P. 1



# OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 146 ) IV-E-1 9 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:55PM

Sheet 146 of 242P. 2 

# V o s 

# %

M 2 0 

## 198 8 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5

OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N



### MEMORANDU

M
SUBJECT :

FROM : Meeting wit hAP I an d MVM Ao n th e Join t Proposa l on Vapo r Recovery Joh n F . Anderson , Senio r Projec t Manage r Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h 

# /, J^J^a 

# .
TO : Docke t A-87-1 1 an d Docke t A-85-2 1

O n Decembe r 14 , 198 7 a meeting wa s hel d betwee n EP Aan d member s o f AP I an

d MVM At o discus s th

e join t proposa l whic hwa s being advance d b

ythos e group s in respons e t o the onboard an d volatilit yproposals . Alis t o f attendee s i s attached . Als o attache d i s a cop

yo f the materia l submitte d b yAP I an

d MVMA . Discussio n a t th

e meeting centere d upon clarifying question s b y EP Arelate d t o the analyse s use d t o generat e the figure s in the handout . The AP I an d MVM Astaf f indicate d tha t a futur e updating o f thei r analyse s wa s planned . Attachment sP. 3



### £// ? Aturf

^ JLM /hr*/ /jni/**rt

\j^rJL-y. 

# €

f /f / J I /

/ 

### t,tyS- 

### •<>.- 

### -i- ,, 

## /// s*^ l^y i

## /s 

# >y'Y/Z7

/- 

# I ;' / <r-1m^ =>r- 

# /rio ^ , 7 /?/y

Z5<~~ Arr-C.-tu^-Zj. <y<-

Ol^_P. 4

JOIN T PROPOSA L O NVAPO R RECOVER Y
BACKGROUN D Th e Clea n Ai r Ac t require s tha t th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandard s fo r ozon e b e attaine d b yDecembe r 31 , 1987 . Usin g model s and monitorin g data , th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA ) ha s conclude d tha t a s manya s 6 2 metropolita n area s ma yno t compl ywit hth e standar d fo r ozon e b ytha t date . Hydrocarbo n emission s ar e on e o f th e primar ycontributor s t o th e formatio n o f ozone . EP Ai s proposin g sever e restriction s o n gasolin e "volatility " ( a measur e o f it s tendenc yt o evaporate ) an d regulation s requirin g refuelin g vapo r recover ycontro l equipmen t onboar d vehicles . Additionally , othe r refuelin g emissio n reduction s ar e t o b e achieve d throug hStag e I I control s a t servic e station s i n some areas . TH E PETROLEU M AN D AUTOMOBIL E INDUSTRIE S JOIN T PROPOSA L I n orde r t o provid e a regulator ysolutio n tha t woul d accelerat e th e objective s o f the EP Aprogra mi n meetin g nationa l ai r qualit ystandard s an d b e mor e cos t effective , th e petroleum an d automobil e industrie s ar e proposin g a n alternativ e progra m fo r reducin g hydrocarbo n emissions . Th e proposa l mus t b e accepte d bygovernmen t official s and enforcin g provision s incorporate d int o federa l legislatio n and/o r regulatio n b yth e en d o f 1987 . Th e proposal , th e provision s o f whic hmus t b e enforce d i n toto , consist s o f th e following : 1 ) Tha t th e volatilit yo f al l moto r fuel s b e reduce d fro m Ma y1 6 t o Septembe r 1 5 beginnin g i n 198 8 accordin g t o th e followin g volatilit ylimits : AST M Region s EP AProposa l Curren t Join t Proposa l Guideline s Limit s 198 9 199 2 198 8 AST M Clas s AArea s 8. 2 7. 0 9. 0 l bRV P 9. 0 l b RV P AST M Clas s B Area s 9. 1 7. 8 10. 0 l bRV P 9. 5 l b RV P AST M Clas s C Area s 10. 5 9. 0 11. 5 l bRV P 10. 5 l b RV P Bot hindustrie s strongl yoppos e RV P reduction s beyon d thes e limit s an d propos e tha t thes e reduction s preemp t furthe r Federa l reduction s o r reduction s b

yan yindividua l stat e government , othe r tha n existin g Californi a regulations . 2 ) Tha t effectiv e Januar y1 , 199 0 lea d woul d b e eliminate d fo r on-highwa yvehicl e gasolin e use . 3 ) Tha t vehicl e manufacturer s certif ythei r evaporativ e emissio n contro l system s usin g 10. 5 l bRV P certificatio n fue l a t se a leve l and 9. 5 l bRV P a t hig haltitud e beginnin g 199 1 mode l year .P. 5

