1

Summary of Meeting with NTSP 

Regarding the Proposed Stationary Existing RICE NESHAP 

July 27, 2009 

Attendees 

Bob Wayland, EPA Michele Blazek, AT&T 

Melanie King, EPA Barbara Patton, AT&T 

Tanya Parise, AGTI Andy Mekelburg, Verizon 

Chet Thompson, Crowell & Moring LLP Julianne Barnum, Verizon 

Larry Bernson, Alcatel-Lucent Kathleen Tobin, Verizon (by phone) 

 Robin Seguin, Qwest (by phone) 

 

Purpose of Meeting 

 The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the proposed national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing stationary reciprocating 

internal combustion engines (RICE). The proposed NESHAP for existing stationary 

RICE was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2009 (74 FR 9698). 

Summary of Meeting

General

The National Telecommunications Safety Panel (NTSP) requested to meet with 

EPA to discuss the recently proposed NESHAP for stationary engines. NTSP was 

represented at the meeting by a consultant with Crowell & Moring and various 

telecommunications companies. A presentation was provided by NTSP and is included 

as Attachment 1 to this meeting summary. The summary of this meeting will be 

available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708). 

The main issues that NTSP discussed during the meeting are shown in Attachment 1 and 

the specific issues addressed are presented in the following sections. 

1. Emergency Engines 

 Representatives of NTSP indicated that the telecommunications industry has 

numerous stationary emergency engines. The majority of these emergency engines are 

located at area sources and are all different sizes. EPA told NTSP that it has more 

latitude with respect to stationary engines located at area sources versus major sources. 

NTSP said that it was exclusively meeting with EPA to discuss issues related to engines 

at area sources. It is critical for the telecommunications industry to have reliable power, 

which serves important functions including phone networks such as land lines, cell 

phones, and 911 emergency service, voice-over-internet protocol, which many people 

rely on, internet connection, which services financial units, airlines and the Federal 

Aviation Administration, as well as other systems. 

 

EPA indicated that the rule is on a court-ordered scheduled to be finalized by 

February 10, 2010. EPA has had discussions with various industry groups, including 
2

folks representing the pipeline industry. The option of splitting the rule into two separate 

rulemakings for diesel and gas engines has been discussed, but it is unlikely that separate 

rules will be developed, according to EPA. 

 Members from the telecommunications industry indicated that the stationary 

emergency engines they operate are typically run for less than 50 hours per year and 

usually that is only for maintenance and testing purposes. EPA pointed out that if owners 

operate under bona fide emergency situations there is no time limit of such operation. 

EPA said that its primary concern is regarding peak shaving units and does not wish for 

owners to be selling power to the grid. NTSP stated that under certain State rules, 

stationary emergency generators are permitted so they cannot operate more than a certain 

number of hours per year, but noted that it understands that EPA allows unlimited hours 

for emergency operation. 

2. Standards for Emergency Engines 

 NTSP indicated that there is some confusion related to performance testing for 

stationary emergency engines. Stationary emergency engines are expected to meet 

emission standards without adding aftertreatment and since no performance testing is 

required, members of NTSP questioned the point of having numerical emission limits. 

NTSP also noted that engines may not be able to meet the proposed 40 parts per million 

carbon monoxide limit and pointed out that other groups like the Engine Manufacturers 

Association and Caterpillar have indicated the same concerns. NTSP indicated that it 

believed EPA could carve out emergency engines located at area sources from the Urban 

Air Toxics Strategy. Alternatively, it was recommended by NTSP that EPA explore 

Generally Available Control Technology for emergency engines greater than 500 

horsepower located at area sources and possibly implement work practice standards. 

EPA noted that it would explore these options and that it has received numerous 

comments on this issue. EPA indicated that it might be possible to finalize requirements 

that would be less onerous. 

3. Performance Testing 

Even if EPA does not require performance testing for stationary emergency 

engines under the final rule, NTSP was concerned that some regulatory agencies will 

require it. The engines are not designed to run at high load so owners would be required 

to bring in load banks in order to conduct testing and this is a concern to NTSP. 

