# California Environmental Protection Agency AIR RESOURCES BOARD

DETERMINATIONOF 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

DETERMINATIONOF 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 MarieKavan
Reviewed by

Peter D.Venturini, Chief, Stationary Source Division Daniel E.Donohoue, Chief, Emissions Assessment Branch TonyAndreoni, 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 LauraYannayon San Diego County APCD Camqui Nguyen San Diego County APCD TomCanaday U.S. EPA Region 9 Doug Hall Bay Area AQMD CraigUllery Bay Area AQMD Doug Grapple Santa Barbara County APCD EldonHeaston Mojave Desert AQMD Scott Nester SanJoaquin Valley Unified APCD GeorgeHeinen SanJoaquin Valley Unified APCD Don Price Ventura County APCD PaulReitz San Luis Obispo County APCD PaulHensleighSacramento Metropolitan AQMD MattEhrhardt Yolo-Solano AQMD GeorgePoppic Air Resources Board MikeTollstrupAir Resources Board Grant Chin Air Resources Board Robert Hughes Air Resources Board Stephanie Kato Air Resources Board DonKoeberlein 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. EnginesDerated to LessThan 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. EnginesDerated toLess Than 50 Horsepower

............................IV-1 B. Alternative Form of Limits

.....................................................................IV-2 C. RACTNOx Limits

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

......................................................................IV-3 2. Lean-Burn Engines

.....................................................................IV-6 D. BARCTNOx 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 orOffroad Engines

.....................................................IV-13 4. Engines Operated No MoreThan 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 ofHAPs/TACs

.....................................................VII-4 5. Control ofHAPs/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 Standardsfor 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 PrimaryNOx Controls for Stationary

Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines

..................................................III-2

Table IV-1 Summary ofNOx 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 Estimatesfor 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 EstimatedNOx Emissions Reductions for Stationary Source Spark

Ignited (SI) Engines from Districts without IC Engine Rules

........................VI-2

Table VI-2 EstimatedNOx 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 ActAmendments 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 gasrecirculation gal Gallon gm/ bhp-hr Gram per brake horsepower-hour HAPs Hazardous air pollutants HC Hydrocarbons HNCO Gaseousisocyanic acid HNCO3 

# Cyanuric acid ICCR Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking IC Engines Internal combustion engines I & M Inspection and monitoring lbm/day Poundsmass per day LPG Liquified petroleum gas MACT Maximum achievable control technology NO Nitric oxide N2 

# Molecular nitrogen N2

# O 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. Thedetermination 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 SafetyCode 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), requiresnonattainmentareas 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 ofnonattainment 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), requiresnonattainment 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. Districtsclassified as being severenonattainment must take all measures required of moderate and seriousnonattainment 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 ofNOx, VOC, and CO emissions to the atmosphere. The 1996 point source emissions inventory for stationary SI engines includes about 21,932 tons ofNOx 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 theNOx, VOC, and CO emissions from stationary point sources in California. This significance, however, varies from district to district. The 1996 point sourceemissions 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 classesof 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 SanJoaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD) are exempt from permit and their emissions are not included in these tables. AnnualNOxemissions for these agricultural engines (spark-ignited and diesel-fueled) have been estimated at 12,000 tons per year. This emissions estimate is greater than theNOx emissions for all stationary engines in the inventory for SanJoaquin Valley APCD. Moreover, this annualNOx 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

SanJoaquin 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

SanJoaquin 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

SanJoaquin 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 combinedNOx emissions from the oil and gas industry, manufacturing facilities, power plants, and landfill and waste water treatment facilities contribute almost 85 percent of the annualNOx emissions from stationary IC engines according to the 1996 point source inventory. According to the inventory, approximately 11 percent of the annualNOx 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 significantNOx 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 onTACs 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 andNOx 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 bothNOx and PM emissions will need to be controlled from these engines. Unfortunately, many combustion modification techniques and technologies used to reduceNOx 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 onNOx 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 SanJoaquin Valley. Although limited information is available, statewideNOx 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 agriculturalengines 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 theNOx 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 bea voluntary approach such as the CarlMoyer program which provides incentives for owner/operators of internal combustion engines torepower with low emissions engines or to replace an existing engine with an electric motor. This type of program has demonstrated the potential to significantly reduceNOx 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 usingfield 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. Inconsidering 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 astatewide 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 enginesdesigned 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% O21 

# 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% O21 

# 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 isNOx.NOx is a criteria pollutant that reacts in the atmosphere to formozone which is a significant air pollution problem in California.
There are probably more different types of controls available to reduceNOxfrom IC engines than for any other type ofNOx source. These controls can be grouped into the following general categories: combustionmodifications, fuel switching, post-combustion controls, and replacement of the engine with a new, low emissions engine or an electric motor.

Combustion modifications includeignition timing retard, optimization of the internal engine design,turbocharging or supercharging withaftercooling, exhaust gasrecirculation, 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 asprecombustion chambers,turbocharging, and improved ignition systems to reduce emissions, and may also use fuel switching.
Table III-1 summarizes the applicability and effectiveness of theNOx control methods for stationary engines. Although control technologies are shown forNOx 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 PrimaryNOx 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 WithAftercooling Exhaust GasRecirculation 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 otherNOx 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 amaximum 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. EnginesDerated toLess Than 50 Horsepower
Neither a RACT nor a BARCT determination was made on stationary spark-ignited IC enginesderated to less than 50 horsepower due to insufficient, and in some cases, conflicting data. Aderated engine is one in which the manufacturer’s brake horsepower rating has been reduced through somedevice which restricts the engine’s output. One of the largestcategories 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 andcomposition 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 ofissues 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 anotherdoesn’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 poweris 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 controltechnologies 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 ofderated 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 ofderated 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 enginesderated 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-ignitedengines 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 twoNOx 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 thisNOx control alternative is that exhaust controls typically reduceNOx by a certain percentage, regardless of the initialNOx concentration. Thus, for engines inherently high inNOx, 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, asNOx 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 baselineNOx concentration with the post-modification concentration, estimating a percentNOx reduction and verifying that the control meets the appropriate percent reduction limit.
Except for the optional percentage reduction forNOx, 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. RACTNOx Limits
It is generally understood that RACT is the application of demonstrated technology to reduce emissions. "Demonstrated" meansa 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 includerepowering with either a new controlled engine or an electric motor.

1. Rich-Burn Engines
The RACT emission limits for spark-ignited rich-burn engines notcyclically-loaded are based on Ventura CountyAPCD’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, thisNOx 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 percentNOx 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., 50ppmvNOx 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 applicableNOx 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 applicableNOx 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 controllingNOx 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 RACTlimits 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 ofprestratified 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 andsulfur 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 SanJoaquin Valley UnifiedAPCD’s Rule 4701. For beam-balanced or crank-balanced pumping engines, theNOx limit is 300ppmv 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 lowerNOx emissions.
There have been situations where cyclic rich-burn engines have met the RACT limits of 50ppmv 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 theNOx 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 controlNOx emissions. All engines at other sites used leaning of the air/fuel mixture to controlNOx. 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 fieldgas which drive beam-balanced and air-balanced rod pumps. NSCR is installed on all of these engines with five meeting a limit of 50ppmvNOx and three meeting 25ppmv.

# IV-6 Table IV-1 Summary ofNOx Source Testing of Cyclically Operated Engines

Santa Barbara County

Emissions inppmv 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 hp2 

# 30-75% 7-33 154-406 31-196
1. One engine exceeded the250ppmv VOC limit. After repairs, this engine wasretested 6 weeks later and was found to be in compliance. 2. Two engines werederated.

