Naphthalene ND 0.847 1.081 0.965 Acenaphthylene I ND I ND I ND I Acenaphthene I ND I ND I ND I ND Fluorene Phenanthrene I ND 1 ND 1 ND 1 0.029 Anthracene I ND I ND I ND I 0.069 Fluoranthene I ND I ND I ND I ND Pyrene I ND I ND I ND I ND Benzo( a) anthracene I ND I ND I ND I ND Chrysene I ND I ND I ND I ND Benzo( b) fluoranthene I ND I ND I ND I ND Ben. zo( k) fluoranthene I ND I ND I ND I ND Benzo( a) pyrene I ND I ND I ND I ND Indeno( 1,2,3 cd) pyrene I ND I ND I ND I ND 1 Dibenz( a, h) anthracene I ND I ND I ND I ND Benzo( g, h, i) perylene ND 1 ND ND 1 ND ' pg  microgram NOTE: The reagent blank value is the sum of separate analyses hexane, acetone, methylene chloride, and distilled water blank samples.

Final Report  Caterpillar 3508 EUI 6 25 September 200 1 TABLE 6.13 SUMMARY OF CARB 429 SURROGATE RECOVERIES Surrogate Compound Naphthalene d8 Acenaphthylene d8 Acenaphthene d 10 Fluorene dl0 Phenanthrene d 10 Anthracene d 10 Fluoranthene dl0 Pyrene d 10 Benzo( a) anthracene d 12 Chrysene d 12 Benzo( b) fluoranthene d 12 Benzo( k) fluoranthene d12 Benzo( a) pyrene d 12 Indeno( 1,2,3 cd) pyrene d 12 Dibenz( a, h) anthracene d14 Benzo( g, h, i) perylene d12 Lab Blank v4 68 119 100 98 95 140 101 105 136 103 124 123 116 119 119 111 Field Blanks PAH Run 1 PAH Run 2 PAH Run 3 Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet cw VW cw WQ cw VW c w cw 21 39 67 51 42 52 63 40 23 57 93 11 49 10 53 8 56 73 66 92 8 80 86 65 78 103 93 69 95 106 89 75 81 92 81 56 83 72 79 155 82 80 ND 79 14 89 12 76 84 101 83 74 85 95 78 70 84 102 66 76 75 99 67 45 130 100 44 80 93 102 68 71 82 63 78 47 78 60 66 79 113 78 98 60 96 73 66 71 137 82 91 64 97 74 64 0 106 49 ND 52 ND 37 44 96 84 62 75 76 80 43 49 103 78 63 72 77 78 46 48 86 67 55 57 59 57 30 Final Report  Caterpillar 3508 EUI 6 26 September 200 1 TABLE 6.14 DETECTION LIMITS OF PAH COMPOUNDS AT CATALYST INLET Run ID Date Acenaphthene ug/ bhp hr ulblhr PAH 1 PAH 2 PAH 3 8131199 911199 g/ 2/ 99 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.40 0.20 0.23 Average 0.15 0.22 II Acenaphthylene ug/ bhp h ulb/ hr 0.18 0.40 0.13 0.20 I 0.17 0.23 I 0.15 0.22 II Anthracene ug/ bhp hr 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.15 ulb/ hr 0.40 0.20 0.23 0.22 Benzo( a) anthracene ug/ bhp hr 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.15 ulb/ hr 0.40 0.20 0.23 0.22 Benzo( b) fluoranthene pg/ bhp hr 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.15 ulblhr 0.40 0.20 0.23 0.22 I Benzo( k) fluoranthene ug/ bhp h ulb/ hr 1 0.18 0.40 I 0.13 0.20 I 0.17 0.23 I 0.15 0.22 I Benzo( g, h, i) perylene ug/ bhp hr 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.15 ulb/ hr 0.40 0.20 0.23 0.22 pg/ bhp hr 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.15 Benzo( a) pyrene ulb/ hr 0.40 0.20 0.23 0.22 Chrysene ug/ bhp hr 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.15 ulb/ hr 0.40 0.20 0.23 0.22 ' Dibenz( a, h) anthracene ug/ bhp hr 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.15 ulblhr 0.40 0.20 0.23 0.22 Fluoranthene ug/ bhp hr 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.15 ulb/ hr 0.40 0.20 0.23 0.22 0.15 Fluorene ug/ bhp hr 0.18 0.13 0.17 ulb/ hr 0.40 0.20 0.23 0.22 I Indeno( l, 2,3 cd) pyrene ug/ bhp h ulb/ hr 1 0.18 0.40 I 0.13 0.20 I 0.17 0.23 I 0.15 0.22 I Naphthalene Phenanthrene ug/ bhp hr 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.15 ulblhr 0.40 0.20 0.23 0.22 pg/ bhp hr 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.15 ulblhr 0.40 0.20 0.23 0.22 I Pvrane ug/ bhp h 0.18 0.13 0.17 I 0.15 I II . J""' plb/ hr 1 0.40 0.20 I 0.23 I 0.22 11 NOTE: The reported analytical detection limit for each compound was 0.1 pg per run.

Final Report  Caterpillar 3508 EUI 6 27 September 200 1 TABLE 6.15 DETECTION LIMITS OF PAH COMPOUNDS AT CATALYST OUTLET Run ID Date I PAH 1 813119Sj pg/ bhp hr Acenapthene plb/ hr pg/ bhp hr Acenaphthylene plb/ hr vg/ bhp hr Anthracene plb/ hr Benzo( a) anthracene pg/ bhp hr plb/ hr Benzo( b) fluoranthene pg/ bhp hr plb/ hr pg/ bhp hr Benzo( k) fluoranthene plb/ hr Benzo( g, h, i) perylene pg/ bhp hr plb/ hr pg/ bhp hr Benzo( a) pyrene plb/ hr Chrysene pg/ bhp hr plb/ hr Dibenz( a, h) anthracene pg/ bhp hr plb/ hr pg/ bhp hr Fluoranthene plb/ hr vg/ bhp hr Fluorene plb/ hr Indnnnf 1 7 % cd) pyrene pg/ bhp hr ulb/ hr PAH 2 9/ l I99 PAH 3 912199 Average I I m . * w. .  \ . ,  ,  0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 pg/ bhp h ulb/ hr 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 I 0.25 I 0.24 I 0.25 Phenanthrene Pyrene pg/ bhp hr 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 plb/ hr 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 WW hr 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.15 plb/ hr 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 NOTE: The reported analytical detection limit for each compound was 0.1 pg per run.

Final Report  Caterpillar 3508 EUI 6 28 September 200 I 6.5 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT EPA used the Data Quality Objective ( DQO) Process to plan the test program. The DQO Process consists of seven distinct steps.

1. State the problem. 2. Identify the decision. 3. Define inputs to the decision. 4. Define the study boundaries. 5. Develop the decision rule. 6. Specify tolerable limits on decision errors 7. Optimize the design for obtaining data.

The DQO outputs for this test program were presented in the Quality Assurance Project Plan. The problem was defined in the QAPP and is restated below.

EPA believes that there is a need to conduct emission tests on a subset of engines of differing designs to evaluate the following issues:

0 the effectiveness of after combustion control systems on HAP emissions, and 0 the effectiveness of combustion modifications ( engine operating parameters) on HAP emissions.

EPA then developed a decision statement. The decision statement defined the process that would be used to answer the stated problem. The decision statement is restated below:

IfEPA can identify a range of engine operating conditions for a defined set of engines with specified after combustion treatment systems and a list ofpollutants of interest, and EPA collects data to determine emissions of those pollutants for each engine operated at each engine operating condition, then EPA can make a determination of the control effectiveness of after combustion and combustion modifications. In addition, EPA can obtain information on HAP emissions throughout the engine operating range.

PES, EECL, and EM1 conducted the test program on the Caterpillar 3508 EM1 diesel cycle, oil fired, 4 stroke, reciprocating internal combustion engine. The Engelhard oxidation catalyst was designed to provide the information required by the decision statement. Based upon the inputs, EPA will make decisions that will be used to regulate this engine subcategory. Inputs to the decision were defined, agreed to, and documented in the QAPP. These inputs consisted of agreement on a finite list of engines to test, the after combustion control systems to test, the range of engine operating conditions, the catalyst conditioning process, the target list of pollutants, and the sampling and analysis methods, and sample durations.

Final Report  Caterpillar 3508 EUI 6 29 September 200 1 During conduct of the test program, there were deviations from the QAPP. Deviations to the QAPP have been discussed in Section 3.0 for deviations in engine operation, and Section 5.0 for deviations in Sampling and Analysis procedures.

Table 6.16 presents a summary of engine and sample method performance compared to the QAPP requirements. Outlier and data validation issues have been discussed in previous sections. Based upon the engine and method performance, the data quality is evaluated on a run by run basis for suitability in the assessment of pollutant emissions and destruction efficiency of HAP by the catalyst.

Five engine parameters were varied during the test program. The parameters were changed so that emissions data and HAP destruction efficiency could be evaluated at a variety of engine operating conditions. These conditions are expected to simulate the range of engine operating conditions in industry. Table 6.16 identifies the number of engine parameters that were within the tolerances prescribed in the QAPP. The target engine operating conditions were estimates based upon manufacturer's recommendations. There are differences between these recommendations and the nominal engine operating parameters of the Caterpillar engine located at the EECL. When testing was conducted, some of the prescribed engine parameters could not be met. The fact that a pre set engine parameter could not be met is considered to be minor. The testing was conducted over a range of engine operating conditions, and these operating conditions are documented.

