Workshop to Discuss Workshop to Discuss Draft Proposals for Changes to the Predictive Draft Proposals for Changes to the Predictive Model and Other Changes to the CaliforniaModel and Other Changes to the California

Reformulated Gasoline Regulations Reformulated Gasoline Regulations

August 4, 1999August 4, 1999

California Environmental Protection AgencyCalifornia Environmental Protection Agency

Air Resources BoardAir Resources Board

2

AgendaAgenda

IntroductionsIntroductionsARB PresentationARB Presentation

BackgroundBackground Technical IssuesTechnical Issues Draft Preliminary ProposalDraft Preliminary Proposal

Presentations by OthersPresentations by OthersOpen DiscussionOpen DiscussionOther IssuesOther Issues

High EmittersHigh Emitters ScheduleSchedule

Closing RemarksClosing Remarks

3

BackgroundBackground

Governor Davis’s Executive Order for the Phase-Out Governor Davis’s Executive Order for the Phase-Out of MTBEof MTBE

4

Governor’s FindingsGovernor’s Findings

MTBE presents threat to groundwater, surface water, MTBE presents threat to groundwater, surface water, and drinking waterand drinking water Underground gasoline storage tanks are not leak proofUnderground gasoline storage tanks are not leak proof MTBE is highly soluble in water and transfers to MTBE is highly soluble in water and transfers to

groundwater faster than other constituents in gasolinegroundwater faster than other constituents in gasoline MTBE in small amounts renders drinking water unusableMTBE in small amounts renders drinking water unusable

MTBE potential but not proven health problemMTBE potential but not proven health problemMTBE not essential to cleaner-burning gasolineMTBE not essential to cleaner-burning gasoline

Based on study by University of California,Based on study by University of California,and public hearings Governor found:and public hearings Governor found:

5

Governor’s Executive OrderGovernor’s Executive Order

On March 26, 1999 Governor issued Executive On March 26, 1999 Governor issued Executive Order D-5-99 for the phase-out of MTBE from Order D-5-99 for the phase-out of MTBE from California GasolineCalifornia Gasoline

6

Governor’s Executive OrderGovernor’s Executive Order(D-5-99)(D-5-99)

Requires phase out of MTBE by earliest practical date Requires phase out of MTBE by earliest practical date but not later than December 31, 2002but not later than December 31, 2002

To be implemented by several organizationsTo be implemented by several organizations Air Resources BoardAir Resources Board State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentOffice of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Energy Commission (CEC)California Energy Commission (CEC) Department of Health Services (DHS)Department of Health Services (DHS)

7

Tasks Required by Executive Order Tasks Required by Executive Order D-5-99D-5-99

CEC with ARB to develop timetable for removal of CEC with ARB to develop timetable for removal of MTBE (Hearing - June 28, 1999)MTBE (Hearing - June 28, 1999)

ARB to evaluate need for winter oxygenates in Lake ARB to evaluate need for winter oxygenates in Lake Tahoe (Hearing - June 24,1999)Tahoe (Hearing - June 24,1999)

CEC with ARB to work with petroleum industry to CEC with ARB to work with petroleum industry to provide MTBE-free gasoline to Lake Tahoe regionprovide MTBE-free gasoline to Lake Tahoe region

ARB to adopt Phase 3 gasoline regulations to provide ARB to adopt Phase 3 gasoline regulations to provide additional flexibility in removing oxygen while additional flexibility in removing oxygen while preserving benefits and allow compliance with the State preserving benefits and allow compliance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP)Implementation Plan (SIP)

8

Tasks Required by Executive Order Tasks Required by Executive Order D-5-99 D-5-99 (continued)(continued)

ARB to adopt regulations requiring prominent ARB to adopt regulations requiring prominent labeling of gasoline with MTBE at the pump labeling of gasoline with MTBE at the pump (Hearing - June 24, 1999)(Hearing - June 24, 1999)

ARB and the SWRCB to conduct environmental ARB and the SWRCB to conduct environmental fate and transport analysis of ethanolfate and transport analysis of ethanol

OEHHA to prepare an analysis of the health risks OEHHA to prepare an analysis of the health risks associated with the use of ethanolassociated with the use of ethanol

9

Tasks Required by Executive Order Tasks Required by Executive Order D-5-99 D-5-99 (continued)(continued)

SWRCB with the Department of Water Resources SWRCB with the Department of Water Resources and DHS to:and DHS to: Prioritize vulnerable water areasPrioritize vulnerable water areas Prioritize resources to protection and cleanupPrioritize resources to protection and cleanup Develop guidelines for investigation and cleanup of Develop guidelines for investigation and cleanup of

MTBEMTBE

SWRCB to seek legislation to extend sunset date of SWRCB to seek legislation to extend sunset date of Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund to Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund to December 31, 2010December 31, 2010

10

Tasks Required by Executive Order Tasks Required by Executive Order D-5-99 D-5-99 (continued)(continued)

CEC to evaluate steps to foster waste-based or other CEC to evaluate steps to foster waste-based or other biomass ethanol development in California if ethanol biomass ethanol development in California if ethanol acceptable substitute for MTBEacceptable substitute for MTBE

11

Technical IssuesTechnical Issues

12

Summer Test ProgramSummer Test Program

Finished by early Fall ?Finished by early Fall ?Advanced technology vehiclesAdvanced technology vehiclesThree sulfur levels (5, 30, 100)Three sulfur levels (5, 30, 100)Three oxygen levels (0, 2.0, 3.5)Three oxygen levels (0, 2.0, 3.5)Non-FTP test cycleNon-FTP test cycle

