Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

Environmental Consultants 

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

4970 Northwind, Suite 213 • East Lansing, MI 48823 • (517) 324-1880 • FAX (517) 324-5409

Cover Letter
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

Environmental Consultants 

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

4970 Northwind, Suite 213 • East Lansing, MI 48823 • (517) 324-1880 • FAX (517) 324-5409

EMISSION TEST REPORT 

Title Initial Compliance Test Report for Landfill Gas Fueled 

Reciprocating Engine Generator Sets 

Report Date January 12, 2007 

Test Date(s) December 6-7, 2006 

Facility Information 

Name Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. 

Street Address Salt Lake Valley Landfill 

6030 W. California Avenue 

City, County Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County 

Facility Permit Information 

Approval Order No. DAQE-AN3104001-05 Site ID : 13104-B4 

Testing Contractor 

Company Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

Mailing Address 39395 Schoolcraft Road 

Livonia, MI 48150 

Phone (734) 464-3880 

Project No. 0609011 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

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

2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................................... 2 

3.0 SOURCE DESCRIPTON ...................................................................................... 3 

 3.1 General Process Description ............................................................................. 3 

 3.2 Rated Capacities, Type and Quantity of Raw Materials Used .......................... 3 

 3.3 Emission Control System Description .............................................................. 3 

 3.4 Process Operating Conditions During the Compliance Testing ....................... 4 

4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES .......................................... 4 

 4.1 Sampling Locations (USEPA Method 1) .......................................................... 4

 4.2 Exhaust Gas Velocity Determination (USEPA Method 2) ............................... 4 

 4.3 Exhaust Gas Molecular Weight Determination (USEPA Methods 3 and 4) .... 5 

 4.4 Pollutant Concentration Measurements (USEPA Methods 7E and 10) ........... 5 

 4.5 Instrument Analyzer Quality Assurance Verification ....................................... 6 

 4.5.1 Instrument Calibrations and System Bias Checks ................................ 6 

 4.5.2 NO2 – NO Converter Test ..................................................................... 6 

 4.5.3 Sampling System Response Time Determination .................................. 7 

 4.5.4 Determination of Exhaust Gas Stratification ....................................... 7 

5.0 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................. 8 

 5.1 Operating Conditions During the Compliance Test .......................................... 8 

 5.2 Air Pollutant Sampling Results ......................................................................... 8 

 5.3 Variations from Normal Sampling Procedures or Operating Conditions ....... 9 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

ii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

2.1 Summary of measured NOX emission rates for Salt Lake Energy Systems ................... 2 

2.2 Summary of measured CO emission rates for Salt Lake Energy Systems ..................... 2 

5.1 Measured exhaust gas conditions and air pollutant emission rates 

 for Salt Lake Energy Systems Engine No. 1 (CAT® G3516) ........................................ 10 

5.2 Measured exhaust gas conditions and air pollutant emission rates 

 for Salt Lake Energy Systems Engine No. 2 (CAT® G3516) ........................................ 11 

5.3 Measured exhaust gas conditions and air pollutant emission rates 

 for Salt Lake Energy Systems Engine No. 3 (CAT® G3520) ........................................ 12 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A TEST PLAN APPROVAL LETTER 

APPENDIX B OPERATING RECORDS FOR THE LFG-FUELED ENGINES 

APPENDIX C SAMPLING LOCATION DRAWINGS 

APPENDIX D TEST PROCEDURES AND SAMPLING TRAIN DIAGRAMS 

APPENDIX E SAMPLING EQUIPMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE RECORDS 

APPENDIX F FIELD DATA AND CALCULATIONS FOR EACH IC ENGINE 

APPENDIX G RAW INSTRUMENT RESPONSE DATA 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

Environmental Consultants 

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

4970 Northwind, Suite 213 • East Lansing, MI 48823 • (517) 324-1880 • FAX (517) 324-5409

INITIAL COMPLIANCE TEST REPORT 

FOR 

LANDFILL GAS FUELED RECIPROCATING 

ENGINE GENERATOR SETS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. (Salt Lake Energy) operates three (3) reciprocating internal 

combustion engine (RICE) generator sets that are fueled with landfill gas (LFG) collected from 

the Salt Lake Valley Landfill located at 6030 W. California Ave in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake 

County, Utah. 

