 r Natural Gas Maxim Catalyst, A/F cont. 2/88 292@3%O2 6 2 99.8

7/89 1064 355

6/90 558 186

5/92 6 2

11/92 64 21 96

1/93 128 43

6/93 378 126 87

3/94 30 10 98.7

2/95 13 4 99

7/95 206 69 92

11/95 6 2 100

D-4-12
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

767 Y NAT. GAS 4/7/1998 140.6 152.2

767 Y NAT. GAS 4/7/1998 19.5 101.1

767 Y NAT. GAS 4/7/1998 123.3 262.5

2/25/199

7

465 Y Y NAT. GAS 6 35.1

10/6/199

8

465 Y Y NAT. GAS 17 112

160 NAT. GAS 4/2/1998 9.7 343 22 284

9/10/199

6

1320 NAT. GAS 1114 54

9/10/199

6

1320 NAT. GAS 1202 41

1320 NAT. GAS 1/4/1996 5.6 2554 510 63

1320 NAT. GAS 1/4/1996 5.6 2488 576 56

10/7/199

7

140 Y Y NAT. GAS 6.82 930

8/18/199

8

140 Y Y NAT. GAS 1.5 694.9

D-5-1
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

10/8/199

7

55 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.2 1.9

10/8/199

7

80 Y Y NAT. GAS 1 837

10/7/199

7

160 Y Y NAT. GAS 13.7 144

10/7/199

7

100 Y Y NAT. GAS 2.3 6.2

10/7/199

7

165 Y Y NAT. GAS 7.6 53.9

8/18/199

8

65 Y Y NAT. GAS 10.6 447.8

10/8/199

7

80 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.85 5.1

10/8/199

7

50 Y NAT. GAS 1 125

4/22/199

7

225 Y NAT. GAS 238 10.6 16

4/21/199

7

225 Y NAT. GAS 218 11 34

4/21/199

7

225 Y NAT. GAS 258 16.9 100

5/21/199

7

1441 Y NAT. GAS 2.9 6.9

D-5-2
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

5/21/199

8

1411 Y NAT. GAS 2.5 11.1

2/13/199

7

765 Y NAT. GAS 19.6 270.7

2/13/199

7

765 Y NAT. GAS 9.2 141.6

2/13/199

7

765 Y NAT. GAS 53.4 243.4

12/3/199

6

800 Y NAT. GAS 1.4 53

12/9/199

7

800 Y NAT. GAS 0.87 31

12/3/199

6

800 Y NAT. GAS 2 51

12/9/199

7

800 Y NAT. GAS 2.2 90

9/19/199

7

1060 Y NAT. GAS 10.1 2422 205 65.02 365

11/21/19

96

330 Y NAT. GAS 8.2 40.2 96.6

11/12/19

97

330 Y NAT. GAS 7.9 24 88

11/21/19

96

330 Y NAT. GAS 12.8 35.8 112.3

D-5-3
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

11/12/19

97

330 Y NAT. GAS 12.4 28 101

165 NAT. GAS 1/4/1996 0.16 2.9 245

11/25/19

97

23 NAT. GAS 0.06 11.8 2129

165 Y Y NAT. GAS 1/4/1996 0.15 15.3 245.4

165 Y Y NAT. GAS 1/4/1996 0.1 15.2 508

165 Y Y NAT. GAS 1/4/1996 0.12 61.4 1656

120 Y NAT. GAS 1/4/1996 0.1 25 46.9

120 Y Y NAT. GAS 1/4/1996 0.13 16.5 1085

10/30/19

96

360 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 35.9 1310

10/31/19

96

400 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 4.6 837

12/16/19

97

400 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 2.4 125.7

10/31/19

96

400 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 5.2 1006

D-5-4
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

10/30/19

96

370 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.03 28.5 320

12/12/19

97

370 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 14.44 71

10/30/19

96

370 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.05 24.3 193

10/31/19

96

370 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.03 10.8 98.5

12/15/19

97

370 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.72 18.2 19.7

12/12/19

97

370 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.3 39.2 238

10/31/19

96

2000 Y NAT. GAS 11.4 32.5

12/16/19

97

2000 Y NAT. GAS 9.2 113 201

10/30/19

96

2000 Y NAT. GAS 12 21

12/15/19

97

2000 Y NAT. GAS 9.8 56.6 216

10/31/19

96

2000 Y NAT. GAS 10.7 39.7

12/15/19

97

2000 Y NAT. GAS 10.7 21.3 305

D-5-5
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

10/30/19

96

455 Y NAT. GAS 10.2 45.4

6/17/199

6

1100 Y NAT. GAS 11.2 1804 135 32 392 466

6/24/199

7

1100 Y NAT. GAS 10.3 2146 7.9 50 738 50

6/19/199

6

1100 Y NAT. GAS 11 1720 126 87 414 440

6/24/199

7

1100 Y NAT. GAS 10.9 2352 8.1 47 477

6/17/199

6

1100 Y NAT. GAS 11.2 1900 142 56 403 309

6/25/199

7

1100 Y NAT. GAS 10.7 2464 8.6 94 581 34

6/18/199

6

825 Y NAT. GAS 10.9 1434 102 48 325 453

6/25/199

7

825 Y NAT. GAS 10.2 1343 4.9 60 575 119

