Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

Environmental Consultants

39395 Schoolcraft Road • Livonia, MI 48150 • (734) 464-3880 • FAX (734) 464-4368

4970 Northwind Drive, Suite 201 • East Lansing, MI 48823 • (517) 324-1880 • FAX (517) 324-5409

September 17, 2002 

Mr. Michael Laframboise 

Operations Manager 

SUMPTER ENERGY ASSOCIATES, INC. 

29261 Wall Street 

Wixom, MI 48393 

Subject: Results of non-methane organic compounds emissions testing conducted at the Sumpter 

Energy Associates, Inc., Pine Tree Acres Landfill Facility in Lenox, Michigan 

Derenzo and Associates, Inc. (Derenzo and Associates) is pleased to provide Sumpter Energy Associates,

Inc. (Sumpter Energy) with the enclosed report that presents results of compliance emission testing 

conducted at the Pine Tree Acres Landfill (Pine Tree) facility in Lenox, Michigan. Testing was 

conducted pursuant to the requirements of to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B) (Subpart WWW - Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills), and Draft Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Renewable 

Operating Permit (ROP) No. 199600384. 

Testing consisted of instrumental analyzer measurements of methane and total hydrocarbons from five 

(5) internal combustion engines at the Pine Tree facility. 

Testing was conducted September 3 - 6, 2002 by Derenzo and Associates personnel Gregory Graetz, 

Robert Harvey, Andrew Rusnak, and Robert Shrier. Assistance and process coordination was provided 

by Michael Laframboise, Sumpter Energy Associates Operations Manager. Mr. Jon Wilford of the 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division (MDEQ-AQD), was on site to 

witness the testing program. 

Please find enclosed two file copies of the final report, which presents summary tables of the measured 

emission rates from each engine, descriptions of the process tested, sampling methodologies, test 

conditions, and supporting documentation. 

Derenzo and Associates has forwarded copies of the compliance test report to each of the appropriate 

MDEQ-AQD offices. 

If you have any questions, please contact our office at (734) 464-3880. 

Sincerely, 

DERENZO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Gregory J. Graetz 

Project Engineer 

Enclosures (2) 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

Environmental Consultants

39395 Schoolcraft Road • Livonia, MI 48150 • (734) 464-3880 • FAX (734) 464-4368

4970 Northwind Drive, Suite 201 • East Lansing, MI 48823 • (517) 324-1880 • FAX (517) 324-5409

RESULTS 

OF 

NON-METHANE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS 

EMISSIONS TESTING 

CONDUCTED 

AT THE 

SUMPTER ENERGY ASSOCIATES, INC. 

PINE TREE ACRES LANDFILL FACILITY IN 

LENOX, MICHIGAN 

September 17, 2002 

Project No. 0205006 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 Page 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 

2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 1 

3.0 TESTING AND ANALYSES .............................................................................................. 2 

3.1 Exhaust Gas Sampling Location, Velocity, and Moisture Content ...................................... 2 

3.1.1 Sample and Velocity Traverse ...................................................................................... 2 

3.1.2 Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flowrate ............................................................... 3 

3.1.3 Determination of Moisture Content .............................................................................. 3 

3.2 Instrumental Analyzers Emissions Testing .......................................................................... 4 

3.2.1 Extractive Gas Sampling System for Instrumental Analyzers ...................................... 4 

3.2.2 Measurement of Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen Concentrations .................................... 5 

3.2.3 Measurement of Non-methane Organic Compounds Concentrations .......................... 5 

3.2.4 Verification of Gas Dilution Calibration Equipment .................................................... 6 

3.3 Quality Assurance / Quality Control .................................................................................... 6 

3.3.1 Exhaust Gas Properties and Flowrate (USEPA Methods 1-4) ...................................... 7

3.3.2 CEM Gas Sampling (USEPA Methods 3A, 18, and 25A) ........................................... 7 

4.0 MEASUREMENT RESULTS ............................................................................................. 7 

4.1 Non-methane Organic Compounds Concentrations and Emission Rates ............................ 7 

4.2 Oxygen Content Monitoring / NMOC Study ....................................................................... 8 

4.3 Operating Parameters ........................................................................................................... 9 

5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION ........................................................................................ 9 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

ii 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A COMPUTER CALCULATED AND FIELD SAMPLING DATA SHEETS 

APPENDIX B CALIBRATION DATA 

APPENDIX C ENGINE OPERATING DATA 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