Initial compliance testing was performed to measure nitrogen oxide (NOX) and carbon monoxide 

(CO) emission rates from each engine pursuant to the testing requirements specified in Section 

11 B, Testing Status of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality 

(DAQ) Approval Order No. DAQE-AN3104001-05 issued to the Salt Lake Energy facility. 

The compliance testing was performed by Derenzo and Associates, Inc. (Derenzo and 

Associates), an environmental consulting and testing company founded in 1989. Derenzo and 

Associates representatives Michael Brack and Robert Harvey performed the field sampling and 

measurements December 4 through December 7, 2006. 

The exhaust gas sampling and analysis was performed using procedures specified in the Test 

Plan dated October 24, 2006 and approved by the Utah DAQ in its letter dated November 24, 

2006. 

Appendix A provides a copy of the test plan approval letter. 

Questions regarding this emission test report should be directed to: 

Mr. Michael Brack 

Field Services Manager 

Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

39395 Schoolcraft Road 

Livonia, MI 48150 

(734) 464-3880 

Mr. Michael Laframboise 

Manager, Salt Lake Energy Systems 

Landfill Energy Systems. 

29261 Wall Street 

Wixom, MI 48393 

(248) 380-3920 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 

Initial Compliance Test Report Page 2 

2.0 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

Performance testing for the three (3) RICE that are used to generate electricity from LFG 

recovered from the Salt Lake Valley Landfill verified that the units operate in compliance with 

the emission limits specified in Approval Order No. DAQE-AN3104001-05. 

The exhaust from each LFG-fueled RICE was monitored for three (3) one-hour test periods 

during which the NOX, CO, oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) exhaust gas concentrations 

were measured using instrumental analyzers. Exhaust gas moisture content was determined by 

gravimetric weight gain in chilled impingers. Velocity pressure measurements were performed 

near the beginning and ending of each test using a pitot tube for exhaust gas velocity 

determination. The testing was performed while the engines were operated at normal baseload 

conditions (100% generating capacity). 

Tables 2.1 and 2.2 present a summary of the measured NOX and CO emission rates for the Salt 

Lake Energy LFG-fueled engine generators. 

Table 2.1 Summary of measured NOX emission rates for Salt Lake Energy Systems 

 Engine 

Output 

Generator 

Output 

Measured NOX

Emission Rates 

Allowable NOX

Emission Rates 

Engine ID, Model (bhp) (kW) (lb/hr) (g/bhp-hr) (lb/hr) (g/bhp-hr) 

 

ICE1 CAT® G3516 1,138 800 2.49 0.991 2.51 1.000 

ICE2 CAT® G3516 1,138 800 1.55 0.618 2.51 1.000 

ICE3 CAT® G3520 2,233 1,600 2.61 0.531 2.95 0.600 

Total Facility 4,509 3,200 6.65 0.669 7.97 0.802 

 

Table 2.2 Summary of measured CO emission rates for Salt Lake Energy Systems 

 Engine 

Output 

Generator 

Output 

Measured CO 

Emission Rates 

Allowable CO 

Emission Rates 

Engine ID, Model (bhp) (kW) (lb/hr) (g/bhp-hr) (lb/hr) (g/bhp-hr) 

 

ICE1 CAT® G3516 1,138 800 5.30 2.11 7.53 3.00 

ICE2 CAT® G3516 1,138 800 5.02 2.00 7.53 3.00 

ICE3 CAT® G3520 2,233 1,600 15.4 3.13 17.7 3.60 

Total Facility 4,509 3,200 25.7 2.59 32.8 3.30 

 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 

Initial Compliance Test Report Page 3 

3.0 SOURCE DESCRIPTION

3.1 General Process Description 

Methane-rich LFG is produced in the Salt Lake Valley Landfill from the anaerobic 

decomposition of disposed waste materials. The methane-rich LFG is collected from both active 

and capped landfill cells using a system of wells that are connected to a central header (gas 

collection system). The collected LFG is directed to the Salt Lake Energy facility where it is 

treated and used as fuel for the internal combustion engine generators that produce electricity for 

transfer to the local utility. 