Because of the demonstrated success of meeting the 50ppmvNOx 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 300ppmNOx and require the replacement of these engines at the end of their useful life with IC engines having lowerNOx 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 enginesand two-stroke spark-ignited engines rated at 100 horsepower or more is the same as for richburn engines: Ventura CountyAPCD’s Rule 74.9 that was in effect between September 1989 and December 1993. For natural gas-fired lean-burn engines, thisNOx limit is 125ppmv, corrected to 15 percent oxygen and dry conditions. Alternatively, these lean-burn engines can meet an 80 percentNOx 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 ppmNOx 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 applicableNOx limit. In most cases, engines that violated the limit passed several othersource tests before and after the violation. No particular engine make

# IV-7

or model appeared to have a significant problem in attaining the applicableNOx 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 ofprecombustion 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 separateNOx limit of 200ppmv 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 theseengines which are located in gas fields statewide and are used to drive compressors at gas wells. Whileprecombustion 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 lowerNOx emissions.

D. BARCTNOx 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 areadditional 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 CountyAPCD's Rule 74.9, the Federal Implementation Plan for the Sacramento area, and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District's Rule 412. TheseNOx limits are 25ppmv or 96 percent reduction for most rich-burn engines, and 50ppmv 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 Clearinghousemeet 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 BARCTNOx limit of 25ppmv or 96 percentNOx reduction. These engines used either NSCR type catalysts orprestratified charge controls. Engines usingprestratified 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 50ppmv or 90 percent reduction limit, not the 25ppmv or 96 percentNOx reduction limit as in the BARCT determination. BetterNOx emission reduction performance can be anticipated if controls are designed to meet a 25 (rather than 50)ppmv limit.
There is a separate BARCTNOx limit for rich-burn engines fueled by waste gases (e.g., sewage digester gas, landfill gas). This limit, 50ppmv 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 50ppmvNOx limit. In addition, identicalNOx limits are contained in Ventura CountyAPCD’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 usedprestratified 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 ofprestratified charge controls are expected to be the most popular control method.
For cyclic rich burn engines, the discussion and recommendations for RACTNOxlimits apply for BARCTNOx limits as well. Due to the difficulties and costs associated with controlling the emissions from these engines, theNOx limit is set at 300ppmv which is based on SanJoaquin Valley UnifiedAPCD’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 lowerNOx 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 25ppmNOx 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 fieldgas which fuels an IC engine genset with NSCR after-treatment. Thegenset supplies power to motors driving the beambalanced and crank-balanced oil pumps contiguous to thegenset.
For engines not cyclically-loaded, NSCR can be used to meet the 25ppmvNOx 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 CountyAPCD'sRule 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 65ppmv or 90 percent reduction level as the BARCTNOx 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 MetropolitanAQMD's Rule 412. This level is less effective than the current Ventura CountyAPCD's Rule 74.9NOx limit of 45ppmv or 94 percentcontrol. However, the Ventura CountyAPCD's limit includes an efficiency correction that can allow aNOxppmv limit higher than 45. Our determination does not include an efficiency correction. In addition, only 40 percent of the Ventura CountyAPCD’s source tests (143 of 358 tests) showed compliance with a 45ppmv or 94 percent controlNOx limit. On the other hand, the Ventura CountyAPCD’s source test data show that approximately 70 percent of the source tests (249 of 358) for lean-burn engines met aNOx limit of 65ppmv 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 125ppmv or 80 percent reduction under a previous version of Rule 74.9. TheNOx 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 enginederating. 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 RACTNOx limits apply for BARCTNOx 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 couldbe 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 theNOx limit of 200ppmv. We recommend that the districts require the replacement of these engines at the end of their useful life with prime movers having lowerNOx emissions.

E. Common Limits

Both the RACT and BARCT determinations include identical limits forCO and VOC. The basis for these common emissions limits is discussed below. Other elements that are identical include alternatives to controlling engines andexemptions which are addressed in Sections F and G.

1. CO Limits

The determination’s limitfor CO is 4,500ppmv. This 4,500ppmv limit is based on the highest CO limit in any district IC engine rule in California. Most districts have a 2,000ppmv CO limit. The 4,500ppmv CO limit in the determination was chosen since the main concern for emissions from IC engines has been onNOx, and some controls forNOx tend to increase CO emissions. The 4,500ppmv CO limit should allow the determination'sNOx limits to be met more easily and economically. In most cases, the determination’sNOx 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 4,500ppmv. 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 thenonattainment status. However, areas that arenonattainment for CO should assess the impact of stationary engines on CO violations, and should consider adopting a lower CO limit than 4,500ppmv. 2. VOC Limits

# IV-11

VOC limits are included in the determination because VOC emissions, likeNOx 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, manyVOCs 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 thanNOx emissions. However, several NOx controls tend to increase VOC emissions. The determination's VOC limits are designed to assure that VOC increases fromNOx 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 250ppmv for rich-burn engines and 750ppmv for lean-burn engines. The250ppmv limit for rich-burn engines is readily achievable through the use of three-way catalysts or otherNOx 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 caseswhere 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 impactingNOx 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 enginerepower, 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 effectiveNOx emission limits. For rich-burn to lean-burn conversions or vice versa, the more stringent rich-burnNOx 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-burnNOx limits would apply for a lean-burn to rich-burn conversion. It should be noted that districtsmay 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 anystationary 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 ofNOx 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’sNOx/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 forNOx andSOx 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 thederated 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 orOffroad Engines
To avoid potential conflicts with federal law, the determination exemptsnonroad engines. Under the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, districts are prohibited from adopting emission standards or control technology requirements for allnonroad engines. However, for some categories ofnonroad engines, control can be delegated to the ARB. See Chapter VII for further details. It should be noted thatnonroad engines used in stationary applications are not exempt from this determination. In addition, engines used innonroad 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 MoreThan 200 Hours Per Year
Engines that are not used for distributed generation of electrical power are exempt iftheyoperate 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 anonresettable 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 operatedto 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 enginegenset is operated during periods of high electrical rates, and the electrical power produced by agenset 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, regardlessof 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 anonresettable 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 thealternative 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 duringnonemergencies 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 inNOx 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 thenonemergency 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 prohi bits thenonemergency 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 reductionprogram, 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 exem

ptions may be justified under certain circumstances, but the inclusion ofany 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 quarterlyNOx 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 portableNOx monitor so that engines can be maintained to produce low emissions on a continuous basis. Where feasible, the portableNOx 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 CountyAPCD’s Rule Effectiveness Study. One of the conclusions of the study was that most non-compliant enginescan 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 ad just 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 ofNOx 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 theSCAQMD'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 bea 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 ofNOx, 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 portableNOx analyzer shall be used to takeNOx emission readings to determine compliance with the applicableNOx emission limits during any quarter in which a source test is not performed. ANOx 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 portableNOx 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, VCAPCDRule 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 anonresettable 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 anonresettablefuel 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 afuel-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. QuarterlyNOx 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 AFRC2 

### SCR3 

### 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 percentNOx 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 ofNOx 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 percentNOx 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 ofNOx 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 annualcost 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 typicalNOx 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 percentNOx 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 $2,000for 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 theprestratified charge technology would achieve an 80 percentNOx reduction and the NSCR control technology would

