### 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 emis sions from landfill gas-fired internal

combustion engine operations at the Manchester Rene wable 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 condu cted at the MRPC - Ocean Energy Corporation facility in Lakehurst, NJ.

Testing was conducted July 16-19, 2007 by Derenzo a nd Associates, Inc. personnel Michael Brack, Andrew Rusnak, Dustin Collins, and Jason Kra wczyk. Assistance with the test event was provided by MRPC representative Anthony Aiello. Po rtions 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 submi tted to the NJDEP BTS and Regional CES departments of the NJDEP on behalf of MRPC, LES.

Derenzo and Associates, Inc. appreciates the opport unity 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 Manches ter 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. : 789 01

Testing Contractor

Company Derenzo and Associates, Inc.
Mailing

Address 39395 Schoolcraft Road

Livonia, MI 48150

Phone (734) 464-3880
Project No. 0704009Derenzo 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 Mate rials 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 O perating 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 Metho d 2) .............................................. ................. 7

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

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

................................................... ............................ 8

4.4 NO

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

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

4.6 Measurement of Volatile Organic Compounds (USEP A 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 NO

x 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

................................................... .......................... 12Derenzo 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 Orga nic Compound Emission rates from the No. 7 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corp oration, LES facility ............................. .......... 14

2 Particulate Matter, PM-10, and PM-2.5 Emission rate s from the No. 7 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility .........

................................................... ............................... 15

3 Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Volatile Orga nic Compound Emission rates from the No. 8 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corp oration, LES facility ............................. .......... 16

4 Particulate Matter, PM-10, and PM-2.5 Emission rate s from the No. 8 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility .........

................................................... ............................... 17

5 Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Volatile Orga nic Compound Emission rates from the No. 9 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corp oration, LES facility ............................. .......... 18

6 Particulate Matter, PM-10, and PM-2.5 Emission rate s from the No. 9 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facility .........

................................................... ............................... 19

7 Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Volatile Orga nic Compound Emission rates from the No. 10 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Cor poration, LES facility ............................ ......... 20

8 Particulate Matter, PM-10, and PM-2.5 Emission rate s from the No. 10 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facilit y ................................................. ...................... 21

9 Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Volatile Orga nic Compound Emission rates from the No. 11 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Cor poration, LES facility ............................ ......... 22

10 Particulate Matter, PM-10, and PM-2.5 Emission rate s from the No. 11 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facilit y ................................................. ...................... 23

11 Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Volatile Orga nic Compound Emission rates from the No. 12 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Cor poration, LES facility ............................ ......... 24

12 Particulate Matter, PM-10, and PM-2.5 Emission rate s from the No. 12 Engine at the Manchester Renewable Power Corporation, LES facilit y ................................................. ...................... 25Derenzo 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 Dia gram (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 D ata Sheets Appendix B Equipment Calibration Data and Opacity C ertification Appendix C Laboratory Data Appendix D Sample Calculations Appendix E Process Data Appendix F Detailed Descriptions of Sampling Proced ures

### 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 – PT 12 (which are part of emission unit U7 Six Ocean Energy Corporation’s CAT 3520 Lean Burn R eciprocating Engines). The emission unit consists of six (6) CAT G3520C Internal Combus tion (IC) engines and electricity generator sets. These engines are fueled with methane-rich g as, 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 s uspended 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 compoun d (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO) nitrogen oxides (NO X ), oxygen (O 2 ), concentrations and emission rates and opacity fr om the exhaust of each of the six (6) Model No.G3520C IC engines purs uant 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 testi ng company founded in 1989. Derenzo and Associates representatives Michael Brack, Andrew Ru snak, 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 Pr otocol Revisions dated April 17, 2007.

Questions regarding this emission test report shoul d 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) 380-3920Derenzo 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 met hane-rich LFG is collected from both active and capped landfill cells using a system of wells t hat 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 p rocess is presented subsequent to the summary tables in this report.