4 ) Tha t EP

A mandat e tha t al l ozon e nonattainmen t area s adop t a n improvedinspectionan dmaintenanc e progra m patternedafte r th e existing program s inArizon a an dOregon . It i s importan t tha t intentiona l o r accidenta l malmaintenanc e o f vehicl e emissio ncontro l systems no t resul t inslowing progres s toward th e nation' s cleanai r goal . 5 ) Tha t Stag e I I vapo r recovery emissio ncontro l woul dcontinu e i neffec t incurren t Californi a jurisdictions , inWashington , D.C , an

dinSt . Louis , Missouri , bu t Stag e I I control s wil l no t b e extende dbeyon

dthes e localities . 6 ) Tha t onboardvapo r recover y systems wil l no t b e required nationwid e o

r b y an y state . Bot hindustrie s strongl y oppos e additiona l refuelin g controls . Refuelin g emission s ar e a mino r contributio nto th e nation' s ozon e problems , an

dcontrolling thes e emission s i s no t a cost-effective mean s o f solving th e proble

m o f ozon e nonattainment . Th e join t proposa l i s a substitut e fo r additiona l refueling control s mandate db y eithe r EPA

o r individua l stat e governments . ANALYSI S OF TH E JOINT PROPOSA L COMPARE DTO EPA' S PROPOSA L o The cost-effectivenes s o f th e join t proposa l i s far superio r t o th e EP A proposal , especiall y inth e long-ter

m (a s note di n Attachmen t A) . The join t oil/aut o proposa l range s fro m $2,90 0 to $4,000/to npe r year . The incrementa l cos t o f reducing th

e additiona l emission s i nEPA' s proposa l i s approximatel y

§13,000/tonpe r yea r fo r th e sam e period . o I nth

e short-ter

m (1988-91) , th

e join t oil/aut o proposa l ha s the advantag e o f producing mor e immediat e benefit s inthe reductiono f hydrocarbon s (se e Attachmen t A) . Th e cumulativ e tota l fo

r th e join t proposa l i s 87 6 Kton s comparedto 71 2 K ton s fo

r th e EP A proposal . The join t proposa l provide s 123 % o f th e EP A program . o I nth

e long-term , th

e join t oil/aut o proposa l compare s favorabl y

to EPA' s proposa l i nreducing exceedance s o f the ozon e standardan

dreducing th

e numbe r o f nonattainmen t area s a s indicate db

y th e following tables . Oi l industry

cost s fo

r bot hth

e join t proposa l an dth e EP A proposa l ar e estimate s an

dwil l b

e adjuste da s necessary o no r around Octobe r 1 5 whe na nindept hanalysi s base do na refiner

y b y refinery

survey

i s completed .P. 6



### TOTA L NUMBE R OF EXCEEDANCE S O F TH E OZONE NAAQ S IN6 1 NON-CALIFORNI AURBA N NONATTAINMEN

T AREAS * PROJECTIO

NYEA R

N o Furthe r Control s 199 0 24 6 199 5

23 9 200 0

25 0 201 0

29 2 Contro l Scenario s Join t Oil/Aut o Proposal * EPAProposa l Ne t Differenc e 23 2 23 2 -0

- 21 8

20 0 -1 8 22 2

20 8 -1 4 26 0

25 6

- 4 

### COMPARISO

NO F TH E PROJECTE D NUMBE R O F NON-CALIFORNI AURBA N OZON E NONATTAINMEN

T AREAS * PROJECTIO

NYEA R 199 0 4 0 199 5

3 8 200 0

4 1 201 0 5 1

3 6 3 6 0

- 3 3

2 9

- 4 3 4

3 0

- 4 4 1

3 9

- 2 

### N o Furthe r Control s Contro l Scenario s Join t Oil/Aut o Proposal * EPAProposa l Ne t Differenc e * Th e projection s for nonattainmen t area s i n the join t proposa l ar e base d o n the les s stringen t volatility controls , plu s th

e propose d lead ban , an

d the I&M/anti-tamperin g program . The projectio n for nonattainmen t area s fo r EPA' s proposa l i s base d on mor e stringen t volatilit ylimit s plu s refuelin g controls . Al l projection s ar e base d o n 7 3 nonattainmen t area s nationwid e [61 , No n Calif ; 12 , Calif. ] Basis : Draf t RI AJul y198 7P. 7



## COMPARISON O

F VO C REDUCTION PROPOSAL S

p R 0 J E C T E D N A A s BENEFI T COMPARISO N

198 8 - 9 1 199 5 200 0 201 0

YEA R

P R 0 J E C T E D E X C E E D E N . C E S JOIN T SOLUTIO N H EP A 198 8 - 9 1 199 5 200 0 201 0

YEA R

B I L L I 0 N S 0 F D 

### $4.000- r ° $3,00 0 • L $2,00 0 • K$1,00 0 - S $0,00 0 COS T COMPARISO

N

JOIN T SOLUTIO

N D i EP A 

### 198 8 - 9 1 199 5 200 0 201 0

YEA RP. 8

COMPARISO NO F TH E PROJECTE D REGULATOR Y CONTRO L COST S
PROJECTIO NYEAR CONTRO L SCENARI O 199 0 199 5 200 0 201 0 Join t Oil/Aut o Proposa l $75 0 $ 97 9 $ 98 5 $ 98 9 EP AProposa l 92 5 360 0 360 0 360 0 Ne t Differenc e 17 5 262 1 261 5 261 1