# V-8

achieve aNOx reduction performance of 96 percent control. Both of these technologies were compared against electrification as well as each other. The emissions reduction associated withelectrification 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 ofNOx 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 reducingNOx emissions to 45ppm or achieving reductions of 94 percent as opposed to our BARCT limits of 65ppm or 90 percent. The baseNOx emission limits for this analysis are identical to our RACTNOx 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 reductionsthat would be achieved by the more effective control option. Historically, when determining costeffectiveness, districts have estimated the costs and emission reductions associated withcontrolling 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 thevalues 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%/50ppm) to improved NSCR (96%/25ppm)

100-200 6 36 2.939,1851,8889,3009,740 225 1 22 0.379,1851,8888,2008,590 412 2 25 0.7918,3351,673 10,00010,470 625 1 19 0.7918,2602,3996,0006,280 700-800 3 50 6.2718,2602,3992,3002,410 1250 3 34 5.8518,2602,399 3,3003,460
From PSC (90%/50ppm) to NSCR (96%/25ppm)

300 3 50 7.8410,6001,6731,3001,360 330 3 53 0.6210,6001,673 17,0004

### 17,800

Lean-burn From SCR (80%/125ppm) to improved SCR (94%/45ppm)

660 2 62 14.81105,000-15,000 3,800-3,980- 346,5007,900 8,270
From Low-Emission Combustion (80%/125ppm) to added SCR (94%/45ppm)

1108 8 29 39.38 105,000-15,0006,300- 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 districtsrequired to adopt RACT emissions limits, leaning of the air-fuel mixture or retrofitting of lowemission combustion kits are the control technologiesexpected 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 TableVI-1

EstimatedNOx

# 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
SanJoaquin 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 thecontrol methodexpected 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'sNOx 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 opera ting 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 metalsfrom 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 varyfrom a few ppmv to about 50ppmv. Two districts have enginerules which set an ammonia emission limit of 20ppmv 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 PMemissions. 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 ofnonroad 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 anonroad 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 fornonroad 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 newnonroad 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 newnonroad 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 SanJoaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), the major source applicability thresholds are currently 50 tons per year (TPY) forNOX

# and VOC (If the district is reclassified from serious to severenonattainment 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 PM10

# 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 substancesinclude: 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 whileacrolein was found in less than half and at levels usually a factor of 1,000 smaller than the formaldehyde. Similarly, formaldehyde was found inall of the test runs on the two-stroke SI engine with significantly smaller amounts of toluene, benzene, and a fewPAHs. The rest of the compounds were not measured at detectable levels.

# VII-4

HAP emissions are also regulated by Title V.For sourcesHAPs 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 (AB1807) 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 ofHAPs/TACs

A number of sourcesare available for estimating the emission rates forHAPs andTACs from IC engines. Using the formaldehyde emission factors listed in Ventura CountyAPCD’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 ofHAPs can vary greatly, depending on the type of gaseousfuel, and the design and operating parameters of each individual engine.

5. Control ofHAPs/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 byliquified 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 andHAPs. 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 ofNOx 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 WilfredK.Nagamine, Hawaii State Department of Health, dated August 23, 1991.

5. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, "Staff Report- Proposed Revision to Rule74.9 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,"KienHuynh and Gregory Wood, SCAQMD, December 7, 1995.

10.Staff Report for South Coast Air Quality Management District Proposed Rule 1110.2 - Emissions from Gaseous andLiquid Fueled Internal Combustion Engines, July 11, 1990.

11.Personal Communication, GeorgeArnos, 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,"GodfreyAghoi, 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," JohnsonMatthey, Catalytic Systems Division, Environmental Products, 1995.

20.Personal communication, BillClary,Miratech Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, June 18, 1999.

21. "Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Control ofNOx 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 DonKoeberlein, ARB, Subject: Draft Internal Combustion Engine RACT/BARCT, dated September 10, 1997.

24.Memo fromGodfreyAghoi,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 SanJoaquin 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 SanJoaquin 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 ControllingNOx 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 ProposedHeavy-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 LLCSCONOx System,” EquipmentPrecertification 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.SanJoaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, "Final Staff Report – Amendments to Rule4701 (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 onNOx 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. ANNUALmeans 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 YEARmeans the time period from January 1 through December 31. D. CYCLICALLY-LOADED ENGINEmeans 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 enginegensets, 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 ENGINEis 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. ENGINEis any spark-ignited reciprocating internal combustion engine. I. EXEMPT VOC COMPOUNDSmeans 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 completelymethylatedsiloxanes, the following classes ofperfluorocarbons: (a) cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinatedalkanes; (b) cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated ethers with nounsaturations; (c) cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated tertiary amines with nounsaturations; and (d) sulfur-containingperfluorocarbons with nounsaturations and with the sulfur bonds to carbon and fluorine, and
(2) The followinglow-reactive organic compounds which have been exempted by the U.S. EPA: acetone ethane methyl acetate parachlorobenzotrifluoride (1-chloro-4-trifluoromethyl benzene) perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene).
Methylatedsiloxanes andperfluorocarbon 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 methylatedsiloxanes andperfluorocarbon 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 CONTROLSare 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. FUELmeans 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 ofstoichiometry, and the engine normally operates with an exhaust oxygen concentration of greater than 2 percent. N. NONROAD ENGINEmeans anonroad engine as defined by the U.S. EPA in 40 CFR Part 89, Subpart A, Section 89.2. The term“nonroad”is synonymous withoffroad. O. OFFROAD ENGINEmeans anonroad engine. P. PORTABLE ENGINEas 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. ppmvis 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 ora similar standard, without taking into account anyderatings. 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 ENGINEmeans a liquid or gaseous fueled engine designed to ignite its air/fuel mixture bya spark across a spark plug. V. STATIONARY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEis anengine 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 GASis 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-ownedwaste water treatment facilities. Waste gas includes landfillgas 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 adry 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

ppmvAT 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) ForNOx,either the percent control or theppmvlimit 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 theNOx 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. Theppmv limits for VOC and CO apply to all engines. (2) California Reformulated Gasoline shallbe 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

ppmvAT 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) ForNOx,either the percent control or theppmvlimit 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 theNOx 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. Theppmv 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 excludingnonroad 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 200hours as determined by anonresettableelapsed 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 poweroutages, do not exceed 100 hours of operation annually as determined by anonresettable 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 ofNOx, 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 andV.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 SectionV.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 ofNOx, 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 monitorNOx and oxygen exhaust emission readings using a portableNOx 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 inthe 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 exhaustNOx, CO, VOC or oxygen concentrations, the owner/operator is required to take corrective actions on thenoncompliant 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 andRecordkeeping
(1) The owner or operator of one or more stationary internal combustion engines subject to both Sections III, andV.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 continuousNOx 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 gasNOx concentrations inppmv, corrected to 15 percent oxygen. The continuous monitoring system may bea 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 Part60. These include the performance specifications found in Appendix B, Specification 2, the quality assurance requirements found in Appendix F, and the reporting requirements of Parts60.7(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 SectionV.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). Thesource 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 inppmv, 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 portableNOx analyzer shall be used to takeNOx 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 theengine is brought into compliance within 15 days of the initial outof-compliance reading. AllNOx 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 subjectto Section IV.B.shall be required to install anonresettable 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 thealternative 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. Incarbureted 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 whileair 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 controllingNOx. Refinery gas refers to the gas generated by oil refinery processing. Field gas and refinerygas 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, asexhaust catalysts may be adversely affected by high levels of sulfur. In addition, waste gases may containmethylatedsiloxanes 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 combustionchamber 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 thereforeturbocharged 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 ofstoichiometry refers to fuel-rich combustion, i.e., operation at any air-to-fuel ratio less thanstoichiometry. Lean ofstoichiometry refers to fuel-lean combustion, i.e.,operation at any air-to-fuel ratio numerically higher thanstoichiometry.
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 peakNOx emissions) at an air/fuel ratio that is about 6 to 12 percent leaner thanstoichiometric. Efficiency (andNOx 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, significantNOx reductions are possible.

