P. 1



# OAR Box 1818 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 16 ) ll-C-1 3
Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:42 PM

Sheet 16 of 79P. 2



# 4*\ 

# S K \m** 

# 7 II -C-13

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON
. DC
. 2046 0 JA N 2 0 198

7

T H E AOMINISTRATO H

l/ i c . Honorabl e Joh nD . Olngel l Chairman , Subcommitte e o n Oversigh t an

dInvestigation s Committe e onEnergy

an dCommerc e Hous e o f Representative s Washington , O.C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Chairman : < —

'•-• " C 5

Inm y Decembe r 9 respons e t o you r lette r o f Septembe r 15 , 1986 , I Informe dyo utha t response s t o question s 5(a ) an d7 woul db e forthcomin g shortly . Enclose dar e th e EP A response s t o thos e questions . I f I ca nb e o f furthe r assistance , pleas e fee l fre e t o contac t me .
/ ^4^cer < eJ ;
^ Le e M . Thoma s Enclosure sP. 3

Onboar d Fue l Recovery Credit * Thi s portlo a o f EPA' s respons e outline s Ch e genera l approac h use d C o esclaac e the fue l consumptio nImpact s of onboar dvapo r recovery . Enclose d I s a thoroughEP A analysi s whic hdetail s th e calculatio no f th

e fue l econom

y effect s associate dvic honboard vapo r control . The detaile danalysi s demonstrate s tha t a nonboard contro l syste

m slightl y

reduce s fue l consumptio nthroughth e recovery

of refueling vapor s bu t als o slightl y

Increase s fue l consumptio nbecaus e of it s addedweight . The ne t effec t of thes e tw o opposing impact s i s a smal l fue l consumptio nbenefi t (o r "ne t recovery

credit" ) whic hact s t o decreas e th

e consumer' s cos t of onboar dcontrol . The majo r step s incalculating th e fue l consumptio nImpact s of onboar d control s ar e summarize dbelow . Thi s I s followe db y a brie f descriptio no f ho w th e ne t recovery

credi t for onboar d refueling control s wa s Incorporate d inth e gasolin e marketin g analysis . The calculatio nof th e fue l consumptio nImpac t of onboard control s i s complicate d bu t ca nb e explaine dinthre e steps . Th e firs t stepof th e calculatio n(explaine dInpage s 6 throug h16 - of th

e detaile d analysis ) concern s a nestimat e of th

e gros s reductio ni nth e fue l consume db y a vehicl e wit honboard controls . Th

e firs t o f thre e factor s tha t determin e th e gros s fue l consumptio nreductio nI s Ch e averag e tota l mas s o f hydrocarbon s recovere dove r th

e lif e o f th

e vehicl e a s a resul t o f refueling controls . The recovere d hydrocarbo nmas s i s determine db y multi plyin g th e averag e refueling emissio nrat e ( 5 . S * gram s HC/gallo' n o f gasolin e dispensed ) b y (1 ) th

e theoretica l adsorptio nefficienc y o f a nonboardsyste

m (973. ) an

d(2 ) th

e averag e numbe r o f gallon s o f gasolin e consume d b y a vehicl e init s lifetime . The secon d facto r neededto calculat e th e gros s fue l consumptio nreductio n I s a conversio nfacto r tha t transform s th e recovere dhydrocarbo n mas s t o a nequivalen t volum e of liqui dgasoline . Thi s conversio n facto r i s obtaine db y dividin g th

e energy

valu e o f th

e recovere d hydrocarbon s b

y th e energy

conten t o f liqui dgasoline . The thir d facto r whic haffect s th e gros s reductio no f fue l consume di s th e efficienc y

a t whic hth

e recovere dhydrocarbon s ar e burne dinth e vehicle' s engine . Whe nmultiplie d together , thes e thre e factor s determin e th

e gros s fue l consumptio nreduction . The secon

dstep o f th

e calculatio n(explaine dinpage s 2 throug h8 of th

e detaile d analysis ) involve s th e calculatio no

f th e "weigh t penalty " (the sligh t Increas e infue l consumptio n resulting fro