4. Recordkeeping 

NTSP recommended that EPA allow affected sources to keep records of 

compliance and other necessary documentation in a central location as opposed to onsite. Many sites are remotely located, plus more and more facilities are moving to 

electronic recordkeeping, NTSP said. EPA noted that it is thinking about this and did not 

foresee it being a problem to implement this provision in the final rule. 
3

5. Emergency Definition 

The current definition of emergency engine does not allow for participation in an 

emergency demand response program since it is considered a financial agreement, NTSP 

said. However, this type of operation is not peak shaving, NTSP added. In many cases, 

the owner of the building has an agreement with the tenant to supply power within the 

building, if needed, but the power is not sold back to the grid, according to NTSP. EPA 

indicated that it needs to clarify this issue in the final rule and that it did not intend to 

exclude such operation. 

6. Cost Impact 

In the handout provided by NTSP, examples of oxidation catalyst capital costs 

obtained from an engine distributor are provided on page 11. NTSP also provided the 

quote letter from the engine distributor, which is included as Attachment 2 to these 

meeting minutes. NTSP made the point that EPA’s costs are far below actual costs and 

that the financial impact on the telecommunications industry is significant. EPA said that 

it received numerous comments on this issue and that it will redo the cost analysis for the 

final rule. 

7. Feasibility of Controls 

There may be an issue with the feasibility of applying add-on controls to 

stationary emergency engines, NTSP said. In addition, there may also be issues 

preventing application of aftertreatment based on problems with older buildings, space 

limitations, code issues, and so on. Also, there is a concern over the availability of 

controls, NTSP said. 

Recommendation by NTSP

 Based on the concerns raised during this meeting, NTSP recommended that EPA 

exempt emergency engines at area sources from the final rule or adopt management 

practices for these engines. EPA indicated that it will talk to the Office of General 

Counsel on some of the issues raised by NTSP. EPA pointed out that it needs to have 

something specific for management practices, if that is to be a valid option. Members of 

NTSP indicated that it could submit more information to EPA on this and EPA responded 

that it would be glad to get more information to support the rulemaking. 
4

Attachment 1 
Proposed National Emission Stan

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Re

Internal Combustion Eng
2

Who We Are

National Telecommunications S• Alcatel‐Lucent, AT&T, Embarq, Spr

Corporation, Verizon Communicat

Windstream Communications, Inc

• Wireline, Wireless and Data Servic

throughout the U.S.

• Owners/Operators of tens of thou

emergency RICE used to support c

infrastructure and maintain servic

the event of commercial power di
3

Agenda

• Background

– How we use these engines

– Proposed rule

• Issues of Concern

– Inclusion of emergency engines– GACT v. MACT

– CO standard for emergency engines

– Recordkeeping requirements

– Definition of Emergency Stationary RICE

• Impact• Recommendations
4

Background ‐ How We Us

Engines

• Provide backup power to:

– Data Communication Services

– Voice Communication

• Wireline• Wireless• 911 Service

– Other emergency services

• Reliable communication is a critical su

in Homeland Security National Respon
5

Background – Propose

• Proposed amendments to the RICE NE

63 Subpart ZZZZ) published in the Fede

March 5, 2009

– proposes standards for existing stationary 

power rating located at an area source of 

– proposes standard of 40 ppmvd CO at 15% 

emergency CI engines > 500 hp at area so

– includes on‐site recordkeeping requireme

sources

– includes definition of emergency RICE tha

those participating in regional emergency 

response programs
6

Concerns with the Proposed Ru

Proposed emission limit of 40 ppmvd 

for emergency CI engines > 500 hp at 

•Inclusion of emergency engines•EPA has discretion to set standards at ei

GACT levels.