2.2 Rated Capacities, Type and Quantity of Raw Material s Used

The CAT G3520C IC engine generator sets were operat ed at base load conditions (i.e., 100% of the design capacity of 2,233 brake horsepower) to p roduce a peak electricity output of 1,600 kilowatts (kW). Fuel (treated landfill gas) consum ption is regulated to maintain the required heat input rate to support engine operations and is depe ndant on the fuel heat value (methane content). The average facility fuel consumption rate during t he test periods was 3,236 scfm (six IC engines combined, or approximately 539 scfm per engine) bas ed on data recorded from the fuel flow meter installed and operated by MRPC-OEC.

Appendix E provides engine generator process data c ollected 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 fro m the combustion of LFG are released uncontrolled into the ambient air through a stack c onnected 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 G3520 C 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 equipp ed with two (2) sample ports, opposed 90°, that provide a sampling location 53 inches (3.31 du ct diameters) downstream and 124 inches (7.75 duct diameters) upstream from any flow distur bance.Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 Compliance Test Report Page 3

Velocity pressure traverse locations for the sampli ng points were determined in accordance with USEPA Method 1 for all six engines.

Included, following the summary tables, is a repres entative 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 di ameter engine manifold exhaust, prior to the muffler (see Figure 2). The measured exhaust gas s tatic 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 isokin etic probe. The small stack diameter (16 inches) required that half of the sampling points o n 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/p itot tube geometry), the calculated volumetric flowrate based on the measured velocity pressure readings were approximately 15 to 20% greater than the manufacturer’s calculated exha ust gas flowrate for the G3520C Caterpillar LFG fired engine based on engine speed (RPM) and cy linder displacement design (5,577 standard cubic feet per minute, scfm, average measu red 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 t he sample port configuration, alternate exhaust gas flowrate calculations were performed us ing 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 u ltimate 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 ul timate fuel analysis and data recorded during the compliance test periods (recorded fuel flowrate and measured exhaust gas CO 2 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 specific ations.

Pollutant mass emission rates for CO and NO X 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 parag raph 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 thr ough 12 to demonstrate compliance with the CO, NO X , TSP, PM-10, PM-2.5, VOC, SO 2 , and opacity emission limits by permit condition Reference Number (No.) 1 for Emission Unit U7 Six O cean Energy Corp. CAT 3520 Lean Burn Reciprocating Engines, Operating Scenario OS Summar y 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 emis sions were determined by combining the total filterable with the total condensable por tions of the NJATM 1 and USEPA 202 sampling trains. All particulate emissions from the IC engi nes are considered PM-2.5, therefore, the PM2.5 and PM-10 emission rates are identical. The VO C emission rate from each engine was determined by subtracting the methane concentration (laboratory USEPA Method 18 analysis) from the total hydrocarbon (THC) concentration dete rmined by USEPA Method 25A. The exhausts from the LFG-fueled IC engines were monito red for three (3) one-hour test periods during which the NO

x , CO, O 2, and CO 2 exhaust gas concentrations were measured using instrumental analyzers. Exhaust gas moisture conte nt for the three engines was determined by gravimetric analysis of the weight gain in the chil led 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 desc ribed in USEPA Method 19. Opacity observations were made at the point of greatest opa city 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 Opera ting Conditions

The testing for all pollutants with the exception o f SO 2 was performed in accordance with the Test Protocol dated November 28, 2006; Test Protoco l Revisions dated April 17, 2007 and specified NJDEP and USEPA test methods.

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

225 o F. The engine exhausts consistently exceeded 900 o F. 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 filte r holder exhaust temperature exceeded the 225

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

miscommunication did occur where the isokinetic met er operator recorded the filter housing temperature on the field data sheets for several te sts instead of the filter holder exhaustDerenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 Compliance Test Report Page 5

temperature. This mistake was identified and corre cted for the remainder of the testing. The filter holder exhaust temperature quality assurance criter ia 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 te sting program.

Relatively high moisture concentrations in the engi ne exhausts created a SO 2 scrubbing effect within the instrument analyzer moisture removal sys tem (sample gas condenser/conditioner), which caused excessive system bias for the Method 6 C (SO 2 ) sampling train. Two (2) different

SO 2 instrumental analyzers exhibited similar system bi as 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 SO 2 measurement issues and it was agreed that SO 2 testing would be suspended and performed at a

later date.