1 Non-methane organic compounds concentrations and emission rates, 

Engine No. 1 ..................................................................................................................... 10 

2 Non-methane organic compounds concentrations and emission rates, 

Engine No. 2 ..................................................................................................................... 11 

3 Non-methane organic compounds concentrations and emission rates, 

Engine No. 3 ..................................................................................................................... 12 

4 Non-methane organic compounds concentrations and emission rates, 

Engine No. 4 ..................................................................................................................... 13 

5 Non-methane organic compounds concentrations and emission rates, 

Engine No. 5 ..................................................................................................................... 14 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 

1 Diagram presenting measurement and sampling locations ............................................. 15 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

Environmental Consultants

39395 Schoolcraft Road • Livonia, MI 48150 • (734) 464-3880 • FAX (734) 464-4368

4970 Northwind Drive, Suite 201 • East Lansing, MI 48823 • (517) 324-1880 • FAX (517) 324-5409

RESULTS 

OF 

NON-METHANE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, 

EMISSIONS TESTING 

CONDUCTED 

AT THE 

SUMPTER ENERGY ASSOCIATES, INC. 

PINE TREE ACRES LANDFILL FACILITY IN 

LENOX, MICHIGAN 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Sumpter Energy Associates, Inc. (Sumpter Energy) retained Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

(Derenzo and Associates) to conduct a testing program for the determination of non-methane 

organic compounds (NMOC) concentrations and emission rates from the exhaust of five (5) 

internal combustion (IC) engines located at the Pine Tree Acres Landfill facility in Lenox, 

Michigan. 

Testing was conducted pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B) (Subpart 

WWW - Municipal Solid Waste Landfills), and Draft Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ) Renewable Operating Permit (ROP) No. 199600384. 

Testing was conducted September 3 - 6, 2002 by Derenzo and Associates personnel Gregory 

Graetz, Robert Harvey, Andrew Rusnak, and Robert Shrier. Assistance and process coordination 

was provided by Michael Laframboise, Sumpter Energy Associates Operations Manager. Mr. 

Jon Wilford of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division 

(MDEQ-AQD), was on site to witness the testing program. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sampling methodologies were 

followed for the proper execution of this test program. For the determination of NMOC exhaust 

concentrations, USEPA Methods 25A and 18 were used respectively to measure total 

hydrocarbons (THC) and methane (CH4) concentrations. NMOC concentrations were calculated 

by subtracting the CH4 content of the gas stream from the THC content of the gas stream. 

2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 

The equipment tested consisted of five (5) identical, 800 kilowatt (kW) gensets (electricity 

generator driven by a reciprocating internal combustion engine). Each genset, manufactured by 

Caterpillar Inc., Model No. 3516, incorporates state of the art technology in order to fire lean fuel 

mixtures and produce low combustion by-product emissions. Each engine has a power 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

2 

generation rating of 1,138 brake-horsepower (bhp) and a maximum operating fuel requirement 

that is equivalent to approximately 8.6 million Btu per hour (MMBtu/hr) heat input at the lower 

heating value (LHV) of the LFG fuel. At a LFG LHV of 450 Btu per standard cubic foot 

(Btu/scf), each IC engine fires a total of approximately 317 scfm and 0.457 million standard 

cubic feet per day (MMscf/day) of LFG. 

Each IC engine is connected to a separate generator that has the capacity to produce 

approximately 800 kW of electricity. 

Emissions from the combustion of LFG are released uncontrolled into the ambient air through a 

stack connected to the IC engine exhaust manifold and noise control system (noise muffler). 

3.0 TESTING AND ANALYSES 

The emissions testing was conducted using procedures outlined in United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) Methods for Stationary Source Sampling. 

Each engine was operated at maximum operating conditions during the emission-testing project. 

Comments on Draft RO Permit No. 199600384 submitted to the MDEQ on August 30, 2002, 

included an alternative combustion temperature monitoring plan. The proposed alternative plan 

includes the monitoring of the range of engine exhaust oxygen content which is associated with 

lean to rich burn operations. Pursuant to the compliance demonstration detailed in the Draft RO 

Permit comments, and the guidance of Mr. Jon Wilford, MDEQ, NMOC emissions testing was 

completed on engine No. 3 while operating at a fuel rich condition (low oxygen exhaust) and 

lean fuel condition (high oxygen exhaust) while maintaining full load operation (800 kW). 