6/19/199

6

825 Y NAT. GAS 10.9 1375 102 72 451 382

6/25/199

7

825 Y NAT. GAS 10.8 1271 4.4 62 465 82

8/30/199

6

825 Y NAT. GAS 11.3 1334 109.7 98 371 382

D-5-6
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

6/24/199

7

825 Y NAT. GAS 12.3 1660 4.9 22 445

825 Y NAT. GAS 8/7/1997 12.2 1680 5.2

7/22/199

7

600 Y NAT. GAS 13.2 145.6 79

7/23/199

7

600 Y NAT. GAS 13.7 373 149

800 Y NAT. GAS 6/4/1996 14 130 86

7/23/199

7

800 Y NAT. GAS 14.3 135.2 85

660 Y NAT. GAS 6/4/1996 14.5 117 112

7/22/199

7

660 Y NAT. GAS 13 63 169

10/1/199

6

300 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.1 626 64 19.6

1/10/199

6

63 Y Y NAT. GAS

63 Y Y NAT. GAS 1/9/1996 0 75

63 Y Y NAT. GAS 1/9/1996 0.1 257

D-5-7
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

11/20/19

96

63 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.14 0.1 128

10/1/199

6

300 Y Y NAT. GAS 7.7 607 64 39.7

8/14/199

6

650 Y NAT. GAS 10 1000 100.8 34

650 Y NAT. GAS 7/9/1997 43

8/13/199

6

650 Y NAT. GAS 9.6 962 100.8 84

650 Y NAT. GAS 7/8/1997 42

8/13/199

6

650 Y NAT. GAS 9.6 969 100.8 132

650 Y NAT. GAS 7/8/1997 28

1/10/199

6

157 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 0.2 770

11/20/19

96

157 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.06 1 803

10/21/19

97

157 Y Y NAT. GAS 55 1551

1/10/199

6

157 Y Y NAT. GAS

D-5-8
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

1/10/199

6

157 Y Y NAT. GAS 0 476

1/11/199

6

104 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 34.8

11/19/19

96

104 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 731

10/21/19

97

104 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.2 303

1/11/199

6

157 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.2 445

8/23/199

6

1100 Y NAT. GAS 10.5 1876 165 39.4 289

8/23/199

6

1100 Y NAT. GAS 10.3 1948 174 52 288

9/30/199

6

778 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 24.2 153

9/30/199

6

778 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 15.7 404

9/30/199

6

778 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.12 25 241

9/30/199

6

778 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.11 21.5 1132

10/1/199

6

778 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 15 743

D-5-9
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

10/1/199

6

946 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 17 460

10/1/199

6

946 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.12 14 780

10/2/199

6

778 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.12 14 166

10/2/199

6

778 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.4 34 495

10/2/199

6

778 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 10 267

10/1/199

6

473 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.13 9.7 236

10/3/199

6

473 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.3 74 1215

10/3/199

6

473 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.3 14 334

10/3/199

6

615 NAT. GAS 10 1069 107 443

10/1/199

6

473 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.2 51.4 656

4000 Y Y NAT. GAS 5/2/1996 13.5 10571 577 48 476

6/18/199

6

4000 Y Y NAT. GAS 13.7 10700 559 91 545 813

D-5-10
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

5/16/199

6

4000 Y Y NAT. GAS 13.5 10780 580 86 415

4/11/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 10 2089 166

3/20/199

7

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 10.2 1916 149 28.5 278

4/11/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 10.5 2113 160

3/20/199

7

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 10.4 2141 164 29 352

4/11/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 10.2 166.5

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 5/9/1996 10.4 2030 155

6/25/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 9.5 1993 166 71 448 449

