p. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 147)IV-C-11 4 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:59 AM Sheet 147 of 232P. 2



### / arm UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON . D.C . 20460 

### AP R 

### 5

TH E AOMINISTRATO S

Honorabl e Joh n0 . Dingel l Chairma n Subcommitte e o n Oversigh t an d Investigation s Committe e o n Energ y

an d Commerc e U.S . Hous e o f Representative s Washington / D C 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Chairman ; Thi s i a i n respons e t o you r Januar y 20 , 198 8 lette r concernin g th e onboar dvapo r recover y an d gasolin e volatilit y contro l propose drulemakings . I nyou r lette r yo u aske dwha t th e expecte dreduction s woul db e fro m onboar dcontrol s b y th e yea r 199 S an d 200 0 i n eac ho f th e ozon e nonattainmen t area s wher e Stag e I I control s hav e bee no r ar e bein g installed , or wher e a atat e ha s committe di n it s Stat e Implementatio nPla n (SIP ) t o requir e suc hcontrols / assuming , a t a minimum , a differen t leadtime tha nno w propose db

y EPA . Yo u als o requeste dth e expecte dnationwid e an d Stag e I I nonattainmen t are a benefit s fro

m volatilit y

controls . I n addition / yo u expresse dsome concern s regardin g contrac t wor k EPA i s plannin g i nregar dt o th e safet y o f onboar dsystems . A a a poin t o f reference / th e area s whic hcurrentl y hav e Stag e I I installe dor whic har e committe dt o i t ar e California , New Yor k Cit y

Metropolita nare a (Ne w Yor k countie s only) , Ne w Jersey , St . Loui s (Missour i countie s only ) an d Washingto nDC . EP A ha s exclude dCaliforni a i n it s emissio nprojections , s o onl y th e fou r remainin g area s wil l b e discusse di nthi s letter . Wit hregar dt o you r firs t question / EP A ha s no t complete d it s investigatio no f th e effect s tha t varie damount s o f leadtime fo r onboar dcontrol s wil l hav e o n emission s inventories . Th e amoun t o f th e inventor y reductio ni n 199 5 and 200 0 wil l depen do n bot hth e yea r i nwhic ha fina l rul e i s promulgate dan

d th e amoun t o f leadtime give nt o manufacturers . W e intendt o perform suc hdetaile dstudie s a s w e continu e ou r analyse s o f th e leadtime issue . Thes e studie s wil l b e abl e t o incorporat e th e result s o f ou r leadtime analysi s plu s othe r analyse s o f issue s relatin g t o th e timin g and efficienc y o f controls .P. 3



# <* 7^% , <-.."""<? « 

## ' s
i n •«'"M' C ^P. 4

- 2 -

Base do nour curren t analysi s w e ar e abl e t o estimat e th e incrementa l refuelin g emission s whic hwoul db e capture db y onboar dsystem s i narea s wit hStag e I I control s (du e t o th e highe r in-us e efficienc y o f onboar dsystems) . EPA estimate s th e overal l in-us e efficienc y o f onboar dsystem s t o be 8 3 percen t versu s a noveral l in-us e efficienc y o f 4 8 t o 6 6 percen t for Stag e I I equipmen t (depending upo nth e leve l o f enforcement) . Therefore , onboar dtechnology woul dcontro l a n additiona l 1 7 t o 3 5 percen t o f uncontrolle drefuelin g emission s i narea s wher e Stag e I I i s being implemente donc e onboar di s full y implemente dan

dincorporate dinth e vehicl e fleet . Regardin g you r secondquestion , Tabl e 1 contain s th e effect s o f the propose dvolatilit y control s o nH C emissio n inventorie s fo r Stag e I I nonattainmen t area s a s wel l a s the entir e nation . Th e inventorie s presente dassume onboar d control s ar e implemente dbeginnin g i n199 0 an dStag e I I i s i n plac e onl y

i nWashington , DC . (I f neithe r onboar dno r Stag e I I control s wer e assumed , the inventorie s woul dbe slightl y highe r bu t th e percen t reduction s du e t o volatilit y control s woul db e essentiall y

