- 1
-

December 4, 2008 Mr. Jaime Pagan Energy Strategies Group US Environmental Protection Agency D243
- 01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 RE: Resolution of Outstanding Issues in 40 CFR 60 Subpart IIII, Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, as Applied to Larger CI engines. Dear Mr. Pagan: The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) represents the major manufacturers of internal combustion engines used in stationary s ources that are now regulated by the rec entl y promulgated Compression Ignition (CI) NSPS (40 CFR 60 Subpart IIII). EMA worked closel y with you and your office during the development of the proposed and final rules, and EMA member companies are now working to ensure final compliance to the standards established in the rule. Although EMA believes that the CIN SPS final rule generall y adopts a technically feasible level of control for most categories of stationary C I engines, we have continuing concerns regarding the final NSPS rule as it applies to very large engines , those over 30 liters per cylinder (30 l/cyl). The requirements and emissions standards for those engines are identified in Section 60.4204 (c) and Section 60.4205 (d) of the final regulation
. Manufacturers’ concerns include several issues that previousl y have been discussed with you in both written submittals and meetings over the last years. That correspondence included letters and comments submitted by EMA and Euromot dated 29 September 2006, 27 November 2006, 13 April 2007, and 29 June 2007. We last addressed the issues at an EPA/EMA meeting at your offices on 27 August 2007. Specifically, the previously identified issues that need resolution include the following:

 The NSPS establishes a single set of emission standards for engines greater than 30 l/cyl that do not recognize nor address the broad and diverse facility categories that utilize such engines. Further, these standards do not reflect best demonstrated technology
.
 The NSPS exemption related to the use of aftertreatment technology on emergency

engines also should apply

to engines greater than 30 l/cyl.

 The geographic areas where higher sulfur fuels are allowed or that are subject to alternative emission requirements in the NSPS should be the same as allowed in other NSPS regulations.

 EPA Method 5 is not adequate to measure PM from engines larger than 30 l/cyl, and alternative methods are needed to improve accuracy
.- 2
-

 The EPA should include provisions in the NSPS that incentivize and promote engines with high energy

ef ficiency . EPA has included such provisions in final NSPS rules for other combustion technologies such as turbine and boilers. This issue applies to all engines and not only those with displacement greater than 30 l/cyl The following text provides additi onal details and discussion on the above issues. 

### The emissions standards for engines greater than 30 l/cyl are not Best Demonstrated Technology and should be changed. EMA believe s that some of the requirements imposed on engines greater than 30 l/cyl go beyond EPA’s stated objective of the NSPS which is to “require all new, modified, and reconstructed stationary CIICE to use best demonstrated systems of continuous emission reduction, considering cost, non- air quality h ealth, and environmental and energy impacts, not just with add
- on controls, but also by e liminating or reducing the formation of these pollutants” (Final Rule, CIICE NSPS, FR 71: 3915 4, Summary). As applied to very large engines, the final NSPS ex ceed that objective by adopting emissions standards that require the use of systems that are not best demonstrated technology or that significantly

adversely

affect costs, non- air quality health, the effect s of the standards on local air quality, and energy impacts. S pecifically, the final emissi on standards for engines over 30 l/cyl do not provide flexibility to address local infrastructure, energy, or air quality conditions but mandate costly aftertreatment control systems for PM and NOx reductions. As mentioned above, EPA has established a single set of emission standards for owners and operators for all stationary C I engines greater than 30 l/cyl. Owners and operators of such engines must reduce NOx emissions by 9 0% or achieve an emissions standard of 1.6 g/kW
-hr, and must reduce PM by

6 0% or achieve an emissions standard of 0.15 g/kW
-hr. Attaining the proposed standards will likely require the use of both NOx and PM aftertreatment technology
. The rule does not provide sufficient transition time to develop and demonstrate the required techno logies for these very large engines. Furthermore , the wide range of facility and engine sizes, the application and location of a specific facility, the availability o f low
- sulfur diesel fuel in territories, and operating conditions are extremel y varied. Aftertreatment to meet the final standards may not be technically o r economically feasible under a given set of site conditions. M any remote applications that depend on very

l arge stationary

diesel engines will be severel y disadvantaged if products are not available. As a solution for this issue, EMA proposes that the emission standards for stationary engines greater than 30 l/cyl should be harmonized with the recently approved International Maritime Organization (IMO) emissions regulations. Although there are technical differences between very

l arge marine engines and stationary engines created for specific applications and duty c yc les, there are correlations between the required engine development and demonstration programs.- 3
-

First, the IMO, of which EPA is a key c ontributor and the US is now signatory, has approved at MEPC58 on October 9 th 2008 both Tier II standards and Tier III aftertreatment forcing standards covering engines of this size. The Tier III NOx standards will mandate compliance starting with new ship construction in 2016 to allow time for development of the required technologies
. Engines and aftertreatment systems will need to be developed and available at that time to meet the IMO standards. Secondl y, a stand
- alone US EPA proposed r ulemaking is currently underway f or Marine engines greater than or equal to 30 l/cyl (Reference the EPA Federal Register release. [EPA