The Salt Lake Energy facility primarily consists of two (2) Caterpillar (CAT®) Model G3516 IC 

engines and one (1) CAT® Model G3520 IC engine that are connected to individual generators. 

3.2 Rated Capacities, Type and Quantity of Raw Materials Used 

Each CAT®

 G3516 (16 cylinder) gas IC engine has a power generation rating of 1,138 bhp and a 

maximum fuel operating requirement of approximately 8.6 million Btu per hour (MMBtu/hr). At 

a nominal LFG heating value of 500 Btu/scf, each engine has a fuel consumption rate of 

approximately 300 scfm. Each engine is connected to an 800 kilowatt (kW) electricity generator. 

The CAT® Model G3520 (20 cylinder) gas IC engine has a power generation rating of 2,233 bhp 

and a maximum fuel operating requirement of approximately 13.8 million Btu per hour 

(MMBtu/hr). At a nominal LFG heating value of 500 Btu/scf, the engine has a fuel consumption 

rate of approximately 460 scfm. 

3.3 Emission Control System Description 

Air pollutant emissions from the combustion of LFG fuel in the CAT® G3516 engine are 

minimized by maintaining a consistent air-to-fuel ratio to the turbocharger. Fuel and combustion 

air are mixed in a fuel pressure regulator, which mechanically regulates fuel pressure according 

to intake air pressure. The mixed fuel is directed to a turbocharger and then cooled in an 

aftercooler prior to being introduced to the combustion cylinders. 

The CAT®

 G3520 engine is equipped with an air-to-fuel ratio controller that monitors engine 

performance parameters and automatically adjusts the air-to-fuel ratio and ignition timing to 

maintain efficient fuel combustion, which minimizes air pollutant emission rates. 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 

Initial Compliance Test Report Page 4 

3.4 Process Operating Conditions During the Compliance Testing 

The engine generators were operated at baseload (100% capacity) generating conditions during 

the compliance test. At baseload conditions, each CAT® G3516 engine produces 800 kW of 

electricity, the CAT® G3520 engine produces 1,600 kW of electricity. 

Appendix B provides operating records for the Salt Lake Energy engine generators. 

4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

A test plan for the initial compliance testing was prepared by Salt Lake Energy and Derenzo and 

Associates and reviewed by the Utah DAQ. On November 24, 2006 the Utah DAQ provided 

Salt Lake Energy with a test plan approval letter. This section provides a summary of the 

sampling and analytical procedures that were used during the test and presented in the test plan. 

4.1 Sampling Locations (USEPA Method 1) 

The exhaust stack for two of the IC engines did not meet the USEPA Method 1 criteria for a 

representative sample location. Therefore, a temporary stack extension was used for the 

compliance testing. The inner diameter of the stack extension was identical to the engine exhaust 

stacks (14.0 inches diameter) and measured 40 in overall length. The stack extension was 

equipped with two (2) three-inch diameter sample ports, opposed 90°, that provided a sampling 

location 30 inches (2.1 duct diameters) downstream and 10 inches (0.7 duct diameters) upstream 

from any flow disturbance. 

Velocity pressure traverse locations for the sampling points were determined in accordance with 

USEPA Method 1. 

Appendix C provides diagrams of the performance test sampling locations. 

4.2 Exhaust Gas Velocity Determination (USEPA Method 2) 

Exhaust gas velocity pressure and temperature were measured at each sampling location near the 

beginning and ending of each one-hour sampling period in accordance with USEPA Method 2. 

An S-type pitot tube connected to a red-oil manometer was used to determine velocity pressure. 

Gas temperature was measured using a K-type thermocouple mounted to the pitot tube. The pitot 

tube and connective tubing were periodically leak-checked to verify the integrity of the 

measurement system. 

The absence of cyclonic flow for each sampling location was verified using the S-type pitot tube 

and oil manometer. The pitot tube was positioned at several representative velocity traverse 

points with the planes of the face openings of the pitot tube perpendicular to the stack cross-
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 

Initial Compliance Test Report Page 5 

sectional plane. The pitot tube was then rotated to determine the null angle (rotational angle as 

measured from the perpendicular, or reference, position at which the differential pressure is equal 

to zero). 

