EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0304[1] ----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 11/13/2009 08:49 AM

----- |------------> | From: | |------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |"Antonio Santos" <asantos@meca.org> |

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | To: | |------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA |

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Date: | |------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |11/12/2009 07:07 PM |

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Subject: | |------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |RE: Your questions regarding MECA's stationary engine comments

|

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

Hi again, Melanie. Per your questions, see below.

1) MECA is currently only aware of one manufacturer of CCV systems for stationary diesel engines -- Racor (www.parker.com/racor). MECA members Donaldson Company (www.donaldson.com/en/exhaust/support/datalibrary/061798.pdf) and Engine Control Systems (www.enginecontrolsystems.com/prod-cvv.aspx) both sell CCV systems but only for mobile source applications. (Note: ECS's CCVs are Racor units produced for ECS.) In conversations with these two MECA members, they said they would both consider offering products for existing stationary diesel engines should EPA promulgate requirements in this market area. Regarding limitations, one MECA member said the limit to the size of CCVs, in terms of Page 1EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0304[1] commercial availability, is typically no larger than 30 L.

2) Regarding the feasibility of DPFs for existing stationary diesel engines, the best guideline is the information contained in the list of ARB Level 3 verified technologies for stationary diesel engines (www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/stationary.htm). The specifications for the type of engine, minimum temperature for filter regeneration, fuel type, and other operating conditions can be found in the individual Executive Order letters. Essentially, stationary diesel engines certified to ARB Tier 1, 2, or 3 off-road standards would be suitable candidates for retrofit. These same parameters (e.g., minimum temperature for filter regeneration) would apply as a general guideline to pre-1996 engines as well. Also, some Level 3 systems verified for mobile off-road (www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm) could be suitable for stationary applications as one of the test cycles used for mobile off-road verification (ISO8178-C1, a steady-state cycle) is very similar to the test cycle for stationary verification (ISO8178-D2).

In terms of examples of older engines that have been retrofitted with DPFs, as noted in our testimony, the most comprehensive information on the application of PM exhaust emission control technology to in-use stationary diesel engines can be found in ARB's September 2003 Staff Report in support of its ATCM for stationary compression-ignition engines. In the report, ARB provides a thorough list of in-use emergency standby engines and prime stationary engines using emission control systems (mostly DPFs) in California. The retrofit devices were installed on stationary engines ranging from model years 1993 to 2002. The list shows numerous DPF installations on large engines rated above 600 kW, including Caterpillar 3516 engines rated in the 1490-2120 kW range.

I have also attached a short case study of two pre-1996 stationary diesel engines that were retrofit with DPFs (this case study was also noted in our testimony).

Hope this helps. If I get further information from our members, I will forward it along to you.

A ntonio

-----Original Message----- From: King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:49 PM To: Antonio Santos Subject: Re: Your questions regarding MECA's stationary engine comments

Hi, Thanks for getting back to me. There were two issues that I wanted to talk to you guys about:

1) Closed crankcase ventilation - we asked for comment on CCV systems in the proposed NESHAP revisions. There was a paragraph in MECA's comments on CCV systems and in that paragraph it stated that there was one manufacturer of CCVsystems that had been selling them for stationary diesel engines in the mid1990s. I wanted to get more information regarding CCV systems for stationary diesel engines. I'm wondering about the applicability of CCV systems for Page 2EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0304[1] existing diesel engines - are there any limitations on what types of stationary diesel engines the systems could be applied to (for example can all sizes of diesel engines use them, all different applications, etc.)? Is there only one manufacturer who has the CCV systems available for stationary engines?

2) Diesel particulate filters - specifically their feasibility for older engines. As discussed in the comments, there are DPF systems that are verified by CARB for stationary engines and they are verified for 1996 and newer engines. How about for pre-1996 engines? On page 4 of the MECA comment letter there are some bulleted parameters that are considered, but what I don't know is how many older engines would meet those parameters and be able to be retrofit with DPF? Also, can you be a little more specific about the parameters, for example the second bullet talks about the need for the engine operating temperature to be hot enough for regeneration - how hot does the temperature need to be and do most existing stationary diesels reach that temperature? On page 10 of the MECA comments it says "MECA believes DPFs should be installed on in-use stationary diesel engines wherever technically feasible . . . ." What I'm trying to get at is figuring out for a nationwide regulation, where could the line be drawn as to what engines can feasibly be retrofit? What are the oldest age engines that you have been able to install DPF and demonstrate reductions (also what size were they and what reductions were demonstrated)?

Melanie King Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection A genc y

Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-2469 Fax: (919) 541-5450 king.melanie@epa.gov

|------------> | From: | |------------>

>----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------| |"Antonio Santos" <asantos@meca.org> |

>----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | To: | |------------>

>----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------| Page 3EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0304[1] |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA |

>----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Date: | |------------>

>----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------| |10/19/2009 10:23 AM |

>----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Subject: | |------------>

>----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------| |Your questions regarding MECA's stationary engine comments |

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

Hi, Melanie. Joe Kubsh forwarded to me your voice mail you left for him last week re: MECA's comments on EPA's NESHAP for existing stationary engines proposed rulemaking.

He is out of the office and wanted me to follow up with you regarding your questions. Feel free to call me (202/296-4797 x108) or e-mail me (e-mail is better, so I can forward your questions to Joe).

Thanks, A ntonio

--- A ntonio Santos Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (202) 296-4797 x108 asantos@meca.org

Page 4EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0304[1]

(See attached file: Application Fact Sheet 703 - J Cloud.pdf)

Page 5