– GACT allows for work practice stand

sources

– GACT analysis not conducted for sta

emergency CI > 500 hp at area sour

•Numeric limit based on non‐representat
7

Concerns with the Proposed Ru

• Existing engines may not be able to me

ppmvd at 15% O2 limit without add‐on 

– Caterpillar (Docket ID No. EPA‐HQ‐OAR‐20

states that “the numerical limits must be s

all properly maintained engines to comply

“current proposed values are insufficient t

this result”

– Engine Manufacturers Association (Docke

OAR‐2008‐0708‐0091) states that “most e

engines would need to install some form o

emissions controls or would need to be re

new engine”
8

Concerns with the Proposed Ru

Performance testing• Preamble states that area sources subj

emission limits must conduct initial pe

• Proposed Rule states:

– Existing emergency RICE > 500 hp at area 

numeric emission limit

– Existing stationary emergency RICE locate

not required to test

• Creates Ambiguity
9

Concerns with the Proposed Ru

On‐site recordkeeping requirements fo• Requires records be kept readily access

at least 2 years after the date of each o

• Many NTSP sites are unmanned and hav

storage area on‐site for maintaining rec
10

Concerns with the Proposed Ru

Definition of Emergency Stationary RICE for participation in Emergency Demand R•Emergency Demand Response is not economic d

and engines are not used as:

– Peaking power production unit providin

grid during times of high demand

– Peak shaving units generating electricit

the cost of commercial power exceeds 

operating generators
11

Impact on Telecommunicatio

Cost of installing add‐on oxidation catal

technology on existing engines is signific

actual per engine cost of controls is high

estimates.

Per engine cost estimates 749 HP 1,81Engine Distributor (Caterpillar)

estimated minimum capital cost

$36,000 $5

EPA estimated capital cost($11.3 x HP ‐$170, Docket ID No. EPA‐HQ‐OAR‐2008‐

0708‐0017) )

$8,294 $2
12

Impact on Telecommunicatio

• Estimated cost from engine distributor does n

– Annual operating cost, including periodic catalyst m

replacement

– Exhaust system resizing & muffler replacement if ad

causes backpressure of the exhaust system to exce

– Structural changes to accommodate additional wei

– Expense for temporary generator‐set if required du

• For one NTSP member with approx. 1,750 eng

all emergency CI engines were required to inst

controls, the initial capital cost would range fr

million to more than $150 million

• Additional costs associated with testing
13

Impact on Telecommunicatio

Feasibility of engine retrofit• American Petroleum Institute (Docket ID No. 

2008‐0708‐0242) states that “Engines used in 

applications such as ... emergency generators

achieve stable operating temperature as a re

on/off cycle demands. Therefore, it is not fea

reasonable performance from post‐combusti

systems.”

• Site characteristics may physically prevent th

control technologies and the associated supp
14

Impact on Telecommunicati

Availability of control equipment

– American Petroleum Institute (Dock

HQ‐OAR‐2008‐0708‐0242) states th

demand for catalytic controls that w

initiated by the rule in its current pro

has serious implications for marketdemand/capacity imbalance, feasib

installing controls within the manda

timeframe, and the rule cost effectiv

analysis”
15

Recommendation

• Exempt from regulation all emergen

operated at area sources

• Alternatively, delete the numeric sta

adopt GACT management practices 

emergency CI engines > 500 hp locasources

– GACT management practices should be de

following manufacturer operation & main

guidelines or owner developed maintenan
16

Recommendation

• Modify 40 CFR 63.6660(c) to add a c

sources stating “records can be maisite or off‐site for the required reten

• Amend definition of emergency stat

to include units that participate in edemand response programs
5

Attachment 2 
 

259 Lee Industrial Blvd., Austell, GA TEL: (770) 941-2424 FAX: (770) 941-2411 

1 

April 16th, 2009 

Bo Godwin 

Senior Project Manager/Design & Construction 

ATT Corporate Real Estate 

300 Northpoint Parkway 

Alpharetta, GA 30005 

Ref: Emissions Control Equipment Additions 

Dear Bo, 

In follow-up to our earlier conversations, I have evaluated the addition of Oxidation Catalyst to three 

different sized gensets and have provided you with breakdowns on some budget costs for the addition of 

this equipment. Please be aware, that costs will vary from jobsite to jobsite depending on whether the 

gensets are indoor or outdoor and whether the exhaust systems will have to be redesigned to reduce 

excessive backpressures upon addition of this equipment. 

The gensets I evaluated are typical of units that were installed within the last 10 years and would also be 

comparative of units installed within the last 15-20 years, given that emissions control technology of engines 

has not significantly changed from the 1990’s to early 2000. For your benefit, I have also included copies of 

typical emissions levels of some gensets that were installed in the last 10 years,. 

