Environmental Technology Verification Report New Condensator, Inc. - The Condensator Diesel Engine Retrofit Crankcase Ventilation System


                          SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-36
                                August 2005
Environmental Technology

     Verification  Report


       New Condensator, Inc. -
 The Condensator Diesel Engine Retrofit
     Crankcase Ventilation System
               Prepared by:
       Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
         Southern Research Institute
         Under a Cooperative Agreement With
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                      EPA REVIEW NOTICE

This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  and
approved for publication.  Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.

-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM
ET
-------
of participate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (THC), and other pollutants. The
Condensator technology, offered by New Condensator, Inc. of Grass Valley, California (NCI), is
applicable to diesel engines that have open crankcase ventilation systems. NCI's Condensator is designed
to capture and filter these emissions. This verification statement provides the results of the Condensator
performance verification.

TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION

The following technology description is based on information provided by NCI and does not represent
verified information. This technology is applicable to light- to heavy-duty vehicles, both on- and off-
road, and is also available for marine and generator applications. The Condensator is designed to collect
and filter the blow-by exhaust from the crankcase and re-route exhaust vapors back to the engine air
intake. This removes particulate from the blow-by exhaust and creates a closed crankcase system. NCI
claims that enhanced fuel economy, reduced opacity, reduced emissions, and containment of the blow-by
gases are the benefits of using this technology. A Model 2DX Condensator was used for this
verification.

The Model 2DX Condensator consists of a blow-by manifold, two Condensator containers, and associated
tubing to route filtered exhaust gases back to the engine intake. The two Condensator containers are
arranged in parallel and hold the collected waste/sludge. Each contains a silica bead separator system that
filters the crankcase exhaust. Rubber hoses are used to connect the Condensator containers to the air
intake and blow-by tube. Hose clamps keep the hoses in place. NCI requires the Condensator unit to be
installed away from extreme heat such as exhaust manifolds.

According to NCI, crankcase exhaust comes in contact with silica bead separators in the Condensator,
resulting in a molecular separation process where large, heavier oil molecules condense and collect in the
Condensator containers. Water and acid present with the oil will also drop into the containers. Gaseous
emissions, including hydrocarbons, continue through the system and are vented back into the engine air
intake. Waste oil and condensate collected in the Condensator containers should be emptied during
vehicle oil changes. The separators are cleaned periodically in a solvent to dislodge and remove any
carbon or sludge that may have attached to the silica beads.

VERIFICATION DESCRIPTION

The verification testing was conducted in January 2005 to evaluate the performance on the Condensator
technology on a 1997 Cummins N-14 370 HP turbocharged diesel engine. Verification tests were
conducted at Southwest Research Institute's (SwRI) Department of Engine and Emissions Research
(DEER) in San Antonio, TX. The testing was planned and executed by the GHG Center to independently
verify the change in fuel economy and engine emissions resulting from the use of the Condensator.

The primary verification parameters were changes in fuel economy expressed as brake specific fuel
consumption (BSFC) and engine PM emissions. Determination of emissions of NOX, CO, CO2, THC,
and methane (CH^, were also conducted as secondary verification parameters. Improvement in engine
performance for the primary parameters is expressed as the mean change, or delta (A), between results
from tests conducted on the engine without the Condensator (baseline tests) and with the Condensator
installed (modified engine tests). Modified engine tests include initial testing immediately after
installation of the Condensator and cumulative testing after operating the engine with the Condensator
installed over a 45-hour durability cycle break-in period. The verification's data quality objective (DQO)
for these parameters was to demonstrate a statistically significant delta of 10 percent or greater. A
detailed discussion of the data analysis and statistical procedures can be found in the test plan.
S-2
-------
The testing was conducted following the approach and procedures specified in the test plan and the ETV
Generic Verification Protocol (GVP) for Diesel Exhaust Catalysts, Paniculate Filters, and Engine
Modification Control Technologies for Highway and Nonroad Use Diesel Engines. The GVP makes use
of the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) as listed in 40 CFR Part 86 for highway engines as a standard test
protocol. Specific details regarding the FTP, measurement equipment, and statistical analysis of results
can be found in the test plan titled Test and Quality Assurance Plan for the New Condensator, Inc. - The
Condensator Diesel Engine Retrofit Crankcase Ventilation System (SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-36) and the
GVP.

Quality Assurance (QA) oversight of the verification testing was provided following specifications in the
ETV Quality Management Plan (QMP). The GHG Center's QA manager conducted an audit of data
quality on at least 10 percent of the data generated during this verification and a review of the report.
Data review and validation was conducted at three levels including the field team leader (for data
generated by subcontractors), the project manager, and the QA manager. Through these activities, the
QA manager has concluded that the data meet the data quality objectives that are specified in the Test and
Quality Assurance Plan. Both documents can be downloaded from the ETV Program web-site
(www. epa. gov/etv).

The verification evaluated baseline engine performance without the Condensator, immediate effect on
performance after installation of the Condensator, and cumulative engine performance after operating the
engine with the Condensator for a period of 45 hours. The general sequence of test events was as follows:

1. Install and inspect the test engine;
2. Change the engine oil and filter and conduct 25-hour break-in run;
3. Map the baseline engine (develop torque curve);
4. Precondition and soak the baseline engine;
5. Perform baseline engine testing for exhaust emissions, blow-by emission, and fuel consumption;
6. Install the Condensator system;
7. Map the modified engine;
8. Precondition and soak the modified engine;
9. Perform modified engine testing for exhaust emissions and fuel consumption;
10. Perform 45 hour modified engine durability break-in period;
11. Repeat the modified engine testing for exhaust emissions and fuel consumption;
12. Evaluate the test data for data quality; and
13. Complete additional testing as necessary to achieve data quality objectives.

VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE

The Condensator system was installed by a Cummins technician without problems, and installation was
approved by NCI representatives. The presence of the Condensator did introduce an impact on the
engine's crankcase pressure. By routing the crankcase blow-by vent to the engine air intake, the
Condensator changed the crankcase pressure from ambient to a vacuum in the range of 8 to 20 inches of
water (depending on engine speed and torque). After consulting with the Cummins technician, testing
S-3
-------
was continued because the engine was operating normally and power output was approximately the same
as before installation of the Condensator. No other impacts on engine performance were observed, the
open crankcase was closed, and the blow by emissions (essentially all unburned organic material) were
successfully routed back into the engine.