th e same. ) Volatilit y control s yiel da

n8. 1 t o 8. 6 percen t reductio ni nthe tota l nationwid e H C emission s inventory , compare dt o a n8. 1 t o 9. 7 percen t reductio nineac h o f th e Stag e I I areas , i t shoul db e note dtha t fo r th e fou r Stag e I I area s presented , EPA' S area s d o no t precisel y matc h th e area s wher e Stag e l l i s bein g implemented . Fo r example , EPA* a analysi s fo r St . Loui s include s severa l surroundin g countie s i nIllinoi s wher e Stag e I I i s no t required . Thi s differenc e shoul dno t affec t th e percentag e reductio n calculations , however . Finally , yo uha dsevera l concern s regardin g a nEP A tas k orde r t o conduc t onboar dsafet y relate dwor k throug ha contractor . EP A

i s preparin g t o conduct , throug ha contractor , a "Fue l System

Comparativ e Ris k Assessment 11 . I nbrief , th e contrac t wil l b e a comparativ e ris k assessmen t o f vehicl e fuel/vapo r contro l systems . I t i s intende dt o asses s an dcompar e th e potentia l risk s fro m the additiono f onboar dcontrol s t o thos e risk s whic hma y hav e arise na s a resul t o f othe r recen t change s i nfue l systems . Thes e represen t some o f th e area s tha t th e Nationa l Highwa y Traffi c Safet y

Administratio nha s suggeste dwoul db e appropriat e fo r EP A t o Investigat e i naddressin g th e concern s abou t onboar dsafety . A failur e mode s an

deffect s analysi s wil l b e conducte dfo r nin e slightl y differen t fue l system s configurations , includin g thre e fue l system s wit honboar d contro l approache s incorporated . Eac hfue l system wil l b e assesse dl nterm s o f thre e phase s wit hpotentia l fo r safet y problem s (design , manufacture , an dservice ) an

dunde r differen t acciden t scenarios *P. 5
*************** * P. 4

- 3 -


### thi . ^rt. 1 

### ' $?*,£„ b 

### £° « * f«"< * wh o wiU , b
. p.rformin g r«ol,*
. w . wi U Pr, n 

### vi/ < 

### % 0 t 

### ^ w U 

### °r/;A C 

### r i i 

### n/oV:a i 

### t 1 

### fo„f- V 4 b 

### " "
voxatmt y contro l propose drulemakings ; p ; 

### Sincerely ,
Lee M , Thoma sMA

Y 1 1 '8 8 13"0 8 EP

A P. 5 P. 6

200 0 Tabl e 1

Nationvid e an

d Stag e I I Are a H C Emission s Inventories- '

199 5 Are a

Nationwide Ne w Vork Cit

y Metro* * Ne w Jersey 5 Vineland-Millvill e Atlanti c Cit

y St . Louis 6 Washingto

n DC ? (100 0 tons/year ^

N o Contro l o f RV P

1950 4 720. 0

12. 2 21. 6 207. 2 138. 0 EP

A Gasolin

e Volatilit

y Proposal- *

1782 5 652. 7

U. l 19. 5 188. 1 126. 4 Reductio nDu e to EP A Proposal ^

167 9 (8.6 ) 67. 3 (9.3 )
l. l (9.0 ) 2. 1 (9.7 ) 19. 1 (9.2 ) 11, 6 (8.4 )

Nationwide Ne w York Cit

y Metro- * Ne w Jersey ^ Vineland-Millvill e Atlanti c Cit

y St . Louis 6 Washingto

n DC 7 1994 7

732. 2

12. 1 21. 8 213. 1 137. 8 1832 4

666. 8

U. O 19. 8 194, 7 126. 7 162 3 (8.1 )

65. 4 (8.9 )
l. l (9.1 ) 2. 0 (9.2 ) 18. 4 (8.6 ) U. l (8.1 )
1 . Th e nationwid e an d city-specifi c inventorie s liste dar e take nfro m th e dat a use dt o suppor t th e gasolin e volatilit y contro l propose d rulemaking . 2 . EP A

proposa l limit s summe r gasolin e volatilit y t o 10. 5 ps i i n198 9 and9. 0 ps l i n 199 2 i nAST M Clas s C area a an

d proportiona l reduction s fro

m AST M limit s i n othe r AST M clas s areaa . 3 . Number s i n parentheae s ar e percen t reductio ni nH C inventor y fro m th e "N o Contro l o f RV? " case . 4 . E?A f a analysi s o f the Ne w Yor k Cit y

Metropolita nare a eontain a part s o f Connecticu t an

d Ne w Jersey . 5 . Th e remainin g part s o f Ne v Jerse y ar e include di nth e Me w Yor k Cit y Metr o area . 6 . EPA' a analysi s o f St . Loui s contain s severa l countie s i nIllinois . 7 . EPA' s analysi s o f Washingto nD C contain s part s o f Virgini a an d Maryland .