Retrofit Test Jumble Swims In Acronym Soup

Diesel Fuel News, Oct 15, 2001 by Jack Peckham

A U.S. Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) "generic verification protocol" for quantifying retrofit emissions reductions with diesel particulate filters, catalysts and engine modifications is nearly complete, pending final U.S. EPA approval.

Meantime, Diesel Technology Forum has launched a retrofit web site (www.dieselforum.org) to help companies navigate through some of the initial twists and turns of still-evolving retrofit programs.

But for technology developers seeking simplicity and clarity, retrofit confusion still reigns. Example: ETV's program isn't as "generic" as technology developers might hope, and critical decisions on verification requirements for a host of other retrofit technologies have yet to be finalized by key parties, including EPA's own Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ).

The jumble of different verification programs also is laden with so many acronyms that tech developers could get the feeling they're staring into a bowl of alphabet soup.

The ETV draft "generic" protocol (see http://etv.rti.org/apct/tech/mobile/GVP MS Rev 06 Devices 10-03-01.pdf) only includes diesel particle filters/catalysts and engine modifications, at least so far.

ETV is just one verification pathway created by EPA and an industry-environmental Air Pollution Control Technology Verification Center directed by the EPA-funded Research Triangle Institute (RTI).

Separately, EPA/OTAQ has another verification pathway under development for diesel-water emulsions, biodiesel, selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for nitrogen oxides (NOx) control, and possibly other fuel reformulations, fuel additives, and lubricants.

But wait, there's more: California Air Resources Board (GARB) and Texas Council on Environmental Technology ("TCET," see Diesel Fuel News 7/9/200], p7) also are developing their own diesel retrofit verifications.

As a sign of progress, CARB is starting to issue verifications for some PM filter technology retrofits. But it's also getting bogged down in arcane, dubious modeling arguments such as whether catalyzed PM traps might somehow accidentally cause slight increases in ozone emissions, a claim that's adamantly disputed by PM trap technology vendors.

Meantime, there's no guarantee that retrofit verifications under ETV or EPA/OTAQ will be acceptable to GARB or TCET, although the inverse might happen.

CARB, for example, earlier said it will try to honor some performance and durability data generated for EPA verifications, and EPA likewise hopes to reciprocate (see Diesel Fuel News 2/19/2001, p1]), although EPA has a markedly different verification scheme in mind. RTI, on the other hand, says the separate EPA-OTAQ protocol "does not require the level of external QA [quality assurance] that is required for APCTVC ETV." That's six bureaucratic acronyms in one sentence, whereas just one might sum it up: SNAFU.