3/20/199

7

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 9.9 2067 165 27.6 233

1/10/199

6

450 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.05 14.6 220

12/3/199

7

670 BIOGAS 9.31 1164 4.15

1/30/199

6

100 Y NAT. GAS 0 9.3 100 11

D-5-11
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

3/27/199

6

100 Y NAT. GAS 0.01 12 118 10

1/30/199

6

100 Y NAT. GAS 0 21 174 15

1/30/199

6

100 Y NAT. GAS 52 193 10

1/31/199

6

100 Y NAT. GAS 207 50

6/18/199

6

500 Y Y NAT. GAS 0 600 8 1279

6/19/199

6

86 Y NAT. GAS 6.8 190 13.3 58 253

2/27/199

6

240 Y NAT. GAS 7 204 11.3

2/27/199

6

240 Y NAT. GAS 7.3 183 10

240 Y NAT. WAST 3/6/1996 7.2 198 10.8

9/25/199

6

713 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 21 305

10/24/19

96

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 28.7 351

11/13/19

97

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 5.9 167

D-5-12
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

10/25/19

96

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 38 44

11/17/19

97

208 Y NAT. GAS 0.02 7 238

10/24/19

96

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.15 22.6 760

11/17/19

97

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.05 5.7 102

10/23/19

96

316 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 28.3 23

11/18/19

97

316 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.34 17 47

10/23/19

96

316 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 7 106

11/13/19

97

316 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.07 9 175

10/23/19

96

216 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.4 24 673

10/24/19

96

316 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 25.2 380

11/13/19

97

316 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.06 7 17

10/23/19

96

316 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 16.3 853

D-5-13
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

10/25/19

96

216 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 16 85

11/13/19

97

316 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.03 4 105

10/25/19

96

206 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 14 72

11/13/19

97

316 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.2 13.6 57

11/17/19

97

162 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.05 20 161

10/24/19

96

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.2 54 582

11/17/19

97

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.2 22.3 344

10/23/19

96

316 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 24.9 556

11/17/19

97

162 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 12 92

10/25/19

96

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 20 91

11/17/19

97

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 6.6 214

7/15/199

6

88 Y NAT. GAS 6.2 106.6

D-5-14
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

12/11/19

96

330 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.4 43 533

12/11/19

96

498 Y Y NAT. GAS 63 656

12/18/19

96

498 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.14 0.37 3.4

525 Y Y NAT. GAS 6/7/1996 0.04 499 74.63 35 515 23

8/22/199

7

525 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.25 193 30 16.6 170 5

525 Y Y NAT. GAS 5/1/1996 0.17

8/22/199

7

525 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.26 159 24.7 36.8 176.8 10.7

