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

August 29, 2007 

Mr. Michael Laframboise 

Vice President of Operations 

LANDFILL ENERGY SYSTEMS, LLC 

29261 Wall Street 

Wixom, MI 48393 

Subject: Test Report for compliance testing of emissions from landfill gas-fired internal 

combustion engine operations at the Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES 

– Ocean Energy Corporation, Lakehurst, New Jersey 

Mr. Laframboise, 

Derenzo and Associates, Inc. is pleased to present two copies of the enclosed report which 

presents the results of the emissions testing conducted at the MRPC - Ocean Energy Corporation 

facility in Lakehurst, NJ. 

Testing was conducted July 16-19, 2007 by Derenzo and Associates, Inc. personnel Michael 

Brack, Andrew Rusnak, Dustin Collins, and Jason Krawczyk. Assistance with the test event was 

provided by MRPC representative Anthony Aiello. Portions of the testing were witnessed by 

NJDEP BTS representatives Daniel Strochak and Larry Gurley, and, NJDEP ACE representative 

Donna Summers. A copy of the report has been submitted to the NJDEP BTS and Regional CES 

departments of the NJDEP on behalf of MRPC, LES. 

Derenzo and Associates, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to be of continued service to Landfill 

Energy Systems. 

Sincerely, 

Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

Michael J. Brack 

Field Services Manager 

enclosures
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

EMISSIONS TEST REPORT 

Title 

Compliance Test Report for the Landfill Gas Fueled G3520C 

Internal Combustion Engines Operated at the Manchester 

Renewable Power Corporation, LES – Ocean Energy 

Corporation Facility 

Report 

Date August 29, 2007 

Test 

Date(s) July 16-19, 2007 

Facility Information 

Name Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES – 

Ocean Energy Corporation (MRPC – OEC) 

Street Address Ocean County Landfill 

2498 Route 70 

City, County Lakehurst, Ocean County 

Facility Permit Information 

Permit Activity No.: BOP060001 Facility ID No. : 78901 

Testing Contractor 

Company Derenzo and Associates, Inc. 

Mailing 

Address 

39395 Schoolcraft Road 

Livonia, MI 48150 

Phone (734) 464-3880 

Project No. 0704009 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

1.0 SOURCE INFORMATION ..................................................................................................................... 1 

2.0 PLANT AND SAMPLING LOCATION DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 2 

2.1 General Process Description ............................................................................................................. 2 

2.2 Rated Capacities, Type and Quantity of Raw Materials Used ......................................................... 2 

2.3 Emission Control System Description .............................................................................................. 2 

2.4 Sampling Locations (USEPA Method 1) .......................................................................................... 2 

3.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS ........................................................................ 4 

3.1 Purpose and Objectives of the Tests ................................................................................................. 4 

3.2 Variations from Normal Sampling Procedures or Operating Conditions ......................................... 4 

3.3 Operating Conditions during Compliance Tests ............................................................................... 5 

3.4 Air Pollutant Sampling Results ......................................................................................................... 5 

4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES............................................................................... 7 

4.1 Exhaust Gas Velocity Determination (USEPA Method 2) ............................................................... 7 

4.2 Exhaust Gas Molecular Weight Determination (USEPA Method 3A) ............................................ 8 

4.3 Exhaust Gas Moisture Content (Method 4) ...................................................................................... 8 

4.4 NOx and CO Concentration Measurements (USEPA Method 7E and 10) ....................................... 9 

4.5 Particulate Matter Concentrations (NJATM 1/USEPA 202) ............................................................ 9 

4.6 Measurement of Volatile Organic Compounds (USEPA Methods 25A/18) .................................... 9 

4.7 Visible Emissions (NJATM 2/USEPA Method 203C) ................................................................... 10 

4.8 Ultimate Fuel Analysis (USEPA Method 19) ................................................................................. 10 

5.0 INTERNAL QA/QC ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 10 

5.1 NOx Converter Efficiency Test ....................................................................................................... 10 

5.2 Sampling System Response Time Determination ........................................................................... 11 

5.3 Determination of Exhaust Gas Stratification .................................................................................. 11 

5.4 Gas Divider Certification (USEPA Method 205) ........................................................................... 11 

5.5 Instrumental Analyzer Interference Check ..................................................................................... 11 

5.6 Instrument Calibration and System Bias Checks ............................................................................ 12 

5.7 Meter Box Calibrations and Percent Isokinetics ............................................................................. 12 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page ii 

LIST OF TABLES 

 Table Page 

1 Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Volatile Organic Compound Emission rates from the 

No. 7 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility ....................................... 14 

2 Particulate Matter, PM-10, and PM-2.5 Emission rates from the No. 7 Engine at the Manchester 

Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility ........................................................................................... 15 

3 Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Volatile Organic Compound Emission rates from the 

No. 8 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility ....................................... 16 

4 Particulate Matter, PM-10, and PM-2.5 Emission rates from the No. 8 Engine at the Manchester 

Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility ........................................................................................... 17 

5 Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Volatile Organic Compound Emission rates from the 

No. 9 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility ....................................... 18 

6 Particulate Matter, PM-10, and PM-2.5 Emission rates from the No. 9 Engine at the Manchester 

Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility ........................................................................................... 19 

7 Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Volatile Organic Compound Emission rates from the 

No. 10 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility ..................................... 20 

8 Particulate Matter, PM-10, and PM-2.5 Emission rates from the No. 10 Engine at the 

Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility ....................................................................... 21 