The remainder of the table assesses data quality using a three tiered system. A ( J +) indicates that all method performance parameters defined in the QAPP and/ or the sampling method were met. A ( J> indicates that at least 90% of the method performance parameters were met. The QAPP specified no detection limits for FTIRS or GCMS. The calculated detection limits are reasonable for this test program. A ( J ) indicates that fewer than 90 % of the method performance parameters were met.

Final Report  Caterpillar 3508 EUI 6 30 September 200 1 TABLE 6.16 SUMMARY OF ENGINE AND METHOD PERFORMANCE Run ID 1 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 PAH 1 PAH 2 PAH 3 Engine Parameters Met 516 516 516 516 6J6 516 516 616 616 516 516 5f6 516 Catalyst Inlet FTIR QA Requirements J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ I/+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+

FTIR Detection Limits a J J J J J J J J J J J J J CEMSQARequirements J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+

CEMS Detection Limits ' J J J J J J J J J J J J J GCMSQARequirements J J J J J J J J J J J J No Data GCMSDetectionLimits J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ No Data PAH QA Requirements           J J+ J+

PAH Detection Limits J J+ J+

Catalyst Outlet FTIR QA Requirements J J J J J J J J J J J J J FTIR Detection Limits * J J J J J J J J J J J J J CEMSQARequirements J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+

CEMS Detection Limits ' J J J J J J J J J J J J J GCMS QA Requirements J J J J J J J J J J J J+ No Data GCMS Detection Limits J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ J+ No Data I PAHQARequirements           J+ J+ J+

PAH Detection Limits J+ J+ J+

Assesement of Data Quality Catalyst Inlet Mass Flow J J J J J J J J J J J J J+

Catalyst Outlet Mass Flow / J J J J J J J J J J J+ J+

HAP Destruction Efficiency J J J J J J J J J J J J J l Neither FTIRS nor CEMS detection limits were specified in the QAPP.

Final Report  Caterpillar 3508 EUI 6 31 September 200 1 APPENDIX A SUBCONTRACTOR TEST REPORT COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY ENGINES AND ENERGY CONVERSION LABORATORY EMISSIONS TESTING OF CONTROL DEVICES FOR RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES IN SUPPORT OF REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT BY THE U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA)

PHASE 3: FOUR STROKIE, DIESEL INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES COLORADOSTATEUNIVERSITY EMISSIONS TESTING OF CONTROL DEVICES FOR RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES IN SUPPORT OF REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT BY THE U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA)

PHASE 3: FOUR STROKE, DIESEL INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES Prepared for:

PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES L Submitted by:

Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory Department of Mechanical Engineering Colorado State University May 24,200O Statement of Confidentiality This report has been submittedfor the sole and exclusive use o/ Pacific Environmental Services, and shall not be disclosed or provided to any other entity, corporation, or third part for purposes beyond the specific scope or intent of this document without the express written consent of Colorado State University. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview 1.2 Background TEST PROGRAM 2.1 Objective 2.2 Incentives 2.3 Work Plan DEVIATIONS TO TEST PROGRAM 3.1 FTIR Validation 3.2 FTIR Post Catalyst Water Analysis 3.3 Baseline Engine Operating Conditions 3.4 Four Stroke Engine Test Matrix TEST SAMPLING PROCEDURES 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 General Test Procedures Test Specifics Data Collection Test Specifics Engine Stability Test Specifics Data Collection Hardware Test Specifics Data Collection Process Test Specifics Emissions Analyzer General Test Procedures Test Specifics Emissions Analyzer Checks and Calibrations Test Specifics FTIR Calibration Procedures Test Specifics FTIR Validation Procedures Test Specifics General Calibration Statement of Confidentiality l l l 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 l 4 l 4 2 4 5 4 5 4 6 4 11 4 15 4 20 4 22 This report has been submitted for the sole and exclusive use of Pacific Environmental Services, and shall not be disclosed or provided to any other entity, corporation, or third part for purposes beyond the specific scope or intent of this document without the express written consent of Colorado State University. _ ` LII. I1"* III* UI~"," l" lll*" llil I _  w. nl* mmlll COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY APPENDIX Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I Engine Test Data Daily Baseline Data Points Test Point QC Checks Test Points Reference Method Analyzers Calibrations FTIR Calibration FTIR Validation Calibration Gas Certification Sheets Baseline Methane/ Non Methane Analyzer Appendix J Pressure and Temperature Calibrations Appendix K Equipment Certification Sheets Appendix L Dynamometer Calibration Appendix M Dynamometer Calibration Procedure Appendix N Fuel Analysis Appendix 0 Fuel Analysis Calculations  Fuel Specific F Factor Appendix P Computing Air/ Fuel Ratio from Exhaust Composition Appendix Q " Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines  Exhaust Emission Measurement" Appendix R Annubar Flow Calculations Appendix S Additional Calculations Appendix T Exhaust Piping Schematic Appendix U Catalyst Schematic and Information Appendix V Diesel Load Cell Calibration Statement of Confidentiality This report has been submitted for the sole and exclusive use of Pacific Environmental Services, and shall not be disclosed or provided to any other entity, corporation, or third part for purposes beyond the specific scope or intent of this document without the express written consent of Colorado State University. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 1 . O INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW Natural gas fueled and diesel fueled reciprocating engines represent a large portion of the horsepower in operation within the oil and gas industry and power generation markets. Criteria pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants ( HAPS) issues are of major concern for both two stroke and four stroke engine operators. Current Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and natural gas industry funded test programs are directed toward evaluating emission levels from existing engines,

determining formation mechanisms for the exhaust gas constituents of interest, and developing new technologies to reduce the emissions levels of these constituents. The investigation of the application of commercially available techniques designed to address the HAPS emissions from reciprocating internal combustion engines ( RICES) will allow the EPA to quantify the effectiveness of current commercially available control devices. These devices have been identified as having the potential *

to reduce HAPS emissions from stationary RICE sources. Information gained through this program will assist the EPA in the regulatory development effort.

Accurate information on emission levels from operational facilities is difficult to obtain. Based upon a recommendation from the Internal Combustion Coordinating Rulemaking Committee ( ICCR) to the EPA, testing is being conducted on industrial class engines at the Industrial Engine Test Facility operated by Colorado State University. Testing is being conducted on both two stroke and four

stroke, natural gas and diesel fueled industrial class engines. The test program for four stroke, diesel fueled internal combustion engine has been performed during Phase Three of this test program. The results of Phase Three testing are contained within this document.

1.2 BACKGROUND The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act include provisions that significantly impact the operation of stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines. Of the ten titles to these amendments, four have direct bearing. They are as follows:

Title I  Attainment of Air Quality Standards Defines ambient air quality standards, defines non attainment areas based, imposes emissions reductions to achieve attainment per specified timeline per reasonably available control technology ( IWCT).

Emissions Testing l 1 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Title III  Hazardous Air Pollutants Defines 189 pollutants classified as hazardous air pollutants ( HAPS), specifies thresholds in tons per year ( TPY) for any one of these pollutants or a combination of these compounds, introduces maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) for sources triggering thresholds.

Title V  Operating Permits I Imposes requirement to obtain federal operating permits for major sources, imposes requirement to provide annual certification of compliance, defines emissions fees based on actual emissions.

Title VII  Enforcement Establish mechanisms to enhance and strengthen enforcement of CAA, establishes criminal penalties, gives authority to issue administrative orders ( fines / penalties) without going to federal court for certain violations.

Because of the significant economic and operational impacts of the CAAA and subsequent rulemakings by the EPA and state agencies, reciprocating internal combustion engine research efforts are focused on reduction and monitoring of emissions from these sources. Specifically, much of the work performed to date has focused on the reduction of NO, emissions. These efforts have developed control strategies for NO, reductions by either altering the combustion process or by means of exhaust gas after treatment. Currently, none of these strategies focus on the formation /

reduction of air toxins.

The EPA in conjunction with the RICE Work Group of the ICCR process has determined that additional HAPS emissions data is necessary to support the regulatory development process. In a RICE Emissions Test Plan Document dated November 1997, a five component test plan to acquire additional HAPS emissions test data was set forth. The five components include the following:

Engines, Fuels, and Emissions Controls to be tested Matrix of Operating Conditions to be tested Pollutants to be Measured During Testing Test Methods to Quantify Emissions Prioritization Ten HAPS pollutants are included in the test plan for diesel engines. These compounds are:

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, the BTEX compounds ( benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,

xylene), naphthalene, l 3 butadiene, and naphthalene.

Insight gained through the test program will provide information on the engine operating conditions that affect the formation / reduction mechanisms of HAPS. The investigation of the application of Emissions Testing l 2 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating lntemal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADOSTATEVNIVERSITY commercially available techniques designed to address the HAPS emissions from RICES will allow the EPA to quantify the effectiveness of current commercially available control devices. These devices have been identified as having the potential to reduce HAPS emissions from stationary RICE sources. Information gained through this program will assist the EPA in the regulatory development effort.