3.1 Exhaust Gas Sampling Location, Velocity, and Moisture Content 

Pollutant mass emission rate calculations require an accurate determination of exhaust gas 

flowrate (USEPA Methods 1 and 2). Exhaust gas flowrate measurements require (1) 

measurement of the velocity head and temperature at various, predetermined locations within the 

gas stream (USEPA Method 2), (2) measurement of the molecular weight of the exhaust gas 

(USEPA Method 3A), and (3) measurement of the moisture content of the exhaust gas (USEPA 

Method 4). 

3.1.1 Sample and Velocity Traverse

USEPA Method 1, Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources, was used to determine 

the number of traverse points required for testing each source. 

Based on flow disturbance data, the sampling port positions meet the minimum criteria for a 

"representative measurement" of the gas velocity. Figure 1 (following the text portion of this 

report) provides a schematic of the traverse and sampling locations. 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

3 

3.1.2 Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flowrate

USEPA Method 2, Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flowrate, was used to 

determine the average gas velocity. Average velocity pressure measurements of the exhaust gas 

were made using a S-type Pitot tube connected to an oil manometer capable of reading pressures 

from 0.0" to 10" water column. Concurrent temperature measurements of the exhaust gas were 

made with a type-K thermocouple attached to the Pitot tube. Cyclonic flow determinations were 

conducted on a representative exhaust stack and determined to be less than 20° on average. 

3.1.3 Determination of Moisture Content

Moisture content was determined in accordance with Method 4, Part 60, Appendix A. The 

moisture sampling train used in these tests met the specifications established by USEPA. A gas 

sample was continually extracted at a constant rate from the source, where moisture was removed 

from the sample stream using chilled impingers. The moisture content of the exhaust gas stream 

was determined volumetrically. 

The moisture sampling train consisted of the following equipment. 

Sample probe - A non-heated stainless steel probe was used since exhaust temperatures were 

greater than 700°F. The stainless steel probe was connected to the first impinger using flexible 

Tygon® tubing. The impinger train consisted of a set of impingers, connected in series and 

immersed in an ice bath. Crushed ice was placed around the impingers to keep the temperatures 

of the gases leaving the last impinger at 68 degrees Fahrenheit (o

F) or less. The volume of water 

contained within each impinger was measured before and after each test to determine the net 

moisture gained. 

Impinger train - The impinger train was constructed and charged as follows: 

1. modified Greensburg-Smith (GS) impinger containing 100 ml of de-ionized (DI) 

water; 

2. standard GS impinger containing 100 ml of DI water;

3. modified GS impinger, empty; and 

4. modified GS impinger containing approximately 200 - 300 grams of pre-dried silica 

gel and glass fiber. 

Umbilical line - An umbilical line was used to connect the sample probe and impinger train to the 

Nutech ® Metering System. The umbilical line includes type K thermocouples, used to measure 

the impinger outlet. 

Metering System - Nutech ® Metering System that consists of a vacuum gauge, leak-free carbon 

vane pump, calibrated dry gas meter and thermocouples to maintain a steady sampling rate and to 

determine sample volume. The thermocouples were connected to a digital thermometer. The 

digital thermometer displays readings from the thermocouples on the umbilical line and dry gas 

meter. 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

4 

Prior to each test run, the moisture sampling train was assembled and leak-checked at the 

sampling site by plugging the inlet to the probe and pulling a vacuum of approximately 15 in. Hg. 

At the conclusion of each test run, the sampling train was leak-checked by drawing a vacuum 

equal to the highest vacuum measured during the test run. 

During sampling, a single representative sample location was used in lieu of collecting the 

sample across the velocity traverse profile. At 5-minute intervals, sampling train data was 

recorded. An aneroid-type barometer was used to measure the barometric pressure of the 

ambient air. All sampling data was recorded on field data sheets. Percent moisture was 

calculated using the measured volumetric gain of the impingers along with the metering console 

and calibration data. 

3.2 Instrumental Analyzers Emissions Testing 

3.2.1 Extractive gas sampling system for instrumental analyzers

The extractive gas sampling system that served the instrumental analyzers used for USEPA 

Methods 3A, 18, and 25A was configured, as described below. 

Sample probe - Stainless steel single opening probe was located in the centroid of the stack 

cross-section. 