9 Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Volatile Organic Compound Emission rates from the 

No. 11 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility ..................................... 22 

10 Particulate Matter, PM-10, and PM-2.5 Emission rates from the No. 11 Engine at the 

Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility ....................................................................... 23 

11 Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Volatile Organic Compound Emission rates from the 

No. 12 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility ..................................... 24 

12 Particulate Matter, PM-10, and PM-2.5 Emission rates from the No. 12 Engine at the 

Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility ....................................................................... 25 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page iii 

LIST OF FIGURE(S) 

Figure 1. MRPC – OEC Process Flow Diagram 

Figure 2. MRPC – OEC Exhaust Sampling Locations 

Figure 3. Instrumental Analyzer Sampling Train Diagram (USEPA Methods 3A, 7E, and 10) 

Figure 4. Isokinetic Sampling Train Diagram (NJATM Method 1 and USEPA Method 202) 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A Computer Calculated and Field Sampling Data Sheets 

Appendix B Equipment Calibration Data and Opacity Certification 

Appendix C Laboratory Data 

Appendix D Sample Calculations 

Appendix E Process Data 

Appendix F Detailed Descriptions of Sampling Procedures 
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

COMPLIANCE TEST REPORT 

FOR THE 

LANDFILL GAS FUELED G3520C INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

OPERATED AT THE 

MANCHESTER RENEWABLE POWER CORPORATION, LES – 

OCEAN ENERGY CORPORATION FACILITY 

LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY 

1.0 SOURCE INFORMATION 

Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES – Ocean Energy Corporation (MRPC-OEC) is 

located at 2498 Route 70 in Lakehurst, Ocean County, New Jersey. The Facility ID Number is 

78901 and the Permit Activity ID No. is BOP060001. At its landfill gas to energy (LFGTE) 

facility, MRPC-OEC operates Operating Scenarios OS1 – OS6 that correspond to Facility 

Designations OEC1-OEC6 and Emission Points PT7 – PT12 (which are part of emission unit U7 

Six Ocean Energy Corporation’s CAT 3520 Lean Burn Reciprocating Engines). The emission 

unit consists of six (6) CAT G3520C Internal Combustion (IC) engines and electricity generator 

sets. These engines are fueled with methane-rich gas, which is generated at the Ocean County 

Landfill, to power base load electricity generator operations. For the remainder of the report all 

point and emission designations will be referred to as Engine 7 through Engine 12. 

Compliance testing was performed to measure total suspended particulate (TSP), particulate with 

diameters equal to or less than 10 microns (PM-10), particulate with diameters equal to or less 

than 2.5 microns (PM-2.5), volatile organic compound (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO) nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), oxygen (O2), concentrations and emission rates and opacity from the exhaust of 

each of the six (6) Model No.G3520C IC engines pursuant to the testing requirements specified 

in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit issued by the NJDEP to Manchester 

Renewable Power Corporation, LES. 

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, Andrew Rusnak, Dustin Collins, and Jason Krawczyk 

performed the field sampling and measurements July 16 – July 19, 2007. 

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

Protocol dated November 28, 2006 as well as Test Protocol Revisions dated April 17, 2007. 

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.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page 2 

2.0 PLANT AND SAMPLING LOCATION DESCRIPTION 

2.1 General Process Description 

Methane-rich landfill gas (LFG) is produced in the Ocean County 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 MRPC-OEC facility where it is treated 

and used as fuel for the IC engine generators that produce electricity for transfer to the local 

utility. 

The MRPC-OEC facility currently consists of six (6) CAT Model No.G3520C IC internal 

combustion engines that are connected to individual electricity generators. 

A process flow diagram for the LFG to electricity process is presented subsequent to the 

summary tables in this report. 

2.2 Rated Capacities, Type and Quantity of Raw Materials Used 

The CAT G3520C IC engine generator sets were operated at base load conditions (i.e., 100% of 

the design capacity of 2,233 brake horsepower) to produce a peak electricity output of 1,600 

kilowatts (kW). Fuel (treated landfill gas) consumption is regulated to maintain the required heat 

input rate to support engine operations and is dependant on the fuel heat value (methane content). 

The average facility fuel consumption rate during the test periods was 3,236 scfm (six IC engines 

combined, or approximately 539 scfm per engine) based on data recorded from the fuel flow 

meter installed and operated by MRPC-OEC. 

Appendix E provides engine generator process data collected during the compliance test. 

2.3 Emission Control System Description 

The engines incorporate state of the art technology in order to fire lean fuel mixtures and produce 

low combustion by-product emissions. 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). 

2.4 Sampling Locations (USEPA Method 1) 

The exhaust stack sampling port for the Model G3520C IC engines (7 through 12) satisfied the 

USEPA Method 1 criteria for a representative sample location. The inner diameter of the engine 

exhaust stacks is 16 inches. The stacks are equipped with two (2) sample ports, opposed 90°, 

that provide a sampling location 53 inches (3.31 duct diameters) downstream and 124 inches 

(7.75 duct diameters) upstream from any flow disturbance. 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page 3 

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

USEPA Method 1 for all six engines. 

Included, following the summary tables, is a representative diagram of the performance test 

sampling location. 