Prior to addition of this equipment, each site will have to be individually evaluated to verify the required 

design modifications required to add the Oxidation Catalyst. In order to help you understand the process 

involved in this evaluation, I have included a list of items that will have to be reviewed and evaluated for 

each site prior to selecting the size and specifics of the catalyst. 

I hope this information is beneficial and please let me know how else I can be of assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Romey Schwieterman 

Romey Schwieterman, M.E. 

Senior Sales Engineer 

Yancey Power Systems 

Direct: 770-419-0677 

Cell: 770-778-9018 
 

259 Lee Industrial Blvd., Austell, GA TEL: (770) 941-2424 FAX: (770) 941-2411 

2 

Budget Costing

 

 Cat 3412 Cat 3512 Cat 3516 

Item 500kW 1250kW 2000kW

Cost of Catalyst $22,000 $35,000 $87,000 

(80% - 90% CO Reduction) 

Installation for Outdoor Unit $7,000 - $10,000 - $15,000 - 

 $20,000 $35,000 $45,000 

Installation Costs for Indoor Unit $7,000 - $10,000 - $15,000 - 

 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 

Costs for Consultant $3,000 – $3,000 - $3,000 - 

 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 

Costs to test equipment $4,000 – $5,000 - $5,000 - 

 $7,500 $10,000 $10,000 

Costs for Genset Technician 

Notes: 

1. Costs for the catalyst include the catalyst, typical mounting hardware and freight to the jobsite. 

2. Installation cost is based on an average estimated best case to worst case scenario. Costs do not 

include any expense for a temporary genset. 

3. Consultant costs are the costs associated with re-engineering the genset exhaust system, enclosure 

or indoor installation. This includes the costs to properly size/calculate the proper size of 

components. 

4. Costs to test the equipment include technician time and emissions measurements. 

5. All costs are estimates, based on limited information and no specific jobsite information. 

6. All costs are based on obtaining the product or service from Yancey Power Systems. Additional 

Contractor mark-ups are not included. 
 

259 Lee Industrial Blvd., Austell, GA TEL: (770) 941-2424 FAX: (770) 941-2411 

3 

Project Site Evaluation Criteria

1. Determine whether the genset is indoor or outdoor. 

2. Identify the CO level of reduction required for each specific site. 

3. Research the CO level of the genset at production. 

4. Measure the CO levels of the genset in the field to obtain a baseline. 

5. Measure the backpressure of each genset to obtain a baseline. 

6. Size a catalyst system based on emissions requirements and engine backpressure limits. 

7. Evaluate the exhaust system backpressure limits for each genset and determine whether the 

exhaust system will have to be replaced and redesigned to accommodate the addition of a catalyst. 

8. Evaluate the support mechanisms for the exhaust system and catalyst. If indoor, evaluate the 

location and space to accommodate the addition of the new (and upsized) equipment. If outdoor in 

an enclosure, evaluate the enclosure strength or addition of support frame to mount the new 

equipment. 

9. Verify backpressure with the new exhaust system. 

10. Verify emissions levels. 

Project Consideration Parameters

1. How disruptive will the addition of a catalyst be to the facility? 

2. In the event the addition of the catalyst causes the backpressure of the exhaust system to exceed 

factory guideline limits, the exhaust system will have to be resized and replaced with a new muffler 

and/or exhaust piping. This procedure can be very disruptive to the jobsite and result in the genset 

being taken out of service for several days, weeks or even months. Replacing a muffler on an 

outdoor unit may result in the enclosure having to be removed and taken off site to access a typical 

“spacesaver” type of silencer, which are typically mounted inside the enclosure. Replacing an 

exhaust system for an indoor installation may result in sever modifications to the muffler and exhaust 

piping runs. 

3. Will a temporary genset be required during the conversion? What modifications/additions to the site 

will have to be performed to accommodate connecting a rental genset? 

4. What structural changes will have to be made to accommodate the additional weight of the catalyst 

and additional changes required? 

5. Will the site accommodate cranes or other lifting devices to remove or install equipment? 

6. Will work be done during normal business hours or off hours? 

7. Will the system have to be retested? If so, how will this impact the facilities operations?