Results of the BSFC and PM emissions testing are summarized in Tables S-l and S-2. Table S-3
summarizes results for the secondary emissions parameters.
Table S-l. BSFC Results
Parameter
Mean BSFC (Ib/Bhp-hr)
Standard deviation (Ib/Bhp-hr)
BSFC delta (Ib/Bhp-hr)
BSFC delta (%)
Statistically significant change?
Baseline Tests
0.390
0.003
~
~
~
Initial
Condensator Tests
0.392
0.004
0.002
0.4
No
Cumulative
Condensator Tests
0.3857
0.0014
-0.003
-0.8
No
Installation of the Condensator did not result in statistically significant changes in the test engine's BSFC.
Table S-2. PM Emissions and Statistical Analysis
Parameter
Mean PM emissions (g/Bhp-hr)
Standard deviation (g/Bhp-hr)
PM delta (g/Bhp-hr)
PM delta (%)
Statistically significant change?
Baseline Tests
0.1133
0.0010
~
~
~
Initial
Condensator Tests
0.1021
0.0009
-0.011
-9.8
Yes
Cumulative
Condensator Tests
0.109
0.003
-0.005
-4.0
No
By eliminating the crankcase blow-by emissions point, total engine PM emissions were immediately
reduced by 9.84 percent, ±1.8 percent statistical uncertainty, after installation of the Condensator. PM
emissions dropped from 0.113 to 0.102 g/Bhp-hr. After the 45 hour break-in period, total engine PM
emissions increased slightly to 0.109 g/Bhp-hr, resulting in a reduction from the baseline emission level
of 4.04 percent. This change was not statistically significant according to the analysis used here.

The SOF analyses conducted on the PM samples collection from the blow-by tube indicated that
essentially all of the PM collected was soluble organic material (SOF was 100 percent).
S-4
-------
Table S-3. Mean Composite Engine Emission Rates
Parameter
NOX
CO
CO2
THC
Mean Composite
Baseline Emissions
(g/Bhp-hr)
4.59
0.746
561
0.203
Mean Composite
Initial Condensator
Emissions (g/Bhp-hr)
4.62
0.721
563
0.206
% Decrease
(Increase)
(0.6)
0
(0.4)
(1)
Mean Composite
Cumulative
Condensator Emissions
(g/Bhp-hr)
4.51
0.708
556
0.226
% Decrease
(Increase)
1.8
5
0.9
(11)
• Statistical analyses were not specified for the secondary verification parameters. The data indicate
that NOX and CO2 emissions were essentially unchanged after installation of the Condensator and CO
emissions were reduced by approximately 5 percent after break-in. Emissions of THC were
extremely low during all test periods (generally less than 9 parts per million). Emissions of QrU were
not detected and are considered negligible.

Detailed results of the verification are presented in the final report titled Environmental Technology
Verification Report for New Condensator, Inc. - The Condensator Diesel Engine Retrofit Crankcase
Ventilation System (SRI 2005). Copies of the report or this verification statement can be downloaded
from the GHG Center's web-site (www.sri-rtp.com) or the ETV Program web-site (www.epa.gov/etv).
Signed by Sally Gutierrez (8/26/2005)

Sally Gutierrez
Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Signed by Tim Hansen (8/26/2005)

Tim Hansen
Director
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
Notice: GHG Center verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. The EPA and Southern Research Institute
make no expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a
technology will always operate at the levels verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with any and
all applicable Federal, State, and Local requirements. Mention of commercial product names does not imply
endorsement or recommendation.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE

This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
S-5
-------
S-6
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-3 6
August 2005
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
A U.S. EPA Sponsored Environmental Technology Verification ( EJ^j Organization
Environmental Technology Verification Report

New Condensator, Inc. -
The Condensator Diesel Engine Retrofit
Crankcase Ventilation System
Prepared By:
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
PO Box 13825
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA
Telephone: 919/806-3456
Under EPA Cooperative Agreement CR 826311-01-0
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 USA

EPA Project Officer: David A. Kirchgessner
-------
(this page intentionally left blank)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1. BACKGROUND
1.2. THE CONDENSATOR CRANKCASE VENTILATION SYSTEM.
1.3. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION OVERVIEW
1.3.1. Introduction and Verification Parameters .
1.3.2. Verification Test Facilities
1.3.3. Testing and Measurement Equipment
1.3.3.1. Constant Volume Sampling System.
1.3.3.2. Exhaust Gas Analyzers
1.3.4. Test Procedure and Sequence
-1
-2
-3
-3
-4
-5
-5
-6
-6
2.0 VERIFICATION RESULTS 2-1
2.1. VERIFICATION OVERVIEW 2-1
2.2. BSFC RESULTS 2-2
2.3. EMISSION TESTING RESULTS 2-3
2.3.1. PM Emissions 2-3
2.3.2. NOX, CO, CO2, THC, and CH4 Emissions 2-5

3.0 DATA QUALITY 3-1
3.1. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES 3-1
3.2. MEASUREMENT SYSTEM QA/QC CHECKS 3-2
3.3. AUDITS 3-6

4.0 REFERENCES 4-1
-------
APPENDICES
Page
Appendix A. Test Fuel Analysis A-l

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1-1. NCI Condensator on the Cummins N-14 Test Engine 1-3
Figure 1-2. The Cummins N-14 Test Engine in the Dynamometer Test Cell 1-4

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2-1. Summary of Condensator Verification Activities 2-1
Table 2-2. Summary of BSFC Verification Results 2-2
Table 2-3. Statistical Analysis of BSFC Results 2-3
Table 2-4. Summary of Engine PM Emissions Verification Results 2-4
Table 2-5. Statistical Analysis of PM Results 2-5
Table 2-6. Soluble Organic Fraction of Blow-By PM for Baseline Tests 2-5
Table 2-7. Mean Composite Engine Emission Rates 2-6
Table 3-1. DQOs for BSFC and PM Emissions Results 3-1
Table 3-2. CVS System Data Quality Indicators and QA/QC Checks 3-3
Table 3 -3. Instrumental Analyzers Data Quality Indicators and QA/QC Checks 3-4
Table 3-4. Particulate Matter Analysis Data Quality Indicators and QA/QC Checks 3-5
Table 3-5. Supplementary Instruments and Additional QA/QC Checks 3-5
Table 3-6. Dynamometer Data Quality Indicators and QA/QC Checks 3-6
-------
DISTRIBUTION LIST
U.S. EPA
David Kirchgessner
Robert Wright
Southern Research Institute
Tim Hansen
Richard Adamson
William Chatterton
New Condensator, Inc.
James Brock
Ed Loughran
in
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADQ
ASTM
BSFC
CFR
CH4
CO
C02
cov
CVS
DEER
DQI
DQO
EPA-ORD
ETV
FS
FTP
g/Bhp-hr
GHG
GVP
hp
Ib/Bhp-hr
NCI
NIST
NOX
PM
ppm
QA
QA/QC
QMP
SAO
SOF
SOP
SwRI
THC
audit of data quality
American Society for Testing and Materials
brake specific fuel consumption
Code of Federal Regulations
methane
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
coefficient of variation
constant volume sampling
Department of Engine and Emissions Research
data quality indicator
data quality objective
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development
Environmental Technology Verification
full scale
Federal Test Procedure
grams per brake horsepower-hour
greenhouse gas
Generic Verification Protocol
horsepower
pounds per brake horsepower-hour
New Condensator, Inc.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
blend of NO, NO2, and other oxides of nitrogen
paniculate matter
parts per million
quality assurance
quality assurance / quality control
Quality Management Plan
smooth approach orifice
soluble organic fraction
standard operating procedure
Southwest Research Institute
total hydrocarbons (as carbon)
IV
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development (EPA-ORD) operates
the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program to facilitate the deployment of innovative
technologies. The program's goal is to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance
and use of these technologies. Primary ETV activities are independent performance verification and
information dissemination. Congress funds ETV in response to the belief that many viable environmental
technologies exist that are not being used for the lack of credible third-party performance data. With
performance data developed under this program, technology buyers, financiers, and permitters will be
better equipped to make informed decisions regarding new technology purchases and use.

