P. 1 

# OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 188 ) IV-E-6

2 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:57

PM Sheet 188 of 242P. 2



### r \



## - A \ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5 OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N 

### Jun e 7 , 198 8
MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : FROM : TO : Meeting s wit h Exxo n an d Shel l ,., / . Charle s L . Gray , Jr. , Directo r /Jc-^ Emissio n Contro l Technolog yDivisio n Th e Recor d / v


### O n Ma y12 , 198 8 EP

Astaf f me t wit h Exxo n personne l an do n Ma y13 , 198 8 wit h Shel l personne l t o discus s severa l topic s o f mutua l interest . The agenda s an d list s o f attendee s ar e attached . Othe r handout s provide d b yExxo n ar e als o attached . The discussion s followe d the agend a fairl ywell . EP A staf f expresse d concer n abou t the continue d presenc e o f a lowe r retai l pric e fo r lea d gasoline , eve n thoug h wholesal e price s ar e higher . Bot h oi l companie s fel t tha t an EP Aban on leade d fue l wa s th

e mos t direc t wa

yt o resolv e the problemassociate d wit h leade d fuel . Attachment sP. 3

MA Y 1 1 '8 8 09:1 3 EP

AFOS D P. 2
Attendees , Ma y

1 3 Meeting : (.EPA/ShejJ , 9:0 0 a.m . - 12:3 0 p.m . Conferenc e Roo m

15^ 9 On e Shel l Plaz a 90 0 Louisian a Stree t Houston , Texa s 713-241-390 2

fraC "

Ro nBento n "'Do nBennet t ""Jerr y Berge r ^ i m Bonf n ^Bil l Bu t i

n <^Gary D i 1 lar d s Ro nKlenl e iy Kl^rye^ - K1 e i n Ra y Lope z </ Klau s Ma i Stev e M i 1le r Bil l Schutzenhofe r Manager , Plan s & Integratio n Product s Manager . Refining ^ Marketin g Operations , Gasolin e Manager , Regulator y Affair s Washington , D C Manager , Plan s & Integratio n Health , Safet y

& Environmen t Manager , Plan s & Integratio n Vic e President , Publi c Affair s Manager , Environmenta l Affair s Health , Safet y

& Environmen t Director . Refinin g & Marketin g Researc h& Developmen t Vic e President , Manufacturin g £ • Technica l Vic e President , Health , Safet y & Env i ronmen t Genera l Manager , Easter nRegio n Refinin g & Marketin g Genera l Manager , Refinin g & Marketin g ft ph i 1 Carro l 1
* Chuc k Wi 1 so n
/\ r it '~' > ' Senio r Vic e Presiden t

Admin i stratio n Vic e Presiden t Refinin g & Marketin g 

### \J<P. 

### c /

/ \ Zsr~1 C 

## J 

## 6.A %.

* Migh t joi n u s fo rlunc h an d wrap-up .P. 4

ftPR-lS-'Sa10:4 3 ID'.SHELLOI LC Q IdfiS H D C TE LNO:202-S59-221 1 S26 0 P0 2 

# DRAF T RECEIVE D APR1 4 138 8 I SHELL-OIL COMPAN

Y •W.«SH«fV;T0«,0. C OFFIC

E * • ' 1 M.lnL.iw J V-»^Wpff^»^||>i| i TOPIC S FG RDISCUSSIO N UIT H REFINER S . 1 . Discussio no t Lea dPhasedow nIssue s

- Whe nwil l leade dga s b e pnase a out ?

- Wil l phaseou t b e o na refinery-by-reriner y oasis ?

- Wher e wil l leadedga s b e pnase a out ?



### - Wha t ar e reriners ' pians , i r any , ro r non-iea d

alternatives ?

- Wil l ther e b e trad e agreement s xo r marketin g leaded ?

- Wil l "littl e guys " ril l th e marke t voi dt o sel l ieade o gas ?

- i s leade dga s bein g use da s a los s leader ? Wil l thi s

intensif y

a s i t become s a smalle r voium e product ?

- I s unleade dregula r th ©"rightin g grade " o nwhic hpric e decision s ar e made ? * "%•

- Wha t happene dt o reriner s wh o trie o t o pnas e ou t jsaoe d

gas ? Wn y

ar e the y

oac k i nman y

markets ?

