### 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 F acility in Lenox, Michigan

Derenzo and Associates, Inc. (Derenzo and Associate s) 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 Tre e) 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 Departme nt of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Renewable Operating Permit (ROP) No. 199600384.

Testing consisted of instrumental analyzer measurem ents of methane and total hydrocarbons from five (5) internal combustion engines at the Pine Tree fa cility.

Testing was conducted September 3 - 6, 2002 by Dere nzo and Associates personnel Gregory Graetz, Robert Harvey, Andrew Rusnak, and Robert Shrier. A ssistance and process coordination was provided by Michael Laframboise, Sumpter Energy Associates O perations Manager. Mr. Jon Wilford of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Air Q uality Division (MDEQ-AQD), was on site to witness the testing program.

Please find enclosed two file copies of the final r eport, which presents summary tables of the measure d emission rates from each engine, descriptions of th e 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 offic e 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. 0205006Derenzo 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 Mo isture 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 Instrument al Analyzers ...................................... 4 3.2.2 Measurement of Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen Conc entrations .................................... 5 3.2.3 Measurement of Non-methane Organic Compounds Concentrations .......................... 5 3.2.4 Verification of Gas Dilution Calibration Equi pment ............................................. ....... 6 3.3 Quality Assurance / Quality Control ...........

................................................... ...................... 6 3.3.1 Exhaust Gas Properties and Flowrate (USEPA Me thods 1-4) ...................................... 7 3.3.2 CEM Gas Sampling (USEPA Methods 3A, 18, and 2 5A) ........................................... 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 ........................

................................................... ............. 9Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

ii LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A COMPUTER CALCULATED AND FIELD SAMPLING DA TA SHEETS

APPENDIX B CALIBRATION DATA

APPENDIX C ENGINE OPERATING DATA

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Non-methane organic compounds concentrations and emi ssion rates, Engine No. 1 ......................................

................................................... ............................ 10

2 Non-methane organic compounds concentrations and emi ssion rates, Engine No. 2 ......................................

................................................... ............................ 11

3 Non-methane organic compounds concentrations and emi ssion rates, Engine No. 3 ......................................

................................................... ............................ 12

4 Non-methane organic compounds concentrations and em ission rates, Engine No. 4 ......................................

................................................... ............................ 13

5 Non-methane organic compounds concentrations and emi ssion rates, Engine No. 5 ......................................

................................................... ............................ 14

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Diagram presenting measurement and sampling loca tions ............................................ . 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) re tained Derenzo and Associates, Inc. (Derenzo and Associates) to conduct a testing progr am for the determination of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) concentrations and emissio n rates from the exhaust of five (5) internal combustion (IC) engines located at the Pin e 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 M ichigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Renewable Operating Permit (ROP) No. 199600384.

Testing was conducted September 3 - 6, 2002 by Dere nzo and Associates personnel Gregory Graetz, Robert Harvey, Andrew Rusnak, and Robert Sh rier. Assistance and process coordination was provided by Michael Laframboise, Sumpter Energy Associates Operations Manager. Mr. Jon Wilford of the Michigan Department of Environme ntal Quality, Air Quality Division (MDEQ-AQD), was on site to witness the testing prog ram.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) sampling methodologies were followed for the proper execution of this test prog ram. For the determination of NMOC exhaust concentrations, USEPA Methods 25A and 18 were used respectively to measure total hydrocarbons (THC) and methane (CH 4 ) concentrations. NMOC concentrations were calculat ed by subtracting the CH 4 content of the gas stream from the THC content of the gas stream.

2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

The equipment tested consisted of five (5) identica l, 800 kilowatt (kW) gensets (electricity generator driven by a reciprocating internal combus tion engine). Each genset, manufactured by Caterpillar Inc., Model No. 3516, incorporates stat e of the art technology in order to fire lean fuel mixtures and produce low combustion by-product emis sions. Each engine has a powerDerenzo and Associates, Inc.

2

generation rating of 1,138 brake-horsepower (bhp) a nd 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 approxim ately 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 u ncontrolled into the ambient air through a stack connected to the IC engine exhaust manifold a nd noise control system (noise muffler).

3.0 TESTING AND ANALYSES

The emissions testing was conducted using procedure s outlined in United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Methods for Stationary So urce Sampling.