–HQ

–OAR

–2007

–0121; FRL

– 8502

–5] RIN 2060

– AO38 Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression
- Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder). This US EPA proposed rulemaking is expected to harmonize with IMO requirements as well. EMA believes a similar approach is warranted for very l arge stationary

engines, which are nearl y all derived from tho se somewhat higher volume, very large marine engines. Often the same engine ty

pes (with different turbo specifications) are used in both stationary and marine applications. One difference is that very l arge marine engines are IMO certified using lighter fuels whereas very

l arge stationary

engines meet World Bank /IFC standards using fuels available at the site. Another difference is that very l arge marine engines are developed with a focus on part- load performance and load
- acceptance requirements and are ty pically optimize d at an 85
- 90 % M aximum C ontinuous Rating(MCR) load range , whereas very l arge stationary

engines are optimized for 100 % MCR load with less development at partial loads. One resulting difference is that marine and stationary p lant engines have different turbo charger matching (different components in turbo chargers ). Since manufacturers are now required to meet IMO regulations for very l arge marine engines, the US is now a signatory to IMO, and EPA has promoted the IM O regulations for several ye ars, EMA believes that the EPA should revise the NSPS for greater than 30 l/cyl engines to harmonize with IM O requirements for stationary engines. Engine manufacturers make both marine and stationary versions of these engine ty pes. I f EPA were to harmonize the re quirements, manufacturers will be able to leverage development of solutions for both applications. 

### The NSPS exemption related to the use of aftertreatment technology on emergency CI engines should be applied to engines greater than 30 l/cyl to allow their use in emergency applications such as nuclear power system backup, firefighting, flood control, and national security . Inorder to prevent potential performance and start-up problems when CIengines are used for emergency

p ower generation, the final NSP S does not require owners or operators to use aftertreatment emissions control equipment on emergency g enerators. H owever, this critical exemption is not applied to engines greater than 30 l/cyl in the current rule. For example, the nuclear power generation industry must provide back
-up emergency power in order to assure the safe shut
- down of the reactor in case of an emergency or disruption of off
- site power. Due to their excellent performance and reliability characteristics, large diesel- 4
-

generators are the preferred option for such back
- up power systems. In many c ases, the nuclear industry requires back
-up power sources capable of generating 10 MW or more of power, and such generators will generall y require IC engines with a 30 l/cyl displacement. H ow ever, in order to meet the emissions standards for greater than 30 l/cyl engines established in the final CI NSPS, aftertreatment controls for PM and NOx will be needed. A s in the case of smaller engines, the addition of such aftertreatment systems to meet current NSPS emission standards will jeopardize the ability of the engines to meet their primary s afety function and performance standards required for emergency safety s ystems. The primary

function of emergency

generators is to guarantee the power supp ly in case of los s of external electricity
. EMA believes it is critical that the CIN SPS emissions standards do not interfere or jeopardize this critical function or prevent the use of large CIengines in emergency

a pplications. A s in the case of smaller emergency generators, large emergency generators will only

be run for periodic and required safety tests and in the case of an emergency
. Since EPA has adopted an exemption to the emissions limits for emergency diesel generators where meeting the emis sions limits would require the use of aftertreatment devices and EPA has provided an exemption f rom NOx emissions limits for combustion turbines used in emergency

s ituations 1 , it follows that the same exemption should be allowed for engines greater than 30 l/cyl that are use d to provide emergency b ack
-up power. In order to address this situation, the final CIN SPS should be amended to establish emissions standards for emergency engines with a displacement greater than 30 l/cyl that can be achieved during emergency operating conditions and during limited maintenance & readiness testing (as defined in the final CIN SPS paragraph 60.4211 e) without the addition of aftertreatment PM or NOx controls. A s stated above , EMA recommends harmonization with the IMO standards. For emergency-use stationary C I engines greater than 30 l/cyl, we recommend that a slightly modified IMO Tier II standard be adopted and become effective in January 2 011 and that the IM O Tier 1standards be adopted until that time The current requirement in the CI NSPS (40 CFR 60.4213) to conduct tests within 10% of 100 percent peak load (or the highest achievable load) is appropriate since it reflects the actual operations and usage of the stationary engine. EMA recommends that the CIN CPS b e amended to state that performance tests for slightly modified IMO Tiers I and II also be conducted within 10 % of 100 percent peak load or the highest achievable load of the engine. The CIN SPS ruling also requires an annual performance test to demonstrate compliance with the set emission limits. EMA recommends that the simplified measurement method and allowances stipulated in Sections 6.3.11 and 6.4.15.2 of the IMO MEPC58 Revised Marpol Annex VIO ctober 2008 be used for emissions measurements of engines at the site.