4.3 Exhaust Gas Molecular Weight Determination (USEPA Methods 3A and 4) 

CO2 and O2 content in the IC engine exhaust gas stream was measured in accordance with 

USEPA Method 3A. A California Instruments, Inc. (CAI) Model 200 instrumental analyzer that 

incorporates a non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) technology for the measurement of CO2

concentrations and paramagnetic sensor for the measurement of O2 concentrations was used for 

diluent gas measurements. 

During each one-hour pollutant sampling period, a continuous sample of the IC engine exhaust 

gas stream was extracted from the stack using a stainless steel probe connected to a Teflon® 

heated sample line. The sampled gas was conditioned by removing moisture prior to being 

introduced to the analyzer; therefore, measurement of O2 and CO2 concentrations correspond to 

standard dry gas conditions. The instrument was calibrated using appropriate calibration gases to 

determine accuracy and system bias (described in Section 4.4.1 of this document). 

Moisture content of the IC engine exhaust gas was determined in accordance with the USEPA 

Method 4 chilled impinger method. During each pollutant sampling period, a gas sample was 

extracted at a constant rate from the source using a heated, glass-line sample probe followed by 

chilled impingers containing DI water, where moisture was removed from the sample stream. At 

the conclusion of each sampling period the moisture gain in the impingers was determined 

gravimetrically. 

Appendix D presents gas sampling procedures and diagrams for the USEPA Method 3A and 

USEPA Method 4 sampling trains. 

4.4 Pollutant Concentration Measurements (USEPA Method 7E and 10) 

NOX and CO pollutant concentrations in the exhaust from each IC engine exhaust were 

determined using a Thermo Environmental Instruments, Inc. (TEI) Model 42CHL 

chemiluminescence NOX analyzer and TEI Model 48C NDIR CO analyzer. 

Three (3) one-hour sampling periods were performed for each IC engine exhaust. Throughout 

each one-hour test period, a continuous sample of the engine exhaust gas was extracted from the 

stack using the Teflon® heated sample line and gas conditioning system described in Section 4.3 

and Appendix D of this document, and delivered to the instrumental analyzers. Instrument 

response for each analyzer was recorded on an ESC Model 8816 data logging system that 

monitored the analog output of the instrumental analyzers continuously and logged data as oneminute averages. Prior to, and at the conclusion of each test, the instruments were calibrated 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 

Initial Compliance Test Report Page 6 

using appropriate upscale calibration and zero gas to determine calibration error and system bias 

(described in Section 4.4.1 of this document). 

Sampling times were recorded on field data sheets. 

Since the static pressure within the stack was slightly less than atmospheric pressure, the sample 

port openings were covered, as much as possible, using a piece of aluminum flashing clamped to 

the sample port flange to minimize the introduction of ambient air and the sample probe was 

placed in the stack away from the sample port openings. 

Appendix D presents gas sampling procedures and diagrams for the USEPA Method 7E and 

USEPA Method 10 sampling trains. 

4.5 Instrumental Analyzer Quality Assurance Verification 

4.5.1 Instrument Calibration and System Bias Checks

At the beginning of each day, initial three-point instrument calibrations were performed by 

injecting calibration gas directly into the inlet sample port for each instrument. System bias 

checks were preformed prior to and at the conclusion of each sampling period by introducing the 

appropriate upscale calibration gas and zero gas into the sampling system (at the base of the 

stainless steel sampling probe prior to the particulate filter and Teflon® heated sample line) and 

verifying the instrument response against the initial instrument calibration readings. 

The instruments were calibrated with USEPA Protocol 1 certified concentrations of CO2, O2, 

NOX, and CO in nitrogen and zeroed using nitrogen. A STEC Model SGD-SC-5L five-step gas 

divider was used to obtain intermediate calibration gas concentrations as needed. 

4.5.2 NO2 – NO Converter Test 

Following initial instrument setup and calibration error test, the NO2 – NO conversion efficiency 

of the Model 42CHL analyzer was verified prior to the testing program. A mixture of NO 

calibration gas and ambient air gas was added to a tedlar bag. The bag was attached to the inlet 

of the analyzer and the instrument response was monitored as the bag emptied. As the 

conversion efficiency test progressed the NO reacts with O2 to form NO2. The analyzer’s NO2 – 

NO converter uses a catalyst at high temperatures to convert the NO2 to NO for measurement. 