Each engine was operated at maximum operating condi tions 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 moni toring plan. The proposed alternative plan includes the monitoring of the range of engine exha ust oxygen content which is associated with lean to rich burn operations. Pursuant to the comp liance demonstration detailed in the Draft RO Permit comments, and the guidance of Mr. Jon Wilfor d, 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 mai ntaining full load operation (800 kW).

3.1 Exhaust Gas Sampling Location, Velocity, and Mo isture Content

Pollutant mass emission rate calculations require a n accurate determination of exhaust gas flowrate (USEPA Methods 1 and 2). Exhaust gas flow rate 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 moist ure content of the exhaust gas (USEPA Method 4).

3.1.1 Sample and Velocity Traverse

USEPA Method 1, Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Source s , was used to determine the number of traverse points required for testing each source.

Based on flow disturbance data, the sampling port p ositions 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 sa mpling 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 veloci ty 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 temperat ure measurements of the exhaust gas were made with a type-K thermocouple attached to the Pit ot tube. Cyclonic flow determinations were conducted on a representative exhaust stack and det ermined 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. Th e moisture content of the exhaust gas stream was determined volumetrically.

The moisture sampling train consisted of the follow ing equipment.

Sample probe - A non-heated stainless steel probe was used sinc e 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 s et of impingers, connected in series and immersed in an ice bath. Crushed ice was placed aro und the impingers to keep the temperatures of the gases leaving the last impinger at 68 degree s 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 a s 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 includ es type K thermocouples, used to measure the impinger outlet.

Metering System - Nutech ® Metering System that consists of a vacu um gauge, leak-free carbon vane pump, calibrated dry gas meter and thermocoupl es to maintain a steady sampling rate and to determine sample volume. The thermocouples were co nnected to a digital thermometer. The digital thermometer displays readings from the ther mocouples 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 an d pulling a vacuum of approximately 15 in. Hg. At the conclusion of each test run, the sampling tr ain was leak-checked by drawing a vacuum equal to the highest vacuum measured during the tes t run.

During sampling, a single representative sample loc ation 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 me asure the barometric pressure of the ambient air. All sampling data was recorded on fie ld data sheets. Percent moisture was calculated using the measured volumetric gain of th e impingers along with the metering console

and calibration data.

3.2 Instrumental Analyzers Emissions Testing

3.2.1 Extractive gas sampling system for instrument al analyzers

The extractive gas sampling system that served the instrumental analyzers used for USEPA Methods 3A, 18, and 25A was configured, as describe d 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 th e sample probe and the particulate filter to allow the introduction of calibration gases through a stainless steel 10 psi g poppet check valve into the sampling system. When sampling, the poppet check valve is normally closed, though upon the introduction of pr essurized (i.e. > 10 psig) calibration gases from a remote Teflon® line to the poppet check valv e, 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) procedu re, the sampling probe serves as an atmospheric dump whereby the sampling system was no t be influenced by the introduction of the pressurized calibration gases. The “Tee” and poppe t check valve approach was preferred to USEPA Method 6C recommended 3-way valve for calibra tion gas introduction.

Particulate filter

- With high temperature exhaust streams at the sam ple location, a stainless steel fritted in-line filter was used to minimize particu late loading on the sampling system.

Heated sample line - Heated Teflon® line was used to transport the sa mple 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 va cuum pump is leak-free and non-reactive toDerenzo and Associates, Inc.

5

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

steel or Teflon®.

Tee split for conditioned and un-conditioned gas sa mples - A stainless steel “Tee” was installed after the vacuum pump to split the extracted gas sa mples between the flame ionization analyzers (FIA) instrumental analyzers which require uncondit ioned (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 whic h 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 app roximately 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 moist ure 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 m anifold constructed of Teflon® transport lines and stainless steel “Tee” f ittings was used to continuously deliver the sampled gas to the instrumental analyzers. Since t he 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 press urization of the instrumental analyzers.

Data Logger

– An ESC Model 8816 data logging system was used t o record 1-minute average data from the analog outputs of the instrumental an alyzers.