- Wha t i s refine r reactio nt o a possibl e requiremen t

fo r a minimu m

lea dconten t leve l to r eac hgallon ?

- Woul drefine r marke t lead-in-a-ca ntyp e product s a t thei r

retai l facilities ?

- Wha t doe s rerine r expec t th e marke t penetratio nO T

alcoho l fuel s t o oe ?

- Wha t i s rerine r doin g wit hregar dt o th e "octan e race" .

an dho w

wil l thi s affec t tota l rue ) supplies ;

- Wha t octan e mixe s wil l ultimatel y oecom e avaiiaoie ?

- Wha t do-thes e mixe s bod e fo r cost/availabl11t y o f gasoline ? 2 . Discussio no r Volatilit y Issue s

- Wha t i s EPA' s statu s o nth e propose drules ?

- Wha t i s happenin g wit hregar dt o th e safet y issue s concernin g on-boar dtechnology ?

- Wha t ar e EPA' s an drefiner' s view s o nregiona l

strategies ?

- Wha t ar e EPA' s an dreriner' s view s o npropose d

enforcemen t technique s includin g screenin g tests ?

- Wha t ar e th e pian s t o oea l wit hpossibl e variance s

i nRV P requirement s ro r som e alcono i fuels ? 3 . Discussio no f Diesei/5uiie r Issue s

- Wha t i s lh a EhM statu s onpropost a ruie-s ?

- wha t ar e th e reriner' s view s o nth e contro l o r

aromatlc s :

- wha t ar e th e view s o npossibl e smai t rerine r

legislation :P. 5 HrK-iD-'b o li_*:- H lu:bricL L Ul L <_ U Wne n U<-

I =.t

_NU:iUi-cj;-^i l T-..-**:OT* J rtJ , 

# DRAF T

Discussio nof Oxygenate dFuel s Strategie s
. - Wha t ha s bee nthe resul t of th e Denve r progra

m s o rar' r

- Wha t woul db

e th e effec t of the propose d1 % RV P exemptl c o nthe effectivenes s of oxygenate dfuel s strategie s

- Wha t area s i s EP A lookin

g a t no

w fo r a noxygenate d fue l strategy ? Wha t area s ar e loca l government s intereste din ?

- Ho w doe s th

o efficac y

of thi s techniqu e chang e a s mor e of th

e newe r technology vehicle s appea r on th e road ?

- Wha t ne

w waive r request s doe s EP A anticipate ?

- Wha t i s th

e reactio nto the ne w stua y relating ozon e anc CO emission s a s they bot nvary

wit hoxygenate d fuels ?

- Wha t plan s doe s th e refine r nav

e t o us e oxygenat-B dryei z

- for octane ?

- inAQCD s wit hoxygenate dfue l plans ?

- i narea s withou t suc hplans ?P. 6

AGENDA EXXO N - EPA MEETING MA Y12 , 198 8

• Introductor yComment s

• Gasolin e Refuelin q

- Revie wo f EP Aand Exxo n wor k o n caniste r safet y

- Analysi s o f onboar d vs . Stag e I I cost-effectivenes s

• Gasolin e Volatilit y

- EPA' s propose d enforcemen t approac h

- RV P treatmen t o f oxygenat e blend s

- Consume r effect s o f dee p cut s i n RV P

• Diese l Sulfu r

- Effect s o f diese l sulfu r and aromati c conten t o n particulate s

- Outloo k fo r particulat e standard s

- Perspectiv e o n methano l replacemen t

• Oxygenate d Fuel s

- Stat e oxygenat e mandate s

- Methano l economic s

- C O reductio n and ozon e impac t

• Lea d Phasedow n

- Exxo n perspectiv e o n EP Aquestion s

• "Clea n Air " Issue s

- Post-198 7 nonattainmen t strategy/Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendmen t