The Greenhouse Gas Technology Center (GHG Center) is one of several ETV organizations. EPA's ETV
partner, Southern Research Institute (Southern), manages the GHG Center. The GHG Center conducts
independent verification of promising GHG mitigation and monitoring technologies. It develops
verification Test and Quality Assurance Plans (test plans), conducts field tests, collects and interprets field
and other data, obtains independent peer-review input, reports findings, and publicizes verifications
through numerous outreach efforts. The GHG Center conducts verifications according to the externally
reviewed test plans and recognized quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) protocols.

Volunteer stakeholder groups guide the GHG Center's ETV activities. These stakeholders advise on
appropriate technologies for testing, help disseminate results, and review test plans and reports. National
and international environmental policy, technology, and regulatory experts participate in the GHG
Center's Executive Stakeholder Group. The group includes industry trade organizations, environmental
technology finance groups, governmental organizations, and other interested parties. Industry-specific
stakeholders provide testing strategy guidance within their expertise and peer-review key documents
prepared by the GHG Center.

One sector of significant interest to GHG Center stakeholders is transportation - particularly technologies
that result in fuel economy improvements. The Department of Energy reports that in 2001, "other trucks"
(all trucks other than light-duty trucks) consuming diesel fuel emitted approximately 72.5 million metric
tons of carbon dioxide (CO2). These emissions increase to 107.5 million metric tons when considering all
diesel vehicles in the transportation sector. Small fuel efficiency or emission rate improvements are
expected to have a significantly beneficial impact on nationwide greenhouse gas emissions.

New Condensator, Inc. (NCI) of Grass Valley, California owns the rights to a technology that is planned
for use as a retrofit device for existing light and heavy duty diesel engines. The Condensator technology
is applicable to diesel engines that have open crankcase ventilation systems. The Condensator is designed
to collect and filter the blow-by exhaust from the crankcase and re-route exhaust vapors back to the
engine air intake, essentially converting the engine to a closed crankcase system. NCI claims that
enhanced fuel economy, reduced opacity, and 100% containment of the blow-by gases are the benefits of
using this technology.

The verification testing was conducted in January 2005 to evaluate the performance on the Condensator
technology on a 1997 Cummins N-14 370 HP turbocharged diesel engine. Verification tests were
conducted at Southwest Research Institute's (SwRI) Department of Engine and Emissions Research
(DEER) in San Antonio, TX. The testing was planned and executed by the GHG Center to independently
1-1
-------
verify the change in fuel economy and engine emissions resulting from the use of the Condensator. This
report presents the results of these verification tests.

Details on the verification test design, measurement test procedures, and QA/QC procedures can be found
in the test plan titled Test and Quality Assurance Plan for the New Condensator, Inc. - The Condensator
Diesel Engine Retrofit Crankcase Ventilation System (SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-36) [1]. The test plan can
be downloaded from the GHG Center's Web site (www.sri-rtp.com) or the ETV Program web site
(www.epa.gov/etv). The test plan was based largely on the approach and procedures specified in the ETV
Generic Verification Protocol (GVP) for Diesel Exhaust Catalysts, Paniculate Filters, and Engine
Modification Control Technologies for Highway andNonroad Use Diesel Engines [2], which can also be
downloaded from the ETV Program web site cited above.

The test plan describes the rationale for the experimental design, the testing and instrument calibration
procedures planned for use, and specific QA/QC goals and procedures. The test plan was reviewed and
revised based on comments received from NCI, SwRI, and the EPA Quality Assurance Team. The test
plan meets the requirements of the GHG Center's Quality Management Plan (QMP) and satisfies the ETV
QMP requirements. Deviations from the test plan were sometimes required. The rationale for these
deviations and their descriptions are discussed in this report.

The remainder of Section 1.0 describes the Condensator technology, the SwRI test facility, and the
performance verification procedures that were followed. Section 2.0 presents test results and Section 3.0
assesses the quality of the data obtained.
1.2. THE CONDENSATOR CRANKCASE VENTILATION SYSTEM

The following technology description is based on information provided by NCI and does not represent
verified information. Many on and off-road heavy duty diesel engines have an open crankcase and blow-
by tube, especially on older vehicles. On these engines, crankcase blow-by is emitted directly to the
atmosphere through the blow-by tube, resulting in emissions of particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide
(CO), hydrocarbons (THC), and other pollutants. NCI's Condensator is designed to capture and filter
these emissions. This technology is applicable to light- to heavy-duty vehicles, both on- and off-road, and
is also available for marine and generator applications. The Condensator is designed to collect and filter
the blow-by exhaust from the crankcase and re-route exhaust vapors back to the engine air intake. This
removes particulate from the blow-by exhaust and creates a closed crankcase system. NCI claims that
enhanced fuel economy, reduced opacity, reduced emissions, and containment of the blow-by gases are
the benefits of using this technology. A Model 2DX Condensator was used for this verification.

According to NCI, crankcase exhaust comes in contact with silica bead separators in the Condensator,
resulting in a molecular separation process where large, heavier oil molecules condense and collect in the
Condensator containers. Water and acid present with the oil will also drop into the containers. Gaseous
emissions, including hydrocarbons, continue through the system and are vented back into the engine air
intake. Waste oil and condensate collected in the Condensator containers should be emptied during
vehicle oil changes. This is done by unscrewing the container from the head and properly disposing of
the waste. The separators are cleaned periodically in a solvent to dislodge and remove any carbon or
sludge that may have attached to the silica beads. NCI states that this technology can provide the
following benefits:

• Increase fuel efficiency in open crankcase diesel engines;
• Lower emissions in diesel engines, especially PM, CO, and hydrocarbons;
• Save operating costs with lower fuel costs and increased vehicle mileage; and
• Be applicable to any diesel engines with open crankcase including light and heavy duty, on and
off road, and marine engines.
1.3. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION OVERVIEW
1.3.1. Introduction and Verification Parameters

The GVP makes use of the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) as listed in the Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 40, Part 86 (40 CFR 86) [3] for highway engines as a standard test protocol. This section provides a
brief description of the verification test program. Specific details regarding the FTP, measurement
equipment, and statistical analysis of results can be found in the test plan and GVP. The test plan also
contains the DQOs and QA/QC procedures.

1.3.2. Verification Test Facilities

The testing was conducted in SwRI's heavy-duty diesel engine dynamometer cell 8. The dynamometer is
equipped with a constant volume sampling system, an array of emissions analyzers, a fuel supply cart,
and ambient monitoring and control equipment. The testing and measurement equipment is described in
section 1.4.3.