Emissions Testing l 3 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 2.0 TEST PROGRAM 2.1 OBJECTIVE The objective of this program is to evaluate commercially available catalyst technologies which have been identified as having the potential to control both formaldehyde and other Hazardous Air Pollutants ( HAPS) as well as existing criteria pollutants from reciprocating internal combustion engines ( RICE). The specific internal combustion engine class tested under the Phase Three test program was the four stroke, diesel fueled, internal combustion engine. The catalyst hardware was evaluated according to the 1 & point test matrix developed by the EPA, and the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine ( RICE) Work Group of the ICCR process. Investigation of catalyst performance during operation at various engine operating conditions provides insight into the effectiveness of catalysts at various conditions. The information gained through the test program will assist the EPA in regulatory development efforts for control of HAPS emissions and criteria pollutants from RICE sources.

2.2 INCENTIVES Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments requires the development of Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) standards for major sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants ( HAPS)

emissions. A MACT major source is defined as one that emits greater than 10 tons per year of any single HAP or 25 tons per year for all HAPS. For most source categories ( RICE included), the MACT standards will require that existing major sources apply HAPS emissions control technologies that reduce emissions to a level achieved by the best performing existing sources. In some cases,

depending upon the cost of the control technology and the amount and toxicity of the HAPS removed,

more stringent standards may be set. The MACT standards for RICES are scheduled to be promulgated by the year 2000.

Of the HAPS listed, the EPA in conjunction with the Internal Combustion Coordinating Rulemaking Committee ( ICCR) have identified compounds which may be present in the exhaust of reciprocating internal combustion engines. Existing test data from natural gas engines indicates that the only HAP compound present in the exhaust of RICES at levels approaching 10 tons per year is formaldehyde.

Currently, commercially available technologies which may have the potential ability toward reducing HAPS emissions from RICES are after treatment technologies ( catalyst).

Commercially available aftertreatment technologies ( catalysts) for the control of organic compound emissions are currently in operation on RICES. The performance of these technologies for control of volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) and products of incomplete combustion has been documented.

However, the information on the effectiveness of these technologies for reducing organic HAPS Emissions Testing 2 l Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADOSTATEUNIVERSITY emissions is very limited. Determining the effectiveness and longevity of exhaust catalysts will aid the EPA in evaluating current technologies for control of HAPS emissions from RICE sources as well as providing information in support of regulatory development by the EPA for these sources.

2.3 WORK PLAN Pacific Environmental Services ( PES) serves as the prime contractor responsible for providing information to the EPA. CSU is a subcontractor to PES. Testing was conducted at the Colorado State University` s Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory. The engine and catalyst type tested is described in Table 1.

TABLE 1 ENGINE AND CATALYST TYPE I Number of Cylinders I 8 II II Bore and Stroke I 6.7" X7.5" li II Engine Speed I 1800 RPM II Catalyst Classification Manufacturer Oxidation Type Engelhard "

Element Size 12"~ 16" x3 S"

Number of Elements 4 i The test matrix as defined, is described in Table 2 with engine baseline conditions shown in Table 3.

Deviations fi om the described test conditions are detailed in Section 3 of this report. Each test point consisted of collecting thirty three minutes of data. The raw data was averaged into thirty three one

minute data points. The data points were then averaged to provide the results for the single test point. The results are presented in tabular form in Appendix A of this report.

Emissions Testing 2 2 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADOSTATE UNIVERSITY TABLE 2 ENGINE OPERATING CONDITIONS DURING TESTING CATERPILLAR 3508 EUI ( DIESEL FIRED) US EPA ICCR RICE I LAP EMISSION TESTING Operating Speed Torque Fuel/ Air Timing Intercooler Jacket Conditions to @ pm) (% of Equivalen Air Water be Tested: baseline) ce Ratio Temp. Temp.

? un 1 H H N S S S ? un 2 H L N S S S ? un 3 L L N S S S ? un 4 L H N S S S ? un 5 Operating Condition Not Applicable For This Engine ? un 6 Run 7 Operating Condition Not Applicable For This Engine Operating Condition Not Applicable For This Engine Run 8 Run 9 Run 10 Run 11 Run 12 Run 13 Run 14 Run 15 Run 16 Operating Condition Not Applicable For This Engine H H N S L S H H N S H S H H N S S L H H N S S H H H N L S S H H N H S S H H N S S S H H N S S S L= 1200 L = 70 N = 0.58 s = 21 s= 130 S= 180 H = 1800 H= lOO L = 0.53 L= 19 L= 120 L= 155 H = 0.74 H = 23 H= 140 H = 205 * Defined as: ti Fuel / Air,,,,, =

Fue1 ' AirSmkhiometric Emissions Testing 2 3 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. TABLE 3 CATERPILLAR 3508 BASELINE CONDITIONS Engine Operating Parameters Nominal Value Acceptable Range Designation Engine Torque 2714 ft lb. f 2% of value Primary Engine Speed Jacket Water Temperature Outlet 1500 RPM 16O" F 210 ° F + 2% of value + 5% of value Primary Primary Engine Oil Temperature Outlet Air Manifold Temperature 160 ° F to 210 ° F 186 ° F + 5% of value * 5% of value Primary Primary 1 Air Manifold Pressure ( AMP) 139" Hg above Atm. 1 f. 5% of value 1 Primary I I Exhaust Manifold Pressure I Varies with AMP. I & 5% of value 1 Primary I Ignition Timing 21" BTDC + 5% of value Primary I Overall Air: Fuel Ratio I 25: l I f 5% of value 1 Primary I Inlet Air Humidity Absolute ~ I .0015 lb H, O/ lb Air I + 10% of value 1 Primary I 38.8 Gal/ Hr, 272 Ib./ hr k 5% of value I Primary Engine Oil Pressure Inlet ~ 1 59 70 lb. I If: 5% of value 1 Secondary  1 I Inlet Air Flow I 1700 I 800 SCFM I +_ 5% of value 1 Secondary 1 I Average Engine Exhaust Temperature I 1111 ° F I f 5% of value I Secondary I Note: Based on Engine Manufacturers Specification Data sheets.

Emissions Testing 2 4 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 3.0 DEVIATIONS TO TEST PROGRAM Testing on the four stroke, diesel fueled IC engine was conducted between August 3 1, 1999 and September 2, 1999. Prior to initiation of the 12 point test matrix, a validation procedure was performed on the two FTIR analyzers. The analyzers were validated for formaldehyde, acrolein, and acetaldehyde. Modifications to the baseline engine operating conditions were made prior to the beginning of the test matrix. The variances from the original test program are described below:

3.1 FTIR VALIDATION A validation procedure was performed on the two FTIR analyzers on August 26, 1999. The validation procedure was conducted in basic accordance with procedures outlined in EPA Method 301 " Field Validation of Pollutant Measurement Methods from Various Waste Media". Validation procedures for aldehydes utilized an analyte spiking technique as specified in Method 301.

Validation procedures for NO,, CO, and moisture were not performed. The validation for the criteria pollutants will use the data collected during the test program to perform the validation procedures. Comparative sampling to the appropriate EPA reference methods, ( Method 7E & 20, Method 10, and Method 4, respectively), for these compounds was performed by comparing FTIR analyzer data to reference methods data generated during the test program. Deviations from the described procedures are as follows:

Analyte Spiking: The validation for the target aldehyde compounds was carried out by means of dynamic analyte spiking of the sample gas. The sample stream of the exhaust gas was spiked with all of the specific analytes simultaneously. This change had no impact on the test procedure or results.

Formaldehyde:

Formaldehyde spike gas was generated by volatilization of a formalin solution prepared from a stock formalin solution of 37% formaldehyde by weight. The solution was vaporized by means of a heated vaporization block. The vaporized formalin solution then mixed with a carrier gas and flowed into the sample exhaust stream. Carrier gas flow rate was measured by a mass flow meter equipped with readout. The carrier gas was to be Nitrogen; however, since it was determined to perform the validation process for all aldehyde compounds simultaneously, the Acetaldehyde/ Acrolein blend calibration gas was used as a carrier gas for the vaporized values were not adjusted for the statistical bias. Formaldehyde. The final emissions Acetlyaldehyde/ Acrolein Emissions Testing 3 1 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. Acetlyaldehyde and acrolein spiked samples were generated from a certified gas standard ( Scott Specialty Gases, + 2% analytical accuracy) which contain both analyte species and a sulfur hexaflouride ( SF6) tracer gas. The gas flow rate was measured by a mass flow meter equipped with readout. The validation of Acetaldehyde/ Acrolein was conducted in conjunction with the Formaldehyde validation. The final emissions values were not adjusted for the statistical bias.

3.2 FTIR POST CATALYST WATER ANALYSIS The analytic method on the Nicolet Magna 560 FTIR analyzer gave water measurements that were excessively high for post catalyst emissions measurements. The spectra for H20, provided by Nicolet, on the Magna 560 calculated water content to be approximately 6% higher than actual exhaust gas concentrations. Carbon balance calculations for each one minute data point agreed with the HZ0 readings from the Rega 7000 FTIR pre catalyst emissions measurement at all test conditions.