The sample ports were three-inch diameter openings (sized to accommodate the particulate train 

isokinetic sampling nozzle) cut into the 16-inch diameter engine manifold exhaust, prior to the 

muffler (see Figure 2). The measured exhaust gas static pressure at the sampling location was a 

positive 7 inches of water column, gage (in. wc). The relatively high positive pressure and hot 

exhaust gas temperature (in excess of 900°F) at the sampling location made it difficult to 

completely seal the sampling port around the isokinetic probe. The small stack diameter (16 

inches) required that half of the sampling points on each traverse diameter were located within 

2.24 inches of the 3-inch diameter sampling port. As a result of the influence of the sampling 

port (blowout that occurs around the sample probe/pitot tube geometry), the calculated 

volumetric flowrate based on the measured velocity pressure readings were approximately 15 to 

20% greater than the manufacturer’s calculated exhaust gas flowrate for the G3520C Caterpillar 

LFG fired engine based on engine speed (RPM) and cylinder displacement design (5,577 

standard cubic feet per minute, scfm, average measured flow versus 4,710 scfm based on design 

data for the engine). 

Reported pollutant mass emission rates are directly proportional to the measured exhaust gas 

flowrate, which appeared to be biased high due to the sample port configuration, alternate 

exhaust gas flowrate calculations were performed using the ultimate fuel analysis procedures 

specified in USEPA Method 19. Therefore, a sample of the treated fuel (landfill gas) to the 

engines was obtained from the supply header on July 19, 2007 during the engine No. 12 test 

periods and provided to a contract laboratory for ultimate fuel analysis. This was discussed with 

the NJDEP representative that was on-site during the July 19, 2007 testing (Ms. Donna Summer). 

The calculated exhaust gas flowrate based on the ultimate fuel analysis and data recorded during 

the compliance test periods (recorded fuel flowrate and measured exhaust gas CO2 content) 

ranges from 4,455 to 4,701 dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm), which is approximately 

10% greater than the engine manufacturer’s specifications. 

Pollutant mass emission rates for CO and NOX based on both measurement techniques (USEPA 

Method 2 gas velocity measurements and USEPA Method 19 ultimate fuel analysis) are 

presented Section 3.4 of this report and summarized in Tables 1 through 12. However, it is the 

opinion of Derenzo and Associates and MRPC-OEC that the exhaust gas flowrates based on the 

USEPA Method 19 procedures are more representative of actual conditions due to the sampling 

location influences presented in the previous paragraph and the relative agreement with 

manufacturer’s design specifications (approximately +10%). 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page 4 

3.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS 

3.1 Purpose and Objectives of the Tests 

Stack testing is required for emission points 7 through 12 to demonstrate compliance with the 

CO, NOX, TSP, PM-10, PM-2.5, VOC, SO2, and opacity emission limits by permit condition 

Reference Number (No.) 1 for Emission Unit U7 Six Ocean Energy Corp. CAT 3520 Lean Burn 

Reciprocating Engines, Operating Scenario OS Summary that is presented on page No. 17 of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit that was issued by the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 

The filterable PM emissions were measured with the front-half of the sampling system in 

accordance with NJATM 1. The PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions were determined by combining 

the total filterable with the total condensable portions of the NJATM 1 and USEPA 202 sampling 

trains. All particulate emissions from the IC engines are considered PM-2.5, therefore, the PM2.5 and PM-10 emission rates are identical. The VOC emission rate from each engine was 

determined by subtracting the methane concentration (laboratory USEPA Method 18 analysis) 

from the total hydrocarbon (THC) concentration determined by USEPA Method 25A. The 

exhausts from the LFG-fueled IC engines were monitored for three (3) one-hour test periods 

during which the NOx, CO, O2, and CO2 exhaust gas concentrations were measured using 

instrumental analyzers. Exhaust gas moisture content for the three engines was determined by 

gravimetric analysis of the weight gain in the chilled impingers. Velocity and volumetric flow 

rates were measured during each NJATM 1 isokinetic sampling test period as well as calculated 

from the results of the ultimate fuel analysis described in USEPA Method 19. Opacity 

observations were made at the point of greatest opacity in the portion of the plume where 

condensed water vapor is not present, with readings every 5 seconds as requested by NJDEPBTS. 

The testing was performed while the IC engines were operated at normal base load conditions 

(1600 kW peak electricity output +/- 5%). 

 

3.2 Variations from Normal Sampling Procedures or Operating Conditions 

The testing for all pollutants with the exception of SO2 was performed in accordance with the 

Test Protocol dated November 28, 2006; Test Protocol Revisions dated April 17, 2007 and 

specified NJDEP and USEPA test methods. 

NJATM1 requires that the exhaust gas temperature exiting the filter holder be maintained below 

225 o

F. The engine exhausts consistently exceeded 900 oF. To satisfy the NJATM1 temperature 

requirement, the sampled gas was cooled by exposing the filter holder to ambient air and cooling 

the sampling probe with water mist. When the filter holder exhaust temperature exceeded the 225 

o

F, the test was halted and only resumed when the probe could be cooled appropriately. A 

miscommunication did occur where the isokinetic meter operator recorded the filter housing 

temperature on the field data sheets for several tests instead of the filter holder exhaust 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page 5 

temperature. This mistake was identified and corrected for the remainder of the testing. The filter 

holder exhaust temperature quality assurance criteria were met throughout the test program. 

Instrument calibrations and sampling period results satisfied the quality assurance verifications 

required by USEPA Methods 3A, 7E, 10, and 25A. No variations from the normal operating 

conditions of the IC engines occurred during the testing program. 

