1

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: April 1, 2011

TO: Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

FROM: Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.

SUBJECT: Summary of the March 23, 2011 Meeting with AEA Regarding Issues Related to 

Rural Sources in Alaska Subject to the CI NSPS

INTRODUCTION

A meeting was held between EPA and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to discuss 

AEA concerns related to stationary compression ignition (CI) engines located in remote areas of 

Alaska that are subject to new source performance standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

IIII. EPA proposed amendments to the NSPS on June 8, 2010 (75 FR 32612). 

ATTENDEES

Michael Horowitz, EPA Tanya Parise, EC/R (by phone)

Bob Wayland, EPA (by phone) Chris Mello, Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority

Melanie King, EPA (by phone) Steve Stassel, Alaska Energy and Engineering

Heather Valdez, EPA (by phone)

SUMMARY OF MEETING

Representatives of AEA requested to meet with EPA to discuss the unique issues 

affecting stationary diesel engines in rural areas of Alaska as they relate to complying with the 

requirements of the CI NSPS. Prior to the meeting, AEA submitted a letter to EPA with 

information on the various issues facing rural source diesel engines in Alaska.1 Only the major 

points discussed during the meeting are repeated here, and further details can be found in AEA’s 

letter to EPA, which are available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295).

In general, AEA expressed that it is concerned with the lack of availability of diesel 

engines in rural Alaskan villages that can meet EPA’s Tier 4 emission standards and with the

high cost associated with meeting these standards in rural Alaskan villages. AEA said that it 

believes that the costs EPA has estimated for the rule are substantially lower than what 

compliance would realistically cost in rural portions of Alaska. 

 

1 Letter from Chris Mello, AIDEA/AEA to Melanie King, EPA. NSPS Alaska Alternative Implementation Plan –

Rural Alaska. March 16, 2011. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295-0070.

E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989
2

EPA noted that affected sources are not limited to acquiring only Tier 4 certified engines 

to demonstrate compliance. EPA pointed out that sources have the option of purchasing pre-Tier 

4 engines, for instance a Tier 3 engine, and putting aftertreatment on that engine. Further, there 

are several catalyst vendors on the market who have available systems for aftertreatment that 

have been verified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and EPA. For example, there 

are systems available that are certified to obtain at least an 85 percent reduction of particulate 

matter (PM) emissions that have been certified by CARB. EPA suggested that AEA at a 

minimum expand the search of available compliance options for engines in Alaska. AEA noted 

that Caterpillar, John Deere, and Detroit Diesel are the engine manufacturers AEA purchases 

engines from. Those three engine makers have 90 percent of the market share and introducing 

new engine makers to rural Alaska is difficult, according to AEA. Manufacturers have indicated 

to AEA that they cannot provide pre-Tier 4 engines and added they believe that there are no 

provisions in the rule allowing this type of flexibility. EPA clarified that rural portions of Alaska 

may have special provisions in the final rule. EPA also offered to provide AEA with control 

technology vendor contact information and also talk to vendors directly to obtain more 

information. 

Regarding maintenance, AEA indicated that engine manufacturer John Deere claims that 

there is no way to maintain their filters in the field in rural Alaska. AEA said that the 

information for mobile sources EPA used to develop the rule for stationary engines is not 

applicable for stationary engines in rural Alaska and indicated that this is one of their points of 

contention. AEA said that the service intervals are much shorter on their stationary diesel 

engines because of higher run times and noted that a stationary diesel engine could run for 

100,000 hours in prime service. 

Regarding used oil blending, AEA stressed that this is an important provision for engines 

in rural locations of Alaska. AEA explained that it understood that if the fuel is controlled to onspecification levels (Note: On-specification levels and properties of used oil are defined in 40 

CFR 279.11) the fuel is allowed to be burned in stationary diesel engines. AEA noted that it had 

estimated that the used oil blending would have to occur at less than 1 percent in order to obtain 

a blended result of less than 15 parts per million (ppm) sulfur, and according to AEA, the used 

oil could sometimes be well above 200 ppm sulfur. EPA asked why the used oil would have 

such high sulfur content. AEA responded that sulfur is a good lubricator and there are oils that 

had high sulfur levels for lubricity purposes.

In terms of the benefits associated with regulating stationary diesel engines in rural areas, 

AEA argued whether it was necessary to do so because in a rural community the only diesel 

engines are at the power plant versus in an urban setting where there are numerous diesel 

engines. AEA does not believe that the benefits outweigh the costs of compliance for rural 

diesel engines in Alaska. For the reasons provided during this meeting and in additional 

information submitted to EPA, AEA believes there is justification for providing flexibility for 

rural sources in Alaska, specifically exempting stationary diesel engines from meeting Tier 4 

emission standards.