The diesel engine used in the test program was a Cummins N-14 370-HP turbocharged engine
manufactured in 1996 (Figure 1-2). This engine was selected for testing because it represents a large
segment of heavy-duty diesel engines currently on the road for which the Condensator technology is
intended. Prior to the start of testing (January 21, 2005), a Cummins technician inspected the engine in
the test cell and verified that the engine was without mechanical problems and operating within its
acceptable range of specifications.
Figure 1-2. The Cummins N-14 Test Engine in the Dynamometer Test Cell
1-4
-------
All testing was conducted using standard diesel test fuel (as specified in 40 CFR 86.1313-98) with a
certified sulfur content of 347 ppm. The GHG Center reviewed the fuel analyses (dated December 20,
2004) and verified that the fuel was within specifications.

The engine dynamometer simulates operating conditions of the engine by applying loads to the engine
and measuring the amount of power that the engine can produce against the load. The engine is operated
on the dynamometer over a simulated duty cycle that mimics a typical on-road heavy-duty vehicle. This
is the "transient" cycle heavy-duty FTP specified in 40 CFR 86.1333. Exhaust emissions from the engine
are collected through a constant volume sampling (CVS) system and then analyzed to determine emission
concentrations. A constant speed blower in the CVS dilutes the exhaust with ambient air while the engine
operates on the dynamometer. This dilution prevents the exhaust moisture from condensing and provides
controllable sampling conditions. A sample pump and a control system transfers diluted exhaust to
emission analyzers, sample bags, and the particulate filters. Samples are collected at constant sampling
rates.

Crankcase blow-by PM emissions were also quantified during the baseline testing. The blow-by
emissions tests were conducted following procedures developed by SwRI specifically designed to
measure PM emissions from an open crankcase blow-by tube (SOP 07-043). Total baseline engine PM
emissions were quantified as the sum of the PM emissions measured from the engine exhaust and the
blow-by tube.

1.3.3. Testing and Measurement Equipment

The equipment used in determining the fuel economy and emissions of the test engine was specified in
the test plan and conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 86. The following subsections provide details
regarding specific equipment used during testing.

1.3.3.1. Constant Volume Sampling System

A Horiba Variable-Flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system was used to sample exhaust emissions.
The engine exhaust pipe is connected to the CVS inlet. A constant speed blower pulls ambient air into the
CVS while the engine operates on the dynamometer. The air is used to dilute the exhaust stream to
prevent the exhaust moisture from condensing and to provide controllable sampling conditions to the
analyzers (specifically, sample flow rate). A sample pump and control system transfer diluted exhaust to
several different Tedlar bags during specific phases of each FTP and Highway Fuel Economy Test run. A
regulating needle valve maintains a constant sample flow rate into the bags.

The balance of the dilute exhaust passes through a Horiba smooth-approach orifice (SAO) which
measures the flow rate. The bag sampling rate must remain proportional to the total dilute exhaust
volume flow rate throughout each test run to ensure that the sample represents the entire volume. SAO
throat pressure and temperature measurements using calibrated pressure and temperature transducers,
correlated with the SAO's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable calibration,
allow accurate dilute exhaust volume determinations. This determination generates a feedback signal that
adjusts the turbine blower speed. The continuous adjustment allows the blower to maintain constant
volumetric flow through the CVS system. The CVS both measures the dilute exhaust volumetric flow
and controls the sample dilution ratio to within ± 0.5 percent.
1-5
-------
1.3.3.2. Exhaust Gas Analyzers

Technicians used a Horiba analytical bench equipped with instrumental analyzers to determine carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), total hydrocarbons (THC), methane (CFL,) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) concentrations in the dilute exhaust. Each analyzer is accurate to ± 2 percent. Sample pumps
transfer the dilute exhaust from the sample bags to each analyzer as commanded by the control system.

The Horiba triple analytical bench consists of feedgas, tailpipe and bag analytical benches, a sample-
conditioning unit, and various automated flow controls. The Horiba instrumental emission analyzers used
to analyze exhaust emissions using the CVS bag cart are:

• AIA-210 Infrared Low-Low CO Analyzer (LLCO)
• AIA-220 Infrared CO2 and Low CO Analyzer (CO2/LCO)
• FIA-220 Flame lonization Total Hydrocarbons (THC) Analyzer
• CLA-220 Chemiluminescent NO/NOX Analyzer
• GC-FIA Gas Chromatographic/Flame lonization Methane Analyzer

Sampling, analysis, dynamometer monitoring, and other equipment or processes, including bag leak
checks, calibrations, and analyzer zero/span checks are all controlled by a Horiba VETS-9200
computerized emissions testing control system. The VETS-9200 collects data from the test equipment,
calculates and reports test results, and facilitates system calibrations and quality control checks. The
VETS also records raw sensor outputs, applies the appropriate engineering conversion and averaging
algorithms, and flags data which are outside the permitted values.

1.3.4. Test Procedure and Sequence

The test procedures and details regarding each phase of the test are described in the test plan. The general
sequence of test events was as follows:

The test runs consisted of operating the test engine over the specified FTP test cycle for one cold-start
test, and a minimum of three hot-start tests for both the baseline and modified engine. During each test
run, BSFC was evaluated over the FTP transient cycles along with engine emissions of NOX, PM, THC,
CO, CO2, and CIL,. BSFC is the ratio of the engine fuel consumption to the engine power output
expressed in units of pounds mass of fuel per brake horsepower-hour (Ib/Bhp-hr). The calculation of
BSFC is shown at 40 CFR 86.1342-90. The equation and supporting parameters are:
1-6
-------
Equation 1
where: BSFC = brake-specific fuel consumption in pounds of fuel per brake horsepower-hour,
Ib/Bhp-hr
Mc = mass of fuel used by the engine during the cold start test, Ibs
Mh = mass of fuel used by the engine during the hot start test, Ibs
Bhp-hrc = total brake horsepower-hours for the cold start test
Bhp-hrh = total brake horsepower-hours for the hot start test

The Bhp-hr values for each test are calculated using the engine torque and speed data measured on the
dynamometer. The mass of fuel, M, used during each test is calculated via a carbon balance method
using the emission rates and fuel properties determined during testing. These rather complex calculations
are specified in 40 CFR 86.1342-90 and not repeated here. Generally, the calculations rely on the
measured engine exhaust mass emissions of THC, CO, and CO2 and the measured test fuel carbon weight
fraction, specific gravity, and net heating value. These fuel properties are cited on the fuel certificate of
analyses (Appendix A-l) and are determined using the following methods:

• Specific gravity - ASTM D1298 [4]
• Carbon weight fraction - ASTM D3343 [5]
• Net heating value - ASTM D3348 [6]

Pollutant emission rates are calculated using the same approach. Substituting measured emission rates for
each pollutant into Equation 1 above for the mass of fuel used during the cold and hot start tests (Mc and
MH) results in calculation of the composite emission rate for each test run in units of grams per brake
horsepower-hour (g/Bhp-hr).