Relatively high moisture concentrations in the engine exhausts created a SO2 scrubbing effect 

within the instrument analyzer moisture removal system (sample gas condenser/conditioner), 

which caused excessive system bias for the Method 6C (SO2) sampling train. Two (2) different 

SO2 instrumental analyzers exhibited similar system bias issues; therefore, it was determined that 

the amount of moisture being removed by the sample gas condenser/conditioner was affecting 

the measured concentration. The onsite NJDEP – BTS representative was informed of the SO2

measurement issues and it was agreed that SO2 testing would be suspended and performed at a 

later date. 

MRPC - OEC will request SO2 emission rate determinations be made by sampling the fuel for 

available sulfur and calculate the worse-case SO2 emission rates based on the available sulfur, or 

schedule isokinetic testing for SO2 emission rate determinations. 

3.3 Operating Conditions during Compliance Tests 

The six LFG-fueled IC engines were operated at base load (100% capacity +/- 5%) conditions 

during the compliance testing. With the exception of the first test period for Engine 7, the peak 

kilowatt (kW) output value displayed by the engine data management computer (LCD screen) 

were manually recorded every 15 minutes during each test period. Data for the first test of 

Engine 7 were recorded by the facility. The individual readings were averaged prior to use in 

emission rate calculations. LFG flowrate information was obtained similarly (manually-recorded 

15 minute readings) from data displayed by the fuel flow rate meter installed on the main fuel 

supply header (combined fuel flow to all six engines). The 15-minute fuel flowrate readings 

were divided by 6 to obtain individual engine fuel flowrates for subsequent emissions 

calculations. The following table presents the three test average kW output and LFG flowrates 

recorded for the compliance test event: 

Source Identification Engine 

#7 

Engine 

#8 

Engine 

#9 

Engine 

#10 

Engine 

#11 

Engine 

#12 

Electrical Output (kW) 1,577 1,604 1,610 1,613 1,611 1,614 

Fuel Flow (scfm) 535 539 545 547 540 536 

3.4 Air Pollutant Sampling Results 

The gases exhausted from the six (6) LFG-fueled IC engines were each sampled for three (3) 

one-hour test periods during the compliance testing performed June 16 – June 19, 2007. 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page 6 

The following table presents the three test average emission rates from the performance evaluation: 

Emission Parameter Engine 

#7 

Engine 

#8 

Engine 

#9 

Engine 

#10 

Engine 

#11 

Engine 

#12 

 

NOX Emission Rates 

 NOX emissions (lb/hr)1 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.4 

 NOX emissions (g/bhp-hr)1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 

 NOX emissions (lb/hr)2 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.3 

 NOX emissions (g/bhp-hr)2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 

 

CO Emission Rates 

 CO emissions (lb/hr)1 13.4 13.8 14.2 14.2 13.0 13.4 

 CO emissions (g/bhp-hr)1 2.77 2.79 2.87 2.87 2.63 2.69 

 CO emissions (lb/hr)2 12.54 12.93 13.17 13.25 12.48 12.71 

 CO emissions (g/bhp-hr)2 2.58 2.62 2.65 2.67 2.52 2.56 

 

VOC Emission Rates 

 VOC emissions (lb/hr) 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 VOC emissions (g/bhp-hr) 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 

PM Emission Rates 

 PM emissions (lb/hr) 0.48 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.10

 PM emissions (g/bhp-hr) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

 

PM10, PM2.5 Emission Rates 

 PM10/2.5 emissions (lb/hr) 1.10 0.79 0.74 0.73 0.67 0.69 

 PM10/2.5 emissions (g/bhp-hr) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 

 

Oxygen Concentrations 

 Percent Oxygen 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.5 7.7 7.9 

Opacity Observations 

 Highest 10 second average 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Notes

(lb/hr): pounds per hour, (g/bhp-hr): grams per brake horsepower hour 

1. Flowrate calculation based on Type S Pitot measurements (USEPA Method 2) 

2. Flowrate calculation based on Ultimate Fuel Analysis (USEPA Method 19) 

 Q (dscfm) = (F-factor, scf/MMBtu)*(heat input, MMBtu/hr)*(100/%CO2)/60 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page 7 

Tables 1 through 12 present measured gas conditions and pollutant emission rates for each of the 

tested LFG-fueled IC engines. Applicable permissible limits are presented on the summary table 

for each engine. 

As presented in Tables 1 through 12: 

• The measured NOX, VOC and TSP (filterable PM) emission rates for each IC engine are 

below permitted values. 

• The measured exhaust gas CO concentration (parts per million by volume, dry basis, 

corrected to 15% oxygen) for each IC engine is below the permitted value of 356 ppmvd at 

15% O2. The measured exhaust gas volumetric flowrate for engine Nos. 7 through 10 results 

in a calculated CO mass emission rate that exceeds the permitted value. However, the CO 

mass emission rate for all engines based on the USEPA Method 19 ultimate fuel analysis 

procedure (presented in Section 2.4 of this document) results in calculated CO emission rates 

that are less than permitted values. Based on a review of the velocity measurements obtained 

using USEPA Method 2 and design values specified by the manufacturer, it is the opinion of 

Derenzo and Associates and MRPC-OEC that this methods results in calculated exhaust gas 

volumetric flowrates that bias the calculated pollutant emission rates due to the sampling port 

configuration. 

• The measured PM10/PM2.5 emission rates for all engines except No. 7 are less than permitted 

values. The average measured PM10/PM2.5 emission rate for engine No. 7 is 1.10 lb/hr and 

0.23 g/bhp-hr, which is approximately 15% greater than the permitted values of 0.98 lb/hr 

and 0.2 g/bhp-hr. 