525 Y Y NAT. GAS 6/7/1996 0.15 501 74.6 125 427 34

8/21/199

7

525 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.2 278 43 9.9 161.7 1.9

Y Y NAT. GAS 5/1/1996 0.03 11.3 47 5.1

8/21/199

7

525 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.25 12.9 126.2 6.8

220 Y NAT. GAS 7/1/1996 8.3 19 86

D-5-15
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

225 Y NAT. GAS 7/2/1996 8.65 24 148

220 NAT. GAS 7/2/1996 8.1 6.5 208

6/20/199

6

1024 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 1078 210 169

1024 Y Y NAT. GAS 2/4/1997 0.05 1272 241 31

360 Y NAT. GAS 5/9/1996 15.8 20.5 268

450 Y NAT. GAS 5/7/1996 16 14.3 447

450 Y NAT. GAS 5/7/1997 16.5 6.6 532

450 Y NAT. GAS 5/7/1996 15.3 25 276

450 Y NAT. GAS 5/7/1997 16.5 19.7 384

230 Y NAT. GAS 7/9/1996 15.3 47.7 201 106

7/11/199

7

230 Y NAT. GAS 14.9 57 160

280 Y NAT. GAS 7/9/1996 14.8 16.9 151 115

D-5-16
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

7/11/199

7

230 Y NAT. GAS 14.9 18.9 134.6

1052 Y Y NAT. GAS 8/9/1996 0.1 961 152.2 3.3 439 49

1052 Y Y NAT. GAS 5/2/1997 0.15 837 5.43 6.9 103

1052 Y Y NAT. GAS 8/9/1996 0.12 928 147 169 1241 76

1052 Y NAT. GAS 5/2/1997 0.5 1000 6.37 1.6 112

500 Y Y NAT. GAS 8/8/1996 0.12 20.2 64.6

500 Y NAT. GAS 5/1/1997 0.06 25.1 133.5

500 Y Y NAT. GAS 8/8/1996 0.13 14.1 320

500 Y NAT. GAS 5/1/1997 0.2 26.9 958

2/28/199

6

200 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.07 2.3 195

200 Y NAT. GAS 5/1/1997 0.1 46 13

2/28/199

6

200 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.16 16.9 599

D-5-17
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

4/30/199

7

200 Y NAT. GAS 0.3 30 72

200 Y Y NAT. GAS 2/5/1996 0.08 1.1 399

2/25/199

7

200 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 3.2 548

4/22/199

7

147 Y Y NAT. TEOR 2.8 152 363 162

6/18/199

6

100 Y NAT. GAS 1.2 68 115 365

6/18/199

6

60 Y NAT. GAS 6.2 44 227

4/22/199

7

88 Y NAT. TEOR 0.1 35 300

12/19/19

96

Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 90 34 558 140

12/20/19

96

Y Y NAT. GAS 0.4 101 11 1967 50

12/19/19

96

Y Y NAT. GAS 0.03 148 15 204 62

12/20/19

96

Y Y NAT. GAS 0.12 149 20 683 217

1/30/199

7

Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 89 11.4 814 250

D-5-18
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

6/21/199

6

660 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.03 634 86 38 392 165

8/14/199

7

660 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.12 445 60.6 1.9 286 33

6/21/199

6

625 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.29 720 97 136 530 52

8/14/199

7

640 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.14 618 84 24 113.9 40.2

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 1/8/1996 24.4 413

1/27/199

7

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 39 147

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 1/8/1996 22.8 105

1/27/199

7

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 30 147

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 1/8/1996 43.7 187

1/27/199

7

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 37 331

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 1/8/1996 8.5 158

1/27/199

7

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 0.2 24

D-5-19
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 1/8/1996 0.27 5.6 523