m th e addedweigh t of th e onboardsystem) . Th e weigh t penalt y

depend s o

nthre e factors . Th e firs t facto r i s th e percen t chang e i

nvehicl e weigh t cause db y th e additio nof a

n onboar dcontro l system . Thi s percen t chang e i s obtaine db y dividing th

e contro l syste

m weigh t (incrementa l to curren t an d exces s evaporativ e emissio nsyste m weight ) b

y th e averag eP. 4

Encl./pag e I

vehicl e weight . The secon dfacto r neede dC o calculat e th

e weigh t penalt y i s a sensitivit y facto r whic hrelate s change s i nfue l econom y to change s i nvehicl e weight . Whe nthi s sensitivit y facto r i s multiplie db y th e percen t chang e invehicl e weight , a n estimat e o f th

e percen t chang e invehicl e fue l econom y i s obtained . Thi s percen t chang e infue l econom y i s thencombine dwit hth e third weigh t penalt y factor , th

e vehicle' s lifetim e fue l consumption , t o obtai nth

e overal l increas e infue l consumptio nresulting fro m th e additiona l weigh t of a nonboar d contro l system . The thirdan

dfina l step ' o f th e caicula t page s 1 7 through2 6 o f th e detaile danalysis ) latlono f th

e ne t fue l consumptio nreductio n o f thi s reductio nfro m unit s of gallon s of g a ne t presen t dolla r value . The ne t fue l cons u obtaine db

y simpl y

subtractin g th

e weigh t pen fue l consumptio nreduction . Th e ne t presen t consumptio nreductio ni s obtaine db y apporti o consumptio nreductio nove r eac hyea r o f th e v Inturn , depend s o nth e rat e a

t whic hmileag e annuall y

an d o nvehicl e fue l economy . Onc e t consumptio nreduction s have bee ndetermined , b y th e pric e o f gasolin e (SO.98/gallon ) an dt discoun t facto r for eac hyea r t o accoun t for money to determin e th

e ne t presen t valu e of t th e lif e o f a vehicl e wit honboar dcontrol . Io n(explaine di

n involve s th

e calcu an d th e conversio n solln e save dto a mptlonreductio ni s alt y fro m th e gros s valu e o f thi s fue l nln g Che tota l chicl e life . This , i s accumulate d h e annua l ne t fue l the y canb e multiplie d h e appropriat e th e tim e valu e o f h e fue l savedthroughou tP. 5

QUESTIO N5(a ) Undt r th e headin g "Refuelin g Control s a s a VO C Reductio n Strategy, " EP Astaf f state s tha t Regio n 9 "i s considerin g VO C reductio n measure s costin g $2200-6600/Mg. " I s tha t th e REE P program tha t 1 s o f questionabl e legality ? Pleas e lis t thos e measures .
RESPONS E T O QUESTIO N5(a ) Th e statemen t containe d In th e staf f pape r tha t "Regio n 9 (Calif. ) 1 s considerin g VO C measure s costin g $2200-6600/Mg. " I s unintentionall yInaccurate
. EPAdoe s no t generall yperformcos t effectivenes s analyse s fo r contro l strategie s neede d t o mee t Nationa l Ambien t A1 r Qualit yStandards
. Howeve r certai n ai r qualit ycontro l district s do
. Fo r Instance , 1 n California , th e Sout h Coas t A1 r Qualit yManagemen t Distric t ofte n perform s cos t effectivenes s analyse s whic h estimat e th e cos t o f certai n contro l strategie s o n a pe r to n remove d basis
. Th e followin g 1 s a 11s t o f som e o f th e sourc e catagoHes , an d relate d cos t effectivenes s number s fo r contro l strategie s whic h ar e presentl ybein g Implemente d 1 n tha t area . Thes e cos t estimate s wer e develope d b yth e Distric t 1 n adoptin g thei r 198 2 plans , an d the yar e no t a par t o f th e REE P bein g considere d in Regio n IX
.
Tacti c Nam e Cos t (198 1 Dollars ) (S/To n VOC ) B 2 Industria l Maintenanc e Coatin g 224 0 D I Chemica l Plan t Valve s 780 0 0 5 Pum