• Join t Summar yand Wrap-u pP. 7



### Exxo nParticipant s EPA Mating . Ma v

1? . 198 8 Jo e T . McMilla n Edwar dT . D1Core1 a Harr y T . Gibso n Julienn e M . Burto n Raymon dJ . Campio n Willia m R . Finge r Rober t F . Haas e Thoma s H . Howar d Bornar dJ . Krau s Michae l C . Quinn Hug hF . Shanno n Sr . Vic e President , Downstream Busines s Exxo nCompany , U.S.A . Vic e President , Refinin g Oept . Environmenta l Manager , Refinin g Oept . Attorney , Refining , Environment , an dHealt hLa

w Environmenta l Conservatio nAdviso r * ai r issues , vehicl e an

dfue l effect s Energy Analysi s Coordinato r - methano l economic s Marketin g Distributio nProgram s Coordinato r • logistic s an

dregulator y

complianc e Refinin g Technica l Adviso r - gasolin e volatility , diese ! sulfu r Engineerin g Associate , ExxonResearc han d Engineerin g Company

• diese l fuel/emissio nstudie s Consume r an

dRegulator y

Affair s Manager , Marketin g Oept . - Stag e I I oxygenate dfuel s Sr . Scientifi c Advisor , ExxonResearc han d Engineerin g Company

- vehicl e emissio ncontrol , gasolin e compositio n 

# fc* ^esrk'x'y

ll-f MtJyf^^

### 3. 5



## 1 9 2. 5 

## 8 7 2 

## D 0 L1. 5 

### L A Ri 

## S 0. 5 

# EQUIVALENT MOTOR GASOLINE COST PER GALLON PUMPPRIC E(E

X TAX ) 

## S36/BB L118/BB L

$2.3 4 RE T LOGIS T NE T CS T FEE D $3.3 1

RE T

LOGIS T NE T CS T FEE D o Logistic s Bas e - post-198 0 averag e

- Ga s - volum e effec t • upgrad e Coa l - volum e effec t + upgrad e o Ter m- 198 7 G C spo t P/ L termaverag e o Coa l & ga s plan t - DO E alternat e transportatio n fuel s stud yrepor t S l o Fue l - DO E alternat e transportatio n fuel s stud

yrepor t K I 

### $3.3 1

$1.8 9 $1.3 0 LOGIS T TER M RE T
LOGIS T NE T CS T FEE D RE

T

LOGIS T NE T CS T FEED GA S COA

L METHANOL-- - MOGA S GAS COA L METHANO

L 

## SOURC E EPAMEFCS.TRN 

### $ .8 6 LOGIS T TER M MOGA S

4-14-8 8 JP J

0 03. 5 -



## 1 3 9 j2. 5
D 

### 2 

## 0 L L

### 1. 5 

## A R S l 0. 5 $2.5 0

RET LOGIS T NE T CS T FEED 

## S36/BB L

$3.5 7 

# EQUIVALENT

DIESEL COST PER GALLON PUM PPRIC E(E

X TAX )

RET

LOGIS T NE T CS T FEED o Logistic s Bas e - post-198 0 averag e Ga s - volum e effec t + upgrad e

- Coa l - volum e effec t + upgrad e o Ter m- 198 7 G C spo t P/ L termaverag e o Coa l & ga s plan t - DO E alternat e transportatio n fuel s studyrepor t H I o Fue l - DO E alternat e transportatio n fuel s stud

yrepor t tt

l 

## S18/BB L

$3.5 7

$2.0 1 $1.3 0 LOGIS T TER M RE T LOGIS T NE T CS T FEE D RE

T

LOGIS T *E T CS T FEED $0.8 6

LOGIS T TER M GAS COA

L -—METHANO L DIESE L GA S COA

L METHANO

L 

## SOURC E DIESE L

EPAMDICS.TR

N 4-14-8 8 JP J

### DIESE L ENGIN E PARTICULAT E EMISSION STANDARD S

• Engine/Fue l Trad e Off s 199 4 Complianc e 199 1 Complianc e

• Refinin g Industr yCost s

• Observation s

Ma y12 , 198 8

# ENGINE/FUE L TRADEOFF S IMPORTAN TT O UNDERSTAN D COMPLIANC E ISSUE S 0. 7 0. 6 0. 5 PARTICULATES , G/BH P H R °- 4



### 0. 3 0. 2 0. 1 SO F

SOO T
SULFAT E 198 8 ST D MANUFACTURER S TARGE TRANG E

199 1 ST D 

### 199 4 

### ST D 198 8 199 4 199 1 YEA R •ENGIN E MODIFICATION S REDUC E SOO TAN D SOLUBL E ORGANIC S (SOF ) •SULFU R REDUCTIO N REDUCE S SULFATE S •BENEFIT S GREATE R FO R SOOT/SOLUBLE S REDUCTIO N •ATEQUA L COS TENGIN E MODIFICATION S PREFERABL E T O SULFU R REDUCTIO N