Tee and poppet check valve - A stainless steel “Tee” was installed between the sample probe and 

the particulate filter to allow the introduction of calibration gases through a stainless steel 10 psig 

poppet check valve into the sampling system. When sampling, the poppet check valve is 

normally closed, though upon the introduction of pressurized (i.e. > 10 psig) calibration gases 

from a remote Teflon® line to the poppet check valve, the check valve opens and allows the 

calibration gases to be introduced near the end of the sampling system. During this dynamic 

calibration (or sampling system bias check) procedure, the sampling probe serves as an 

atmospheric dump whereby the sampling system was not be influenced by the introduction of the 

pressurized calibration gases. The “Tee” and poppet check valve approach was preferred to 

USEPA Method 6C recommended 3-way valve for calibration gas introduction. 

Particulate filter - With high temperature exhaust streams at the sample location, a stainless steel 

fritted in-line filter was used to minimize particulate loading on the sampling system. 

Heated sample line - Heated Teflon® line was used to transport the sample gas from the stack to 

the air-conditioned instrument trailer. The heated Teflon® line was equipped with a temperature 

controller, which maintains the temperature of the sample line at approximately 250°F to prevent 

moisture condensation. 

Sample pump and flow control valve – A single, heated head 100% oil-free vacuum pump fitted 

with a stainless steel flow control valve was used to transfer sampled gases from the heated 

sample line to the moisture removal system. The vacuum pump is leak-free and non-reactive to 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

5 

the gases being sampled. Subsequent sample transport lines and fittings were either stainless 

steel or Teflon®. 

Tee split for conditioned and un-conditioned gas samples - A stainless steel “Tee” was installed 

after the vacuum pump to split the extracted gas samples between the flame ionization analyzers 

(FIA) instrumental analyzers which require unconditioned (or wet) gas samples, and the NDIR 

instrumental analyzer that requires a conditioned (or dry) gas sample.

Heated sample line jumper - Heated Teflon® line jumper was used to transport the sample gas 

from the Tee to the FIA instrumental analyzers which require unconditioned (or wet) gas 

samples. The heated Teflon® line is equipped with an internal self-limiting heat trace, which 

maintains the temperature of the sample line at approximately 250°F to prevent moisture 

condensation. 

Moisture removal system for gas conditioning – A KWW MAK-2 refrigerant-based condenser 

equipped with a peristaltic pump was used for moisture removal of the sampled gas for the NDIR 

instrumental analyzer that requires a conditioned (or dry) gas sample. 

Sample gas manifold – From the moisture removal system, a sample gas manifold constructed of 

Teflon® transport lines and stainless steel “Tee” fittings was used to continuously deliver the 

sampled gas to the instrumental analyzers. Since the instrumental analyzers were equipped with 

internal sampling pumps, the end of the sample gas manifold was equipped with an atmospheric 

dump (or bypass discharge vent) to avoid over pressurization of the instrumental analyzers. 

Data Logger – An ESC Model 8816 data logging system was used to record 1-minute average 

data from the analog outputs of the instrumental analyzers. 

3.2.2 Measurement of carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and oxygen (O2) concentrations were measured concurrently with the 

pollutant test runs using an instrumental analyzer in accordance with USEPA Method 3A. The 

Fuji Model ZRF Infrared Gas Analyzer is a multi-component instrumental analyzer, which is 

capable of measuring concentrations of CO2 and O2. The analyzer incorporates non-dispersive 

infrared (NDIR) technology for the measurement of CO2 concentrations, and zirconia O2 sensor 

for the measurement of O2 concentrations. The available instrument CO2 concentration ranges 

were 5, 15, 25 and 50% by volume. For O2 measurement, the available instrument ranges are 10 

and 25% by volume. 

The instrument ranges were conservatively set to 15 and 10% by volume for CO2 and O2

concentration measurements, respectively.

3.2.3 Measurement of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) concentrations

 

The concentration of THC in each engine exhaust was measured as propane using a Thermo 

Environmental Instruments, Inc. Model 51 Total Hydrocarbon Analyzer, a FIA, in accordance 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

6 

with USEPA Method 25A. The available instrument THC concentration ranges are 10, 50, 100, 

500, 1,000, 5,000, and 10,000 parts per million (ppm) by volume. 

Based on previous IC engine testing, the THC concentrations were expected to be approximately 

300 to 700 ppm depending on the methane content of the landfill gas. Therefore, the instrument 

range was conservatively set to 1,000 ppm, as propane for THC concentration measurements. 