The measurements agreed within + 0.5% to + l% water content. The carbon balance calculations for the post catalyst water content agreed with the pre catalyst measurements within + 0.5% to + l% water content at all test conditions. The carbon balance calculations are based upon the pre catalyst and post catalyst reference method analyzers. Since the pre catalyst and post catalyst measurements were made with separate analyzers, the variability in the Hz0 calculation could be caused by variability in emissions analyzers.

Water content in the exhaust is dependent upon the actual combustion process within the engine's combustion chambers. Since water is one of the major products of combustion, as the combustion process varies, so will the water content in the exhaust. Changes in engine operating parameters over the sixteen point test matrix caused changes in the products of combustion, water being one of these products. As the actual combustion process was being modified based on the varying engine operating conditions at each test point, the water content in the exhaust changed with these variations.

The changes in the water content were calculated by the carbon balance method and detected by the FTIR analyzer. Based on the agreement between the pre catalyst FTIR measurements and the carbon balance calculation for water content, at every test condition, and between the pre catalyst and post

catalyst calculations, the water content from the pre catalyst FTTR measurements were used to convert the wet FTIR measurements to dry measurements. As both FTIR analyzers passed the validation process and passed all QC checks, the variation in water readings fi om the Nicolet Magna 560 analyzer has no impact on the results of the testing conducted during Phase Three of the overall test program.

Emissions Testing 3 2 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORALIO STATE UNIVERSITY 3.3 BASELINE ENGINE OPERATING CONDITIONS Baseline engine operating conditions as described in the Scope of Work are presented in Table 3 of this report. These conditions were estimates. After running the engines, these values were found to be inaccurate. Deviations from the Baseline engine operating conditions as presented are as follows:

TABLE 4 CATERPILLAR 3508 BASELINE CONDITIONS Engine Operating Parameters Nominal Value Acceptable I Designation Range I Engine Torque I 2880 ft lb. I k 2% of value 1 Primary I I Engine Speed I 1800 RPM I k 2% of value 1 Primary I 1 Jacket Water Temperature Outlet I 196 ° F I + 5% of value \ Primary I I Engine Oil Temperature Outlet I 215 ° F I + 5% of value 1 Primary  1 I Air Manifold TemDerature I 150 ° F I + 5% of value I Primary  1 I Air Manifold Pressure ( AMP) I 5" Ha above Atm. I + 5% of value I Primary I I Exhaust Manifold Pressure I Varies with AMP. I +_ 5% of value I Primary I Injection Timing Overall Air Fuel Ratio 21 " BTDC 3O: l Jf: 5% of value + 5% of value Primary Primary I Inlet Air Humidity Absolute I . Ol5 lb HzOllb Air I + lO% of value \ Primary I 1 Engine Fuel Flow I 42 GallHr, 310 Ib./ hr I +_ 5% of value I Primary I I Engine Oil Pressure Inlet I 67 PSI I k 5% of value I Secondary 1 I Inlet Air Flow I 2150 SCFM I + 5% of value I Secondary ~ I I Average Engine Exhaust Temperature I 1000 ° F I + 5% of value I Secondary I Humidity Ratio:

The baseline humidity ratio was stated as 0.0015lb. H20/ lb. air. This is a misprint.

Documentation should be corrected to show 0.015lb. H, O/ lb. air as baseline humidity ratio.

3.4 TWO STROKE ENGINE TEST MATRIX The four stroke engine sixteen point test matrix and associated engine operating conditions as Emissions Testing 3 3 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating lntemal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY described in the Scope of Work are presented in Table 2 of this report. During testing discrepancies between the CSU " Scope of Work" and the QAPP in relation to engine operating conditions were identified. The QAPP referenced engine operating data in relation to field engines originally proposed in the ICCR process and not the engines at Colorado State University. Deviations from the engine operating conditions described in the sixteen point test matrix are referenced to the CSU " Scope of Work'. Deviations from the described engine operating conditions are as follows:

Global Deviation in Engine Operating Conditions Speed:

The baseline speed condition was changed to 1800 rpm as indicated. This value was used for the high speed points. The value used for the low speed points was 1600 r pm.

Intercooler Air Temperature:

Following the changes to the baseline conditions, higher temperatures were found to be more adequate. As a result, the test point values were increased to S = 150", L = 140", and H = 160 ° F.

Jacket Water Temperature:

Following the changes to the baseline conditions, higher temperatures were found to be more adequate. As a result, the test point values were increased to S = 196*, L = 186*, and H = 206 ° F.

Test Point Specific Variances Only deviations, which were not previously described in the " Global Deviation" section, will be described.

Test Point 1, Test Point 9, Test Point 10, Test Point 13, and Test Point 14:

During these points, the Heated GC / FID monitors were being repaired. CSU, PES, and EPA agreed to continue the testing without the monitors. *

Emissions Testing 3 4 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 4.0 TEST SAMPLING PROCEDURES Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory Industrial Engine Test Facility Colorado State University The Industrial Engine Test Facility was installed at the Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory to facilitate research on environmental and technological issues related to industrial class engines.

4.1 GENERAL TEST PROCEDURES Procedures have been established to ensure accurate and repeatable results. Testing criteria established for the test facility ensures that the data collected has a high degree of accuracy and can be repeated if warranted. However, since the Industrial Engine Test Facility was designed to allow for several different industrial engine types to be tested in a laboratory environment,

testing procedures differ somewhat from field test procedures and are unique to this facility. The sampling procedure and calibration procedures are described under their respective sections of the TEST SPECIFICS portion of this report.

4.2 TEST SPECIFICS  DATA COLLECTION The data collection process has been standardized to afford accurate and repeatable results throughout a test program. The high degree of accuracy which can be obtained at the Industrial Engine Test Facility is due to the sophisticated level of instrumentation utilized at the facility.

To ensure accurate and repeatable results, a specific outline of the data collection process has been developed for the Industrial Engine Test Facility.

A standard data point collected at the EECL consists of engine operating data being gathered over either a three minute or five minute period and averaged. It has been determined, based on previous tests, that 3 5 minutes provides an acceptable time period required for an appropriate data set to be collected and an average for each parameter calculated.

For the work conducted under this test program, a test point consisted of a series of data points taken in succession and averaged. The data was gathered in l minute averages over a 33 minute test period. Using a data set consisting of thirty three, one minute data points would highlight any large fluctuations in load and other parameters that would have a significant effect on emissions data. No fluctuations in data occurred during any test points. This demonstrated that the engine was operating at a steady condition and the data recorded in the individual data points was repeatable.

Emissions Testing 4 1 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. Table 5 provides information on the nominal number of samples collected under each data point /

test run scenario for the LBET.

TABLE 5 SAMPLING SPECIFICATIONS ' Measured Number of Samples Collected  Parameters 1 Minute 30 Minute Data Point Test Run Engine 30 60 900  1800 Operation Emissions 30  60 900 H300

I CEMS I Emissions 45  50 1350  1500 FTIR 4.3 TEST SPECIFICS  ENGINE STABILITY For data taken during testing to be reliable, the engine was operated in a state of equilibrium at each test point. The engine control system allowed for engine operation data to be monitored so that engine stability could be easily recognized. The stability of each specific engine's operation was not only determined on a point by point basis, but also on a daily basis. Since combustion parameters for each engine type will vary, engine operating parameters were used to determine engine stability. Procedures used for determining acceptable engine stability are as follows:

Engine Stability: Engine Start Up Procedures Prior to the beginning of data collection each day, the engine was warmed up until thermal equilibrium state was achieved. This was nominally determined when the engine coolant water systems and lubricating oil reached a steady state temperature. Once steady state operation was achieved, a daily " baseline" data point was gathered. The length of time required to obtain steady state operation was highly dependent upon the ambient temperature and the temperature of the engine when started. Due to the dependence on these factors, there was no pre determined warm up time.

Engine Stability: Daily Baseline Data Point The Scope of Work for the project required that a specified number of test points be collected on the engine. The data collection process encompassed multiple days of testing. To ensure that the Emissions Testing 4 2 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal . Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADOSTATE UNIVERSITY engine was operating in a similar manner on each test day, a set of engine baseline data was collected. An initial set of engine baseline data ( one five minute data point) was collected prior to the first data point. On the ensuing test days, baseline data points were collected to verify the data collection for that day. The primary engine operating parameters of the data point must compare within a specified acceptable range of the values of the primary engine operating parameters on the original " baseline" data set for engine stability and to the baseline operating conditions specified in Table 4. If primary engine operating parameters did not compare to within the predetermined range, corrective measures were taken to isolate and correct the cause of the unacceptable values for the primary engine operating parameters. Both CSU and PES representatives initialized the daily " baseline" data set. All baseline data points were acceptable during the test program. The primary/ secondary engine operating parameters, acceptable ranges, and their nominal values for a " baseline" data set are presented in Table 3.

Engine Stability: Pre Data Point Test Procedures Prior to initiating a test run, a pre test run data point was gathered. The data point was five minutes in length. For each pre test run data point, the average value, minimum value, maximum value, and standard deviation were obtained for all engine operation and emissions parameters. Primary engine operating parameters specified at a test condition must agree with the test condition value within +/ 2% to +/ lo% of the requested value dependent upon the engine parameter. The relative standard deviations of the primary operating variables were below 1 . O% for engine operating parameters and below 3.0% for the engine emissions parameters. The primary engine operating parameters and their nominal values for a " pre test run" data point are presented below in Table 6.