• The observed exhaust gas opacity is less than the permitted value for each IC engine. 

Appendix A provides computer calculated and field data sheets for each IC engine test. 

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

4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 

A test protocol for the compliance testing was prepared by MRPC - OEC and Derenzo and 

Associates and reviewed by the NJDEP. This section provides a summary of the sampling and 

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

Appendix F presents diagrams for the NJATM and USEPA Methods sampling trains. 

4.1 Exhaust Gas Velocity Determination (USEPA Method 2)

In order to determine air pollutant emission rates on a mass basis (e.g., pound per hour), IC 

engine exhaust stack gas velocities, and volumetric flow rates were determined using USEPA 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page 8 

Method 2 prior to conducting tests. 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 heated sample probe. The heated sample probe and connective 

tubing were leak-checked to verify the integrity of the measurement system. 

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

and oil manometer. The Pitot tube was positioned at all of the velocity traverse points with the 

planes of the face openings of the Pitot tube perpendicular to the stack cross-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). 

Exhaust gas velocity pressure and temperature were measured during each one-hour isokinetic 

sampling period in accordance with NJATM 1. 

4.2 Exhaust Gas Molecular Weight Determination (USEPA Method 3A) 

CO2 and O2 content in the IC engine exhaust gas stream was measured continuously throughout 

each one-hour test period in accordance with USEPA Method 3A. The CO2 content of the 

exhaust was monitored using a Fuji Model ZRF non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) gas analyzer. 

The O2 content of the exhaust was monitored using a Fuji Model ZFK3 gas analyzer that utilizes 

a paramagnetic sensor. 

During each one-hour 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 4.8 of this document). 

4.3 Exhaust Gas Moisture Content (Method 4) 

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

Method 4 using a chilled impinger sampling train as a component of the NJATM 1 sampling 

procedures for PM (i.e., not as a separate measurement train), which was performed concurrently 

with the instrumental analyzer sampling methodologies. During each sampling period, a gas 

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

sampled gas stream using impingers that were submersed in an ice bath, and then determined 

gravimetrically. At the conclusion of each sampling period, the moisture gain in the impingers 

was determined gravimetrically by weighing each impinger to determine net weight gain. 

Appendix F presents detailed gas sampling procedures for the USEPA Method 3A and NJATM 

1/ USEPA Method 202 sampling trains. 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page 9 

4.4 NOx and CO Concentration Measurements (USEPA Method 7E and 10) 

NOX and CO pollutant concentrations in the exhaust from both IC engines were determined using a 

Thermo Environmental Instruments, Inc. (TEI) Model 42c High Level chemiluminescence NOX

analyzer and Fuji Model ZRF NDIR CO analyzer. 

Three (3) one-hour sampling periods were performed for all IC engine exhaust testing. 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 4.2 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 one-minute averages. Prior to, and at the 

conclusion of each test, the instruments were calibrated using appropriate upscale calibration and 

zero gas to determine analyzer calibration error and system bias. Sampling times were recorded on 

field data sheets. 

Since there was high static pressure within the stack, the sample port openings were covered, as 

much as possible, using stainless steel sheets clamped on the outside of the sample port flange in 

order to minimize sample bias. The sample probe was placed in the stack away from the sample port 

openings. 

4.5 Particulate Matter Concentrations (NJATM 1/USEPA 202) 

An integrated sample of the exhaust gas was withdrawn isokinetically from each IC engine exhaust 

stack. The filterable PM emissions were measured with the front-half of the sampling system in 

accordance with NJATM 1. The condensible particulate concentrations were measured with the 

back half of the sampling system in accordance with USEPA Method 202. The combined filterable 

and condensible emission rates constitute the PM-10 and PM-2.5 emission rates. 

Upon completion of the required posttest leak check of the isokinetic sampling train, the impingers 

were transported to the mobile laboratory (trailer) where a nitrogen purge was conducted for a 

minimum of 20 liters per minute for one hour was conducted. Upon completion of the nitrogen 

purge, the samples were recovered in accordance with the applicable methodologies; the samples 

were clearly and uniquely labeled and readied for transport. Gravimetric analysis was conducted by 

Enthalpy Analytical, Inc., a New Jersey certified laboratory, located in Durham, North Carolina. 

Because the analytical catch was expected to be relatively low, the approved alternative method 005 

(Alt.-005) gravimetric analyses was performed on the NJATM1/USEPA 202 samples. Laboratory 

data is presented in Appendix C. 

4.6 Measurement of Volatile Organic Compounds (USEPA Methods 25A/18) 

The VOC emission rate from each engine was determined by subtracting the methane concentration 

from the total hydrocarbon (THC) concentration. THC concentrations were measured using a 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page 10 

Thermo Electron Corporation Model 51 Total Hydrocarbon Analyzer in accordance with USEPA 

Method 25A. Methane concentrations were determined by obtaining an integrated whole-air sample 

using a USEPA Method 18 evacuated chamber (lung) and preconditioned Tedlar® sampling bags. 

Samples were withdrawn from the engine exhaust gas stream at a constant sampling rate (i.e. nonisokinetically), concurrently with the THC measurements and subsequent analysis for methane 

concentration in accordance with USEPA Method 18. Laboratory data is presented in Appendix C. 