MRPC - OEC will request SO 2 emission rate determinations be made by sampling t he fuel for

available sulfur and calculate the worse-case SO 2 emission rates based on the available sulfur, or schedule isokinetic testing for SO 2 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 indivi dual readings were averaged prior to use in

emission rate calculations. LFG flowrate informati on 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 engine s). 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 thr ee 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 1,61 1 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

NO X Emission Rates

NO X emissions (lb/hr) 1 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.4

NO X emissions (g/bhp-hr) 1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3

NO X emissions (lb/hr) 2 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.3

NO X 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 0.0 0
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

PM 10 , PM 2.5 Emission Rates

PM 10 /2.5 emissions (lb/hr) 1.10 0.79 0.74 0.73 0.67 0.69

PM 10/ 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 br ake horsepower hour

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

2. Flowrate calculation based on Ultimate Fuel Ana lysis (USEPA Method 19) Q (dscfm) = (F-factor, scf/MMBtu)*(heat input , MMBtu/hr)*(100/%CO 2 )/60Derenzo 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 permissib le limits are presented on the summary table for each engine.

As presented in Tables 1 through 12:

• The measured NO X , VOC and TSP (filterable PM) emission rates for ea ch IC engine are below permitted values.

• The measured exhaust gas CO concentration (parts pe r million by volume, dry basis, corrected to 15% oxygen) for each IC engine is belo w the permitted value of 356 ppmvd at

15% O 2 . 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 USE PA Method 19 ultimate fuel analysis procedure (presented in Section 2.4 of this documen t) results in calculated CO emission rates that are less than permitted values. Based on a re view 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 metho ds results in calculated exhaust gas volumetric flowrates that bias the calculated pollu tant emission rates due to the sampling port configuration.

• The measured PM 10 /PM 2.5 emission rates for all engines except No. 7 are les s than permitted values. The average measured PM 10 /PM 2.5 emission rate for engine No. 7 is 1.10 lb/hr and 0.23 g/bhp-hr, which is approximately 15% greater t han the permitted values of 0.98 lb/hr and 0.2 g/bhp-hr.

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

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

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

4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

A test protocol for the compliance testing was prep ared 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 tes t 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 USEPADerenzo 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 pito t tube connected to a red-oil manometer was used to determine velocity pressure. Gas temperatu re was measured using a K-type thermocouple mounted to the heated sample probe. T he 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 loca tion was verified using an S-type Pitot tube and oil manometer. The Pitot tube was positioned a t all of the velocity traverse points with the planes of the face openings of the Pitot tube perpe ndicular to the stack cross-sectional plane. The

Pitot tube was then rotated to determine the null a ngle (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 M ethod 3A)

CO 2 and O 2 content in the IC engine exhaust gas stream was me asured continuously throughout each one-hour test period in accordance with USEPA Method 3A. The CO 2 content of the exhaust was monitored using a Fuji Model ZRF non-di spersive infrared (NDIR) gas analyzer.

The O 2 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 stee l 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 O 2 and CO 2 concentrations correspond to standard dry gas conditions. The instrument was calibrated using ap propriate 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 d etermined 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 measurem ent train), which was performed concurrently with the instrumental analyzer sampling methodologi es. During each sampling period, a gas sample was extracted at a constant rate from the so urce where moisture was removed from the sampled gas stream using impingers that were submer sed in an ice bath, and then determined gravimetrically. At the conclusion of each samplin g period, the moisture gain in the impingers was determined gravimetrically by weighing each imp inger to determine net weight gain.

Appendix F presents detailed gas sampling procedure s 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 NO

x and CO Concentration Measurements (USEPA Method 7E and 10)

NO X and CO pollutant concentrations in the exhaust fro m both IC engines were determined using a Thermo Environmental Instruments, Inc. (TEI) Model 42c High Level chemiluminescence NO X 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 t he 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 an alyzers. Instrument response for each analyzer was recorded on an ESC Model 8816 data logging syst em 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 calib rated using appropriate upscale calibration and zero gas to determine analyzer calibration error an d system bias. Sampling times were recorded on

field data sheets.

Since there was high static pressure within the sta ck, the sample port openings were covered, as much as possible, using stainless steel sheets clam ped on the outside of the sample port flange in order to minimize sample bias. The sample probe wa s placed in the stack away from the sample port openings.