3.2.2 Measurement of carbon dioxide and oxygen con centrations

Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and oxygen (O 2 ) concentrations were measured concurrently with th e pollutant test runs using an instrumental analyzer in accordance with USEPA Method 3A. The Fuji Model ZRF Infrared Gas Analyzer is a multi-com ponent instrumental analyzer, which is capable of measuring concentrations of CO 2 and O 2 . The analyzer incorporates non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) technology for the measurement of C O 2 concentrations, and zirconia O 2 sensor for the measurement of O 2 concentrations. The available instrument CO 2 concentration ranges were 5, 15, 25 and 50% by volume. For O 2 measurement, the available instrument ranges are 1 0 and 25% by volume.

The instrument ranges were conservatively set to 15 and 10% by volume for CO 2 and O 2 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 Hydr ocarbon Analyzer, a FIA, in accordanceDerenzo and Associates, Inc.

6

with USEPA Method 25A. The available instrument TH C concentration ranges are 10, 50, 100, 500, 1,000, 5,000, and 10,000 parts per million (pp m) by volume.

Based on previous IC engine testing, the THC concen trations 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 propa ne 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 (CH 4 ) concentrations in each engine exhaust, pursuant t o USEPA Method 18. Since this new technology is a continuo us extractive gas analyzer, it is not technically feasible to perform traditional spike a nd 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 instru mental analyzers, were observed to demonstrate the instrument’s linearity, drift, and interference with respect to components other

than methane.

The available instrument CH 4 concentration ranges are 20, 200, and 2,000 ppm by volume. Based on previous IC engine testing, the CH 4 concentrations are expected to be approximately 1,200 ppm. Therefore, the instrument range was con servatively set to 2,000 ppm, as methane, for

CH 4 concentration measurements.

Upon correction of measured concentrations to an as hexane basis, the CH 4 exhaust concentrations measured using the GC/FIA were subtr acted from THC concentrations measured using the FIA in order to calculate exhaust NMOC co ncentrations. 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 equi pment

A STEC Model SGD-SC-5L five-step gas divider was us ed to obtain appropriate calibration span gases in the field. The five-step gas divider was NIST certified for primary flow standards on January 14 th , 2002 in accordance with USEPA Method 205. When c ut 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 f ield evaluation procedures described in Section 3.2 of USEPA Method 205 were performed to v alidate the use of the five-step gas

divider.

3.3 Quality Assurance / Quality Control

USEPA Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) pro cedures were followed during the emissions testing program. The following informati on is a general overview of the QA/QCDerenzo 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 informatio n regarding these procedures.

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

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

• Prior to arriving onsite, the instruments used duri ng the source testing to measure the flue gas properties, such as the barometer, pyrometer, and p itot 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 ma ss flowrates are obtained, when used in conjunction with pollutant concentration measuremen ts.

3.3.2 CEM Gas Sampling (USEPA Methods 3A, 18, and 2 5A)

The QA/QC guidelines practiced during the CO 2 , O 2 , CH 4 , THC analyzer testing include:

• Annually, the STEC Model SGD-SC-5L five-step gas di vider is NIST certified for the primary flow standards.

• Quarterly, or upon servicing an instrumental analyz er, a five-point analyzer calibration error check is performed using a USEPA Protocol 1 Span Ga s 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 ch ecks were performed prior to and following

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

4.0 MEASUREMENT RESULTS

Emission results are presented in tabular form imme diately following the text portion of this report. Summary Table Nos. 1 - 5 present test time s, flowrates, concentrations, emission rates with emission limits and other supplemental data fr om 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 analys is 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 hexan e, corrected to 3% O 2 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 % O 2 at the control device exhaust.

The three-test average calculated NMOC emission rat es 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 operati on (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 di fficulty occurs when relatively high concentrations of methane of 1,000 ppm or more exis t with relatively low concentrations of NMOC of approximately 10 to 20 ppm in an exhaust str eam. 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 concentration s 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 no t be accurately reported, therefore a value of zero has been assigned to the NMOC concentration s 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 O 2 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 O 2 level of

3.43%.

The maximum NMOC exhaust concentration does not exc eed 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 durin g 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 temperatu re of air/fuel mixture at the aftercooler outlet. The maximum measured aftercooler temperatu re during the test program was 901 ° F.

Testing was conducted under maximum operating condi tions of approximately 317 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) landfill gas consumpti on 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 generate d 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 ManagerINSERT TABLES 1-5 AND FIGURE 1 HEREDerenzo 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 NotesDerenzo 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 CalibrationsDerenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX C

ENGINE OPERATING DATA8