# B-5 Figure B-1: The Effect of Air-to-Fuel Ratio onNOx, 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 incorporateprecombustion chambers into the engine head. A precombustion chamber is a small combustionchamber which contains the spark plug. A rich mixture is introduced into theprecombustion chamber, which is ignited by the spark plug. Passageways from theprecombustion 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 otherNOx reduction technologies are knownas 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.SOxis 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 ofNOx.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 (thermalNOx) and from the oxidation of fuel-bound nitrogen (fuelNOx). The generation of fuelNOx varies with the nitrogen content of the fuel and the air/fuel ratio. The generation of thermalNOx 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 principalNOx generation mechanism is thermalNOx. Even in cases where a high nitrogen content fuel such as crude oil or residual fuel oil is used, thermalNOx 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 reduceNOx from IC engines than for any other type ofNOx 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 reduceNOx 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 andaftercooler, and adding exhaust gasrecirculation.
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 increaseNOx 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 andHAPs.

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 ofstoichiometric. At this point, both CO and VOC are relatively low. Adjusting the air/fuel ratio toward either leaner or richer mixtures from the peakNOx formation air/fuel ratio will reduceNOx formation. In the case of leaner mixtures, the excess air acts as a heat sink, reducing peak temperatures, which results in reducedNOx 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 theNOx 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 peakNOx air/fuel ratio, there is approximately a 5 percent decrease inNOx for a1 percent increase in intake air. However, this rate of decrease inNOx 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 reduceNOx 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 peakNOx air/fuel

# B-9

ratio. However, the effect onNOx 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 (H2

# O), leaving less oxygen available to combine with nitrogen to formNOx. A mixture richer thanstoichiometric 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 reduceNOx formation. There is a very rapid exponential increase in CO and VOCemissions as the mixture becomes richer thanstoichiometric.
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 enginederating,NOx reductions well above 80 percent (less than 65ppmv) 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, theNOx 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 theNOx 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 optimalNOx producing ratio will reduceNOx formation. The leaner the mixture, the lower theNOx emissions. However, to obtain substantial reductions inNOx emissions, engine modifications are needed to assure that the fuel will ignite and to minimize any fuel consumption penalties. A number of engine manufacturers andNOx 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 minimizeNOx 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 swirlpatterns which result in thorough mixing. On larger engines, the use of aprecombustion chamber (also referred to as aprechamber) is needed to ignite the lean mixture. Combustion begins in the smallerprechamber, 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.
Manyprecombustion chamber retrofits consist of replacing the existing engine heads with new heads. However, some low costprechamber retrofits are designed to use the existing engine's head, with theprechambers fitted into the existing spark plug hole. Otherprechamber retrofits consist of a modified spark plug instead of a separateprechamber. The modified spark plug has a small, built-in fuelnozzle 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 ahigh energy ignition system to eliminate or minimize misfiring problems associated with lean operation, a new or modifiedaftercooler, 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 casesNOx 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 isderated, sustained emissions

# B-11

below 65ppm 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 increasedair 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 bederated. Beyond a certain degree of leaning (andNOx 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 installa 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 VOCemissions can increase substantially.

Costs:For the installation ofprecombustion 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.

Forprechambers 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 reduceNOx emissions. It allows leaner mixtures to be used without misfiring problems. As indicated previously, the leaner the air/fuel ratio, the lower theNOx emissions. However, at some point in leaning the mixture, lean misfire begins to occur, and furtherNOx reductions are impractical. In most engines during ignition, anonuniform 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 greaterchance 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 lowerNOx 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 200ppm.

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 aprecombustion chamber retrofit involving head replacement. For large engines (~ 2000 horsepower), costs can be in excess of $200,000.

5. Turbocharging or Supercharging andAftercooling
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 ofNOx. However, the heat sink effect of the additional air in the cylinder, combined with the increased engine efficiency fromturbocharging or supercharging, generally results in a minor overall decrease inNOx 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 forNOx. 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.

Onturbocharged or supercharged engines, the intake air temperature can be reduced by aftercooling (also known asintercooling or chargeair cooling). Anaftercooler consists of a heat exchanger located between the turbocharger or supercharger and combustion chamber. The heat exchanger reduces the temperature of the intake air afterit has been compressed by the supercharger or turbocharger. Cooling the intake air reduces peak combustion temperatures, and thereby reducesNOx 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 theaftercooler can reduce the intake air temperature to as low as 90o

# F.
The cooling effects of theaftercooler 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 lowerNOx emissions further.
Typical Effectiveness:NOx reductions fromaftercooling range from about 3to35percent. 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. Useof anaftercoolerfurther increases the efficiency of an engine, and can also increase the maximum power rating. At low loads and excessive temperature reductions, anaftercooler can cause longer ignition delays, which increase emissions of VOC and particulate matter. This emissions increase can be minimized if anaftercooler 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, lowNOx 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, andaftercoolers generally resultsin a cost savings.

6. Exhaust GasRecirculation

# B-14

Applicability:Exhaust gasrecirculation, 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 reducesNOx 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 requiredto 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 inNOx 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 ofdifferent 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 aprestratified charge (PSC) retrofit are the air injectors. These injectorspulse 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 aprecombustion chamber. Both have a rich fuel mixture near the sparkplug, and a lean mixture elsewhere in the combustion chamber. NOx emissions are low for PSC for the same reasons they are low forprechamber designs.
Typical Effectiveness:PSC can achieve greater than 80 percent control ofNOx 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 increasesNOx emissions. To maintain highNOx 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 controlNOx. 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 greaterNOx 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 foran 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 fuelprice 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) forNOx 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 400o

# F, although minimum temperatures in the 600 to 700o

# F range are generally required to achieve maximum reductions. The catalyst will maintain adequate performance at temperatures typically as high as 1350o

# F 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 minimizepoisoning, along with good engine maintenance practices. Metal poisoning can be reversed in some cases with special procedures. Many catalysts arenow 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 La2

# O3

# are often included in the catalyst formulation to minimize sintering. High temperature catalysts have been developed which can withstand temperatures exceeding 1800o

# F 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 1300o

# F.
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 increasebackpressure 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 amuffler, and no reduction in engine efficiency or power occur. Often, engine manufacturers rate their engines at a givenbackpressure, and as long as the catalyst does not exceed thisbackpressure, 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, andNOx are simultaneously controlled, have been commercially available for stationary engines for over 10years. 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 controlNOx, 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 ofNOx 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 controlNOx,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 tostoichiometric. 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 reducesNOx. 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, optimalNOx 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 90percent forNOx, greater than 80 percent for CO, and greater than 50 percent for VOC. Greater efficiencies, below 10 parts per millionNOx, 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 bothNOx 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 1200o

# F. 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 reducingNOx if the CO and VOC concentrations are too low. NSCR is also not effective in reducingNOx 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 theNOx. 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 thesulfur, 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. Foran 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 andBeaird 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 convertNOx 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 4ppm 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 incogeneration 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 numberof 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 SCRNOx 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. Basemetal catalysts are most effective at exhaust temperatures between 500 and 900o

# F. Base metal catalysts generally contain titanium dioxide and vanadiumpentoxide, although other metals such as tungsten or molybdenum are sometimes used.Zeolite catalysts are most effective at temperatures between 675 to over 1100o