If primary engine operating parameters did not agree with the requested test condition values within the predetermined range, corrective measures was taken to isolate and correct the cause of the unacceptable values for the primary engine operating parameters. All pre test run data points were acceptable for the test program. Both CSU and PES representatives initialized each " pre test run" data point.

Engine Stability: Test Run Stability A test run consisted of a set of one minute averaged data points taken consecutively over a 33 minute time period. For each data point, the average value for each primary engine operating parameter must compare to within the acceptable range of the specified target value at the test condition for engine stability and the data collection process to be valid for the specific test condition. If primary engine operating parameters did not compare to within the predetermined range, the data point was invalid, and corrective measures were taken to isolate and correct the Emissions Testing 4 3 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. cause of the unacceptable values for the primary engine operating parameters.

Engine stability was maintained throughout the data collection process for each test run. The relative standard deviation of the primary operating variables was below 1 . O% for engine operating parameters and below 3.0% for the engine emissions parameters at each data point.

Both CSU and PES representatives initialized each data point of a test run. The tabular format of the primary engine operating parameters, designation, and the acceptance criteria is presented in Table 6:

TABLE 6 TEST POINT  ENGINE STABILITY Engine Operating Parameters Acceptable Range Standard Deviation Designation Engine Torque f 2% of value Il. 0 Primary Engine Speed f 5% of value Il. 0 Primary Jacket Water Temperature Outlet f 5% of value < 1.0 Primary Engine Oil Temperature Outlet f 5% of value 5 1.0 Primary Air Manifold Temperature f 5% of value 2 ` 1.0 Primary Air Manifold Pressure sfr 5% of value 5 1.0 Primary Exhaust Manifold Pressure * 5% of value 5 1.0 Primary Ignition Timing f 5% of value 5 1.0 Primary Overall Air/ Fuel Ratio f 5% of value Il. 0 Primary Inlet Air Humidity Absolute f 10% of value 5 1.0 Primary 1 Engine Fuel Flow SCFH / Gal./ Hr. 1 f 5% of value I Il. 0 I Primary 1 I Engine Oil Pressure Inlet I f 5% of value I 5 3.0 1 Secondary 1 I Inlet Air Flow I f 5% of value 1 23.0 1 Secondary 1 I Average Engine Exhaust Temperature 1 f 5% of value I 53.0 I Secondary I NO, Emissions ( PPM) I f 5% of value 1 5 3.0 1 Secondary \

I CO Emissions ( PPM) I f 5% of value I 23.0 1 Secondary I I THC Emissions ( PPM) I f 5% of value I 5 3.0 1 Secondary I I co2 (%) I f 5% of value I 223.0 I Secondary I I 02 (%) I f 5% of value I I3.0 1 Secondary I I Exhaust Air Flow I f 5% of value I 5 3.0 I Secondary I Emissions Testing 4 4 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADOSTATEUNIVERSITY 4.4 TEST SPECIFICS  DATA COLLECTION HARDWARE The design of the test facility provides a platform for accurate and versatile performance and emission research on industrial engines. Control and measurement systems installed on the Industrial Engine Test Beds are as follows:

Caterpillar 3508 EUI: Four Stroke, Diesel Fueled Analyzer Rack for NO,, CO, C02, 02, &

Nicolet Rega 7000 Fourier Transform Servomex CO;! & 02 Nicolet Magna 560 Fourier Transform Infrared ( FTIR) Spectrometer for aldehydes and speciated hydrocarbons 4.5 TEST SPECIFICS  DATA COLLECTION PROCESS The data collection process consisted of acquiring information from the various control and monitoring systems. The engine control and monitoring system ( ECMS) collected all engine operating and emissions parameters ( criteria pollutants only). All engine operating parameters were direct measurements of the ECMS, while emissions parameters ( criteria pollutants) were passed by communication link from a computer dedicated to emissions hardware control and monitoring. All emissions parameters measured with an FTIR were collected and stored on a computer dedicated to individual FTIR operation.

Emissions Testing 4 5 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADOSTATEVNIVERSITY After engine stability had been confirmed, the data collection process for a test run condition commenced. The data collection process was performed as follows:

Data Collection Process:

1.) Verification of engine stability confirmed, accepted, and initialized by PES and CSU representatives. 2.) Proper file names are assigned to all data acquisition hardware. 3.) Commence acquisition of data point for specified test condition 4.) At completion of data point, electronic files are saved and hard copies are printed out. 5.) PES and CSU representatives initialize hard copies verifying acceptable data point. 6.) Move engine operation to next test condition.

TEST SPECIFICS  EMISSION ANALYZER GENERAL TEST PROCEDURE23 Introduction The following general test procedures and calibration checks guaranteed the integrity of our sampling system and the accuracy of our data. The testing was conducted in basic accordance with approved Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) test methods as described in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A.

General Procedure Exhaust oxygen and oxides of nitrogen concentrations from the engine were determined in basic compliance with EPA Method 20, " Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide, and Diluent Emissions From Stationary Gas Turbines" and EPA Method 7E, " Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Stationary Sources ( Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)". The sampling procedure for CO concentrations was based on EPA Method 10, " Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources." EPA Method 25A, " Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Flame Ionization Analyzer" was the sample procedure used to determine THC emission concentrations. A modified EPA Method 18A was used for the sampling procedures for Methane/ Non Methane Analysis. The method for calculating mass emissions levels was based upon an EPA Method 19 " Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Removal Efficiency and Particulate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide, and nitrogen Oxides Emission Rates" calculation. Mass based emissions were evaluated using EPA Method 19 ( F

Emissions Testing 4 6 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADOSTATEUNIVERSITY factor technique). Calibration and test procedures are detailed under their respective sections of the TEST SPECIFICS portion of this report.

Sampling System Dedicated analyzers were used to determine the NO,, CO, THC, CO2, and 02 emissions level on a dry basis for both pre and post catalyst emissions. Dedicated analyzers were used to determine the Methane/ Non Methane emissions on a wet basis for both pre and post catalyst emissions.

FTIR analyzers were used to determine aldehyde emissions on a wet basis for both pre and post catalyst emissions. Refer to Table 8 for the analyzers and the methods of analysis.

Exhaust gas was extracted from the engine exhaust system through a 3/ 8" stainless steel multi

point probe. Sample points were located in accordance with procedures described in EPA Method 1. Exhaust gas then passed through a heated 3 way sample valve and glass wool filter assembly. The sample was transported via heat traced Teflon sample lines and a heated sample distribution manifold. Sample for the " dry" gas analyzers then passed through a 4 pass minimum contact condenser specifically designed to dry the sample. The " dry" sample then entered a stainless steel sample pump. The discharge of the pump passed through 3/ 8" Teflon tubing to a Balston Microfibre coalescing filter, moisture sensor, and then to the sample manifold. The sample manifold was maintained at a constant pressure by means of a pressure bypass regulator. A flowmeter, placed in line at the exhaust of each analyzer, monitored exact sample flows.

Heated sample flow for all " wet" measurement analyzers will be provided by means of a heated sample distribution manifold prior to sample gas entering the " dry" gas analyzer platform. Each heated analyzer had a dedicated sample pump and heat traced line from the main sample train to the analyzer.

Emissions Testing 4 7 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. TABLE 1 CURRENT INSTRUMENTATION Post Catalyst Emissions Manufacturer and Model 1 Parameters Detection Principle ( Range Rosemount NGA 2000 CLD Analyzer NO or NO, Thermal reduction of NO2 to NO. Chemiluminescent reaction NO with 03. Variable to 10000 PPM Rosemount NGA 2000 CO NDIR Analyzer Rosemount NGA 2000 COZ NDIR Analyzer Rosemount NGA 2000 THC FID Analyzer NDIR with Gas Filter Variable to 2000 Correlation PPM N DIR Variable to 20%

Flame Ionization Variable to 10000 PPM Rosemount NGA 2000 PMD Analyzer O2 Paramagnetic Variable to 100% Questar Baseline 1030H Heated GC / FID C& Non CH4 Gas Chromatograph Flame Ionization Variable to 5000 PPM Nicolet Magna 560 Multiple See Attached FTIR analysis utilizing a Medium range LR source. Variable Sierra BG 1 Micro Gas extraction Mass flowrate based Variable Dilution Test Stand through extraction: constant particulate temperature dilution filter Mettler Toledo AG425 Particulate Precision Digital Scale filter mass Precision strain measurement . Ol mg to 41g . l mg t0 210g Emissions Testing 4 8 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. CoLoR4Do STATE ~~ I~ IVERSITY TABLE 7 ( continued)

CURRENT INSTRUMENTATION Pre Catalyst Emissions reaction NO wi temperature dilution Emissions Testing 4 9 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. TABLE 8 COMPONENTS MEASURED BY NICOLET FTIR Component Formula H20 co co2 NO NO2 N20 NH3 NOx CI I4 C2H2 C2H4 C2H6 C3H6 H2C0 CH30H C3H8 I C4H10 N W ho CH3CH0 so2 THC Component Name Water Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dioxide Nitric Oxide Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrous Oxide Ammonia Oxides of Nitrogen Methane Acetylene Ethylene Ethane Propene Formaldehyde Methanol Propane Iso Butylene Normal Butane Acetaldehyde Sulfur Dioxide Total Hydrocarbons Emissions Testing 4 10 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADOSTATEVNIVERSITY 4.1 TEST SPECIFICS  EMISSION ANALYZERS CHECKS AND CALIBRATIONS The following instrument checks and calibrations guaranteed the integrity of our sampling system and the accuracy of our data.