The conversion efficiency of the analyzer is deemed acceptable if the total NOx concentration 

decreases no more than 2% of the highest observed concentration over a 30-minute time period. 

An initial NO2 – NO conversion efficiency test was performed prior to the engine testing 

(December 6, 2006) that verified proper operation of the converter unit. However, the duration 

of the test was less than the required 30 minutes (the sample in the tedlar bag was depleted at 24 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 

Initial Compliance Test Report Page 7 

minutes). A second NO2 – NO conversion efficiency test was performed at the conclusion of the 

testing (December 7, 2006) that satisfied the USEPA Method 7E criteria (measured NOX

concentration decreased by less than 2% over a 30-minute time period). 

4.5.3 Sampling System Response Time Determination 

The response time of the sampling system was determined prior to the compliance test program 

by introducing upscale gas and zero gas, in series, into the sampling system using a tee 

connection at the base of the sample probe. The elapsed time for the analyzer to display a 

reading of 95% of the expected concentration was determined using a stopwatch. 

The TEI Model 48C CO analyzer exhibited the longest system response time at 93 seconds. 

Results of the response time determinations were recorded on field data sheets. 

4.5.4 Determination of Exhaust Gas Stratification 

A stratification test for each IC engine exhaust stack was performed prior to the performance test 

sampling periods. The stainless steel sample probe was positioned at sample points correlating 

to 16.7, 50.0 (centroid) and 83.3% of the stack diameter (2.3, 7.0, and 11.7 inches from stack 

wall along one diameter of the exhaust stack). Pollutant concentration data were recorded at 

each sample point for a minimum of twice the maximum system response time. 

The recorded data for each IC engine exhaust stack indicate that the measured CO and NOX

concentrations did not vary by more than 5% of the mean. Therefore, the stack gas was 

considered to be unstratified and the compliance test sampling was performed at a single 

sampling location. 

Appendix E presents test equipment quality assurance data (NO2 – NO conversion efficiency test 

data, stratification test data, instrument calibration and system bias check records, calibration gas 

and gas divider certifications, and meter box calibration records). 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 

Initial Compliance Test Report Page 8 

5.0 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Operating Conditions During the Compliance Test

The three (3) LFG-fueled IC engines were operated at baseload (100% capacity) conditions 

during the compliance testing, which corresponds to an electricity generation rate of: 

• 800 kW at an engine output of 1,138 horsepower for the CAT® G3516 engine generator sets 

(Engine Nos. 1 and 2); and 

• 1,600 kW at an engine output of 2,233 horsepower for the CAT® G3520 engine generator set 

(Engine No. 3). 

5.2 Air Pollutant Sampling Results 

The gas stream exhausted from each LFG-fueled IC engine was sampled for three (3) one-hour 

test periods during the initial compliance testing performed December 6 through 7, 2006. 

Instrumental analyzers were used to measure concentrations of NOX, CO, O2 and CO2 in the IC 

engine exhaust. Moisture content was determined by gravimetric weight gain in chilled 

impingers and velocity pressure measurements were performed near the beginning and ending of 

each sampling period using a pitot tube for exhaust gas velocity determination. 

The average measured NOX and CO concentrations in the Engine No. 1 exhaust gas were 143.9 

and 504.0 parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd), respectively. This results in 

calculated emission rates of 2.49 pounds per hour (lb/hr) NOX and 5.30 lb/hr CO based on the 

measured exhaust gas volumetric flowrate of 2,412 dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm). 

The calculated emission rates per engine output are equivalent to 0.991 grams per brake 

horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr) NOX and 2.11 g/bhp-hr CO. 

The average measured NOX and CO concentrations in the Engine No. 2 exhaust gas were 88.2 

and 468.5 ppmvd, respectively. This results in calculated emission rates of 1.55 lb/hr NOX and 

5.02 lb/hr CO based on the measured exhaust gas volumetric flowrate of 2,457 dscfm. The 

calculated emission rates per engine output are equivalent to 0.618 g/bhp-hr NOX and 2.00 g/bhphr CO. 