A Thermo Environmental Instruments, Inc., Model 55C Methane-NMHC analyzer, an FIA with 

an integrated methane-specific gas chromatography (GC) column (GC/FIA), was used for the infield determination of methane (CH4) concentrations in each engine exhaust, pursuant to USEPA 

Method 18. Since this new technology is a continuous extractive gas analyzer, it is not 

technically feasible to perform traditional spike and recovery procedures associated with Method 

18 integrated bag samples. Therefore, the quality control and assurance procedures of Method 

25A, which are commonly referred to use with instrumental analyzers, were observed to 

demonstrate the instrument’s linearity, drift, and interference with respect to components other 

than methane. 

The available instrument CH4 concentration ranges are 20, 200, and 2,000 ppm by volume. 

Based on previous IC engine testing, the CH4 concentrations are expected to be approximately 

1,200 ppm. Therefore, the instrument range was conservatively set to 2,000 ppm, as methane, for 

CH4 concentration measurements. 

Upon correction of measured concentrations to an as hexane basis, the CH4 exhaust 

concentrations measured using the GC/FIA were subtracted from THC concentrations measured 

using the FIA in order to calculate exhaust NMOC concentrations. The calculated NMOC 

concentrations (ppmv NMOC as hexane) of the engine exhausts were corrected to 3% oxygen, on 

a dry basis. 

NMOC concentrations are presented in Section 4.0 of this report using each of the three 

measurement strategies detailed above. 

3.2.4 Verification of gas dilution calibration equipment

A STEC Model SGD-SC-5L five-step gas divider was used to obtain appropriate calibration span 

gases in the field. The five-step gas divider was NIST certified for primary flow standards on 

January 14th, 2002 in accordance with USEPA Method 205. When cut with an appropriate zero 

gas, the five-step gas divider delivers calibration gas values at 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% of the 

introduced USEPA Protocol 1 calibration gas. The field evaluation procedures described in 

Section 3.2 of USEPA Method 205 were performed to validate the use of the five-step gas 

divider. 

3.3 Quality Assurance / Quality Control 

USEPA Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures were followed during the 

emissions testing program. The following information is a general overview of the QA/QC 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

7 

requirements of the test program. Please refer to the individual USEPA test methods, found in 

40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, for detailed information regarding these procedures. 

3.3.1 Exhaust Gas Properties and Flowrate (USEPA Methods 1-4)

In accordance with the USEPA Methods 1-4, the following QA/QC activities were performed: 

• Prior to arriving onsite, the instruments used during the source testing to measure the flue gas 

properties, such as the barometer, pyrometer, and pitot tube are calibrated to specifications 

outlined in the sampling methods. 

Flue gas velocity traverses were performed prior to and after each test run. This procedure is 

followed to ensure that representative pollutant mass flowrates are obtained, when used in 

conjunction with pollutant concentration measurements. 

3.3.2 CEM Gas Sampling (USEPA Methods 3A, 18, and 25A)

The QA/QC guidelines practiced during the CO2, O2, CH4, THC analyzer testing include: 

• Annually, the STEC Model SGD-SC-5L five-step gas divider is NIST certified for the 

primary flow standards. 

• Quarterly, or upon servicing an instrumental analyzer, a five-point analyzer calibration error 

check is performed using a USEPA Protocol 1 Span Gas and the NIST-certified gas divider 

to document the analyzer’s linear response and its ability to satisfy the appropriate method’s 

performance specification for analyzer calibration error to within 2%. 

• Prior to testing, a sampling system bias check was performed to ensure that the system bias 

error was less than 5%. 

• Instrumental analyzer zero and calibration drift checks were performed prior to and following 

each test run to ensure that the zero and calibration drift error were less than 3%. 

4.0 MEASUREMENT RESULTS 

Emission results are presented in tabular form immediately following the text portion of this 

report. Summary Table Nos. 1 - 5 present test times, flowrates, concentrations, emission rates 

with emission limits and other supplemental data from the testing program for each of the five 

engines, respectively. 