1/27/199

7

208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 5.1 73

105 Y NAT. GAS 9/3/1997 16.5 301 123

105 Y NAT. GAS 9/5/1997 15.2 110 100

360 Y NAT. GAS 9/3/1997 14 89.6 266

360 Y NAT. GAS 9/3/1997 16.4 70.7 470

9/12/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 694 114 83 1468

1340 Y Y NAT. GAS 7/9/1997 0.1 695 4.8 139 1438

9/12/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.04 1137 186.6 105 690

1340 Y Y NAT. GAS 7/9/1997 0.1 730 5.1 11 861

11/13/19

96

1340 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.03 800 131.4 9.4 745

6/26/199

7

1340 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 1116 7.7 10 530

D-5-20
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

11/13/19

96

1340 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 799 131 68 633

6/26/199

7

1340 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 814 5.6 70 491

6/14/199

6

115 Y NAT. GAS 15.7 29.7 189

4/16/199

7

115 Y NAT. GAS 19 41.2 102

185 Y NAT. GAS 4/4/1996 8.3 37.2 10.2

145 Y NAT. GAS 4/4/1996 7.7 15.7 10.3 191

10/23/19

97

145 Y NAT. GAS 0.06 8.1 606 0.5

145 Y NAT. GAS 4/4/1996 7.85 15.6 1.35 290

10/23/19

97

145 Y NAT. GAS 0.1 23.6

11/13/19

96

660 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.12 86.2 508

11/12/19

96

550 Y NAT. GAS 8.2 579 68.1 68.9

11/4/199

7

550 Y NAT. GAS 87 126

D-5-21
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

11/15/19

96

300 Y Y NAT. GAS 9.3 44

11/12/19

96

150 Y Y NAT. GAS 1.3 413 74.7 9.3 236

11/5/199

7

150 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 12 846

11/12/19

96

330 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.09 300 57.7 30 234

11/5/199

7

330 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 25 525

7/26/199

6

1232 Y NAT. GAS 10.3 1714 137 47 327

7/26/199

6

1232 Y NAT. GAS 10.6 1445 113 45 381

11/20/19

96

150 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.07 0 732

11/18/19

97

150 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.97 24 828

12/17/19

96

342 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.3 30.1 569

11/5/199

7

342 Y NAT. GAS 49 1256

5/23/199

6

5500 Y Y NAT. GAS 13.7 13541 710 44 479 295

D-5-22
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

4/29/199

7

5500 Y Y NAT. GAS 13.5 11850 660 76 304

5/23/199

6

5500 Y Y NAT. GAS 13.6 11260 619 114 597 569

4/29/199

7

5500 Y Y NAT. GAS 14 12280 615 105 416

5/30/199

6

2000 Y Y NAT. GAS 13.5 13104 725 134

5500 Y Y NAT. GAS 5/1/1997 13.7 12650 658 114 342

5/30/199

6

2000 Y Y NAT. GAS 12.9 6553 389 29 380

2000 Y Y NAT. GAS 5/1/1997 12.8 6250 371 86 258

6/13/199

6

5500 Y Y NAT. GAS 14 15934 805

5/15/199

7

5500 Y Y NAT. GAS 12.8 731 121 301 47

6/25/199

6

5500 Y Y NAT. GAS 14.6 17700 814 93 574 716

6/10/199

7

5500 Y Y NAT. GAS 14 15800 804 98 455

5/28/199

6

5500 Y Y NAT. GAS 14.5 12313 580 100 498 298

D-5-23
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

5/13/199

7

5500 Y Y NAT. GAS 13.4 573 84 363 145

5/28/199

6

2000 Y Y NAT. GAS 11.7 5314 360 133 300 324

5/13/199

7

2000 Y Y NAT. GAS 11.4 365 83 149 20

3/12/199

6

4000 Y Y NAT. GAS 13 9501 549.2 48.1

2/20/199

7

4000 Y Y NAT, GAS 15.3 10300 430 12.5 213

3/14/199

6

4000 Y Y NAT. GAS 13.1 8218 467.8 33.3

2/25/199

7

4000 Y Y NAT. GAS 13.2 6787 385.2 58 175

3/14/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.3 2093 192.7 59.7

2/25/199

7

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.5 2285 209 57 98

3/12/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 7.7 1958 189.4 63.2

2/20/199

7

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.1 199 73 113

3/19/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.4 1958 179 52.2

D-5-24
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

2/27/199

7

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.3 1785 164 67.5 146

4/24/199

7

4000 Y Y NAT. GAS 13.1 9165 521 83 361

5/14/199

6

490 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 65

5/14/199

6

490 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.06 430 66 15

4/22/199

7

490 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.05 386 59 52 698

3/28/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.2 1453 135.6 101

3/13/199

7

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 7.6 2000 196 58.5 103

4/16/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.8 3270 198 131

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 6/5/1997 8.7 2395 215 58 150

3/21/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 7.8 1271 122.5 45.5

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 3/4/1997 9.3 1987 167 28 119

3/21/199

6

650 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 436 66.9 1.4

D-5-25
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

2/27/199

7

650 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 510 77.6 23.7 619

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 5/2/1996 7.7 2234 197 110

4/17/199

7

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 7.9 1750 168 85 139

6/11/199

6

2000 Y Y NAT. GAS 12 5922 388

4/24/199

7

4000 Y Y NAT. GAS 12.7 8830 527 74 343

5/29/199

7

2000 Y Y NAT. GAS 11.6 382 47 224 53

4/17/199

7

4000 Y Y NAT. GAS 12.4 8617 550 78.5 322

6/19/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.5 1784 161 70

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 6/5/1997 7.4 1705 170 67 77

650 Y Y NAT. GAS 4/2/1996 0.3 1474 111 30

3/18/199

7

650 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 570 87.6 12.5 372

650 Y Y NAT. GAS 4/9/1996 0.36 1252 93

D-5-26
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

650 Y Y NAT. GAS 4/1/1997 0.34 664 99 181 74

4/24/199

7

650 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.35 731 110 14 184

4/16/199

6

650 Y Y NAT. GAS 1.1 2380 198.6 19.3

650 Y Y NAT. GAS 4/1/1997 0.75 127 60 307

3/26/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8 1705 160 42.1

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 3/6/1997 9.9 2093 169 26 156

3/19/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 7.7 2116 202 67.1

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 3/4/1997 8.2 2182 202 28.5 83

3/26/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 7.7 1413 136.4 53.4

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 3/6/1997 8.5 1644 149 58 110

3/28/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 7.8 2101 202.5 53

3/11/199

7

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.1 2111 199 57 107

D-5-27
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 4/2/1996 8.5 4200 192