# F. Precious metal catalysts such as platinum and palladium are most effective at temperatures between 350 and 550o

# F.

# 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 withNOx and oxygen in the exhaust, converting the reactants to water vapor and nitrogen gas. Ammonia injection can be controlled by the use of aNOx monitor in the exhaust downstream of the catalyst. A feedback loop from the monitor to the ammonia injector controls the amount injected, so thatNOx reductions are maximized while emissions of ammonia are minimized. To eliminate the use of a costlyNOx monitor, some applications use an alternative system that measures several engine parameters. Values for these parameters are then electronically converted into estimatedNOx concentrations.
Typical Effectiveness:TheNOx 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 ofzeolite 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 azeolitecatalyst.
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 thebackpressure 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 monitorNOx 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 theNOx monitor and feedback ammonia metering system. In such cases, proper instrumentation must be used to monitor ammonia andNOx 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. LeanNOx 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 leanNOx 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 forNOx control efficiencies have ranged from 25 to 50 percent. Steady state testing on a diesel-fueled engine yieldedNOx 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 leanNOx catalysts produce significant amounts of nitrous oxide (N2

# O), and that this production increases with increasingNOx 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-burngaseous fueled engines. However, this technology is relatively new, and there have only been a few commercial applications.
Principle:NOxTech uses a gaseous phaseautocatalysis process to reduceNOx 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 1,550o

# F, where reactions between nitric oxide (NO) and the reagent generate N2

# , CO2

# , and H2

# O. 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 reduceNOx 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 areversions 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 forcogeneration 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 forthis 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 selectivenoncatalytic reduction. It has been used on several boilers to controlNOx, but there have been no applications to internal combustion engines.
Principle:Urea injection is very similar tocyanuric 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 incogeneration 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. NOxAdsorber Technology (SCONOx)
Applicability:ThisNOx control method is applicable todiesel-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 ofNOxadsorber technology on a mobile source is the HondaInsight which is a hybrid vehicle. Multiple companies and organizations are engaged in the development of theNOxadsorber technology. This discussion will focus onSCONOx.
Principle:This system uses a single catalyst for the removal ofNOx, VOC, and CO emissions. This is athree 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 maximumNOx absorption. TheSCONOx 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 theadsorber by running the engine in a fuel rich mode and passing the exhaust through athree way catalyst to reduce theNOx.
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 indicatedthatNOxreductions 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 hadNOx emissions of 2ppmv (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 lowestNOx 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 hydrogengas 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 reducingNOx is to replace the existing IC engine with an electric motor, or a new engine designed to emit very lowNOx emissions. In some instances, the existing engine may beintegral 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 reduceNOx by a substantial amount over older, uncontrolled engines. PotentialNOx 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 eliminatesNOx 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’sNOx emission units is given in g/bhphr and is an average of theNOx concentrations measured under different operating conditions of a given test cycle. So the certified engine’sNOx 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’sNOx 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 SanJoaquin 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 > 50bhp and all portable engines > 100bhp 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>500bhp – 36ppm @ 15% oxygen, engines > 50 and < 500bhp – 45ppm @ 15% oxygen VOC – 250ppm @ 15% oxygen as methane CO – 2000ppm @ 15% oxygen For all other stationary engines: NOx – 36ppm @ 15% oxygen VOC – 250ppm @ 15% oxygen as methane CO – 2000ppm @ 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 > 1000bhp and operating > 2 millionbhp-hr. per year must use continuous

emissions monitoring forNOx and CO
? Monitoring system shall have data gathering and retrieval capability
? Maintain continuous monitoring records for two years
? Source testing ofNOx, VOC, and CO every year
? Maintain operating log
? Emission control plan Monitoring Period CEMS required for engines > 1000bhp and > 2 millionbhp-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 >250bhp; partly or completely gaseous fueled Limits CO – 2000ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Natural gas fuels Rich-burn NOx – 56ppmv @ 15% oxygen Lean-burn NOx – 140ppmv @ 15% oxygen Waste-derived fuels Rich-burn NOx – 210ppmv @ 15% oxygen Lean-burn NOx – 140ppmv @ 15% oxygen Exemptions ? Engines used solely as emergency standby sources of power

? Engines < 250bhp
? Engines fired exclusively on liquid fuels
? Engines used in agricultural operations
? Engines<1000bhp and < 200 hrs/year operation
? Engines > 1000bhp 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 > 50bhp, operated on gaseous fuels, LPG, or diesel Limits CO – 2000ppmv

Rich-Burn NOx – 90ppmv @ 15% oxygen Lean-Burn NOx – 150ppmv @ 15% oxygen Diesel NOx – 600ppmv @ 15% oxygen Exemptions ? Agricultural operations

? ?50bhp 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 >50bhp; all fuel types Limits For engines > 50bhp:

Follow requiredNOx minimization maintenance schedule For engines > 250bhp after 6/1/97: CO – 2000ppm@15% oxygen Rich-Burn NOx – 50ppm @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction Lean-Burn NOx -- 125ppm @ 15% oxygen or 80% reduction, or 2 gm/ bhp-hr. if combustion modification used exclusively (125ppm if no means to measure shaft power output) Diesel 600ppm @ 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, monitorNOx 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 toNOx 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 >500bhp, located in Federal OzoneNonattainment Area Limits CO – 4500ppmv@ 15% oxygen

Rich-Burn NOx – 50ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction Lean-Burn NOx – 140ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 80% reduction Diesel NOx – 700ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 30% reduction VOC –106ppmv@ 15% oxygen, except 255ppmv @ 15% oxygen at SCGNewberry Spring facility Exemptions ? < 500bhp

? Engines operating < 100 hours over four continuous calendar quarters
? Emergency engines
? Engines located outside of the Federal OzoneNonattainment 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 >50bhp, located at major stationary sources Limits RACT Emission Limits after 7/1/95:

Rich-Burn NOx – 50ppmv @ 15% oxygen CO – 4000ppmv @ 15% oxygen NMHC – 250ppmv @ 15% oxygen Lean-Burn NOx – 125ppmv @ 15% oxygen CO – 4000ppmv @ 15% oxygen NMHC – 750ppmv @ 15% oxygen Diesel NOx – 700ppmv @ 15% oxygen CO – 4000ppmv @ 15% oxygen NMHC – 750ppmv @ 15% oxygen NOx BARCT Emission Limits after 5/31/97: Rich-Burn 25ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction Lean-Burn 65ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction Diesel 80ppmv @ 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 >50bhp, located at major stationary source Limits CO – 4500ppmv @ 15% oxygen

NOx – 50ppmv @ 15% oxygen, 0.9 g/ bhp-hr or 90% reduction (rich-burn, all fuels except waste-derived) NOx – 125ppmv @ 15% oxygen, 2.3 g/ bhp-hr or 80% reduction (lean-burn, also engines using waste-derived fuels) NOx – 700ppm @ 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>50bhp Limits CO – 4500ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Rich Burn NOx – 25ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 96% reduction (using fossil-derived gaseous fuel or gasoline) NOx – 50ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction (using waste-derived gaseous fuel) VOC – 250ppmv @ 15% oxygen Lean Burn NOx – 65ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction (using gaseous fuel) Diesel NOx – 535ppmv @ 15% oxygen, 6.9 g/ bhp-hr or 90% reduction (high-use, new or replacement low-use and new or replacement cyclic engines) NOx – 700ppmv @ 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-resettabletotalizing fuel meter and non-resettabletotalizing 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 forNOx, CO, CO2