* Note : Al l value s ar e i n million s o f curren t dollar s ADDITIONA L STEP S NEEDED : ACOMPREHENSIV E ASSESSMEN T O F OZON E o Bot hindustrie s believ e EPAshoul d conduc t a comprehensiv e assessmen t o f th e ozon e problem , wit hparticula r focu s o n th e magnitud e o f th e proble man d th e bes t mean s o f alleviatin g it . o EPA' s curren t approac ho f usin g desig n value s t o designat e nonattainmen t area s ma yoverstat e th e problem . Arecen t studyo f EP Aozon e monitorin g dat a indicate s tha t 2 3 o f th e 2 5 "majo r urba n areas " achieve d th e ozon e standar d mor e tha n 99 % o f th e time . o Th e substantia l and immediat e reductio n provide d byth e join t oil/aut o proposa l allow s policy-maker s th e tim e neede d t o obtai n a realisti c assessmen t o f th e magnitud e o f th e proble mwhil e continuin g t o mak e significan t stride s towar d reducin g tota l hydrocarbons .P. 9



### Acomprehensive assessmen t o f the ozon e problemshoul d includ e a n examinatio n o f existing Stat e Implementatio n Plan s t o determin e wha t worked , wha t di d not , an d why . Thi s evaluatio n shoul d examin e al l emissio n source s an d thei r contributio n t o ozone . Acomplet e an d up-to-dat e emission s inventory , b ynonattainmen t area , i s badl y needed . Finally , EP Ashoul d continu e t o improve th e representativenes s o f ai r qualit ymeasurements , a s wel l a s it s understanding o f th e relationshi p o f thes e measure s t o healt h effects . W e believ e a mor e comprehensive assessmen t o f th e problem , togethe r wit hthe immediat e benefit s realize d i n the join t oil/aut o proposal , othe r contro l measure s alread yi n place , an

d flee t turnover , compe l th e conclusio n tha t stringen t an d costl ycontro l measure s ar e neithe r necessaryno r appropriate .P.1 0

ATTACHMEN T A SUMMAR Y O F COMPARATIV E EMISSIO NREDUCTION S AN D COS T *

1988-9 1 199 5 200 0 200 5 Join t Proposa l VOC' s Reduce d 87 6 24 4 28 5 33 5 

### ( K Tons ) %l£* Cos t ( $ Billions ) 3.00 0 .97 9 .98 5 .98 9 Cos t Effectivenes s 3,40 0 4,00 0 3,40 0 2,90 0 ($/Ton ) 2 EP AProposa l VOC' s Reduce d 71 2 46 3 48 8 53 4 ( K Tons ) Cos t ( $ Billions ) 3.70 0 3.60 0 3.60 0 3.60 0 Cos t Effectivenes s 5,00 0 7,80 0 7,40 0 6,70 0 ($/Ton ) , Incrementa l Cost/To n N AJ $12,00 0 $13,40 0 $13,60 0 Th e cost s o f th e join t proposa l includ e RV P reduction s startin g i n 1988 , th e I&M/anti-tamperin g progra mi n 1989 , th e enlarge d evaporativ e caniste r 199 1 mode l year , and th e ba n o n lea d i n 1990 . Anti-tamperin g and inspectio n and maintenanc e estimate s ar e base d o n projection s containe d i n EP ADraf t RI Adate d Jul y 1987 . Th e dat a ha s bee n adjuste d t o accoun t fo r volatilit y level s containe d i n th e join t proposa l and vehicl e mile s traveled/gasolin e demand . Dat a for-199 5 and 200 0 wer e interpolate d fro m

1988-201 0 projections . Emissio n reductio n estimate s d o no t includ e a facto r fo r weathering . Bot h industrie s agre e tha t weatherin g (norma l reduction s i n th e volatilit yo f fue l i n th e vehicl e tank ) i s a facto r and whe n incorporate d woul d reduc e th e emissio n reductio n estimate s i n bot hth e join t proposa l and EP Aproposal . 2 Emissio n reduction s i n th e EP Aproposa l ar e calculate d usin g Mobil e 3 and utilizin g dat a fro mth e EP A198 5 volatilit y documen t and adjuste d t o curren t DO E hig hgasolin e deman d o f 7. 2 millio n barrel s pe r day . Cost s fo r th e EP Aproposa l includ e lowe r RVP , onboar d refuelin g canister , and Stag e I I i n selecte d areas . 3 A n incrementa l cos t fo r th e EP Aproposa l canno t b e calculate d sinc e th e join t proposa l produce s greate r emissio n benefit s a t a lowe r cos t tha n th e EP Aproposal . Evaporativ e caniste r an d refuelin g cost s wer e determine d b yaut o industr yrepresentatives ; volatility , Stag e I I and lea d cost s wer e determine d b

yoi l industr yrepresenative s (9/30/87) .