The average measured NOX and CO concentrations in the Engine No. 3 exhaust gas were 77.3 

and 749.7 ppmvd, respectively. This results in calculated emission rates of 2.61 lb/hr NOX and 

15.4 lb/hr CO based on the measured exhaust gas volumetric flowrate of 4,714 dscfm. The 

calculated emission rates per engine output are equivalent to 0.531 g/bhp-hr NOX and 3.13 g/bhphr CO. 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 

Initial Compliance Test Report Page 9 

Tables 5.1 through 5.3 present measured gas conditions and pollutant emission rates for each of 

the LFG-fueled IC engines. 

 

Appendix E provides field data and calculations for each IC engine. 

Appendix F provides raw instrumental analyzer response data for each test period. 

5.3 Variations from Normal Sampling Procedures or Operating Conditions 

The testing was performed in accordance with the Test Plan dated October 24, 2006 and 

specified USEPA test methods with one minor exception relating to the USEPA Method 3A 

instrument (CAI Model 200). Upon processing the instrumental analyzer calibration data, it was 

discovered that the system bias check (SB) between test periods 1 and 2 for Engine No. 3 

indicates a drift of 3.3% for the measured CO2 value. This was most likely caused by a slight 

fluctuation in sample delivery pressure during the test No. 1 pretest system bias check, during 

which the recorded zero gas response was 0.5% CO2. Subsequent system bias checks resulted in 

calculated drift values less than 3%. The measured CO2 content is used to determine exhaust gas 

molecular weight for the volumetric flowrate calculation. A review of the test results for these 

sampling periods indicate that this exception resulted in negligible adjustment to the measured 

CO2 concentration and did not affect the calculated airflow rate or NOX and CO emission rates. 

A similar issue occurred for Engine No. 2 sampling periods 2 and 3. Upon review of the data, 

the measured CO2 content was lower than expected (8% compared to 12%). The CAI Model 200 

NDIR CO2 analyzer proved to be particularly sensitive to pressure and sample delivery 

fluctuations and these results most likely indicate a slight change in the sample delivery pressure 

to this instrument. Pre and post-test system bias checks satisfied Method 3A requirements; 

therefore, the measured CO2 content was used for airflow rate determination. This produces a 

slightly higher calculated airflow rate (the reduced CO2 content decreased the calculated gas 

density by approximately 2%), which ultimately increases the reported air pollutant emission 

rate. 

All other instrument calibrations and sampling period results satisfied the quality assurance 

verifications required by USEPA Methods 3A, 7E, and 10. 

Report Prepared By: Reviewed By: 

Robert L. Harvey Michael J. Brack 

Engineering Services Manager Field Services Manager 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 

Initial Compliance Test Report Page 10 

Table 5.1. Measured exhaust gas conditions and air pollutant emission rates for Salt Lake 

Energy Systems Engine No. 1 (CAT® G3516) 

 

Test No. 1 2 3 

Test date 12/7/2006 12/7/2006 12/7/2006 Three-Test 

Test period (24-hr clock) 0910-1010 1030-1130 1235-1335 Average 

 

Generator output (kW) 800 800 800 800 

Engine Horsepower (Hp) 1138 1138 1138 1138 

 

Exhaust gas composition 

 CO2 content (% vol) 12.9 12.9 12.8 12.9 

 O2 content (% vol) 6.89 7.21 6.99 7.03 

 Moisture (% vol) 11.5 11.9 11.7 11.7 

 

Exhaust gas flowrate (dscfm) 2,449 2,401 2,387 2,412 

Nitrogen oxides emission rates 

 NOX conc. (ppmvd) 130.5 151.0 150.2 143.9 

 NOX emissions (lb/hr) 2.29 2.60 2.57 2.49 

 NOX emissions (g/bhp-hr) † 0.913 1.036 1.024 0.991 

 

Carbon monoxide emission rates 

 CO conc. (ppmvd) 494.1 509.5 508.3 504.0 

 CO emissions (lb/hr) 5.28 5.34 5.29 5.30 

 CO emissions (g/bhp-hr)†

2.10 2.13 2.11 2.11 

 

