ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY

PO BOX 3222 – 193 OTTO STREET 

PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 

(360) 385-1733 – (800) 982-0136 

FAX (360) 385-5177 

April 1, 2011 

Improving Regulations Docket 

Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA Docket Center 

Mail Code: 2822T 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

VIA EMAIL: R10improvingregulations@epa.gov

 ImprovingRegulations.SuggestionBox@epa.gov

 Dunbar.bill@epa.gov

RE: Comments on EPA Docket for Improving Regulations and Regulatory Reform 

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0155 (Air) 

Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) is submitting comments for EPA’s consideration in 

response to President Obama’s Executive Order No. 13563, “Improving Regulations and 

Regulatory Review.” Specifically, our comments relate to the numerous regulations and 

concomitant control technology requirements for compression ignition reciprocating internal 

combustion engines (“CI RICE”). 

AP&T delivers energy to over 12,000 customers in 36 communities across Alaska. We are 

recognized as one of the most progressive utilities in the State, operating in the very challenging 

Alaskan environment, and providing the lowest cost energy we can, primarily from renewable 

energy resources. Our employees own the company, and they live and work in the communities 

where our facilities are located. We have a strong commitment to providing reliable and costeffective energy within the context of safety, security, health and environment. 

AP&T operates more than 75 CI RICE ranging in size from 33 kW to 2,800 kW. Rules 

promulgated by EPA under NSPS Subpart IIII and NESHAP 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ present a 

complex regulatory maze that is very difficult to understand and operate within. In particular, 

we have found NESHAP Subpart ZZZZ to be seriously flawed as promulgated, and it will have 

significant, detrimental economic consequences for our stakeholders with no real health or 

environmental benefit. 

A brief analysis of Subpart ZZZZ and its flaws are provided in the attached documentation. We 

would request EPA to reconsider this rule and provide an exemption from Subpart ZZZZ for 
April 1, 2011 

Page 2 of 6 

2

each CI RICE deployed as backup for hydropower and other renewable energy generation AND

an exemption for each CI RICE which otherwise operates for less than 500 hours per year as 

determined on a multi-year basis. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments and suggestions for improving EPA’s 

regulatory programs. If there are any questions regarding our comments, please contact Ms. 

Patsy Caldwell at 360.385.1733 (x135) or email at patsy.c@aptalaska.com. 

 

Robert S. Grimm, President 

cc: Edward Settle, Tapis Energy Group, Inc. 
April 1, 2011 

Page 3 of 6 

3

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Compression Ignition Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Subpart ZZZZ was 

published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2010 and became effective on May 3, 2010. New 

CI RICE are now subject to the rule requirements, and existing CI RICE must meet the rule 

requirements by May 3, 2013. This document is focused primarily on existing CI RICE. 

Subpart ZZZZ will require about the same capital cost expenditure for a major source or a 

non-major source. A major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions is generally a 

stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or 

more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year. An area source 

of HAP emissions is a source that is not a major source, and there is no de minimis level of 

emissions for an area source. The capital cost for rule compliance is about the same for major 

source engines that run as base load and area source engines that rarely operate. 

AP&T’s engines are not eligible for exemption from Subpart ZZZZ as written. Relevant to 

many of Alaska’s electric utilities, Section 63.6590 of NESHAP Subpart ZZZZ identifies 

exemptions including emergency RICE, limited use RICE, and Alaska area sources not 

accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS). First, the rule specifically states that 

RICE used for peak shaving are not considered to be emergency engines, and RICE used to 

supply power to an electric grid are not considered to be emergency engines. Second, limited 

use RICE are those engines which operate less than 100 hours per year. Third, area sources not 

accessible by the FAHS is an exemption for very remote area sources in Alaska. Many rural 

Alaskan coastal communities like those served by AP&T are considered part of the FAHS 

because they are served by the Alaska Marine Highway with drive-on ferry service. 

Subpart ZZZZ does not, in fact, expressly limit HAP emissions. The rule primarily limits 

emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) to 23 parts per million on a dry volume basis at 15 percent 

oxygen (ppmvd at 15% O2) or a reduction in CO emissions of 70 percent or more. The rule also 

sets forth requirements for ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel use, particulate matter controls, operations 

and maintenance practices, initial and periodic source testing, and various monitoring, reporting, 

and recordkeeping activities. 