Engine and dynamometer operating conditions were recorded during all test periods. Sampling system,
emission analyzer, and test cell operations were also monitored. At the conclusion of testing, the PM
samples collected from the blow-by tube were analyzed for soluble organic fraction (SOF). SOF was
determined using an internal SOP developed by SwRI. The procedure basically uses solvent extraction
and gravimetric procedures to determine the SOF. Each test run was followed by evaluation of data
quality in accordance with the requirements of Section 3 of the test plan. Achievement of all data quality
indicator goals and FTP requirements allowed the field team leader to declare a run valid.
1-7
-------
-------
2.0 VERIFICATION RESULTS
2.1. VERIFICATION OVERVIEW

Test preparations and verification testing was conducted between January 17 and February 1, 2005.
Table 2-1 summarizes the daily events during the verification test period.

Table 2-1. Summary of Condensator Verification Activities
Date(s)
01/17-18/05
01/19/05
01/20/05
01/21/05
01/24-25/05
01/26/05
01/27/05
01/28/05
01/29-30/05
01/31/05
02/01/05
Activities Performed
Engine transported to test cell 8 and installed onto dynamometer.
Engine oil changed and engine inspected by Cummins technician.
25-hour engine break-in conducted.
Dynamometer and sampling system QA checks conducted, engine mapping completed.
Engine preconditioning completed and blow-by particulate sampling system installed.
Baseline tests conducted (one cold and three hot start tests), cold start test invalidated due
to excessive drift in engine speed from the engine map.
Baseline cold start test repeated, Condensator installed by Cummins technician. Engine
mapping and preconditioning completed.
Initial modified engine tests completed (one cold and three hot-start tests).
Engine run on Cummins durability cycle for 45 -hour break-in period.
Second set of modified engine tests completed (one cold and three hot-start tests). Tests
invalidated due to engine mechanical problem. Engine repaired.
Third set of modified engine tests repeated (one cold and six hot-start tests). Verification
testing complete.
The verification testing generally proceeded smoothly with no major upsets or engine problems. The first
cold start test conducted on the baseline engine was invalidated by SwRI because the measured engine
speed exceeded variability limits with respect to the baseline engine map.

The Condensator system was installed by a Cummins technician without problems, and installation was
approved by NCI representatives. The presence of the Condensator did impact on the engine's crankcase
pressure. By routing the crankcase blow-by vent to the engine air intake and completely eliminating blow
by exhaust, the Condensator changed the crankcase pressure from ambient to a vacuum in the range of 8
to 20 inches of water (depending on engine speed and torque). After consulting with the Cummins
technician, testing was continued because the engine appeared to be operating normally and power output
was approximately the same as before installation of the Condensator. No other impacts on engine
performance were observed, the open crankcase was closed, and the blow by emissions (essentially all
unburned organic material) was successfully routed back into the engine.

The set of test runs conducted after the 45-hour Condensator durability cycle break-in period was
invalidated after an engine problem occurred during those tests. Specifically, the Woods coupling broke
and two of the bolts holding the adapter plate on the engine sheared. Repairs were made and the testing
was repeated. A total of six hot start tests were conducted after the 45 hour durability break-in cycle due
to variability in the data (see section 3.1).
2-1
-------
2.2. BSFC RESULTS

Table 2-2 summarizes the engine BSFC for each set of tests conducted. The table includes the BSFC for
each individual cold and hot start test run, and the mean composite BSFC for each set of tests calculated
using the cold start data and individual hot start data weighted in accordance with Equation 1.

Table 2-2. Summary of BSFC Verification Results
Test Run ID
Baseline Tests
Cold start 1
Hot start 1
Hot start 2
Hot start 3
Cold start 2
Mean
Standard Deviation

Initial Condensator
Tests
Cold start 1
Hot start 1
Hot start 2
Hot start 3
Mean
Standard Deviation

Cumulative Effect
Condensator Tests
Cold start 2
Hot start 4
Hot start 5
Cold start 3
Hot start 6
Hot start 7
Hot start 8
Hot start 9
Hot start 10
Hot start 1 1
Mean
Standard Deviation
Date (Time)

01/26/05(1129)
01/26/05 (1256)
01/26/05 (1356)
01/26/05 (1416)
01/27/05 (0924)

01/28/05 (0842)
01/28/05 (0922)
01/28/05 (1002)
01/28/05 (1042)

01/31/05(0924)
01/31/05(1004)
01/31/05(1044)
02/01/05 (0850)
02/01/05 (0930)
02/01/05 (1010)
02/01/05 (1050)
02/01/05(1531)
02/01/05(1611)
02/01/05(1651)

BSFC (Ib/Bhp-hr)
Individual Test Run

Composite

VOID - engine speed trace out of spec.
0.390
0.385
0.390
0.400

0.401
0.393
0.385
0.391

0.398
0.380
0.379
0.410
0.384
0.382
0.373
0.380
0.383
0.384

0.392
0.387
0.391
NA
0.390
0.003

NA
0.394
0.387
0.393
0.392
0.004

VOID - Tests invalidated
due to broken Woods
coupling and adapter plate
NA
0.387
0.386
VOID - Sample bag leak
0.384
0.387
0.388
0.3857
0.0014
In addition to test runs invalidated for reasons outlined in Section 2.1, hot start test 8 was also invalidated
during data analysis. SwRI analysts indicated that the CO2 concentration in the bag sample was
suspiciously lower than the other samples collected, indicating a possible leak in the bag. Analysts
conducted subsequent CO2 analyses on the sample after an approximately 1-hour holding time, and
confirmed that CO2 levels continued to drop (indicating a leak in the bag). In order to determine if this
2-2
-------
test run could be eliminated from the data set, an analysis was performed testing the statistical
significance of the suspect test run using the ASTM Standard Practice for Dealing with Outlying
Observations (E 178-02), Section 6.1, Recommended Criteria for Single Samples [7]. The analysis
confirmed that the test run was an outlying observation and it could be removed from the data set without
compromising the integrity of the overall test results.

Based on the valid test runs only, the mean engine BSFC during baseline, initial Condensator, and
cumulative Condensator test conditions were 0.390, 0.392, and 0.387 Ib/Bhp-hr, respectively. Following
the test plan, a t-test was used to evaluate the statistical significance of these small changes in BSFC.
Changes in BSFC for both the initial and cumulative Condensator tests were not statistically significant,
so confidence intervals were not calculated. Table 2-3 summarizes the statistical analysis of the tests
including the coefficient of variation (COV) and t-test results for each data set. This analysis requires the
assumption that the baseline and Condensator test sets have similar variance. Analysts used an F-test to
determine the degree of similarity between the sample variances. The F-test evaluation indicates that the
variance of the baseline data compared to the initial and cumulative Condensator tests are similar.
Detailed COV, t-test, and f-test analyses are maintained in the GHG Center files.
Table 2-3. Statistical Analysis of BSFC Results
Parameter
Mean BSFC (Ib/Bhp-hr)
Standard deviation (Ib/Bhp-hr)
BSFC delta (Ib/Bhp-hr)
BSFC delta (%)
Coefficient of Variation
Statistically significant change (ttest >
to. 025, DF )?
Baseline Tests
0.390
0.003
~
~
0.8
—
Initial
Condensator Tests
0.392
0.004
0.002
0.4
1.0
NO
Cumulative
Condensator Tests
0.3867
0.0014
-0.003
-0.8
0.37
NO
2.3. EMISSION TESTING RESULTS
2.3.1. PM Emissions