4.1 Non-methane Organic Compound Concentrations and Emission Rates

NMOC exhaust concentrations from the IC engines were determined by using the TECO 51 FIA 

in conjunction with the TECO 55C for methane analysis by in-field GC, as detailed in Section 

3.2.3 above. 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

8 

The three-test average measured NMOC concentrations for each of the five engine exhausts were 

0.0 ppm. All concentrations are presented as hexane, corrected to 3% O2 at the control device 

exhaust. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B), maximum allowable NMOC exhaust 

concentration is 20.0 ppm as hexane, corrected to 3% O2 at the control device exhaust. 

The three-test average calculated NMOC emission rates for each of the five engine exhausts were 

0.0 pounds per hour (lb/hr) and 0.0 tons per year (TpY) based on 8,760 hours of operation. 

The permitted NMOC limit, based on the maximum fuel usage for the facility and an assumed 

average thermal loading of 450 Btu/scf., is 1.3 lb./hr. and 5.5 TpY per engine, or 8.8 lb/hr and 

38.5 TpY per 7 engines, based on continuous operation (see Draft Renewable Operating Permit 

No. 199600384). Testing of the IC engines provides emissions results within the established 

limits for the facility. 

When using the recommended Methods 25A and 18, a difficulty occurs when relatively high 

concentrations of methane of 1,000 ppm or more exist with relatively low concentrations of 

NMOC of approximately 10 to 20 ppm in an exhaust stream. Because inaccuracies exist in 

correcting THC and methane to a hexane basis, it is not improbable that an estimated negative 

NMOC value would occur. 

To date, USEPA advocates the use of Method 25A for THC measurement with Method 18 used 

for methane subtraction (where outlet concentrations of NMOC are less than 50 ppm as carbon), 

realizing fully that methane values may be greater than the THC values thereby resulting in a 

negative NMOC concentration. Negative values can not be accurately reported, therefore a value 

of zero has been assigned to the NMOC concentrations and emissions rates where applicable. 

4.2 Oxygen Content Monitoring / NMOC Study

The measured NMOC exhaust concentration for test No. 2 on the No. 3 engine was 0.0 ppm. 

The calculated NMOC exhaust emission rate for test No. 2 on the No. 3 engine was 0.0 lb/hr. 

Test No. 2 on the No. 3 engine was completed with an average measured combustion O2 level of 

6.94%. 

The measured NMOC exhaust concentration for test No. 3 on the No. 3 engine was 0.0 ppm. 

The calculated NMOC exhaust emission rate for test No. 3 on the No. 3 engine was 0.0 lb/hr. 

Test No. 3 on the No. 3 engine was completed with an average measured combustion O2 level of 

3.43%. 

The maximum NMOC exhaust concentration does not exceed 20.0 ppm under the conditions 

evaluated, which correspond to an oxygen range of 3.43 to 6.94%. 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

9 

4.3 Operating Parameters 

Operational data was recorded at the facility during the testing program. See Appendix C for a 

presentation operating data for the September 3-6, 2002 test date which includes; date, times, 

power generation, manifold pressures, and temperature of air/fuel mixture at the aftercooler 

outlet. The maximum measured aftercooler temperature during the test program was 901 °F. 

Testing was conducted under maximum operating conditions of approximately 317 standard 

cubic feet per minute (scfm) landfill gas consumption for each Caterpillar Inc., Model 3516 

internal combustion engine. 

5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION 

Please find under the following listed appendices, the supporting information and data gathered 

for this emissions test program. 

• Appendix A provides copies of the computer generated and field-sampling data sheets. 

• Appendix B provides calibration data. 

• Appendix C provides copies of production data. 

Report Prepared By: Report Reviewed By: 

Gregory J. Graetz Robert Harvey 

Project Engineer Engineering Services Manager 
INSERT TABLES 1-5 AND FIGURE 1 HERE 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX A 

COMPUTER CALCULATED AND FIELD SAMPLING DATA SHEETS 

- Traverse Calculation Sheets 

- Instrumental Analyzers Test Run Graphs 

- Instrumental Analyzers Emission Calculations 

- Traverse Field Notes 

- Moisture Determination Field Notes 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX B 

TESTING EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION DATA 

- Instrumental Analyzers Calibrations 

- Instrumental Analyzers Field Calibrations 

- EPA Protocol 1 Gas Certificates 

- Gas Divider Field Calibration 

- Gas Divider NIST Certification 

- Pitot Tube Criteria Checklists 

- Pre-test and Post-test Dry Gas Meter Calibrations

- Instrumental Analyzer QA Calibrations 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX C 

ENGINE OPERATING DATA 
8