## , O2

# C-11 Rule/Measure/Date SanJoaquin Valley Unified APCD Rule 4701 11/12/1998
Applicability Engine rated greater than 50bhp and requiring a permit Limits CO – 2000ppmv@ 15% oxygen

For engines not owned by the Public Water District: Rich-Burn except beam-balanced or crank-balanced pumping engines NOx – 50ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction, VOC – 250ppmv @ 15% oxygen Lean-Burn NOx – 75ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 85% reduction, VOC – 750ppmv @ 15% oxygen Diesel or dual-fuel NOx -- 80ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction, VOC – 750ppmv @ 15% oxygen For engines owned by the Public Water District: Rich-Burnexcept beam-balanced or crank-balanced pumping engines NOx – 90ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 80% reduction Lean-Burn NOx -- 150ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 70% reduction Diesel or dual-fuel NOx – 600ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 20% reduction For beam-balanced or crank-balanced pumping engines: NOx – 300ppmv @ 15% oxygen For waste-gas engines: NOx -- 125ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 80% reduction, VOC – 750ppmv @ 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 50bhp or fewer Administrative Requirements ? Emissions Control Plan required

? Maintain engine operating log Monitoring Period ? For engines with external control devices, CEMS forNOx, 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 > 50bhp Limits CO – 4500ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Rich-Burn NOx – 50ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% reduction Lean-Burn NOx – 125ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 80% reduction Diesel NOx -- 600ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 30% reduction Exemptions ? Agricultural operations

? <50bhp 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?50bhp and requiring a permit Limits Noncyclic Rich-Burn Engines

NOx – 50ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% control ROC – 250ppmv @ 15% oxygen CO – 4500ppmv @ 15% oxygen Noncyclic Lean-Burn Engines: NOx – 125ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 80% control ROC – 750ppmv @ 15% oxygen CO – 4500ppmv @ 15% oxygen Cyclically-Operated Engines: NOx – 50ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% control ROC – 250ppmv @ 15% oxygen CO – 4500ppmv @ 15% oxygen Diesel Engines: NOx – 8.4 g/

bhp-hr. or 797ppmv @ 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 portableNOx 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 > 50bhp but<300bhp:

CO – 4500ppmv @ 15% oxygen Rich-Burn NOx – 640ppmv @ 15% oxygen Lean-Burn NOx – 740ppmv @ 15% oxygen Diesel & all liquid-fired NOx -- 600ppmv @ 15% oxygen For engines > 300bhp: CO – 4500ppmv @ 15% oxygen Rich-Burn NOx – 90ppmv @ 15% oxygen Lean-Burn 150ppmv @ 15% oxygen Diesel & all liquid-fueled NOx – 600ppmv @ 15% oxygen Exemptions ? Agricultural operations

? Emergency standby engines operated < 200 hours/year
? Any engine rated by the manufacturer<50bhp 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 > 50bhp, stationary, gaseous fueled engines only Limits Rich-Burn

NOx – 90% reduction, initial test, 80% reduction thereafter, or 90ppm at 15% oxygen CO – 2000ppm at 15% oxygen Lean-Burn NOx/General – 80% reduction, initial test, 70% reduction thereafter, or 150ppm at 15% oxygen NOx/Optional (combustionmods only) – 2 grams perbhp-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 > 50bhp, 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>500bhp – 36ppm @ 15% oxygen, engines > 50 and < 500bhp – 45ppm @ 15% oxygen VOC – 250ppm @ 15% oxygen as methane CO – 2000ppm @ 15% oxygen For all other stationary engines: NOx – 36ppm @ 15% oxygen VOC – 250ppm @ 15% oxygen as methane CO – 2000ppm @ 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 > 1000bhp and > 2 millionbhp-hr. per year must use continuous emissions

monitoring forNOx
? Monitoring system shall have data gathering and retrieval capability
? Operational and non-resettabletotalizing time meter required
? Source testing ofNOx, VOC, and CO every 3 years
? Maintain operating log Monitoring Period CEMS required for engines > 1000bhp and > 2 millionbhp-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 > 50bhp but<300bhp:

CO – 4500ppmv @ 15% oxygen Rich-Burn NOx – 640ppmv @ 15% oxygen Lean-Burn NOx – 740ppmv @ 15% oxygen Diesel & all liquid-fired NOx -- 600ppmv @ 15% oxygen
For engines > 300bhp: CO – 4500ppmv @ 15% oxygen Rich-Burn NOx – 90ppmv @ 15% oxygen Lean-Burn NOx – 150ppmv @ 15% oxygen Diesel & all liquid-fueled NOx – 600ppmv @ 15% oxygen Exemptions ? Agricultural operations

? Emergency standby engines operated < 200 hours/year
? Any engine rated by the manufacturer<50bhp 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>50bhp, if such

engines are not used in oil field drilling operations Limits CO – 4500ppmv @ 15% oxygen

Ammonia– 20ppmv Rich-Burn NOx – 25ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 96% control ROC – 250ppmv @ 15% oxygen Lean-Burn NOx – 45ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 94% control ROC – 750ppmv @ 15% oxygen Diesel NOx – 80ppmv @ 15% oxygen or 90% control ROC – 750ppmv @ 15% oxygen Rich-Burn, waste gas NOx – 50ppmv @ 15% oxygen ROC – 250ppmv @ 15% oxygen Lean-Burn, waste gas NOx – 125ppmv @ 15% oxygen ROC – 750ppmv @ 15% oxygen Exemptions ? Engines rated less than 50bhp

? 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
? < 100bhp emittingNOx<5 g/ bhp-hr., used incogeneration
? 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 andAnacapa 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 > 50bhp, operated on gaseous fuels, LPG, or diesel Limits CO – 2000ppmv @ 15% oxygen

5/31/95 limits: NOx – 9.5 gm/

bhp-hr. or 640ppmv @ 15% oxygen (rich-burn), 10.1 gm/ bhp-hr. or 740 ppmv @ 15% oxygen (lean-burn), 9.6 gm/ bhp-hr. or 700ppmv @ 15% oxygen (diesel) If 5/31/95 limits not met, then following limits apply by 5/31/97: NOx – 90ppmv @ 15% oxygen (rich-burn), 150ppmv @ 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

? <50bhp 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 similarNOx 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" listsNOx emissions inppmv 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 inppmv 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 inNOx CO OUT - carbon monoxide emissions inppmv 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 exhaust controls. DATE TEST - date of thesource 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 inppmv 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 SanJoaquin 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

4314bhp Caterpillarmodel 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.

92ppmvd 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 ofparticulates
0.34 g/ bhp-hr (equivalent to 0.053 g/dscf & 0.073 lb/MMbtu)

Monterey Bay Regional Waste Management District
1274 hpJenbacher 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 213.45lbm/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

2760bhp 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: GeorgeHeinen SanJoaquin Valley Unified APCD (559) 230-5909 Lean-burn

engine with a precombustion chamber
0.75 g/ bhp-hr 109.5lbm/day Lean-burn engine

with a precombustion chamber
1.25 g/ bhp-hr 182.5lbm/day Chemical addition

to the digester sludge to reduce the influent fuel hydrogen sulfide content by 90%
0.1 g/ bhp-hr 13.9lbm/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 292.1lbm/day Digester gas or

natural gas fuel or any blend of digester gas and natural gas
0.1 g/ bhp-hr 14.6lbm/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 300ppmv 0.30 g/ bhp-hr

Pacific EnergyOtay Mesa Landfill
2650 hp CooperSuperior model 16SGTA lean-burn engine-generator set with 1850KW 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 4.7lbm/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

773bhp Waukesha F3521GL lean-burn reciprocating engine fired on digester or natural gas and producing 550KW 12/31/86 (A/C no. 1377-1) A330-164-87

District Contact: KeithDuval 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. 8501thru 8504) A330-154-86

District Contact: AletaKennard 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: CraigUllery 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: CraigUllery 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 

## KaiserPermanente Health Plan, Inc.

171bhp fourTecodrive model 7400LEnatural-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: RoyOlivares South Cost AQMD (909) 396-2208 rolivares@aqmd.gov Miratechmodel MN11T-04F catalytic converter and Tecodrive air/fuel ratio controller
0.15 g/ bhp-hr Miratech model

MN-11T-04F catalytic converter andTecodrive air/fuel ratio controller
0.15 g/ bhp-hr Miratech model MN-11T-04F catalytic converter andTecodrive air/fuel ratio Controller
0.60 g/ bhp-hr

Crestline Village Water District

93bhp 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: RoyOlivares 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

750bhp 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: RoyOlivare 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 10ppmvd @ 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 83ppmvd @ 15% O2
Voluntary information on controls. BACT not required.