The primary engine emissions verification parameter for the Condensator was to determine the reduction
in PM emissions. Table 2-4 summarizes the engine PM emissions for each set of tests conducted. The
table includes the PM emissions for each individual cold and hot start test run, and the mean composite
PM emission rate for each set of tests. Test runs that were invalidated for the BSFC tests were also
considered invalid for the emissions analyses, with the exception of hot start test 8. A leak in the bag
used to measure CO2 would not affect the PM emissions determination, so this run was included in the
analysis.
2-3
-------
Table 2-4. Summary of Engine PM Emissions Verification Results
Test Run ID
Baseline Tests
Cold start 1
Hot start 1
Hot start 2
Hot start 3
Cold start 2
Mean
Standard Deviation

Initial Condensator Tests
Cold start 1
Hot start 1
Hot start 2
Hot start 3
Mean
Standard Deviation

Cumulative Effect
Condensator Tests
Cold start 2
Hot start 4
Hot start 5
Cold start 3
Hot start 6
Hot start 7
Hot start 8
Hot start 9
Hot start 10
Hot start 1 1
Mean
Standard Deviation
Date (Time)

01/26/05(1129)
01/26/05 (1256)
01/26/05 (1356)
01/26/05 (1416)
01/27/05 (0924)

01/28/05 (0842)
01/28/05 (0922)
01/28/05 (1002)
01/28/05 (1042)

01/31/05(0924)
01/31/05(1004)
01/31/05(1044)
02/01/05 (0850)
02/01/05 (0930)
02/01/05 (1010)
02/01/05 (1050)
02/01/05(1531)
02/01/05(1611)
02/01/05(1651)

PM Emissions (g/Bhp-hr)
Individual Test Run
Blow-by Emissions

Engine Emissions

Composite
Emission Rate

VOID - engine speed trace out of spec.
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.003
0.0055

Blow-by
emissions
eliminated by
installation of the
Condensator

0.106
0.104
0.105
0.122
0.109

0.109
0.102
0.100
0.101

0.114
0.112
0.114
NA
0.1133
0.0010

NA
0.103
0.101
0.102
0.1021
0.0009

VOID - Tests invalidated due to
broken Woods coupling and adapter
plate
0.125
0.109
0.103
0.102
0.112
0.106
0.104

NA
0.111
0.106
0.105
0.114
0.109
0.107
0.109
0.003
Based on the valid test runs only, the mean engine PM emissions during baseline, initial Condensator, and
cumulative Condensator test conditions were 0.113, 0.102, and 0.109 g/Bhp-hr, respectively. Following
the test plan, a t-test was used to evaluate the statistical significance of these changes in PM emissions.
Changes in PM emissions for the initial Condensator test were statistically significant, so a confidence
interval was calculated. After installation of the Condensator, particulate emissions were reduced by 9.8
±1.8 percent. Elimination of the blow by exhaust point accounted for about 4.9 percent of that decrease.
Test results indicate that PM emissions were also lower for the cumulative Condensator tests, but the
reduction was not statistically significant, so a confidence interval was not calculated. The F-test
evaluation summarized in Table 2-7 indicates that the variance of the baseline data compared to the initial
and cumulative Condensator tests are similar. Table 2-5 summarizes the statistics. Detailed COV, t-test,
and F-test analyses are maintained in the GHG Center files.
2-4
-------
Table 2-5. Statistical Analysis of PM Results
Parameter
Mean PM emissions (g/Bhp-hr)
Standard deviation (g/Bhp-hr)
PM delta (g/Bhp-hr)
PM delta (%)
Coefficient of Variation
Statistically significant change (ttest > t0 025
DF)?
95% Confidence Interval
Baseline Tests
0.1133
0.0010
~
~
0.88
~
~
Initial
Condensator Tests
0.1021
0.0009
-0.011
-9.8
0.8
Yes
0.002
Cumulative
Condensator Tests
0.109
0.003
-0.005
-4.0
3.0
No
~
The participate analysis also included an evaluation of the soluble organic fraction (SOF) of the
particulate matter collected from the blow-by tube during the baseline tests. The results are summarized
in Table 2-6.
Table 2-6. Soluble Organic Fraction of Blow-By PM for Baseline Tests
Parameter
Clean Filter weight, g
Filter Weight with Blow-by, g
Weight Blow-by, g
Reweighed Before Extraction, g
Weight After Extraction, g
Extracted Material, g
Cold Start 2
9.40
9.48
0.08
9.47
9.39
0.08
Hot Start 1
9.03
9.20
0.17
9.20
9.04
0.16
Hot Start 2
9.25
9.42
0.17
9.42
9.25
0.17
Hot Start 3
9.30
9.50
0.30
9.49
9.31
0.18
Filter weights after the SOF extraction process are essentially the same as the clean filter weights - all
were within 0.2 percent of the clean filter weight. This indicates that the particulate matter emitted from
the blow by tube was all soluble organic material, so the SOF is 100 percent.
2.3.2. NOX, CO, CO2, THC, and CH4 Emissions

Determination of NOX, CO, CO2, THC, and CFI4 engine emissions was conducted as secondary
verification parameters. Emissions of these pollutants are summarized in Table 2-7.
2-5
-------
Table 2-7. Mean Composite Engine Emission Rates
Parameter
NOX
CO
CO2
THC
Mean Composite
Baseline Emissions
(g/Bhp-hr)
4.59 ±0.03
0.746 ±0.009
561 ±4
0.203 ± 0.008
Mean Composite
Initial Condensator
Emissions (g/Bhp-hr)
4.62 ±0.03
0.72 ±0.16
563 ±5
0.206 ± 0.004
% Decrease
(Increase)
(0.6)
0
(0.4)
(1)
Mean Composite
Cumulative
Condensator Emissions
(g/Bhp-hr)
4.51 ±0.02
0.708 ±0.008
556 ±2
0.226 ±0.010
% Decrease
(Increase)
1.8
5
0.9
(11)
No statistical analyses were specified in the test plan for the secondary verification parameters. The data
indicate that NOX and CO2 emissions were essentially unchanged after installation of the Condensator and
CO emissions were reduced by approximately 5 percent after break-in. Emissions of THC were
extremely low during all test periods (generally less than 9 parts per million). Emissions of Q^were not
detected and are considered negligible.
2-6
-------
3.0 DATA QUALITY
3.1. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES

The GHG Center selects methodologies and instruments for all ETV verifications to ensure a stated level
of data quality in the final results. The test plan described these data quality objectives (DQOs). The test
plan also listed contributing measurements, their accuracy requirements, QA/QC checks, and other data
quality indicators (DQIs) that, if met, would ensure achievement of the DQOs.

The primary verification parameters for this test were reductions in BSFC and PM emissions. The DQO
for these parameters was to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in BSFC or PM emissions of
10 percent or greater. The test plan used historical COV data from a similar verification to relate the
determinations' overall accuracy to the ability to report statistically significant changes in these
parameters. Specifically, the historical COVs for BSFC and PM emissions were 0.7 and 2.2 percent,
respectively. It was predicted that meeting these COVs would allow the Center to report statistically
significant changes for BSFC and PM emissions 1.6 and 5.0 percent respectively, well within the 10
percent DQO. Table 3-1 summarizes the COVs for each data set generated.