Analyzer Calibration Gases Standard calibration gases used at the facility are Scott Specialty Gases EPA Protocol Gas Standard calibration gases with a rt 1 . O% or + 2.0% accuracy. For this program, EPA Protocol 1 calibration gases ( RATA Class) were used. Manufacturer supplied certification sheets were available during the testing procedure and copies of the current inventory of gases, which were used for calibration and integrity checks on the reference method and FTIR analyzers, are provided within this document.

EPA Protocol 1 gases ( Rata Class) were used to calibrate the reference method analyzers and FTIR analyzers. Formaldehyde standards with a concentration range between 5  10 PPM were obtained. Acetylaldehyde/ acrolein standards were also acquired. Any calibration standards which were not EPA Protocol 1 gases, were the highest quality standard available.

Analyzer Specifications Vendor instrument data concerning interference response and analyzer specifications were available during the test program. Information supplied by the manufacturer on the factory specification sheets will be furnished if requested.

Response Time Tests ( Prior to initiation of engine test program)

Response time tests were performed on each sample system. The response time tests were performed prior to the FTLR validation process for each sampling system. The response time of the slowest responding analyzer ( Questar Baseline) was determined. Response time tests conducted at the EECL indicated sampling system response times of I: 15 minutes. This is the time for the Rosemount Oxygen Analyzer ( slowest responding analyzer which continuously monitors) to stabilize to response output of the analyzer. The Questar Baseline Industries CHJNon CH4 analyzers have a minimum cycle time of 4: 50 minutes. The overall response time for these analyzers when their cycle is started 1: 15 minutes after a sample source change is 5: 55 minutes. When the CH4/ Non CH4 analyzer cycle time was initiated at a sample source change, the overall response time is 9: 05 minutes. The response time was tested to assure that the analyzers' response was for exhaust gas entering the sample system from each of the test point conditions.

Calibration ( Daily)

Emissions Testing 4 11 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADOSTATE UNIVERSITY Zero and mid level span calibration procedures were performed on the reference method analyzer prior to each test day. Zero and span drift checks were performed upon completion of each data point and upon completion of each test day. This procedure is referenced as ZSD ( zero and span drift check) in the CSU " Scope of Work". A zero and a mid level gas was introduced individually directly to the back of the analyzers before testing for carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxygen, total hydrocarbons, Methane/ Non Methane, and oxides of nitrogen. The analyzers' output response was set to the appropriate levels. Each analyzer's stable response was recorded. From this data a linear fit was developed for each analyzer. The voltage for each analyzer were recorded and used in the following formula:

Y= MX+ B Where: B = Intercept M = Slope X= Analyzer or transducer voltage Y = Engineering Units After each test point and upon completion of a test day, calibration checks were conducted by re introducing the zero and span gases directly to the back of the analyzers. The analyzers' stabilized responses were recorded. No adjustments were made during testing or during the final calibration check. Initial calibration values and all calibration checks were recorded for each analyzer during the daily test program.

The before and after calibrations checks were used to determine a zero and span drift for each test point for the CO, CO*, 02, THC, CH4/ Non CH4, and NO, analyzers. The zero and span drift checks for each test point and each test day were less than + 2.0% of the span value ( specific range setting) of each analyzer used during the daily test program. The calibration data sheets are presented in Appendix E of this document.

Linearity Check ( Prior to initiation of engine test program)

Prior to initiation of the test program, analyzer linearity checks were performed. This procedure is referenced as ACE ( analyzer calibration error check) in the CSU " Scope of Work". The oxygen, carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbon, methane/ non methane and oxides of nitrogen analyzers were " zeroed" using either zero grade nitrogen, or hydrocarbon free air. The analyzers were allowed stabilize and their output recorded. The analyzers were then " spanned" using the mid level calibration gases. The analyzers were allowed to stabilize, and their output recorded. From this data a linear fit was developed for each analyzer. The voltage for each analyzer were recorded and used in the following formula:

Emissions Testing 4 12 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADOSTATELNIVERSITY Y= MX+ B Where: B = Intercept M = Slope X= Analyzer or transducer voltage Y = Engineering Units Using the linear fit, the linear response of the analyzer was calculated. Low level and high level calibration gases were individually introduced to the analyzers. For each calibration gas, the analyzers were allowed to stabilize and their outputs were recorded. Each analyzers' linearity was acceptable if the predicted values of a linear curve determined from the zero and mid level calibration gas responses agreed with the actual responses of the low level and high level calibration gases within +_ 2.0% of the analyzer span value. The methane/ non methane analyzers'

linearity was acceptable as the predicted values agreed with the actual response of the low level and high level calibration gases within ~ 50% of the actual calibration gas value. This procedure was performed for one range setting for each analyzer. The Linearity Check data sheets are presented in Appendix E of this document.

NO2 Converter Check ( Prior to initiation of engine test program)

Prior to initiation of the test program, NO2 converter checks were performed. A calibration gas mixture of known concentrations between 240 and 270 PPM nitrogen dioxide ( NO2) and 160 to 190 PPM nitric oxide ( NO) with a balance of nitrogen was used. The calibration gas mixture was be introduced to the oxides of nitrogen ( NO,) analyzer until a stable response was recorded.

The converter is considered acceptable if the instrument response indicated a 90 percent or greater NO2 to NO conversion. The NO* Converter Check data sheets are presented in Appendix E of this document.

Sample Line Leak Check ( Prior to initiation of engine test program)

The sample lines were leak checked before the engine test program. The leak check procedure was performed for both pre catalyst and post catalyst sample trains. The procedure involved closing the valve on the inlet to the sample filter located just downstream of the exhaust stack probe. With the sample pump operating, a vacuum was pulled on the exhaust sample train. Once the maximum vacuum was reached, the valve on the pressure side of the pump was closed, thus sealing off the vacuum section of the sampling system. The pump was turned off and the pressure in the sample system was monitored. The leak test was acceptable as the vacuum gauge reading dropped by an amount less than 1 inch of mercury over a period of 1 minute. The Sample Line Leak Check data sheets are presented in Appendix E of this document.

Emissions Testing 4 13 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADOSTATEUNIVERSITY Sample Line Integrity Check ( Daily)

A sample line integrity check was performed prior to and upon completion of each test day. This procedure is referenced as SSB ( Sampling System Bias Check) in the CSU " Scope of Work". The analyzer's response was tested by first introducing the mid level calibration gas directly to the NO, analyzer. The analyzer was allowed to stabilize and the response recorded. The same mid level calibration gas was then introduced to the analyzer through the sampling system. The calibration gas was introduced into the sample line at the stack, upstream of the inlet sample filter. The analyzer was allowed to stabilize and the response recorded. The analyzer response values were compared and the percent difference did not to exceed + 5 % of the analyzer span value ( range setting).

The SSB procedure was to be performed for both the NO, and methane/ non methane analyzers. It was determined to perform the integrity check for the NO, analyzers only. The SSB procedure was performed for the methane/ non methane analyzers prior to and upon completion of the test program. The Sample Line Integrity Check data sheets are presented in Appendix E of this document.

Diesel Fuel Analysis and Flow Measurement Two independent laboratories, Southern Petroleum Labs in Houston, TX and BG Products, Inc. in Wichita, KS analyzed the diesel fuel. Both laboratories performed ASTM tests D240, D5291, D4294, D975, and D13 19 for two different samples. The parameters provided by these tests include the fuel carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur content by weight, the lower heating value, cetane index, flash point, and specific gravity. Southern Petroleum Labs also performed a GC PIANO test on the diesel fuel, Method GPA 2186, which provided detailed speciation and average molecular weight. Appendix N  Fuel Analysis provides a summary of the fuel analysis results as well as the analysis reports provided by Southern Petroleum Labs and BG Products,

IIlC.

The fuel analysis is an important input for data reduction, in particular for the evaluation of brake specific emissions. Emissions analysis is based on the technique described in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A, Method 19 for dry combustion product measurements. Our data analysis program is based on the use of gaseous fuel. Rather than change the program, fuel properties are expressed relative to the vapor phase, using the ideal gas law and the fuel molecular weight from the GC PIANO analysis.

Emissions Testing 4 14 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. CoLouDo STATE UNIVERSITY Evaluation of diesel fuel flow was performed by measuring the change in weight of the fuel tank over time. The weight of the fuel tank was measured using an Interface load cell, Model 1210HQ SK B. The fuel tank was suspended from the load cell, which was suspended from an overhead beam. The response of the load cell was nonlinear, necessitating a precise calibration of the load cell. A calibration report was generated and is provided in Appendix V. The differential weight fuel flow measurement technique is typically used for measuring diesel fuel flow rates because a significant fraction of the delivered fuel is recirculated back to the fuel tank. Thus, a direct fuel flow measurement of the fuel delivered to the engine would not indicate the amount of fuel consumed by the engine. The desired quantity is the fuel flow rate delivered to the engine minus the recirculation flow rate. This is the quantity that is evaluated from the differential weight measurement.