The final rule limited HAP emissions through standards for carbon monoxide (CO) on the basis 

of a relationship between CO emissions reductions and formaldehyde emissions reductions from 

CI stationary engines. Additionally, PM emissions reductions by the use of after-treatment 

technologies were assumed to also reduce HAP emissions. Though EPA refers to previous 

studies to support a surrogate approach using CO, we could not find the conclusive detail to fully 

support the assertions that: (a) formaldehyde and CO emission rates are strongly related across 

all types and sizes of CI RICE, and (b) formaldehyde is the best indicator of all HAP, and (c) 

controls for CO will result in the same reduction in formaldehyde and all other HAP across all 

types and sizes of CI RICE. 
April 1, 2011 

Page 4 of 6 

4

Finally, EPA decided to use CO as a surrogate for formaldehyde emission control. However, 

EPA proceeded to focus on the benefit of the rule as though the intent of the rule was the 

reduction of CO emissions. Given the large amount of CO emissions that can be controlled with 

the control technology required, this is a spurious approach as it leads a less-informed reader to 

conclude that the overall regulatory impact of NESHAP ZZZZ is slight and the cost/benefit is 

very favorable. (Observe that CO and PM are criteria pollutants, not HAP, and the communities 

served by AP&T are small and designated attainment for all criteria pollutants). 

The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for Subpart ZZZZ is substantially deficient. Table 

4-8 of the RIA indicates that the rule would reduce emissions of HAP by 312 tons from major 

sources and 703 tons from area sources for a total of 1,014 tons. The RIA further states (p. 7-11) 

that “Due to data, resource, and methodology limitations, we were unable to estimate the benefits 

associated with the 1,014 tons of hazardous air pollutants that would be reduced as a result of 

this final rule.” We submit that the estimated reduction for area sources is grossly overstated for 

purposes of Alaska’s contribution to both baseline and reduction, because the CI RICE 

supporting many Alaskan communities operate far less than 1000 hours per year. 

HAP emissions data from one engine were used to represent large CI RICE for the rule.

The RIA references a Memorandum to Sims Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group: 

“Emissions Data for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines”, dated February 4, 2002. This 

memorandum acknowledges that HAP testing has been conducted only on a limited sample of 

engines. Acknowledging this limitation in the current RIA, EPA attempted to incorporate 

additional test data in the Response to Comments on the rule. However, the additional testing 

did not appear to be for the suite of HAP constituents which are targeted by the rule. Further, 

our experience and research suggests that emissions from diesel engines may often be dependent 

on engine speed, cylinder geometry, peak pressures and temperatures, air-to-fuel ratio, and more. 

EPA did not consider Alaska’s unique standby generating circumstances when setting 

forth Subpart ZZZZ. EPA has assumed that engines subject to the Subpart ZZZZ rule will 

operate at least 1,000 hours per year. However, for many Alaskan utilities such as AP&T, 

standby generation will be operated for only a few hours each month over many years and then 

dispatched for one or more months to provide energy during the infrequent interruption of 

renewable resources. AP&T believes that EPA’s definitions of emergency and limited use are 

inconsistent and far more stringent than past policy. If EPA were to exempt from Subpart ZZZZ 

each electric utility CI RICE that actually operates less than 500 hours per year (especially over a 

multi-year period), AP&T engines could be exempt from NESHAP ZZZZ under such conditions. 

EPA did not carefully consider the harsh testing environment and limited use of Alaska’s 

CI RICE when establishing test requirements. Subpart ZZZZ requires an initial performance 

test of each CI RICE and a test every 8,760 hours of operation or 3 years, whichever comes first. 

EPA’s cost estimate for performance testing is based on $1,165 per day of testing for a portable 

analyzer. Three 1-hour runs, on two engines each day, is estimated to run $583 per engine. 

Had EPA understood the unique circumstances of AP&T’s operation, it would be clear that such 

requirement not only creates a significant economic burden and operational inconvenience on 

AP&T, but this will also have an unnecessary effect on the environment. Testing an AP&T CI 
April 1, 2011 

Page 5 of 6 

5

RICE every 8,760 hours of operation would likely result in more than a decade between testing 

events, whereas testing an EMD every 3 years will provide little benefit given the low number of 

hours of actual operation and unexpected change in operational characteristics. Nevertheless, 

operation for the initial testing and periodic performance tests currently required by NESHAP 

ZZZZ will cause fossil fuel to be consumed in significant amounts along with the unnecessary 

emissions of criteria pollutants, HAP and carbon dioxide. 