Table 3-1. DQOs for BSFC and PM Emissions Results
Parameter
BSFC
(Ib/Bhp-hr)
PM
emissions
(g/Bhp-hr)
Test Condition
Baseline
Initial Condensator
Cumulative Condensator
Baseline
Initial Condensator
Cumulative Condensator
Mean Value
0.390
0.392
0.3867
0.1133
0.1021
0.109
Number of
Valid Tests
3
3
5
3
3
6
Standard
Deviation
0.003
0.004
0.0014
0.0010
0.0009
0.003
COV,
percent
0.691
0.934
0.367
0.874
0.839
3.03
For the BSFC determination, the highest COV achieved was approximately 0.9 percent for the initial
Condensator data set. However, it was determined that conducting additional tests would only have
reduced the COV if all the additional test runs had the same result as the first three tests. While this
situation may have reduced the COV, it would not have changed the conclusion that changes in BSFC
were insignificant. Therefore no additional test runs were conducted and the DQO was attained.

For PM emissions, the Center was able to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction of
approximately 9.8 percent for the initial Condensator tests with a COV of approximately 0.9 percent. The
COV for the Cumulative Condensator tests was approximately 3.0, but was small enough to demonstrate
that cumulative effects were not significant. The DQO for reductions in PM emissions was therefore
attained.

The results in Table 2-3 show that both the initial and cumulative Condensator results for BSFC failed the
t-test and are not statistically significant. Table 2-6 shows that the initial Condensator results for PM
emissions passed the t-test and are statistically significant. The initial Condensator results show a
decrease in PM emissions of 0.0111 ± 0.002 g/Bhp-hr. This is a decrease of 9.84 ± 1.8% from the
baseline test. The cumulative Condensator test results did not pass the t-test, showing no statistically
significant change in PM emissions.
3-1
-------
No explicit DQOs were adopted for NOX, CO, CO2, THC, and QrU because these were secondary
verification parameters. An implicit DQO for these parameters was for all emissions tests to conform to
the specified reference methods. This DQO was achieved, as all emissions testing met the requirements
set forth in the test plan.
3.2. MEASUREMENT SYSTEM QA/QC CHECKS

Tables 3-2 through 3-5 summarize the QA/QC checks and calibrations for the emissions measurement
system, the instrumental analyzers, the particulate emissions determination, and supplementary test
equipment. The checks confirm that the measurement systems and instruments met the proper
specifications and therefore yielded satisfactory results.
3-2
-------
Table 3-2. CVS System Data Quality Indicators and QA/QC Checks
Parameter
Pressure
Temperature
Volumetric
flow rate
Data Quality Indicator Goals
Accuracy
+ 2.0% of
reading
+ 2.0% of
reading
+ 0.5 % of
reading
How
Verified
Calibration
of sensors
with
NIST-
traceable
standard
Calibration
of sensors
with
NIST-
traceable
standard
CVS and
propane
critical
orifice
calibration
Frequency
At initial
installation,
annually, or
after major
repairs
QA/QC Checks
Description
Inspect
calibration
certificates
Inspect
calibration
certificates
Inspect
calibration
data
Propane
composition
verification
via analysis
with FID
Propane
injection
check
Sample bag
leak check
Flow rate
verification
Dilution air
temperature
Frequency
Prior to test
Prior to test
Prior to test
Prior to
placing new
propane
tank in
service
Weekly
Before each
test run
Before each
test run
During each
test run
Allowable
Result
Current
calibration
meeting
DQI goal
Current
calibration
meeting
DQI goal
Current
calibration
meeting
DQI goal
< 0.35 %
difference
from
previously
used and
verified
tank
Difference
between
injected
and
recovered
propane <
+ 2.0%
Maintain
10"Hgfor
10 seconds
< + 5 cfm
of nominal
test point
Between 20
and 30 °C
Actual
Result
Calibration
meets DQI
goal
Calibration
meets DQI
goal
Calibration
meets DQI
goal
Within
allowable
range
Within
allowable
range
Within
allowable
range
Within
allowable
range
All test
runs
within
allowable
range
Date(s)
Completed
1/21/05
1/21/05
1/21/05
1/21/05
1/21/05
1/21/05
1/26/05,
1/27/05,
1/28/05,
1/31/05,
2/1/05
1/26/05,
1/27/05,
1/28/05,
1/31/05,
2/1/05
3-3
-------
Table 3-3. Instrumental Analyzers Data Quality Indicators and QA/QC Checks
Parameter
CO
C02
NOX
THC
CO2 only
NOX only
Data Quality Indicator Goals
Accuracy
+ 1.0%FS
or + 2.0%
for each
calibration
gas

How
Verified
11 -point
calibration
(including
zero) with
gas
divider;
protocol
calibration
gases