4.8 TEST SPECIFICS: FTIR CALIBRATION PROCEDURES Calibration was performed on the FTIR instrument prior to each phase of the test program and at the beginning and end of each test day. The calibration procedures described within this document are consistent with procedures found in the following documents:

" Measurement of Select Hazardous Air Pollutants, Criteria Pollutants, and Moisture Using Fourier Transform Infrared ( FTIR) Spectroscopy"  Prepared by Radian International for the Gas Research Institute.

" Protocol for Performing Extractive FTIR Measurements to Characterize Various Gas Industry Sources for Air Toxics"  Prepared by Radian International for the Gas Research Institute.

Both documents are contained with the Gas Research Institute Report Number GRI

95/ 0271 entitled, " Fourier Transform Infrared ( FTIR) Method Validation at a Natural Gas Fired Internal Combustion Engine"  Prepared by Radian lntemational for the Gas Research Institute.

Instrument Description Dedicated FTIR analyzers and sampling conditioning systems were used to measure pre catalyst and post catalyst exhaust emissions. A description of each unit is presented in Table 9:

Emissions Testing 4 15 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating lntemal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADOSTATEUNIVERSITY TABLE 9 FTIR EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION Pre Catalyst Analyzer Manufacturer and Type Spectral Resolution Nicolet Rega 7000 OScm"

H Detector Type I MCT A II Each unit and the associated test method have been designed for measurement of raw exhaust gases from internal combustion engines. Dedicated temperature controllers maintained the sample lines and cells at the appropriate the design temperature. Pressure was controlled by an MISS pressure controller on each system. Sample flow to each analyzer was between 8  15 liters/ minute. The units utilized a high energy mid range IR source and are equipped with a modulating, potassium bromide beamsplitter with MCT A liquid nitrogen cooled detectors. The cells have been equipped with specific optical windows to prevent signal degradation from damaged optics due to moisture and corrosive gases present in the exhaust stream.

Pre Engine Test Calibration Prior to initiation of an engine specific test program, the FTIR sampling systems, both pre and post catalyst sample trains underwent an EPA Method 301 validation process. The validation process was to verify the sample and analytical system performance in relation to precision and accuracy of data collected. Additional calibration procedures prior to testing of the engine were as follows:

Emissions Testing 4 16 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Source Evaluation  Acquired initial source data to verify concentration ranges of target compounds and possible interferants. This was accomplished prior to and during the Method 30 1 validation process Sample System Leak Check  Sample system leak checks were performed. The leak check procedure encompassed the sample train from the sample filter to the pump outlet.

A dedicated rotameter has been installed on the discharge side of the sample pump. With the sample system operating at typical temperatures and pressures ( sample pump will pull a slight vacuum on the suction side), the sample flow rate from the rotameter was recorded. The inlet to the sample filter located just downstream of the sample probe was closed and the flow rate through the rotameter was monitored. The flow rate through the rotameter went to zero. The leak checks were determined to be acceptable, as the leak rate was less than 4% of the standard sampling rate or 500ml/ min, whichever is less.

Sample system leak check data sheets are provided in Appendix F of this document.

Analyzer Leak Check  With the FTIR analyzers operating at normal operating temperatures and pressures, the operating pressures were recorded. The automatic pressure controllers were then disabled, and the inlet valves to the FTIR analyzers were closed. The measurement cells were then evacuated to 20% or less of their normal operating pressure. After the measurement cells were evacuated, each measurement cell was then isolated and the cell pressure monitored with a dedicated pressure sensor. The leak rate of each measurement cell was less than 10 Torr per minute for a one minute period. The analyzer leak rate was determined to be acceptable. Analyzer leak check data sheets are provided in Appendix F of this document.

Cell Pathlength Determination  The cell pathlength was to be determined using the measurement procedures as outlined in the Field Procedure Section of the document entitled " Protocol For Performing Extractive FTIR Measurements To Characterize Various Gas Industry Sources For Air Toxics", prepared by Radian International for the Gas Research Institute. Because the units are fixed pathlength ( non adjustable)

measurement cells, which are stationary units dedicated to a specific task, the pathlength determination process was determined not to be necessary. The units are " as specified"

from the manufacturer, and have passed all validation and calibration procedures at this fixed nathlentih.

Emissions Testing 4 17 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. C~ L~~ DOSTATE UNIVERSITY Daily Calibration Procedures  Pre Test The following daily calibration procedures were performed prior to the initiation of each day's testing.

1.) Instrument Stabihtion  To ensure the FTIR instruments were operating in a stable manner, verification of the operation of the following components at the beginning of each day was performed:

a.) All instrument heated devices and temperature controller were at operating temperature and performing properly.

b.) Pressure sensor and pressure controllers were at operating conditions and performing properly.

c.) Sample systems ( pumps, filters, flow meters, and water knockouts) were functioning properly.

2.) Instruments were operated on a conditioned air source for a minimum of 30 minutes prior to conducting background spectrum procedures. When the instruments were in standby mode, between test days, the analyzers and all components were kept at normal operating temperatures. The analyzers operated on a conditioned air at all times when not involved with data acquisition.

3.) Background spectrum procedures  After purging with a conditioned air source for a minimum of 30 minutes, the instruments were allowed to stabilize by flowing an ultra high purity N2 gas through the measurement cell for a minimum of ten minutes. During the stabilization process, the FTIR spectra were monitored until the concentrations of CO and HZ0 were reduced and normal steady state background levels had been achieved. The following procedures were then performed:

a.) Check for proper interferogram signal using alignment software b.) Collect a single beam spectrum and inspect for irregularities c.) Check the single beam spectrum for detector non linearity and correct if necessary d.) Perform an instrument alignment procedure e.) Collect a background spectrum  The background spectrum was comprised 256 scans, which was equal to or greater than the number of scans used for sample analysis.

4.) Analyzer Diagnostics  Perform an analyzer diagnostic procedure by analyzing a diagnostic standard. The standard was an EPA Protocol 1 CO gas standard at concentration levels indicative of the emissions source, 109 ppm. A CO standard was recommended due to the distinct spectral features, which are sensitive to variations in system operation and performance. The standard was introduced directly into the instrument. The instrument readings were allowed to stabilize and a Emissions Testing 4 18 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the US. EPA. COLORADOSTATEUNIVERSITY five minute set of data was acquired. The calculated accuracy and precision based on equations from the document entitled " Protocol for Performing Extractive FTIR Measurements To Characterize Various Gas Industry Sources for Air Toxics",

prepared by Radian International for the Gas Research Institute, was acceptable. The pass/ fail criteria for accuracy and precision was + 10% of the known standard for the instrument to be acceptable. Each instrument meets this criterion for all daily calibrations. Analyzer diagnostic data sheets are provided in Appendix F of this document.

5.) Additional Analyzer Diagnostic  An additional diagnostic check was performed to ensure system operation and performance. A second diagnostic standard comprised of a multi gas composition was analyzed by the same procedure. The gas consisted of COZ, CO, CH4, and NO, in concentrations similar to exhaust gas composition. The same pass/ fail criteria was used to evaluate each analyzer's performance when analyzing the multi gas standard. Each instrument meets this criteria for all daily calibrations. Analyzer diagnostic data sheets are provided in Appendix F of this document.

6.) Indicator Check & Sample Integrity Check  An indicator check procedure was performed on each analyzer by analyzing a certified indicator standard. The standard was either a NIST traceable, EPA Protocol 1 gas standard, or highest grade standard available of a surrogate/ analyte gas concentration at levels indicative of the emissions source. A formaldehyde standard ( concentration of 10.66 ppm) was used due to the fact that formaldehyde represents a sampling challenge because of its solubility in water. The standard was introduced directly into the instrument. The instrument readings were allowed to stabilize and a five minute set of data was acquired. Next, the indicator standard was introduced into the sample system at the sample filter located just downstream of the sample probe. The instrument readings were allowed to stabilize and a five minute set of data was acquired. The calculated accuracy and precision based on equations from the document entitled " Protocol For Performing Extractive FTIR Measurements To Characterize Various Gas Industry Sources For Air Toxics", prepared by Radian lntemational for the Gas Research Institute. The pass/ fail criteria for accuracy, precision, and recovery was +, 10% of the known standard ( recovery was  t 10% of the instrument reading with the indicator gas introduced directly into the instrument.) for the instrument to be acceptable. Each instrument meets this criteria for all daily calibrations. Indicator check and sample integrity check data sheets are provided in Appendix F of this document.

Emissions Testing 4 19 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating lntemal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADOSTATEUNIVERSITY Daily Calibration Procedures  Background assessment The baseline absorbance was continually monitored during data acquisition procedures. If it was determined by PES, ERG, and CSU personnel that the baseline had changed by more than 0.1 absorbance units, the instrument interferometer was realigned and a background spectrum collected.

Daily Calibration Procedures  Post Test Upon completion of the daily test program steps 4  6 of the pre test calibration procedures were repeated. All analyzers met all acceptance criteria and calibration procedures. All post test calibration data sheets are presented in Appendix F of this document.

4.9 TEST SPECIFIC  FTIR VALIDATION PROCEDURES To ensure the accuracy of data collected during testing, the test program required procedures to evaluate instrument performance. Prior to collecting test data, a validation procedure was performed on each FTIR sample train, both pre catalyst and post catalyst, for the diesel fueled engine classification. The specific sample trains are as follows:

1.) Pre catalyst emissions sample trains from the exhaust of diesel fueled engines.