1 US EPA 2006. F inal Rule. S tandards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines. F ederal Register, 78: p 38497.- 5
-



### The geographic area s allowed to use higher sulphur content fuels or that are subject to alternative emissions requirements in the CI NSPS should be the same as allowed in other NSPS regulations. EPA has recognized that certain geographical areas, because of their isolation from the mainland US or environmental conditions , warrant exceptions to the provisions in the CIN SPS governing fuel quality or permissible emissions. F or example, the CI NSPS excludes the American territories of Guam, America Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands from the fuel sulfur content requirement. C onsequently, emissions standards from engines in such locations should not be as stringent since the quality of fuel in those locations is different. Although EMA believes such exceptions are necessary and commendable, we are concerned that various EPA NSPS rules are not consistent in defining such areas or in allowing alternative emission standards for such areas. Specifically, in both the combustion turbine r ule and the steam generator boiler rule, the geographic areas defined as non- continental or territories are expanded to include the Hawaiian Islands, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico and offshore platforms. The same definition and allowances for different fuel quality available in those locations should be applied to the CI NSPS as well, i.e., the geographic exemptions should be the same in all rules and thus expanded in the CINSPS rule. Inaddition, EMA believes that remote areas that experience harsh environmental conditions, such as remote areas in Alaska, require additional exemptions from the fuel and emissions limits in the CIN SPS. The harsh environmental conditions in those locations make compliance to the current NSPS emissions extremely problematic since they affect the applicability

o f aftertreatment technol ogy such as SCR systems. In tho se areas, EMA recommends that secondary abatement techniques not be required due to the problems associated with reagent availability

and equipment and system freezing. A s an example, EPA established alternative and less stringent emissions standards for gas turbine s operating north of the artic circle , in off

- shore applications or operating at temperatures below zero degrees F. Similar provisions need to be incorporated into the CIN SPS. Alternative emissions standards should be adopted that are appropriate and achievable given the harsh environmental conditions present. A s recommended previously, EMA supports harmonization with IM O standards for areas where higher fuel sulfur or fuels blended with used lubrication oil are allowed. In those areas, stationary C I engines >30 l/cyl should harmonize with a slightl y modified IMO Tier II and Tier I that reflects the design rating of stationary engines (testing at steady state loads within 10 % of 100 percent peak load or the highest achievable load). For the particulate limit we propose the same particulate limits (steady state load within 10 % of 100 percent peak load or the highest achievable load of the stationary engine) of the EU LCP BREF document (available at http://www.jrc.es/pub/english.cgi/d1254325/19Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Large Combustion Plants (adopted July 2 006)
- 22Mb page 405, table 6.47) 30 mg/Nm 3 (15 % O 2 ) for light fuel oil and distillates and 50 mg/Nm 3 (15 % O 2 ) for heavy fuel oils with measurement modified US EPA Method 5 or EPA 17.- 6
-



### EPA Method 5 is not an adequate method to measure PM from large engines. EPA requires owners and operators of engines greater than 30 l/cyl to use EPA Method 5 to measure PM for performance and compliance demonstrations (NSPS Table 7(d) (IV)). Method 5 requires that the PM sample be taken at a cooled exhaust temperature of about 120 degrees C (248 degree F)
. The flue gas temperature of larger CIICE is ty pically in the range of 250
- 350 degree C (480

– 660 degree F)
. Consequently, owners and operators will have to cool flue gas from such engines in order to reach the Method 5 described filter holder temperature. According to the CIMAC document2 this will result in large uncertainties (non
-reproducible sampling): Appendix 2 “. The cooling of the exhaust gas cannot be considered as a controlled process and will not yield reproducible sampling. T he main reason for this is the uncontrolled condensation of semi

- volatile components from the exhaust gas on the cold surfaces n eeded to cool the gas. According to ISO 9096 and EN 13284

- 1, more reproducible results are achieved if volatile compounds are not trapped during sampling or further evaporated during sample drying. C

onsidering the above issues it is concluded that to yie ld repeatable particulate matter measurement data from the hot exhaust gas of a diesel engine, the particulate sampling has to be performed at exhaust gas temperature, i.e. using in