4.5 Particulate Matter Concentrations (NJATM 1/USEPA 20 2)

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

stack. The filterable PM emissions were measured w ith the front-half of the sampling system in accordance with NJATM 1. The condensible particula te 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 co nducted. Upon completion of the nitrogen purge, the samples were recovered in accordance wit h the applicable methodologies; the samples were clearly and uniquely labeled and readied for t ransport. Gravimetric analysis was conducted by Enthalpy Analytical, Inc., a New Jersey certified l aboratory, located in Durham, North Carolina.

Because the analytical catch was expected to be rel atively low, the approved alternative method 005 (Alt.-005) gravimetric analyses was performed on th e NJATM1/USEPA 202 samples. Laboratory data is presented in Appendix C.

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

The VOC emission rate from each engine was determin ed by subtracting the methane concentration from the total hydrocarbon (THC) concentration. TH C concentrations were measured using aDerenzo and Associates, Inc.

MRPC-OEC G3520C IC Engine August 29, 2007 Compliance Test Report Page 10

Thermo Electron Corporation Model 51 Total Hydrocar bon 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) an d 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 measurem ents 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 eac h 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 observatio n report.

4.8 Ultimate Fuel Analysis (USEPA Method 19)

The ultimate fuel analysis was performed by Interna tional Hydronics Corporation, a New Jersey certified laboratory, located in Rocky Hill, New Jer sey. An integrated sample of the treated landfill gas was obtained at the fuel supply line h eader and collected into a treated (pre-cleaned) Tedlar bag®. The sample was transported to the lab oratory, by courier for analysis.

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

5.0 INTERNAL QA/QC ACTIVITIES

5.1 NO

x Converter Efficiency Test

The NO 2 – NO conversion efficiency of the Model 42c analyz er was verified prior to the testing program. A mixture of NO calibration gas and hydro carbon free air gas was added to a Tedlar bag. The bag was attached to the inlet of the analyzer a nd the instrument response was monitored as the bag emptied. As the conversion efficiency test pro gresses the NO reacts with O 2 to form NO 2 . The analyzer’s NO 2 – NO converter uses a catalyst at high temperature s to convert the NO 2 to NO for measurement. The conversion efficiency of the anal yzer is deemed acceptable if the total NO

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

The NO 2 – NO conversion efficiency test satisfied the USEP A Method 7E criteria (measured NO X concentration decreased by less than 2% over a 30-m inute 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 determ ined prior to the compliance test program by introducing upscale gas and zero gas, in series, in to the sampling system using a tee connection at th e 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 stopw atch.

5.3 Determination of Exhaust Gas Stratification

A stratification test for each IC engine exhaust st ack 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 diamet er. Pollutant concentration data were recorded at each sample point for a minimum of twice the maximu m 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 p erformed 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 w ith 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 followe d 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, O 2 and CO 2 have had an interference response test performed prior to their use in the f ield (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 exhaus t gas stream) were introduced into each analyzer, separately and as a mixture with the analyte that e ach analyzer is designed to measure. All of analyzers exhibited a composite deviation of less t han 3.0% of the span for all measured interferent gases. No major analytical components of the analyz ers 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 i nstrument 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 sa mpling period by introducing the appropriate upscale calibration gas and zero gas into the sampl ing 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 CO 2 , O 2 , NO X , CO, THC and zeroed using pure nitrogen or hydrocarb on free air. A STEC Model SGD-SC-5L 5- step gas divider was used to obtain intermediate ca libration gas concentrations as needed.

5.7 Meter Box Calibrations and Percent Isokinetics

The Nutech Model 2010 sampling console, which was us ed for isokinetic testing, was calibrated prior to and after the testing program. This calib ration uses the critical orifice calibration techni que presented in USEPA Method 5. The metering consol c alibration 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 assuranc e data (NO 2 – NO conversion efficiency test data, exhaust stratification test data, instrument calibration and system bias check records, calibration gas and gas divider certifications, int erference test results, meter box calibration records, cyclonic flow determinations sheets, pitot tube and probe assembly calibration records, nozzle calibration data, and opacity observation ce rtification).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 i nformation provided in this document is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that t here are significant civil and criminal penalties, including the possibility of fine or imp risonment or both, for knowingly submitting false, inaccurate, or incomplete informa tion.