The Tedlar® bags were sealed upon completion of each test run. The bag samples were clearly and 

uniquely identified and picked up the morning after each test for analysis. Methane analysis was 

performed by International Hydronics Corporation, a New Jersey certified laboratory, located in 

Rocky Hill, New Jersey. 

4.7 Visible Emissions (NJATM 2/USEPA Method 203C) 

Opacity determinations were performed using NJATM 2/ Method 203C (40 CFR Part 51 Appendix 

M) with 5-second readings recorded on an observation report. 

4.8 Ultimate Fuel Analysis (USEPA Method 19) 

The ultimate fuel analysis was performed by International Hydronics Corporation, a New Jersey 

certified laboratory, located in Rocky Hill, New Jersey. An integrated sample of the treated 

landfill gas was obtained at the fuel supply line header and collected into a treated (pre-cleaned) 

Tedlar bag®. The sample was transported to the laboratory, by courier for analysis. 

Results of the ultimate fuel analysis are presented in Appendix C. 

5.0 INTERNAL QA/QC ACTIVITIES 

5.1 NOx Converter Efficiency Test 

The NO2 – NO conversion efficiency of the Model 42c analyzer was verified prior to the testing 

program. A mixture of NO calibration gas and hydrocarbon free 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 progresses 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. 

The NO2 – NO conversion efficiency test satisfied the USEPA Method 7E criteria (measured NOX

concentration decreased by less than 2% over a 30-minute time period). 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page 11 

5.2 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. 

5.3 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. 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 pollutant 

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

unstratified and the compliance test sampling was performed at a single sampling location. 

5.4 Gas Divider Certification (USEPA Method 205) 

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

gases. The five-step gas divider was NIST certified (on January 4, 2007) with a primary flow 

standard in accordance with Method 205. When cut with an appropriate zero gas, the five-step gas 

divider delivered calibration gas values at 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of the USEPA 

Protocol 1 calibration gas that was introduced into the system. The field evaluation procedures 

presented in Section 3.2 of Method 205 were followed prior to use of gas divider. The field 

evaluation yielded no errors greater than 2% of the triplicate measured average and no errors greater 

than 2% from the expected values. 

5.5 Instrumental Analyzer Interference Check 

The instrumental analyzers used to measure NOx, CO, O2 and CO2 have had an interference 

response test performed prior to their use in the field (July 26, 2006), pursuant to the interference 

response test procedures specified in USEPA Method 7E. The appropriate interference test gases 

(i.e. gases that would be encountered in the exhaust gas stream) were introduced into each analyzer, 

separately and as a mixture with the analyte that each analyzer is designed to measure. All of 

analyzers exhibited a composite deviation of less than 3.0% of the span for all measured interferent 

gases. No major analytical components of the analyzers have been replaced since performing the 

original interference tests. 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page 12 

5.6 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, 

CO, THC and zeroed using pure nitrogen or hydrocarbon free air. A STEC Model SGD-SC-5L 5-

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

5.7 Meter Box Calibrations and Percent Isokinetics 

The Nutech Model 2010 sampling console, which was used for isokinetic testing, was calibrated 

prior to and after the testing program. This calibration uses the critical orifice calibration technique 

presented in USEPA Method 5. The metering consol calibration exhibited no data outside the 

acceptable ranges presented in USEPA Method 5. 

All tests were within the required +-10% isokinetic sampling rate required by NJATM1. 

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

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

calibration gas and gas divider certifications, interference test results, meter box calibration 

records, cyclonic flow determinations sheets, pitot tube and probe assembly calibration records, 

nozzle calibration data, and opacity observation certification). 
Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 

Compliance Test Report Page 13 

Report Certification

I certify under penalty of law that I believe the information provided in this document 

is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant civil and criminal 

penalties, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment or both, for knowingly 

submitting false, inaccurate, or incomplete information. 

Report Prepared By: Reviewed By: 

Michael J. Brack Robert L. Harvey 

Field Services Manager Engineering Services Manager

Report Certified By: Report Certified By: 

Robert Lieckfield, Jr., C.I.H. Scott Salisbury 

Vice President, Division Director, President 

Laboratory Services Manchester Renewable Power - 

Bureau Veritas Corporation/LES 

Health, Safety, and Environmental Services 
APPENDIX A 

COMPUTER CALCULATED AND FIELD DATA 
APPENDIX B 

CALIBRATION DATA 
APPENDIX C 

LABORATORY DATA 
APPENDIX D 

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS 
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Equation 1a - Dry Molecular Weight: 

 MWd = 0.440(%CO2) + 0.320(%O2) + 0.280(%N2 + %CO) 

Equation 1b - Wet Molecular Weight: 

 MWw = MWd(1-Bws) + 18.0(Bws) 

Equation 2a - Meter Volume at Standard Conditions: 

 Vm(std) = VmY (Tstd)(Pbar + QH/13.6)

 (Tm)(Pstd) 

Equation 2b - Volume of Water Vapor Condensed: 

 Vwc(std) = K1(Wf-Wi) 

Equation 2c - Moisture Content: 

 Bws = Vwc(std)/(Vwc(std) + Vm(std)) 

Equation 3a - Velocity at a Traverse Point: 

 Vd = KpCp(TsQP/PsMWw)1/2

Equation 3b - Volumetric Flow Rate (Actual Basis): 

 Q = Vd(avg)Ad 60 

Equation 3c - Volumetric Flow Rate (Standard Basis): 

 Qstd = Q (Tstd)(Ps)