# 199 4 COMPLIANC E 0.1 6 0.1 4 - 

### 0.1 2 

### 0. 1 PARTICULATES , G/BH P H R 0.0 8

0.0 6 0.0 4 0.0 2 

### 199 4 

### ST D H I MFR S TARGE TRANG E I S SULFATE S

0.2 7 0.1 5 0.0 5 FUE L SULFUR , WT. % 

### ENGIN E MODIFICATIO N 0.1 5 0.0 5 

### TRA P •BASE D O N CR C STUD YAN D ENGIN E MAKE R PROJECTIONS-SA E 88035 0 -3 -

### 0. 3 0.2 5 0. 2 PARTICULATES , G/BH P H R 0.1 5



### 0. 1 0.0 5 

# 199 1 COMPLIANC E

• MFR S TARGE TRANG E 

### 199 1 ST D r^ i

____ _S i SULFATE S

? 0.2 7 %S 0.2 0 %S ENGIN E MODIFICATIO N •BASE D O N CR C STUD YAN D ENGIN E MAKE R PROJECTIONS-SA E 88035 0

-4 -

### REFININ GINDUSTR

YCOST S 1.19 5 1 2BB- r
^ 1,08B J C V t J Q "" ' o \ <_ > e 

### - J ? 

### bee - (O s » Z3 . 

# £ \ «« - '_ _ « * 200 - 

### 28

5 24 5

Diese l Sulfu r (wt% ) Diese l Aromatic s (vol% ) Incrementa l Particulat e Reduction^ ) (Grams/bhp-hr ) Incrementa l Refinin g Costs( 2 

### ) (Millio n $/Year ) Tota l Refinin g Costs( 2 

### ) (Millio n $/Year ) (^Fro mCR C VE-1 , Futur e Engin e Technolog y (2)Fro m 198 6 NPRASurvey , U.S . Refinin g IndustryCapabilit yt o Manufactur e Ultr a Lo wSulfu r Diese l Fuel s 0.2 7 ---- > 3 4 ---- > 0.02 4 

### 690 690 0.1 5 

### 3 3 0 .1 5

33 >

> 0.02 0 

### 485 1,17 5 0.0 5 

### 3 2 3

2 >0.0 5 > 2 0 0.01 0 1,19 5 2,37 0OBSERVATION S
Genera l
• Long-ter mcontro l strateg yneed s t o b e define d clearl ybefor e committin g significan t resource s (e.g . fue l qualit yimprovement s and engin e modifications/traps ) t o mee t 199 4 standard . • Engin e modification s t o reduc e soo t and solubl e organi c emission s (shor t o f traps ) provid e mos t cos t effectiv e regulator yoption . + Preferre d approac henvironmentally . + B ymid-90s , 0.10-0.1 5 grams/bhp-h r emission s likel ywit hcurren t diese l sulfu r levels . 199 4 Standar d
• Intermediat e diese l qualit y(-0.1 5 wt % sulfur ) appear s cos t effectiv e i f trap s neede d i n th e bas e t o mee t th e standard . • Superior qualit ydiese l (0.0 5 wt % sulfur ) ma yb e neede d i f standar d reachabl e withou t tra p technology . • Particulat e trap s and superio r qualit ydiese l woul d provid e redundan t controls . • Reductio n o f diese l aromatic s costly , and no t an effectiv e contro l strategy . 199 1 Standar d
• Curren t diese l qualit yappear s sufficien t t o mee t interi m standard . 

### -6 -P.1 6

ENFORCEMEN T O F GASOLIN E VOLATILIT Y LEVEL S
EP A PROPOSA L
• EPA' s propose d enforcemen t schem e require s complianc e wit hvolatilit y regulation s a t al l point s i n th e distributio n system .

- Tightene d versio n o f enforcemen t procedure s fo r unleade d fue l regulations .

- "Vicariou s liability " hold s th e origina l refiner , blender , o r importe r liabl e unles s th e supplie r ca n demonstrat e compliance .