Frequency
Monthly

QA/QC Checks
Description
Review and
verify
analyzer
calibration
Gas divider
linearity
verification
Calibration
gas
certification
or naming
(Perfomance
Evaluation
Audit)
Zero gas
verification
Analyzer zero
and span
Wet C02
interference
check
NOX Quench
Check
Converter
Efficiency
Check
Frequency
Once during
test & upon
completion
of new
calibration
Monthly
Prior to
service
Prior to
service
Before and
after each
test run
Monthly
Annually
Monthly
Allowable
Result
Current
calibration
meeting DQI
goal
All points
within +2.0%
of linear fit; FS
within + 0.5%
of known value
Average
concentration
of three
readings must
be within + 1
% for
calibration gas
and NIST-
traceable
reference
material
HC < 1 ppmv
CO < 1 ppmv
CO2 < 400
ppmv
NOX<0.1
ppmv
O2 between 18
and 21%
All values
within +2.0%
of point of +
1.0%ofFS;
zero point
within + 0.2 %
ofFS
CO (0 to 300
ppmv)
interference <
3 ppmv;
CO (> 300
ppmv)
interference <
1 % FS
NOX quench <
3.0 %
Converter
Efficiency
>90%
Actual
Result
Calibration
meets DQI
goal
Within
allowable
range
Within
allowable
range
Within
allowable
range
All within
allowable
range
Within
allowable
range
Within range
Within range
Date
Completed
1/13/05
9/4/04
CO: 9/21/04
CO2: 9/21/04
NOX:
12/22/04
THC: 7/8/04
12/6/04
Before and
after each test
run
1/21/05
10/5/04
1/13/05
3-4
-------
Table 3-4. Particulate Matter Analysis Data Quality Indicators and QA/QC Checks
Data Quality Indicator Goals
Accuracy
+ 1.0ug
How
Verified
NIST-
traceable scale
calibration,
weighing
room controls,
filter weight
control
Frequency
Daily
QA/QC Checks
Description
NIST-traceable
calibration
weight cross-
check
Weight room
temperature
Weight room
relative
humidity
Reference filter
weight change
Frequency
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Allowable
Result
Weight
change <1.0
^g
Between 19
and 25 °C
Between 35
and 53% RH
Weight
change <20
l^g
Actual
Result
Within
allowable
range
Within
allowable
range
Within
allowable
range
Within
allowable
range
Date Completed
1/24/05,
1/31/05
1/26/05, 1/27/05,
1/28/05, 1/31/05,
2/1/05
1/26/05, 1/27/05,
1/28/05, 1/31/05,
2/1/05
1/26/05, 1/27/05,
1/28/05, 1/31/05,
2/1/05
Table 3-5. Supplementary Instruments and Additional QA/QC Checks
Description
Test cell Wet/dry bulb
thermometer calibration
Test cell Barometer
calibration
Test cell temperature
Test fuel analysis
Frequency
Monthly
Weekly
Each test run
Prior to testing
Allowable Result
Within + 1.0 °F NIST-
traceable standard
Within +0.1"Hg of
NIST-traceable
standard
Between 68 and 86 °F
Conforms to 40 CFR
§86.1313 specifications
(See Appendix A- 1)
Actual Result
Meets specifications
Meets specifications
Within allowable
range
Meets specifications
Date Completed
1/11/05
1/25/05
1/26/05, 1/27/05,
1/28/05, 1/31/05,
2/1/05
1/25/05
3-5
-------
Table 3-6. Dynamometer Data Quality Indicators and QA/QC Checks
Parameter
Speed
Load
(Torque
Sensor)
Data Quality Indicator Goals
Accuracy
+ 2.0%
+0.5%
How
Verified
60-tooth
wheel
combined
with
frequency
counter
NIST-
traceable
weights
and torque
arm
Frequency
At initial
installation,
annually, or
after major
repairs
Weekly
Description
Inspect
calibration
certificate
Inspect
calibration
certificate
Torque trace
acceptance
test
QA/QC Checks
Frequency
Prior to test
Prior to test
and after
new
calibration
Each test run
Allowable
Result
Current
calibration
meeting DQI
goal
Current
calibration
meeting DQI
goal
+ 2.5 Ib.ft Re-
values < 550
lb.ft, + 5.0 Ib.ft
for values
< 1050 Ib.ft,
+ 10 Ib.ft Re-
values^ 1550
Ib.ft
Actual
Result
Calibration
meets DQI
goal
Calibration
meets DQI
goal
All within
allowable
range
Date
Completed
1/22/05
1/22/05
After each
test run
3.3. AUDITS

The GHG Center's QA manager performed the audit of data quality (ADQ) by randomly selecting at least
10% of the data, implementing an independent analysis, and comparing the results to those cited in this
report. The QA manager then drafted a report which describes the audit and submitted it directly to the
GHG Center Director. In general, the audit results were satisfactory.

The GHG Center specifies internal Performance Evaluation Audits (PEAs), as applicable, on critical
measurements of every verification test. For this verification, the Center used the SwRI quality
infrastructure for an internal PEA for this test. SwRI maintains a set of NIST-certified gas standard
mixtures in the concentration ranges applicable to these measurements. The monthly calibration
procedure requires that the DEER challenge the analytical instruments with these standards as a
performance check independent of the calibration gas standards (internally referred to as calibration gas
naming). The GHG Center used this internal check in lieu of a blind PEA. Results for each analyzer type
are shown to be acceptable (within ±1% for calibration gas and NIST-traceable reference material) in
Table 3-3.
3-6
-------
4.0 REFERENCES

1. Test and Quality Assurance Plan for the New Condensator, Inc. — The Condensator Diesel
Engine Retrofit Crankcase Ventilation System (SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-36), December, 2004,
www.epa.gov/etv.

2. Generic Verification Protocol for Diesel Exhaust Catalysts, Particulate Filters, and Engine
Modification Control Technologies for Highway and Nonroad Use Diesel Engines, Research
Triangle Institute, EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CR826152-01-3, January 2002,
www. epa. gov/etv.

3. Control of Emissions from New and In-use Highway Vehicles and Engines, Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Part 86, U.S. Office of the Federal Register, Washington, DC, 2003.

4. Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude
Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products, American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM
D1298-99, West Conshohocken, PA. 2001.

5. Standard Test Method for Estimation of Hydrogen Content of Aviation Fuels, American Society
for Testing and Materials, ASTM D3343-95, West Conshohocken, PA. 2001.

6. Standard Test Method for Rapid Field Test for Trace Lead in Unleaded Gasoline, American
Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM D3348-98, West Conshohocken, PA. 2001

7. Standard Practice for Dealing with Outlying Observations (E 178-02), American Society for
Testing and Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. 2002.

8. Environmental Technology Verification of New Condensator Diesel Engine Retrofit Crankcase
Ventilation System for Use With Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI
03.11259), April 2005.
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A-l. TEST FUEL ANALYSIS
Chevron
Phillips
O^WCwMrW
fint
DATE OF SHIPMENT
12-20-04

CUSTOMER PO NO.
542906G

SALES ORDER NO.
6001641

TRAILER NO. 388

MFG. DATE: 11-2004
SHELF LIFE: UNDETERMINED
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

DIESEL .95 LS CERT FUEL (#2)
LOT 4KP65281
TESTS
Specific Gravity, 60/60
API Gravity
Corrosion. 50°C. 3 hrs
Sulfur, ppm
Flash Point, °F
Pour Point, "F
Cloud Point, °F
Viscosity, cs 40°C
Carbon vrt%
Hydrogen wt%
Carbon Density (gm/gal)
Net Heat of Combustion BTU/LB
Participate Hatter, mg/1
Cetane Index
Get arts Number

DISTILLATION. "F
IBP
5%
10%
20%
50%
60%
70%
80*
90%
95%
EP
Loss
Resi due

HYDROCARBON TYPE. VOL*
Aromatlcs
Olefins
Saturates
SFC Aromatics, wt*
Polynuclear Aromatics,
EJN: teh
12/20/04
wt*
0.8436
36.23
1A
346.9
148.5
-15
-2
2.53
86.76
13.20
2770
18455
0,6
47.6
46.4
358.0
389.8
409.8
437.5
'459.3
479.8
498.7
517.3
536.5
559.8
590.0
620.1
645.8
0.3
1 .0
29.4
1 .2
69.4
31.59
7.40
SPECIFICATIONS

O.S398 - 0.8654
32 - 36
3 Max
300 - 500
130 Min
0 Max
10 Max
2.2 - 3.2
Report
Report
2750 - 2806
Report
15 Max
46 - 48
46 - 48
340 - 400

400 - 460

470 - 540

560 - 630

610 - 690
28 - 31
Report
Report
Report
Report
"D, ft. "Poem
ASTM D-4052
ASTM D-1250
ASTM D-130
ASTM D-5453
ASTM D-93
ASTM D-97
ASTM D-2500
ASTM D-445
ASTM D-3343
ASTM D-3343
Calculated
ASTM D-3338
ASTM D-2276
ASTM D-976
ASTM D-613

ASTrl P.86
ASTM D-1319
O.G. Doerr
Fuels Unit Team Leader
A-2
-------