-stack sampling”. Measurement methods EN 13284
- 1 (EU), JI S Z8808 (Japan) and ISO 9096 apply instack sampling of particulate in the case of flue gas temperatures greater than 160 degree C (320 degree F)
. U S EPA Method 17 provides an option similar in principal to those methods. In the case of flue gas temperatures less than 160 degree C (320 degree F) , stack
- out particulate sampling is used, and the filter holder temperature is maintained at minimum 160 degree C (320 degree F) in order to avoid risk of condensation and absorption of sulphur compounds, water, etc. on the sampl ing filter. In order to avoid the problems associated with use of M ethod 5 for engines greater than 30 l/cyl, EMA believes that the NSPS should provide flexibility and allow the use of Method 17 to measure particulate matter. EPA has allowed such flex ibility in other rules, specifically the NSPS rule for electric utility steam generating units and industrial
- commercial steam generating units as published in the Federal Register on June 13, 2007. 3 In that rule, EPA has specified an “own specific” parti culate filter holding temperature and thus approved a higher filter holder temperature than 120 +/
- 14 degree C (248 +/
- 25 degree F) for the US EPA Method 5. The rule also provides flexibility

and the use of Method 17 , and indicates that steam generating units shall use particulate measurement methods 5, 5B or 17.

2 CIMAC Recommendation 23. Standards and Methods for Sampling and Analyzing Emission Components in Non
- automotive Diesel Engine Exhaust Gases

– Marine and Land
-based Power Plant

Sources. CIMAC working group on Exhaust Emissions, 2005.
3 US EPA. F ederal Register Notice Final Rule Amendments to NSPS Standards, Ju ne 13. 2007. F R 72: Page 32738.- 7
-

Different prime mover technologies should have fair and equal treatment under EPA regulations, and if flexibility and alternative filter holding temperatures are provided for one prime mover te chnology, than a similar and applicable requirement should be allowed for other prime mover technologies
. EMA recommends that the requirements of the CIN SPS be amended to allow owners and operators to use Method 17, and where engine stack temperatures are less than 160 degree C (320 degree F) (in wet flue gas desulphurization stacks, etc.) to allow the use of Method 5B instead of Method 5 in order to get reproducible measurement results and avoid uncontrollable/difficult measuring conditions. S uch proce dures also align with applicable regulations in Japan and European countries. 

### EPA should encourage energy efficiency and fuel savings technology by adding an energy efficiency provision in the CI NSPS. The impact of EPA regulations on energy u se should be a key

c onsideration when developing and finalizing emission standards as described in the recent EPA ANPRM on greenhouse gas emissions
. The NSPS should include provisions promoting energy and fuel efficiency, reducing fuel use through the use of combustion sources with high fuel
- energy conversion rates is a key element of federal energy policy to reduce the nation’s dependence on imported petroleum. Further, the use of high efficiency engines also results in lower greenhouse gas emissions and can be an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. EPA should include a provision within the CIN SPS that provides an energy e fficiency incentive allowing increases in the emission of criteria pollutants for engines and generation systems that meet c ertain thresholds of energy efficiency
. EPA has already adopted such incentives for other technology in NSPS regulations governing steam generator boilers, and stationary combustion turbines as follows: US Steam
- generating (boiler) unit NSPS, page 3273 9: “For the purposes of determining compliance with the emission limits in paragraph 60.45Da the owner or operator of generating unit which is also a cogeneration unit shall

. . calculate emission rates based on electrical output to the grid plus 75 percen t of the equivalent electrical energy (measured relative to ISO conditions) in the unit’s process stream .” N ote paragraph 60.45Da is for the Hg emission, i.e., a 75 % bonus for the recovered heat.
US stationary

c ombustion turbine NSPS, page 38499: “... F or combined

- cycle and combined heat and power complying with the output
-standard ...gross energy output is calculated as the sum of the total electrical and mechanical energy generated by the combustion turbine, the additional electrical or mechanical energ y (if any) generated by the steam turbine

.. and 100 percent of the total useful thermal energy output that is not used to generate additional electricity or mechanical output expressed in equivalent MW ..”- 8
-

Note Emission bonus is applied on the regulate d emissions: NOx and SO 2 , i.e., a 100 % bonus for the recovered heat and full bonus for extra generated electrical/mechanical energy  (e.g. a 30 % electrical + 60 % heat recovery =9 0 % efficiency  emission limit 3 times higher compared to the electricity production only

case). EMA requests that EPA develop and incorporate a similar efficiency provision for CI engines. Adoption of such as program will recognize the importance of energy e fficiency

and the benefits of reducing fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. M oreover, incorporating efficiency considerations in the regulation will provide a level playing field for engine
-based systems compared to boilers and turbine that can already take advantage of such energy efficiency provisions in NSPS regulations governing those technologies. EMA is prepared to work out an efficiency

provision together with US EPA. 

### Summary EMA appreciates the opportunity to bring the above issues with the CI NSPS to your attention and to provide some additional background information on these topics. With the finalization of the SIN SPS, we believe it is an appropriate time to resolve these issues and ask that EPA consider making the necessary revisions to the CIN SPS as soon as possible. W e would be happy

to discuss thes e items with you and suggest that we set up a meeting date in January to discuss and resolve these issues. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Respectfully

submitted, 

## Joseph L. Suchecki Joseph L . Suchecki Director, Public Affairs