----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/09/2010 08:08 PM

-----

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|"Bromberg, Kevin L." <kevin.bromberg@sba.gov>

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Cc: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|"Cortney Higgins" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, "Kymn, Christine J."

<Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>, "Johnson, Nancy" |

|<Nancy.Johnson@hq.doe.gov>, "Maresca, Charles A."

<Charles.Maresca@sba.gov>, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|08/09/2010 05:39 PM

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|RE: No Set AFR for catalysts mfgers

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

Joe has NO IDEA about the rule - and therefore, of course, you could achieve

"significant" NOx benefits if you set the catalyst to achieve both reductions

- but he doesn't know the set points at which this happens - and that is our

point.

If you were setting standards for both HCHO and NOx - then this certainly

could happen (although we still haven't much data on the overlap of the

setpoints).

I agree, over most settings, there would be "significant" NOx reductions

- we could reasonably estimate 1/2 of what EPA has estimated. But this is not

based on much evidence. 1/2 of the 97% estimate is significant too.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----

From: Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov [

mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 5:20 PM

To: Bromberg, Kevin L.; King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov

Cc: Cortney Higgins; Kymn, Christine J.; Johnson, Nancy; Maresca, Charles A.;

Peter Tsirigotis

Subject: Re: No Set AFR for catalysts mfgers

Kevin -

Joe likewise makes the Agency's point in the second to last paragraph - I.e.,
if a catalyst is installed, significant NOx reductions will be achieved.

Bob

Sent from Blackberry Wireless Device

*********************************************

Dr. Robert J. Wayland

U.S. EPA

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, MC D243-01

RTP, NC 27709

Phone: (919) 541-1045

Fax: (919) 541-5450

Cell: (919) 306-2290

----- Original Message -----

From: "Bromberg, Kevin L." [kevin.bromberg@sba.gov]

Sent: 08/09/2010 04:42 PM AST

To: Melanie King; Robertj Wayland

Cc: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>; "Kymn, Christine J."

<Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>; "Johnson, Nancy"

<Nancy.Johnson@hq.doe.gov>; "Maresca, Charles A."

<Charles.Maresca@sba.gov>

Subject: No Set AFR for catalysts mfgers

This confirms what we expected. The owner is free to choose the AFR

that he needs. This will substantially reduce the NOx benefits. As you know

Joe is the technical expert with the engine manufacturers.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----

From: Joseph L. Suchecki [mailto:jsuchecki@emamail.org]

Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 3:30 PM

To: Bromberg, Kevin L.

Subject: RE: CI RICE NESHAP final rule

Kevin,

I quickly talked to one of our manufacturers on this topic. There is

generally no set point required by the manufacturer and an owner and operator

is free to choose the set point depending on his needs. I don't fully

understand all of the requirements, but essentially the owner/operator

determines set point within a narrow range that allows compliance to emission

standards and getting the best fuel economy.

Of course, if an existing engine adds a three-way catalyst to control

formaldehyde emissions, just the addition of the catalyst system will

substantially reduce NOx emissions compared to an uncontrolled engine.

Not sure if that answers your question.

Joe

-----Original Message-----

From: Bromberg, Kevin L. [mailto:kevin.bromberg@sba.gov]

Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:19 PM

To: Suchecki, Joe

Cc: Bromberg, Kevin L.

Subject: FW: CI RICE NESHAP final rule

New number 312-929-1978

Hi Joe:

For rich burn engine operators who buy NSCR catalysts for retrofit purposes -

to reduce HCHO emissions for RICE SI rule - what will be the specified

operating parameters for those catalysts - does the cat mfg have specified

operating parameters that limit AFR to .99 to .96, or can operator use lean

settings at 1.0 to 1.1, say, to meet the HCHO limit?

Feel free to call me at 202-205-6964 (but I'll be on the phone at

2:30-3:30)

I could use this by email during the call.

Thx,
Kevin