 (Ts)(Pstd) 

Equation 3d - Volumetric Flow Rate (Standard Dry Basis): 

 Qstd(dry) = Qstd(1-Bws) 

Equation 4a – Particulate Matter Concentration: (gr/dscf) 

 PMC (gr/dscf) = (mg*0.01543)/Vm 

Equation 4b – Particulate Matter Emission Rate: (lb/hr) 

 PMER (lb/hr) = PMC*0.00858*Qstd 

Equation 4c – Particulate Matter Emission Rate: (g/bHp-hr) 

 PMER (g/bHp-hr) = PMER(lb/hr) * 453.6 * 0.7457 / (kW/0.96) 

Equation 4d – PM-10, PM-2.5 Emission Rate: (lb/hr) 

 PM10/PM2.5 ER (lb/hr) = PMER(lb/hr) + Condensible ER(lb/hr) 

Equation 4e – PM-10, PM-2.5 Emission Rate: (g/bHp-hr) 

 PM10/PM2.5 ER (g/bHp-hr) = PMER(g/bHp-hr) + Condensible ER(g/bHp-hr) 

Equation 5a – Nitrogen Oxides Concentration (ppmvd)

 NOxC = ((NOx ppmvd-avg. zero) x Cal. Gas conc.)) / Avg. cal. – 

Avg. zero) 
Equation 5b – Nitrogen Oxides Emission Rate: (lb/hr) 

 NOxER (lb/hr) = NOxC x Qstd(dry) x 46.01 x 0.07524/28950000 

Equation 5c – Nitrogen Oxides Emission Rate: (g/bHp-hr) 

 NOxER (g/bHp-hr) = NOxER (lb/hr) *( 453.6 g/lb) 0.7457 kW/bHp) / (kW /0.96) 

Equation 6a – Carbon Monoxide Concentration (ppmvd)

 COC = (ppmCO x (1-(%CO2/100)))-avg. zero) x Cal. Gas conc.))/ 

 Avg. cal. – Avg. zero) 

Equation 6b – – Carbon Monoxide Emission Rate: (lb/hr) 

 COER (lb/hr) = COC x Qstd(dry) x 28.20 x 0.07524/28950000 

Equation 6c – Carbon monoxide Emission Rate: (g/bHp-hr) 

 COER (g/bHP-hr) = (COER (lb/hr) *( 453.6 g/lb) 0.7457 kW/bHp) / (kW /0.96) 

Equation 7a – Brake-horse Power (bHp) 

 bHp = (kW/0.96) * bHp/0.7457kW 

SYMBOL IDENTIFICATION 

Ad = Area of duct (ft2

) 

bHp = Brake-horse Power 

Bws = Water vapor in gas stream, proportional by volume 

COC = Carbon monoxide concentration (ppmvd) 

COER = Carbon monoxide emission rate (lb/hr) 

Cp = Pitot tube calibration factor (unitless) 

K1 = Constant (0.04715 ft3

/g) 

Kp = Constant (85.49) 

kW = Kilowatt 

MWd = Duct gas dry molecular weight (lb/lb-mole) 

MWw = Duct gas wet molecular weight (lb/lb-mole) 

NOxC = Nitrogen Oxides Concentration (ppmvd) 

NOxER = Nitrogen Oxides Emission Rate (g/bHp-hr) 

Pbar = Barometric pressure ("Hg) 

PMC = Particulate matter concentration (gr/dscf) 

PMER = Particulate matter emission rate (lb/hr) 

PM10/PM2.5ER= PM-10, PM2.5 emission rate (g/bHp-hr)

Ps = Absolute stack pressure ("Hg) 

Pstd = Standard pressure (29.92"Hg) 

Q = Duct volumetric flow rate (actual cfm) 

Qstd = Duct volumetric flow rate (scfm) 

Qstd(dry) = Duct volumetric flow rate (dscfm) 

Tm = Absolute temperature at meter (oR) 

Ts = Absolute temperature of duct gas (oR) 

Tstd = Standard temperature (528oR) 

Vd = Duct velocity at a traverse point (ft/s) 

Vm = Dry test meter volume (cf) 
Vm(std) = Dry test meter volume at standard conditions (scf) 

Vwc(std) = Volume of water vapor condensed at standard conditions (scf) 

Wf = Final weight of impinger/absorber train (g) 

Wi = Initial weight of impinger/absorber train (g)

Y = Dry test meter calibration factor (unitless) 

%CO2 = Duct gas carbon dioxide content (%volume) 

%CO = Duct gas carbon monoxide content (%volume) 

%N2 = Duct gas nitrogen content (%volume) 

%O2 = Duct gas oxygen content (%volume) 

∆H = Pressure drop across orifice ("H2O) 

∆P = Pressure drop across pitot tube ("H2O) 
APPENDIX E 

PROCESS DATA 
APPENDIX F 

DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF 

SAMPLING PROCEDURES 
1.0 Extractive Gas Sampling System for Instrumental Analyzers 

The extractive gas sampling system that serves the instrumental analyzers used for Methods 3A, 

7E and 10 is configured as described below. 

Sample probe - Stainless steel single opening probe located near the centroid of the stack crosssection. 

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

stainless steel 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 base of the sample probe. During this sampling 

system bias check, excess calibration gas exits the sampling probe tip to avoid the introduction of 

process gas or ambient air during calibration. 