KaiserPermanente Medical Center

160bhp 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: GeorgeHeinen SanJoaquin Valley Unified APCD (559) 230-5909 Natural gas firing

150 @ 15% O2 (equivalent to 0.78 g/bhp-hr) Natural gas firing

55ppmv @ 15% (equivalent to 0.72 g/bhp-hr) Natural gas firing

148ppmv @ 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

82bhp Ford model no. LGC-649natural-gas fired, richburn emergency IC engine driving aKohler 39KW 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: GeorgeHeinen SanJoaquin 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

365bhp, 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: GeorgeHeinen SanJoaquin Valley Unified APCD (559) 230-5909 Houston Industrial Silencing model DN/S-3656PH three-way catalyst and natural-gas firing

1.3lbm/day (Equivalent to 0.068 g/ bhp-hr or 30ppmvd 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

0.04lbm/day (Equivalent to 0.60lbm/MMscf) Houston Industrial

Silencing model DN/S-3656PH three-way catalyst, positive crankcase ventilation, oxygen controller, and natural-gas firing

10.8lbm/day (Equivalent to 2.0 g/bhp-hr or 70 ppmvd at 15% oxygen) Natural gas firing and

positive crankcase ventilation

4.4lbm/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 1200btu/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

73ppmv at 15% oxygen Johnson-Matthey model MX-10 non-selective catalyst; Blackhawk Services fuel/air ratio controller; and positive crankcase ventilation

215ppmv 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: KerbyZozula Ventura County APCD (805) 645-1421 Kerby@vcapcd.org Houston

Industrial model DN/S 1004PC DeNOx Silencer three-way catalyst

103ppmvd at 15% oxygen (Equivalent to 0.60 g/ bhp-hr) Houston Industrial

model DN/S 1004PC DeNOx Silencer three-way catalyst

9ppmvd 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 23lbm/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 23lbm/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 23lbm/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 SanJoaquin 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: TomGoff Kern Co. APCD (now the SanJoaquin Valley Unified APCD) (805) 862-5200 Three-way nonselective catalyst with air fuel ratio controller
1.0 g/ bhp-hr 27.84lbm/day/unit

San Diego Marriott Hotel-Tower 1
1150 hp Caterpillar low-emissionModel 3516TA leanburn gas engine with 800KW 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 280ppmvd 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 31.46MMBtu/hr and output of 3 MW and 540,000lbm/hr hot water (cogeneration) 12/18/87 (A/C nos. 7815C and 7815D) A330-276-88

District Contact: GeorgeHeinen Kings Co. APCD (now the SanJoaquin Valley Unified APCD) (559) 230-5909 Lean-burn torch ignition system incorporated in engine design
0.75 g/ bhp-hr 0.22lbm/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 Clarkmodel 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

100lbm/day 70% control

Tri County Sun Energy Sheraton Hotel

195bhp Caterpillar Model No. G3306-TA reciprocating engine producing 130KW 8/7/86 (A/C no. 1369-1) A330-165-87

District Contact: KeithDuval Ventura Co. APCD (805) 654-2845 Kerby@vcapcd.org Nonselective catalytic reduction

50ppmvd 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: KeithDuval 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: RoyOlvares 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 hpGenerac 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: GeorgeHeinen SanJoaquin 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: GeorgeHeinen SanJoaquin Valley Unified APCD (559) 230-5909 Carsound twostage, three-way catalyst and air fuel monitoring

100ppmv at 15% oxygen (Equivalent to 95% control) Carsound twostage, three-way catalyst an air-fuel monitoring

50ppmv at 15% oxygen (Equivalent to 90% control) LPG as auxiliary

fuel to tank vapors

0.08lbm/MMBtu Carsound twostage, three-way catalyst and air-fuel monitoring

150ppmv at 15% oxygen LPG as auxiliary fuel

to tank vapors

0.1lbm/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, 300cid 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: JohnYee 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: TomGoff/ Glenn Stevens SanJoaquin Valley Unified APCD (805) 862-5200 Three-way catalyst and blowby gasgas recirculation

10% control efficiency Three-way catalyst

60% control efficiency Low sulfur fuel

No limit Three-way catalyst

96% control efficiency

De LaGuerra 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: TomGoff/ Glenn Stevens SanJoaquin Valley Unified APCD (805) 862-5200 Three-way catalyst and crankcaseblowby 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: TomGoff SanJoaquin Valley Unified APCD (805) 862-5200 Houston Industrial Silencing three-way catalyst

0.44lbm/hr Houston Industrial

Silencing three-way catalyst

0.66lbm/hr 90ppmvd 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: TomGoff/ LynardScandura SanJoaquin Valley Unified APCD (805) 862-5200 Houston Industrial Silencing three-way catalyst

0.44lbm/hr Houston Industrial

Silencing three-way catalyst

0.66lbm/hr 90ppmvd at 15% oxygen

AmericanCogenics of California, Inc. (ElRoblar 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: SanjibMukherji Santa Barbara Co. APCD (805) 961-8800 Nonselective catalytic reduction

50ppmvd at 15% oxygen; 92% minimum 1.245lbm/hr/unit (Equivalent to 0.79 g/ bhp-hr)

### Table D-2

VENTURA COUNTY APCD SOURCE TEST DATA

MANUFACTURERMODEL HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 BessemerGMVA-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 BessemerGMVA-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 BessemerGMVA-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 BessemerGMVA-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 BessemerGMVA-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 BessemerGMVA-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 BessemerGMVA-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 BessemerGMVA-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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 BessemerGMVA-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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 BessemerGMV 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN IN OUT REDUCED OUT PPM TEST 15%O2 15%O2

Cooper BessemerGMV 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 BessemerGMV 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 BessemerGMV-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 BessemerGMV-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 BessemerGMV-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 BessemerGMV-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 BessemerGMV-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 BessemerGMV-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 BessemerGMV-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 BessemerGMV-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 BessemerGMV-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 BessemerGMV-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 BessemerGMV-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 BessemerGMV-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 BessemerGMV-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 BessemerGMV-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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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 HORSERICH/CONTROLS ST NOX NOX NOX CO NMHC DATE O2% NMHC CO QST POWERLEAN 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-2-41TABLE 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-3-1TABLE 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-3-2TABLE 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-3-3TABLE 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-3-4TABLE 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-3-5TABLE 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-3-6TABLE 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-3-7TABLE 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-3-8TABLE 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-3-9TABLE 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-4-12TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