- Effectivel yrequire s testin g a t al l point s i n th e distributio n syste mt o provid e defens e fro m liability . EXXO NPOSITIO N
• Exxo n propose s tha t enforcemen t tak e plac e a t th e poin t o f manufactur e o r import . Thi s woul d achiev e th e desire d goa l o f reducin g vapo r emission s whil e providin g a mor e manageabl e an d cos t efficien t approac h fo r bot hth e EP Aan d gasolin e supplier s an d marketers .

- Poin t o f manufactur e o r impor t i s wher e gasolin e volatilit yi s determined . I t i s th e onl ypoin t i n th e distributio n networ k wher e th e RV P ca n effectivel yb e controlled .

- Definitio n o f manufacture r mus t b e expande d t o includ e importers , refiners , an d blenders .

- 100 % complianc e i s no t critica l t o overal l emissio n reductions . Non-complianc e cause d byinadequat e turnove r o r stratificatio n woul d b e mor e tha n offse t b yth e larg e percentag e o f location s converte d wel l i n advanc e o f th e complianc e date .

- "Downstream " mixin g o f finishe d gasoline s wil l no t alte r th e en d resul t o f reduce d hydrocarbo n emissions .

- Improve d testin g reliabilit yversu s testin g a t thousand s o f downstrea mlocations .TERMINAL TANKAG E COMPLIANC E WIT H VOLATILIT Y SPECIFICATION

DA Y 1 EVEN T



### 1 8 2 5 3 2 Firs t shipmen t o f lowe r RVP unleade d regula r moto r gasolin e leave s Exxon' s Bato n Roug e Refiner yo n th e Plantatio n Pipelin e boun

d fo r Richmond , Virginia . STATU S

Firs t shipmen t arrive s a t Exxon' s Richmond , Virginia , terminal . Secon d shipmen t arrive s a t Richmond . Thir d shipmen t arrive s a t Richmond . UR Demand = 1 0 KBD Norma l pipelin e cycl e - 7 day s Norma l receip t = 7 0 K B (1 0 x 7 ) Inventor

yprio r t o receipt : + Safet ybarrel s t o allo wfo r demand swing s o r pipelin e delay s = 4 0 K B + Unavailabl e tk . bottom s = 1 4 K B Tota l = 5 4 K

B Inventor

yo f highe r RVP materia l a s percen t o f tota l = 44 % [54/(70+54) ] Inventor

yo f highe r RVP materia l a s percen t o f tota l = 19-44 % (Depend s o n degre e o f stratification ) Inventor

yo f highe r RV

P materia l a s percen t o f tota l = 9-44 %

Factor s determining statu s o f tan k compliance :

- Safet yfacto r o n refineryshipment s versu s complianc e specificatio n

- Magnitud e o f RVP reductio n require d

- Degre e o f tan

k stratificatio n Additiona l factor s whic h ca n increas e time fo r termina l tankag e compliance :

- Low-volume terminal s ma yski p a cycl e (on e o r mor e products )

- Transportatio n time fo r firs t shipmen t t o a termina l ca n b e 30 + day s (example : Baytown , TX Refineryt o Bayway , N J Refineryvi a Colonia l Pipeline ; Baywa

yt o Pittsburgh , P Avi a Buckey e Pipeline ; Pittsburgh t o Westover , W

V vi a barge. ) . •

- Receip t cycl e time s ca n var yfrom4-3 0 days . Tanke r supplie d terminal s ma ytak e receipt s onl yevery3 0 days .P.1 8

ENFORCEMEN

T OF GASOLIN

E VOLATILIT

YLEVEL S
ISSUE S

• Assuranc e o f 100 % complianc e a t th e retai l leve l i s virtuall y infeasible .

- Variabilit yo f shipping/receip t times .

- Severa l receipt s necessaryt o facilitat e tan k conversions .

- LIF O stratificatio n o f gasolin e in storag e tanks .

- Inabilit yt o empt ytank s prio r t o delivery .

- Slo wturnove r a t rura l locations .
• Enforcemen t a t an ypoin t downstrea

mo f th e manufacturing poin t woul d no t b e cos t effective .

- Virtua l certaint yo f non-complianc e produc t remaining in th e system wil l mak e i t difficul t t o distinguis h betwee n innocen t an d willfu l violations .