Heated sample line – A heated Teflon® line is used to transport the sample gas from the stack to 

the instrument rack. The heated Teflon® line is 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 head 100% oil-free vacuum pump fitted with a 

stainless steel flow control valve is used to transfer sampled gases from the heated sample line to 

the instrumental analyzer. The vacuum pump is leak-free and non-reactive to the gases being 

sampled. Subsequent sample transport lines and fittings are either stainless steel or Teflon®. 

Gas Conditioner - A KWW MAK-2 refrigerant-based condenser equipped with a peristaltic 

pump is used to remove moisture from the sampled gas stream that is directed to the instrumental 

analyzers, which require a conditioned (or dry) gas samples. From the moisture removal system, 

a sample gas manifold constructed of Teflon® transport lines and stainless steel Tee fittings is 

used to continuously deliver the sampled gas to the instrumental analyzers. Since the 

instrumental analyzers are equipped with internal sampling pumps, the end of the sample gas 

manifold is 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 is used to record 1-minute average data 

from the analog output of the instrumental analyzers. 

2.0 Isokinetic Sampling System and Procedures for PM and PM-10/PM-2.5 

PM concentrations are equal to the filterable portion of the NJATM1 sampling train (filter and 

acetone rinse). PM-10 concentrations are equal to the sum of the NJATM1 sampling train 

(filterable) and the Method 202 sampling train (condensible) measured values. Therefore, 

combining the results of the NJATM1 and 202 sampling train was used for the determination of 

PM-10 and PM-2.5 emission rates from the engine exhausts. 
A "goose-neck" nozzle constructed of stainless steel was connected via stainless steel 

Swagelok® fitting to a borosilicate glass probe liner within a stainless steel probe. Attached to 

the sample probe was a Stausscheibe (Type S) pitot tube and type K thermocouple which was 

used to measure duct velocity head pressure and temperature. The probe liner is attached to a 

glass filter holder containing a glass fiber filter. The back half of the filter holder was connected

via connecting glassware, with temperature monitoring probe, to the impinger train. 

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 °F or less. The train was constructed and charged as follows: 

modified Greenberg-Smith (G-S) impinger containing 100 ml of DI H2O; 

modified G-S impinger containing 100 ml of DI H2O; 

standard G-S impinger containing 100 ml of DI H2O; 

modified G-S impinger containing approximately 200 - 300 grams of pre-dried silica gel and 

glass fiber. 

The sampling train was followed in series by an umbilical line, dry gas meter and calibrated 

orifice connected to an inclined manometer. Type-K thermocouples were used to measure the 

stack, impinger outlet, and dry gas meter inlet and outlet temperatures. A carbon vane pump was 

used to provide the necessary vacuum for the sampling train. 

Prior to performing the PM sampling, preliminary flowrate measurements were obtained for the 

proper operation of the metering console. Sample time per traverse point was calculated based 

on the total anticipated sampling time (60 minutes). 

The sample train was assembled as completely as possible in the staging area and transported to 

the sampling site. Openings were sealed with parafilm to prevent potential contamination of the 

sample train prior to final assembly. Once in the sampling area, each train was assembled and 

each apparatus was leak checked. Upon successful completion of the leak check, the initial dry 

gas meter reading was recorded. The engine exhaust sampling locations were selected based on 

the availability of straight duct, which meet the requirements of USEPA Method 1. 

The dry gas meter temperatures were recorded on the data sheet. The isokinetic-sampling rate in 

terms of pressure drop across the calibrated orifice was calculated and recorded on the data sheet. 

The pump and timer was turned on, and the sample rate was adjusted to correspond to the 

calculated isokinetic rate. 

 

Once the sample rate was set, the following data was recorded: 

 - Dry gas meter inlet and outlet temperatures 

 - Sample vacuum 

- Probe temperature 

 - Impinger outlet temperature 

 - Filter holder outlet temperature 

 - Orifice differential pressure 

 - Sample volume (dry gas meter readings) 
At the end of the sample time for the first point, the probe was moved to the next point, and the 

measurements, calculations and recording of data was repeated. Upon completion of sampling 

(each traverse), the probe, and nozzle were removed from the port. The sampling train assembly 

was then placed into the next traverse port and the previously described sampling procedures 

were repeated. 

When the sample run was completed, the final, dry gas meter reading was recorded. The probe 

and filter assembly was removed from the sampling port and allowed to cool. A post-test leak 

check was performed on the sampling train at a vacuum at least as great as that of the highest 

sample vacuum measured during each sample run. The final leak rate was recorded on the data 

sheets. The sample train was sealed from contamination and transported to the staging area for 

recovery. Recovery consisted of; performing triplicate rinse and brush technique using acetone 

on the nozzle, probe liner, and the front half of the filter holder. The acetone rinse combined 

with the filter are regarded as the sampling train front half and net weight gains are used to 

calculate the PM portion of the sampling train. 

Back-half recovery consisted of performing water and methylene chloride rinses of the filter 

holder back section, the glass connector, the first three impingers and connecting glassware as 

well as the impinger contents. The impinger contents were collected in a sample bottle and pH 

paper was used to verify the pH of the contents. The verified pH was less than 4.5 after each test. 

A nitrogen purge was performed on the impinger train for at least 60 minutes at a rate of greater 

than 20 liters per minute. 

The samples were recovered into appropriate, pre-cleaned glass jars with Teflon liners. The 

samples were clearly and uniquely marker prior to shipment. Shipment was performed in 

accordance with the prescribed procedures of the International Air Transport Association for 

dangerous goods.