2.) Post catalyst emissions sample trains from the exhaust of diesel fueled engines.

Each sample train was validated for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein:

Instrument Description Refer to FTIR calibration procedures for FTIR instrument description.

Procedures The validation procedure was conducted in basic accordance with procedures outlined in Method 301" Field Validation of Pollutant Measurement Methods from Various Waste Media".

Validation procedures for aldehydes utilized an analyte spiking technique as specified in Method 301. Validation procedures for criteria pollutants and moisture will use comparative sampling to the appropriate EPA reference methods. Paired sampling was not performed under the validation procedure. The paired samples will be generated from FTIR analyzer data and reference method analyzer data collected during the test program. The procedures for the validation process are as follows:

Emissions Testing 4 20 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA.

_ I _ " "    COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Analyte Spiking:

The process was carried out by means of dynamic analyte spiking of the sample gas. The sample stream of the exhaust gas was spiked with the specific analyte after the sample probe, and before the sample filter. Spike levels for the specific aldehydes were determined and the spike gas concentrations were generated for the specific aldehydes using the following methods:

Formaldehyde: Formaldehyde spike gas was generated by volatilization of a formalin solution prepared from a stock formalin solution of 37% formaldehyde by weight. The solution was injected into a heated vaporization block. The vaporized formalin solution was mixed with an acetylaldehyde/ acrolein carrier gas and carried into the sample exhaust stream. Carrier gas flow rate was measured by a mass flow meter equipped with readout.

AcetlyaldehydeIAcrolein:

Acetlyaldehyde and acrolein spike samples were generated from a certified gas standard ( Scott Specialty Gases, 52% analytical accuracy) which contained both analyte species and a sulfur hexaflouride ( SF6) tracer gas. Carrier gas flow rate was measured by a mass flow meter equipped with readout.

Analyte specific spike gas was introduced to the FTIR sample train upstream of the sample system filter. The spike gas was introduced at a known flow rate. The spike gas flow was controlled by a three way solenoid valve, which directed gas either into the sample stream or diverted the spike gas to the atmosphere. This allowed for uninterrupted flow of the analyte spike gas source during the validation procedures.

The formaldehyde and acetylaldehyde/ acrolein validation runs were conducted simultaneously. The validation test runs consisted of 24 test runs, 12 spiked and 12 unspiked runs, which were paired and grouped further into six groups of 2 spiked/ unspiked pairs to simulate the " quad train" approach used for Method 301 statistical calculations. Samples were one minute in duration. Measurement procedures for acquiring the spiked/ unspiked pairs are as follows:

1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 Verify stable engine operation Begin measurement of the unspiked native exhaust stack gas. Upon completion of acquiring the unspiked sample, initiate spike gas flow into sample stream.

Let system equilibrate.

Emissions Testing 4 2 1 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. 5 .) Begin measurement of the spiked exhaust gas sample.

6.) Upon completion of acquiring the spiked sample, divert spike gas flow to atmosphere.

7.) Let system equilibrate.

8.) Repeat items 2 through 7.

This procedure was performed twelve times to acquire the appropriate number of spiked/ unspiked pairs. To ensure stable engine operation during the validation procedure, engine operating data was collected during the spiking process.

4.10 TEST SPECIFIC  GENERAL CALIBRATION To ensure the accuracy of data collected during testing, the test procedure required that all instrumentation be routinely calibrated. Calibrations and/ or calibration checks were performed within one week before initiation of testing, and upon completion of the entire test program to ensure that no " drift" has occurred. The devices calibrated included the dynamometer 50004b. load cell and amplifier, all thermocouples, pressure transducers, and all pressure transmitters.

Dynamometer Load Cell and Amplifier ( Daily)

The 5000 pound load cell and amplifier was calibrated prior to the engine test section. The calibration procedure is outlined in a document contained in Appendix M of this document.

Calibration of the load cell and amplifier were then be verified by applying the full range of load without any adjustments to the offset or gain of the instrumentation. Calibration checks were performed on a daily basis prior to starting the engine to identify and correct any drift in the load cell or amplifier. These checks used the same procedure as the calibration verification. If the daily calibration check showed an indicated load that exceeded f 1 . O% of the torque applied by the standard weights, the full calibration procedure was performed. The dynamometer was within acceptable limits during the test program. Dynamometer calibration data sheets are provided in Appendix L of this document.

Thermocouples ( Within one week prior to initiation of each engine test program)

K type insertion thermocouples are used throughout the Large Bore Engine Testbed with compensation performed through the engine control and data acquisition hardware. The thermocouples were calibrated using a Ronan X88 portable calibrator calibrated within + l . O ° F of N. I. S. T. standard by an independent laboratory. The thermocouple signal was zeroed and the gain adjusted at full span until the value displayed by the NetCon 5000 matched the setting of the Ronan X88 within + 2.0 ° F. Once the zero and gain have been set a minimum of two mid point Emissions Testing 4 22 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA. COLORADO STATEUNIVERSITY temperatures were checked to verify the calibration. Thermocouple calibration data sheets are provided in Appendix J of this report.

Pressure Transducers ( Within one week prior to initiation of each engine test program)

3 way valves have been installed on the pressure transmitters to allow calibration without removing the sensor from the system. The Model 320 Beta calibrator used for transducers calibration provides an accuracy of 0.05% of reading or 0.02% of full span and is calibrated to N. I. S. T. standards by an independent laboratory. The transducer was zeroed and the gain adjusted at full span until the value displayed by the NetCon 5000 was within + 1 . O psig of the pressure supplied by the pressure calibration standard. A minimum of two midpoints was checked to verify calibration. Pressure transducer calibration data sheets are provided in Appendix J of this report.

Pressure Transmitters ( Within one week prior to initiation of each engine test program)

Pressure which were critical to control and emissions calculations were measured using RosemountQ 305 1C transmitters. The calibration was performed at the transmitter and no adjustments are made to the current loop. A known pressure was supplied to the sensing port of the transmitter using the Model 320 Beta calibrator. The current transmitter was then zeroed and spanned at the full range value of the system. A minimum of two mid span points was checked to verify calibration. Pressure transmitter calibration data sheets are provided in Appendix J of this report.

Emissions Testing 4 23 Pacific Environmental Services Of Control Devices for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines In Support of Regulatory Development By the U. S. EPA.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14361-14362]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5651]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0012; FRL-9339-3]

Pesticide Products; Receipt of Applications To Register New Uses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register new
uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active
ingredients, pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. EPA is
publishing this notice of such applications, pursuant to section
3(c)(4) of FIFRA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification (ID) number specified in Unit II., by one of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID number
specified for the pesticide of interest as shown in the registration
application summaries. EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-
line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or
email. The regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A contact person is listed at the end
of each registration application summary and may be contacted by
telephone or email. The mailing address for each contact person listed
is: Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001, or Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
If you are commenting on a docket that addresses multiple products,
please indicate to which registration number(s) or file symbol(s) your
comment applies.
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Registration Applications for New Uses

    EPA received applications as follows to register pesticide products
containing currently registered active ingredients pursuant to the
provisions of section 3(c) of FIFRA, and is publishing this Notice of
such applications pursuant to section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice of
receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency
on the applications.
    1. Registration number: 68173-1. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0129. Company name and address: Kaken Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., c/o
Conn & Smith, Inc., Agent, 6713 Catskill Road, Lorton, VA 22079. Active
ingredient: Polyoxin D zinc salt. Proposed uses: For use in or on all
food commodities. Contact: Colin G. Walsh, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. Registration numbers: 67727-1, 67727-3, and 67727-4. Docket
number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0130. Company name and address: D-I-1-4, Inc.,
a division of 1,4Group, Inc., P.O. Box 680, Meridian, ID 83680. Active
ingredient: 1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene. Proposed uses: For new post-
harvest uses on other sprouting root, tuber, and bulb crops. Contact:
Colin G. Walsh, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, (703)
308-0298<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Registration numbers: 524-537 and 524-475. Docket number: EPA-
HQ-OPP-2012-0132. Company name and address: Monsanto Company; 1300 I.
St. NW., Suite 450 East, Washington, DC 20005. Active ingredient:
Glyphosate. Proposed use: Add wiper applicator use over the top to
carrot and sweet potato, and add pre-harvest use to oil seed crop group
20. Contact: Erik Kraft, Registration Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. Registration numbers: 70506-185, 70506-188, 70506-194, 70506-
234, and 70506-236. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0044. Company name
and address: United Phosphorous, Inc., 630 Freedom Business Center,
Suite 402, King of Prussia, PA 19406. Active ingredient: Mancozeb.
Proposed use: Walnut. Contact: Lisa Jones, Registration Division, (703)
308-9424<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. File symbol: 88407-R. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0334.
Company name and address: Plaston International Corporation, 1835 Road
Ferry, Suite 200, Naperville, IL 60563. Active ingredient: Silver
chloride. Proposed use: Microbiostatic antimicrobial treatment for
residential humidified units. Contact: Marshall Swindell,
Antimicrobials Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: February 24, 2012.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-5651 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6185]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02243]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4585-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Alaska; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alaska (FEMA-4585-DR), dated February 17, 2021, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 11, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas J.
Dargan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Toney L. Raines as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-02243 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P