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 ServicesAPPENDIX A

COMPUTER CALCULATED AND FIELD DATAAPPENDIX B

CALIBRATION DATAAPPENDIX C

LABORATORY DATAAPPENDIX D

SAMPLE CALCULATIONSEXAMPLE 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-B ws ) + 18.0(B ws )

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:

B ws = 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 Ba sis): Qstd(dry) = Qstd(1-B ws )

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-h r) PM10/PM2.5 ER (g/bHp-hr) = PMER(g/bHp-hr) + Conde nsible 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 0.075 24/28950000

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-(%CO 2 /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 (ft 2 ) bHp = Brake-horse Power

B ws = Water vapor in gas stream, proportional by volu me COC = Carbon monoxide concentration (ppmvd) COER = Carbon monoxide emission rate (lb/hr) Cp = Pitot tube calibration factor (unitless) K1 = Constant (0.04715 ft 3 /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 ( o R) Ts = Absolute temperature of duct gas ( o R) Tstd = Standard temperature (528 o R) Vd = Duct velocity at a traverse point (ft/s) Vm = Dry test meter volume (cf)Vm(std) = Dry test meter volume at standard conditi ons (scf)

Vwc(std) = Volume of water vapor condensed at stand ard 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 DATAAPPENDIX F

DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF

SAMPLING PROCEDURES1.0 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 nea r 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 int roduction 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 introduct ion of pressurized (i.e. > 10 psig) calibration gases from a remote Teflon® line to the poppet chec k valve, the check valve opens and allows the calibration gases to be introduced near the bas e 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 s ample gas from the stack to the instrument rack. The heated Teflon® line is eq uipped with a temperature controller which maintains the temperature of the sample line at app roximately 250°F to prevent moisture

condensation.

Sample pump and flow control valve – A single head 100% oil-free vacuum pump fitted w ith a

stainless steel flow control valve is used to trans fer 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 fit tings 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 ga s 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® transp ort 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 s ampling pumps, the end of the sample gas manifold is equipped with an atmospheric dump (or b ypass 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 analyzer s.

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

PM concentrations are equal to the filterable porti on 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 (con densible) measured values. Therefore, combining the results of the NJATM1 and 202 samplin g train was used for the determination of PM-10 and PM-2.5 emission rates from the engine exh austs.A "goose-neck" nozzle constructed of stainless stee l was connected via stainless steel

Swagelok® fitting to a borosilicate glass probe lin er 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 tem perature. 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 monitori ng 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 H 2 O; modified G-S impinger containing 100 ml of DI H 2 O; standard G-S impinger containing 100 ml of DI H 2 O; 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 umb ilical 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 sampli ng train.

Prior to performing the PM sampling, preliminary fl owrate measurements were obtained for the proper operation of the metering console. Sample t ime per traverse point was calculated based on the total anticipated sampling time (60 minutes)

.

The sample train was assembled as completely as pos sible in the staging area and transported to the sampling site. Openings were sealed with paraf ilm 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 c ompletion 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 r equirements 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 orific e was calculated and recorded on the data sheet. The pump and timer was turned on, and the sample ra te was adjusted to correspond to the

calculated isokinetic rate.

Once the sample rate was set, the following data wa s 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 wa s 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 g as meter reading was recorded. The probe and filter assembly was removed from the sampling p ort and allowed to cool. A post-test leak check was performed on the sampling train at a vacu um 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 contamina tion and transported to the staging area for recovery. Recovery consisted of; performing tripli cate rinse and brush technique using acetone on the nozzle, probe liner, and the front half of t he 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 an d 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 conten ts were collected in a sample bottle and pH paper was used to verify the pH of the contents. T he verified pH was less than 4.5 after each test.

A nitrogen purge was performed on the impinger trai n for at least 60 minutes at a rate of greater than 20 liters per minute.

The samples were recovered into appropriate, pre-cl eaned glass jars with Teflon liners. The samples were clearly and uniquely marker prior to s hipment. Shipment was performed in accordance with the prescribed procedures of the In ternational Air Transport Association for dangerous goods.