3/11/199

7

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.5 2115 195 64 125

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 4/9/1996 8.41 3754 176

3/13/199

7

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.9 2290 203 78 124

6/13/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8 2102 198

12/18/19

97

1000 Y NAT. GAS 8.8 2020 7.8 49.4 132

6/19/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8 1922 180 125

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 4/3/1997 8.75 211 27 75

2000 Y Y NAT. GAS 6/4/1996 12 5021 316 182 294 564

5/29/199

7

2000 Y Y NAT. GAS 12.1 298 43 233 40

2000 Y Y NAT. GAS 6/4/1996 11.9 4631 294 123 336 361

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 6/3/1997 11.9 4791 333 64 227 93

D-5-28
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

2000 Y Y NAT. GAS 6/6/1996 12.2 5087 318 144 355 474

7/23/199

7

2000 Y Y NAT. GAS 12 5540 358 63 258

4/25/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.5 4468 199 150

4/10/199

7

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 7.5 210 64 122

4/25/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 7.7 2070 145 141

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 6/3/1997 8 2066 195 70 58

4/24/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 10.3 2285 176 62 658 561

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 4/8/1997 9.6 148 69 302 310

4/23/199

6

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 11.3 5044 176 22 571 699

1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 4/8/1997 10.8 163 51 284 382

6/11/199

6

1500 Y Y NAT. GAS 10 2255 179

6/10/199

7

1500 Y Y NAT. GAS 9.7 1900 155 48 259

D-5-29
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

1500 Y Y NAT. GAS 6/6/1996 9.8 2418 194 105 551 594

4/10/199

7

1500 Y Y NAT. GAS 9.8 163 41 12 264

4/30/199

6

490 Y Y NAT. GAS 0 1398 108 90

4/15/199

7

490 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 557 86 65 35

4/16/199

7

490 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 106 11.5 288

4/30/199

6

490 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 1079 109 21

4/15/199

7

490 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 350 55 17.1 113

5/14/199

6

490 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.11 438 67 24.3

4/22/199

7

490 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 455 70 44.4 997

10/8/199

6

325 Y NAT. GAS 7.6 61.2 205

10/2/199

6

255 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.12 7.6 483

6/14/199

6

269 Y NAT. GAS 13.3 761 43.6

D-5-30
TEST

DATE HP LEAN RICH CAT PSC PCC

FUEL 

TYPE O2%

STACK 

FLOW 

CFM

FUEL RATE 

ft^3/day X 10^3

NOX PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CO PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

VOC PPM 

15% O2, 

TESTED

CONTROLS

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD IC 

Engine Source Test Data

7/11/199

6

269 Y NAT. GAS 14.5 988 54

11/18/19

96

115 Y NAT. GAS

6/17/199

6

145 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 125 61 1215

D-5-31
E-1

APPENDIX E

ENGINE POWER TEST CODE

SAE J 1349















F-1

APPENDIX F

LEGAL OPINION REGARDING THE REGULATION OF STATIONARY SOURCES

USED IN AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS













G-1

APPENDIX G

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP HELD ON AUGUST 29, 2000
G-2

Workshop Summary

Workshop: Public Workshop on the Proposed Determination of Reasonably Available Control

Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (RACT/BARCT) for

Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines

Date: August 29, 2000

Location: 2020 L Street, Board Hearing Room

Sacramento, California

Purpose: This meeting was held to provide an update to, and receive comments on the Proposed

Determination of RACT/BARCT for Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion

Engines

Attendees: Approximately 22 people attended the workshop. The attendees included

8 representatives from companies involved in the operation of internal combustion

engines, 2 from engine manufacturers, and one from a manufacturer of emission

controls. The remaining attendees represented ARB, three air districts, and U.S. EPA.

Key Points: ARB staff made a short presentation on the Proposed Determination of

RACT/BARCT for Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines. This

included an overview of the proposed determination and an explanation of the

emission limits and other requirements.

The main comments from the industry representatives included:

? Engines de-rated below 50 horsepower should be exempted from the document.

? Source testing is relatively expensive and can be a significant financial burden.

? Source test data included in the document may not be representative of “real

world” operating conditions.

? There are serious problems in using catalysts and fuel meters on field gas-fueled

engines because the gas contains sulfur, moisture and other contaminants.

? There are issues with electrification because of the installation costs, power

shortages in California and consequent rising electrical power rates.

? Existing two-stroke Ajax engines cannot meet the proposed emission standards,

and there is no technology which can reduce their emissions effectively.

? Engines with Pre-stratified Charge control technology should be treated as lean

burn engines since their air-to-fuel ratio is in the lean burn regime.

? The low fuel consumption threshold should be based on the minimum operating

temperature of the catalyst.

Summary: Staff will continue to look into these issues by visiting various sites in California.