p 4 Compresso r Leak s 400 0 6 2 Graphi c Art s 580 0P. 6

QUESTIO N7 ...Pleas e explai n t o wha t exten t EP Aagree s o r disagree s wit h th e comment s an d th e conclusio n [o f th e draf t lega l "brief " submitte d o n behal f o f J1 mTozzi ] tha t EP Aha s a lega l dut yt o requir e tha t SIP s fro mozon e nonattainmen t area s provid e fo r Implementatio n o f Stag e I I controls
. RESPONS E T O QUESTIO N7 A s you r lette r notes , Mr
. Tozzi' s brie f conclude s tha t EP Aha s n o choic e bu t t o requir e Stag e I I control s b yregulatio n no wfo r al l ozon e nonattainmen t areas . H e base s thi s conclusio n o n th e assumptio n tha t sectio n 17 2 o f th e Ac t require s th e SIP s fo r thes e area s t o Includ e Stag e I I control s a s a "reasonabl y availabl e contro l measure " (RACM)
. EP Adoe s no t agre e wit h Mr
. Tozzi' s Interpretatio n o f th e law
. Th e Agenc ybelieve s tha t Congress 1 Intent , a s expresse d I n sectio n 202(a)(6 ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , 1 s tha t EP Ashoul d mak e a careful , reasone d choice , o n th e merits , betwee n onboar d an d Stag e I I controls
. Thus , Mr
. Tozzl' s argument s tha t Stag e I I mus t b e considere d RAC M an d tha t Congres s assume d Stag e I I control s wer e RACM , ar e Inconsisten t wit h sectio n 202(a)(6 ) an d woul d rende r 1 t a nullity
. EP Adoe s no t believ e Congres s woul d hav e Intende d suc h a result
. No r doe s EP Abeliev e tha t a lega l dut yarise s fro mIt s previou s statement s abou t Stag e II
. Althoug h som e olde r EP A Informatio n an d SI P polic ydocument s sho wtha t Stag e I I wa s considere d technologicall yfeasible , EP Aha s neve r require d tha t a Stat e Includ e Stag e I I a s RAC M 1 n It s ozon e nonattainmen t SI P a s a conditio n fo r SI P approval , o r otherwis e define d Stag e I I t o b e RAC M 1 n an ySI P o r othe r rulemaking
. Thi s 1 s tru e eve n 1 n th e Distric t o f Columbi a exampl e cite d b yMr
. Tozzi
. A s note d earlier , sectio n 202(a)(6 ) require s EP At o examin e contro l o f ga s marketin g emissions
. I n respons e t o tha t mandate , th e EP Aha s undertake n a n exhaustiv e revie wo f thi s ver yImportan t Issue
. Th e suggestio n tha t EP A"ambivalence " o n Stag e I I ha s delaye d achievemen t o f th e ozon e standar d an d create d Inequitie s amon g state s understate s bot h th e complexit yo f th e gasolin e marketin g Issu e an d th e magnitud e o f th e ozon e nonattainmen t problem
. Eve n 1 f EP Aha d require d al l ozon e nonattainmen t area s t o Impos e Stag e I I a s RACM , tha t b yItsel f woul d hav e brough t fe wi f an yo f thos e area s Int o timel yattainment
. Attainmen t o f th e ozon e standar d wil l 1 n mos t nonattainmen t area s requir e difficul t choice s an d th e Impositio n o f control s o n a numbe r o f sourc e categorie s 1 n additio n t o gasolin e marketing
. Moreover , I d o no t believ e tha t EPA' s action s hav e produce d Inequitie s amon g th e States
. Som e jurisdiction s hav e chose n t o Implemen t Stag e I I a s a mean s t o attai n th e ozon e standar d an d avoi d potentia l Clea n Ai r Ac t sanctions
. Naturally , EP A ha s reacte d t o step s take n t o achiev e attainmen t wit h encourage men t rathe r tha n silence
.