- Inabilit yt o correc t th e RVP downstrea mo f manufacture ; alternativ e dispositio n o f non-complianc e material ; suppl ydisruptions .

- Costl ytesting requirements .
• Detrimenta l impac t o f non-complianc e wit h RV P specification s i s les s than non-complianc e wit h lea d level s i

n unleade d gasoline .
• Issu e o f ho wt o dete r willfu l violator s mus t b e addressed .

- Al l manufacturers , includin g blenders , mus t b e identifie d an d registere d wit h EPA .

- Stric t penaltie s fo r non-registration ; willfull yaltering produc t quality ; knowingl yselling/distributing altere d product .

- EP A randomsampling progra ma t manufacturing locations ; audi t o f complianc e testing records .

- Affidavit s t o releas e "innocent " violator s fro mliability ; sever e penaltie s fo r falsel ysigning documents . JYD:bj s 9367 oGASOHO L MARGI N COMPARISO

N A T VARIOU S RV

P LEVEL S $ Pe r Barre l Gasoho l Require d t o Mee t Moga s RV P Qualit y
Unleade d Regula r Moga s Butan e Ethano l Blendin g Cos t Ta x Credits : Federa l Stat e Ne t Gasoho l Cos t Sale s Valu e Margi n 24.0 7 ( 2 .52 ) (0.92 ) 2 0 21 . 1 , .6 3 .8 9 .2 6 24.1 8

(2.52 ) (0.92 ) 20.7 4 21.8 9 1.1 5 24.2 9CVJ .52 )

(0.92 ) 2 0 2 1 1 .8 5 .8 9 .0 4 Gasoho l W

i N o RV P Li n 19.7 0

- 4.3 7 it h l i t RV

P o f Moqa

s Butan e a t Marke t Valu e 20.0 2 (0.21 ) 4.3 7 a t 11. 5 ps i

Butan e a t Fue l Valu e 20.0 2 (.10 ) 4.3 7 RV

P a t B i Fu ( o f Mogas 9. 0 DSij ^ jtan e a t > 1 Valu e 20.0 1 (.09 ) 4.3 7 24.2 9 (2.52 ) (0.92 ) 20. . 8 5 21.8 9 1.0 4 Bases : Unleade d Regula r Moga s (Piatt's . Apri l 26 ) - 52.125^!/ga l Norma l Butan e t o Sale s (Piatt's . Apri l 26 ) - 33.125^/ga l Norma l Butan e t o Fue l (Foster' s Natura l Ga s Report . April ) - $1.30/MBT U Fue l Grad e Ethano l (Alcoho l Update . Apri l 25 ) - 104^/ga l Federa l Ta x Credi t o n Gasoho l - 6^/ga l (10 % ethanol ) Stat e Ta x Credi t o n Gasoho l (typica l - 2.2£/gal ) 

### _i_B_ 21.8 9 13.9 1 6.7 1 43.6 8 2.5 2 0.9 2 JPJ:y g 5/12/8 8

# REFUELINGEMISSION S

EXXO N RESEARC H & ENGINEERIN GCOMPAN Y PRODUCT S RESEARC H DIVISION MA Y12 , 198 8

# GASOLIN E REFUELIN G EXXON/AP I AN DEPA

WOR KON CANISTE RSAFET Y

- EXXON/AP I OBJECTIV E I S T O PROVID E NHTS A WIT H DEMONSTRATION THA T VEHICL E SYSTEM S MODIFIE DT O INCLUD E ONBOARDREFUELIN G CONTROL S MEE T SAFET YCRITERI A ANDMAINTAI N

GOO DEMISSION CONTRO L COST-EFFECTIVENES S O F ONBOAR DVS . STAG E I I EMISSION CONTRO L

- USINGMOS T RECEN T ECONOMI C DATA O N STAG E I I SYSTEM

INSTAL LATION , ANDINFORMATION O N GASOLIN E THROUGHPUT S ANDOZON E NONATTAINMEN T AREAS , A REVISE DCOST-EFFECTIVENES S COMPARISO N