EPA’s logic was faulty when responding to comments on performance testing. On page 228 

of the Response to Comments, APA requested testing using representative engines where 

multiple equivalent engines exist. EPA’s response was as follows: 

“For existing engines, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the performance of a 

compliance test on a single engine can be used to show compliance for the equivalent 

engines located at the same facility. EPA cannot be certain that the engines have been 

operated identically, have had the same operational, deterioration, and malfunction 

experiences, and have undergone the same maintenance, all of which could affect the 

emissions. Therefore, EPA does not believe that it is appropriate to allow the use of the 

test on a single existing engine to show compliance for other engines that are the same 

make and model. EPA has attempted to have as little testing as is necessary to ensure that 

engines are meeting the standard.” 

We find the quoted statement from EPA in the paragraph above to be rather ironic considering 

that apparently a single test of a large Caterpillar engine has established the emissions basis and 

control requirements for all large CI RICE regardless of age, manufacturer, maintenance 

practices, engine speed, cylinder configuration, fuel injection timing, etc. 

The Response to Comments includes the following statement by EPA as well in response to a 

commenter who requested a 5-year window for testing: 

“EPA believes that the requirements in §63.6612(b) of the rule are appropriate. 

Performance tests older than 2 years may not be representative of the current emissions 

from the engine. Maintenance of the engine requires replacement of parts that may affect 

the combustion characteristics of the engine, which in turn will affect the emissions of the 

engine. In addition, EPA believes that the 2-year limit of performance test reports will 

also allow sufficient time for the sources to perform any applicable testing at their facility 

before the compliance deadline.” 

Here again, we find irony in this statement considering the age of the test data from one single 

engine collected prior to 2000 which was used as the basis for the requirements that apply to 

large CI RICE at area sources. 

The Add-on Control Technology required to comply with Subpart ZZZZ is unreasonably 

costly and does not provide a attendant benefit. For AP&T’s largest engine, the cost of addon control is estimated to be in the range of $75,000 to $100,000 as estimated using the control 

cost data in the RIA. This does not consider the much more expensive construction costs in the 

small, isolated communities with challenging ambient conditions. But this cost is required to be 
April 1, 2011 

Page 6 of 6 

6

spent for an engine that during a normal operating year will operate very little while hydropower 

serves the community’s energy needs. 

We evaluated the cost/benefit of the rule in a manner consistent with best available control 

technology (cost of technology divided by quantity of pollutant reduced). Looking at a typical 

scenario of the CI RICE operating for exactly 50 hours during a year, we estimate HAP 

emissions at less than 0.01 tons per year (approximately 16 pounds). At an annualized cost of 

nearly $14,000, the rule suggests that a cost of $1.7 million per ton of HAP removed is a 

reasonable cost for a small community with clean air in remote Alaska to bear. We would 

disagree, concluding that $1.7 million per ton of HAP is not a reasonable cost. We would further 

state that an emphasis on co-benefits due to CO/PM reduction is spurious and not rational 

considering Alaska’s air quality. 

The EPA has not conducted a representative analysis of urban air toxics concentrations in 

the small communities of Alaska. We viewed the results of 1996 Modeled Ambient 

Concentrations for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde (provided on the Technology Transfer 

Network, National Air Toxics Assessment website). Interestingly, much of the US has no 

exposure to formaldehyde or acetaldehyde. Perhaps of greater immediate interest is that the EPA 

did not conduct modeling analyses for Alaska, so no indication of concentrations in Alaska have 

been provided. The same is true for the Modeled Human Exposure to estimate cancer and noncancer risks to the populations – exposure was assessed for the United States, except for Alaska 

and Hawaii. EPA’s rule might well serve the citizens of Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago, or New 

York City, but for Alaskan communities, it is a high cost with little benefit resulting only in 

much higher electricity rates. 

Based on our review of the basis for NESHAP ZZZZ as found in the Urban Air Toxics Strategy 

Area Source Rule, we conclude that EPA has done a poor job of analyzing air quality 

concentrations and exposures in Alaska. Thus, it is by extension of results in the Lower 48 that 

Alaska has become subject to onerous rules which are very costly for Alaskans and do not result 

in a significant reduction in cancer and non-cancer risk to population.