4/7/1998 767 Y NAT. GAS 140.6 152.2

4/7/1998 767 Y NAT. GAS 19.5 101.1

4/7/1998 767 Y NAT. GAS 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

4/2/1998 160 NAT. GAS 9.7 343 22 284

9/10/199 6 1320 NAT. GAS 1114 54

9/10/199 6 1320 NAT. GAS 1202 41

1/4/1996 1320 NAT. GAS 5.6 2554 510 63

1/4/1996 1320 NAT. GAS 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-5-1TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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-5-2TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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-5-3TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

1/4/1996 165 NAT. GAS 0.16 2.9 245

11/25/19 97 23 NAT. GAS 0.06 11.8 2129

1/4/1996 165 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.15 15.3 245.4

1/4/1996 165 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 15.2 508

1/4/1996 165 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.12 61.4 1656

1/4/1996 120 Y NAT. GAS 0.1 25 46.9

1/4/1996 120 Y Y NAT. GAS 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-5-4TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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-5-5TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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-5-6TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

8/7/1997 825 Y NAT. GAS 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

6/4/1996 800 Y NAT. GAS 14 130 86

7/23/199 7 800 Y NAT. GAS 14.3 135.2 85

6/4/1996 660 Y NAT. GAS 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

1/9/1996 63 Y Y NAT. GAS 0 75

1/9/1996 63 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 257



### D-5-7TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

7/9/1997 650 Y NAT. GAS 43

8/13/199 6 650 Y NAT. GAS 9.6 962 100.8 84

7/8/1997 650 Y NAT. GAS 42

8/13/199 6 650 Y NAT. GAS 9.6 969 100.8 132

7/8/1997 650 Y NAT. GAS 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-5-8TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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-5-9TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

5/2/1996 4000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 13.5 10571 577 48 476

6/18/199 6 4000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 13.7 10700 559 91 545 813



### D-5-10TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

5/9/1996 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 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-5-11TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

3/6/1996 240 Y NAT. WAST 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-5-12TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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-5-13TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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-5-14TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

6/7/1996 525 Y Y NAT. GAS 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

5/1/1996 525 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.17

8/22/199 7 525 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.26 159 24.7 36.8 176.8 10.7

6/7/1996 525 Y Y NAT. GAS 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

5/1/1996 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.03 11.3 47 5.1

8/21/199 7 525 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.25 12.9 126.2 6.8

7/1/1996 220 Y NAT. GAS 8.3 19 86



### D-5-15TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

7/2/1996 225 Y NAT. GAS 8.65 24 148

7/2/1996 220 NAT. GAS 8.1 6.5 208

6/20/199 6 1024 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 1078 210 169

2/4/1997 1024 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.05 1272 241 31

5/9/1996 360 Y NAT. GAS 15.8 20.5 268

5/7/1996 450 Y NAT. GAS 16 14.3 447

5/7/1997 450 Y NAT. GAS 16.5 6.6 532

5/7/1996 450 Y NAT. GAS 15.3 25 276

5/7/1997 450 Y NAT. GAS 16.5 19.7 384

7/9/1996 230 Y NAT. GAS 15.3 47.7 201 106

7/11/199 7 230 Y NAT. GAS 14.9 57 160

7/9/1996 280 Y NAT. GAS 14.8 16.9 151 115



### D-5-16TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

8/9/1996 1052 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 961 152.2 3.3 439 49

5/2/1997 1052 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.15 837 5.43 6.9 103

8/9/1996 1052 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.12 928 147 169 1241 76

5/2/1997 1052 Y NAT. GAS 0.5 1000 6.37 1.6 112

8/8/1996 500 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.12 20.2 64.6

5/1/1997 500 Y NAT. GAS 0.06 25.1 133.5

8/8/1996 500 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.13 14.1 320

5/1/1997 500 Y NAT. GAS 0.2 26.9 958

2/28/199 6 200 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.07 2.3 195

5/1/1997 200 Y NAT. GAS 0.1 46 13

2/28/199 6 200 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.16 16.9 599



### D-5-17TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

2/5/1996 200 Y Y NAT. GAS 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-5-18TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

1/8/1996 208 Y Y NAT. GAS 24.4 413

1/27/199 7 208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 39 147

1/8/1996 208 Y Y NAT. GAS 22.8 105

1/27/199 7 208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 30 147

1/8/1996 208 Y Y NAT. GAS 43.7 187

1/27/199 7 208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 37 331

1/8/1996 208 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.5 158

1/27/199 7 208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 0.2 24



### D-5-19TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

1/8/1996 208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.27 5.6 523

1/27/199 7 208 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 5.1 73

9/3/1997 105 Y NAT. GAS 16.5 301 123

9/5/1997 105 Y NAT. GAS 15.2 110 100

9/3/1997 360 Y NAT. GAS 14 89.6 266

9/3/1997 360 Y NAT. GAS 16.4 70.7 470

9/12/199 6 1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 694 114 83 1468

7/9/1997 1340 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.1 695 4.8 139 1438

9/12/199 6 1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.04 1137 186.6 105 690

7/9/1997 1340 Y Y NAT. GAS 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-5-20TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

4/4/1996 185 Y NAT. GAS 8.3 37.2 10.2

4/4/1996 145 Y NAT. GAS 7.7 15.7 10.3 191

10/23/19 97 145 Y NAT. GAS 0.06 8.1 606 0.5

4/4/1996 145 Y NAT. GAS 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-5-21TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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-5-22TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

5/1/1997 5500 Y

Y NAT. GAS 13.7 12650 658 114 342

5/30/199 6 2000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 12.9 6553 389 29 380

5/1/1997 2000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 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-5-23TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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-5-24TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

6/5/1997 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 8.7 2395 215 58 150

3/21/199 6 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 7.8 1271 122.5 45.5

3/4/1997 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 9.3 1987 167 28 119

3/21/199 6 650 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.01 436 66.9 1.4



### D-5-25TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

5/2/1996 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 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

6/5/1997 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 7.4 1705 170 67 77

4/2/1996 650 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.3 1474 111 30

3/18/199 7 650 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.02 570 87.6 12.5 372

4/9/1996 650 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.36 1252 93



### D-5-26TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

4/1/1997 650 Y Y NAT. GAS 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

4/1/1997 650 Y Y NAT. GAS 0.75 127 60 307

3/26/199 6 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 8 1705 160 42.1

3/6/1997 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 9.9 2093 169 26 156

3/19/199 6 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 7.7 2116 202 67.1

3/4/1997 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 8.2 2182 202 28.5 83

3/26/199 6 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 7.7 1413 136.4 53.4

3/6/1997 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 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-5-27TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

4/2/1996 1000 Y Y NAT. GAS 8.5 4200 192

3/11/199 7 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 8.5 2115 195 64 125

4/9/1996 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 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

4/3/1997 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 8.75 211 27 75

6/4/1996 2000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 12 5021 316 182 294 564

5/29/199 7 2000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 12.1 298 43 233 40

6/4/1996 2000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 11.9 4631 294 123 336 361

6/3/1997 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 11.9 4791 333 64 227 93



### D-5-28TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

6/6/1996 2000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 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

6/3/1997 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 8 2066 195 70 58

4/24/199 6 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 10.3 2285 176 62 658 561

4/8/1997 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 9.6 148 69 302 310

4/23/199 6 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 11.3 5044 176 22 571 699

4/8/1997 1000 Y

Y NAT. GAS 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-5-29TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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

6/6/1996 1500 Y

Y NAT. GAS 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-5-30TEST DATE HP CAT PSC PCC

LEAN RICH 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 notechnology 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 sitesin California.