I S BEINGMAD E FO

RUS E WIT HTH E OMB

### SAFET YDEMONSTRATION DEVELOPE DWIT HHIGHVOLUME DOMESTI C MODEL S

• 198 7 BUIC KLESABR E
BAS E CA R MODIFIE DCA

R C O H C NOx

(GRAMS/MILE ) 2.0 7 1.5 7 0.2 8

0.2 7 0.2 8

0.2 7 EVAPORATIV

E 

## (GRAMS/TEST ) 0.5 8 0.5 2 REFUELIN G 

## (GRAMS/GAL )

~ 5 0.0 8
• 198 8 FORDTAURU S C O H C NOx 

## (GRAMS/ M IE ) EVAPORATIV E 

## (GRAMS/TEST ) REFUELIN G (GRAMS/GAL ) BAS E CA R 1.4 2 0.1 8 0.4 0 0.1 8 ~ 5

# PRINCIPA L ELEMENT S O F ENHANCE D ONBOAR D SYSTE M

Standar d Fillpip e Wit h Ven t Reroute d t o Caniste r Purge d H C Vapor s T o Engin e Openin g Fro m Tan k an d Rollove r Valv e Enlarge d Charcoa l Caniste r

H C Vapor s
2876-0 2

# REFUELIN Q CANISTE R PLACEMEN T 198 8 TAURU S

Lin e t o Caniste r T o Tan k

2835-0 1C M 

# COST-EFFECTIVENES S O F REFUELINGCONTROL S

• EARLIE RESTIMATE S O F STAG E I I ANDONBOAR DCOST S ANDCOST-EFFECTIVENES S VARIE DWIDELY .

- MBS I STUD YFORAUT O INDUSTRYFAVORE DSTAG E I I OVE RONBOARD .

- API , EP A

ESTIMATE S HAV E BEEN

SIMILAR , BU T ASSUMPTION S DIFFERE D(STAG E I I $1600-$2400/T0N , ONBOAR D$800-$1000/T0N) . • AP I CARRYINGOU T UPDATE DCOS T STUDY .

- STEPWIS E BUILD-U P O F CUMULATIVE COST S I N NO N AH A I NMEN T AREAS , ASSUMIN

G STAG E I I "CREEP""ESTABLIS H"BREAKEVEN " POIN T O N NATIONAL COSTS .

- US E REVISE DSERVIC E STATION PROJECTIONS , GASOLIN E DEMAND , ETC .

- INCLUDE S MAINTENANC E AN DCAPITAL REPLACEMEN T COST S I N EXISTIN GSTAG E I I AREAS .

- QUANTIF YINCONVENIENC E COSTS , US E SPILL/LEA KDAT A WHER E POSSIBL E T O ADDRES S CAPTUR E EFFICIENCY .

- DEVELO P ONBOAR DCOS T SENSITIVIT YT O MILEAG E CREDITS , CAPTUR E O F EXCES S EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS .

# ACTIO N PLA N PUBLI C INTERES T GROUPS/MEDI A

- WASHINGTON , D.C . (5/4/88) , CENTE RFORAUT O SAFETY , STAPPA , LEAGU E O F WOME N

VOTERS , AARP ; TRAD E PRES S

- PLANNE DWASHINGTON

BRIEFING S WIT HINSURANC E INSTITUTE , HIGHWA YSAFET YCOUNCIL , TRIPL E A , CLEA N AI RCOALITION (NRDC , NWF) NHTSA , OMB , EPA

- WASHINGTON

(EARLYJUNE , 1988 )

- DEMONSTRAT E BOT HVEHICLES , MOCK-UP S

- UPDATE DCOST-EFFECTIVENES S INFORMATION FO ROM B

# REGULATORYGUIDINGPRINCIPLE S

• ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD S SHOUL DB E SE T B YEP A T O PROTEC T TH E PUBLI C HEALT H AN DWELFARE . • REGULATION S T O AH A

I N STANDARD S SHOUL DBE :

- CONSISTEN T WIT HLONG-RANG E CONTROL S STRATEGIES .

- COS T EFFECTIVE .

- APPLIE DUNIFORMLY .

- BASE DON

SOUNDTECHNICAL/ECONOMIC/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .

- ENFORCEABLE , WIT HREASONABL E ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN O N EPA/AFFECTE D PARTIES . • ONC E PROMULGATED , REGULATORYREQUIREMENT S SHOUL DB E STRICTL YENFORCED .