†

 The allowable emission rates specified in Approval Order DAQE-AN3104001-05 for NOX and 

CO are 1.0 g/bhp-hr and 3.0 g/bhp-hr, respectively.
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 

Initial Compliance Test Report Page 11 

Table 5.2. Measured exhaust gas conditions and air pollutant emission rates for Salt Lake 

Energy Systems Engine No. 2 (CAT® G3516) 

 

Test No. 1 2 3 

Test date 12/6/2006 12/6/2006 12/6/2006 Three-Test 

Test period (24-hr clock) 1744-1844 1900-2000 2014-2114 Average 

 

Generator output (kW) 800 800 800 800 

Engine Horsepower (Hp) 1138 1138 1138 1138 

 

Exhaust gas composition 

 CO2 content (% vol) 12.4 8.5 8.4 9.8 

 O2 content (% vol) 6.92 7.31 7.49 7.24 

 Moisture (% vol) 11.2 11.0 10.7 11.0 

 

Exhaust gas flowrate (dscfm) 2,412 2,453 2,506 2,457 

Nitrogen oxides emission rates 

 NOX conc. (ppmvd) 110.0 82.7 71.8 88.2 

 NOX emissions (lb/hr) 1.90 1.46 1.29 1.55 

 NOX emissions (g/bhp-hr) † 0.758 0.580 0.514 0.618 

 

Carbon monoxide emission rates 

 CO conc. (ppmvd) 493.3 461.7 450.4 468.5 

 CO emissions (lb/hr) 5.19 4.94 4.92 5.02 

 CO emissions (g/bhp-hr)†

2.07 1.97 1.96 2.00 

 

†

 The allowable emission rates specified in Approval Order DAQE-AN3104001-05 for NOX and 

CO are 1.0 g/bhp-hr and 3.0 g/bhp-hr, respectively.
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 

Initial Compliance Test Report Page 12 

Table 5.3. Measured exhaust gas conditions and air pollutant emission rates for Salt Lake 

Energy Systems Engine No. 3 (CAT® G3520) 

 

Test No. 1 2 3 

Test date 12/6/2006 12/6/2006 12/6/2006 Three-Test 

Test period (24-hr clock) 1205-1305 1341-1441 1508-1608 Average 

 

Generator output (kW) 1600 1600 1600 1600 

Engine Horsepower (Hp) 2233 2233 2233 2233 

 

Exhaust gas composition 

 CO2 content (% vol) 11.6 11.3 11.5 11.5 

 O2 content (% vol) 8.19 8.19 8.19 8.19 

 Moisture (% vol) 10.6 10.9 10.6 10.7 

 

Exhaust gas flowrate (dscfm) 4,672 4,721 4,751 4,714 

Nitrogen oxides emission rates 

 NOX conc. (ppmvd) 78.2 77.0 76.7 77.3 

 NOX emissions (lb/hr) 2.62 2.61 2.61 2.61 

 NOX emissions (g/bhp-hr) † 0.532 0.529 0.531 0.531 

 

Carbon monoxide emission rates 

 CO conc. (ppmvd) 745.5 752.1 751.6 749.7 

 CO emissions (lb/hr) 15.20 15.49 15.58 15.4 

 CO emissions (g/bhp-hr)†

3.09 3.15 3.16 3.13 

 

†

 The allowable emission rates specified in Approval Order DAQE-AN3104001-05 for NOX and 

CO are 0.6 g/bhp-hr and 3.6 g/bhp-hr, respectively.
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX A 

TEST PLAN APPROVAL LETTER 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX B 

OPERATING RECORDS FOR THE LFG-FUELED IC ENGINES 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX C 

SAMPLING LOCATION DRAWINGS 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX D 

TEST PROCEDURES AND 

SAMPLING TRAIN DIAGRAMS 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX E 

SAMPLING EQUIPMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE RECORDS 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX F 

FIELD DATA AND CALCULATIONS FOR EACH IC ENGINE 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX F-1 

ENGINE NO. 1 (CAT® G3516) 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX F-2 

ENGINE NO. 2 (CAT® G3516) 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX F-3 

ENGINE NO. 3 (CAT® G3520) 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX G 

RAW INSTRUMENT RESPONSE DATA