13

IssuesIssues

14

Predictive Model DevelopmentPredictive Model Development

Tech Groups 3 and 4 - Calculate new Tech Groups 3 and 4 - Calculate new coefficientscoefficients

Tech Group 5 - Build new modelTech Group 5 - Build new modelSulfur Response - Log sulfur curveSulfur Response - Log sulfur curveToxics ModelToxics Model

15

Predictive Model DevelopmentPredictive Model Development

Evaporative Emissions ModelEvaporative Emissions ModelCO CreditCO CreditEMFAC7f -vs- EMFAC99EMFAC7f -vs- EMFAC99

16

Potential Changes from the Existing Potential Changes from the Existing ModelModel

More exhaust data availableMore exhaust data available Tech Group 3 - A small change to coefficients Tech Group 3 - A small change to coefficients

because of new databecause of new data Tech Group 4 - A small change to coefficients Tech Group 4 - A small change to coefficients

because of new databecause of new data Tech Group 5 - The new model being developed Tech Group 5 - The new model being developed

relies on Tech Group 4 model parameters relies on Tech Group 4 model parameters responses and new dataresponses and new data

CO Credit for oxygen above 2% CO Credit for oxygen above 2% An evaporative hydrocarbon modelAn evaporative hydrocarbon model

Hot SoakHot Soak Running LossRunning Loss Diurnal and Resting LossesDiurnal and Resting Losses

17

Changes to DatabaseChanges to Database

June, 1994 July, 1999

Observations 9,000 11,000

Studies 30 38

Vehicles 1200 1300

Fuels 190 210

18

Year 2005 - Percent DistributionYear 2005 - Percent Distribution

TechTech ModelModel VehiclesVehicles VMTVMT ExhstExhst EvapEvap TotalTotal NOxNOx COCOGroupGroup YearsYears ROGROG ROGROG ROGROG

55 96 - 0596 - 05 6868 7979 2525 2727 2626 5050 3636

44 86 – 9586 – 95 2626 1818 4545 5252 4747 3333 3838

33 81 – 8581 – 85 44 22 1414 1010 1313 1212 1212

2 - 12 - 1 71 – 8071 – 80 22 11 1717 1111 1515 55 1414

EMFAC7f

19

Draft Relative Tech Group Weighting Draft Relative Tech Group Weighting for Phase 3 RFG (2005)for Phase 3 RFG (2005)

30

ROG *

54

17

53

NOx *

35

12

5

Tech Group

4

3

42

CO *

44

14

* Need to update based on new EMFAC model.

20

Predictive Model Update IssuesPredictive Model Update Issues

Toxics ModelToxics Model Evap toxics model for benzene.Evap toxics model for benzene.

NOx Model - Olefin/T90NOx Model - Olefin/T90Hydrocarbon ModelHydrocarbon Model

Exhaust Model + Evap Model +CO Credit Exhaust Model + Evap Model +CO Credit (oxy>2%)(oxy>2%)

MIR FactorsMIR Factors EMFAC7g/EMFAC99EMFAC7g/EMFAC99

21

Proposed Draft SpecificationsProposed Draft Specifications

22

Phase 2 RFG Parameters and Preliminary Phase 2 RFG Parameters and Preliminary Draft Phase 3 RFG OptionsDraft Phase 3 RFG Options

N/A - Not Applicable, TBD - To Be Determined

Existing Preliminary Draft

Parameter Flat Ave. Cap Flat Ave. Cap

RVP 7.0 N/A N/A 6.9 ? TBD 6.4 - 7.2 ?

Sulfur 40 30 80 20 ? TBD 20? - 30?

Benzene 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.8 ? 0.5 ? 1.0 ?

Arom 25 22 30 25 22 35 ?

Olef 6.0 4.0 10.0 6.0 4.0 10.0

T50 210 200 220 210 200 220

T90 300 290 330 300 290 330

Oxygen 1.8 - 2.2 N/A 0 - 3.5 1.8 - 2.2 N/A 0 - 3.5

23

Near Term WorkNear Term WorkFor August 31, 1999, WorkshopFor August 31, 1999, Workshop

Further address flexibilityFurther address flexibilityAdd CO credit for oxygen > 2%Add CO credit for oxygen > 2%Refine Predictive ModelRefine Predictive Model

24

Midterm WorkMidterm WorkTo be completed by October 1999To be completed by October 1999

Update Predictive Model with new dataUpdate Predictive Model with new dataAvailability of new emissions inventory Availability of new emissions inventory

model - EMFAC99model - EMFAC99

26

High EmittersHigh Emitters

27

What is the Basis of the Predictive What is the Basis of the Predictive Model?Model?

Data from 20 different test programs that investigated Data from 20 different test programs that investigated the effects of fuel properties on emissionsthe effects of fuel properties on emissions

Over 1000 vehicles testedOver 1000 vehicles testedAbout 6900 data pointsAbout 6900 data pointsOver 200 fuelsOver 200 fuels

28

Differences Between the EPA and Differences Between the EPA and CARB ModelsCARB Models

EPA Complex ModelEPA Complex Model Exhaust component - includes separate normal and higher emitter Exhaust component - includes separate normal and higher emitter

elementselements Evaporative component - RVP allowed to varyEvaporative component - RVP allowed to vary

ARB Predictive ModelARB Predictive Model Exhaust only - RVP fixed in regulationsExhaust only - RVP fixed in regulations Normal and higher emitters modeled togetherNormal and higher emitters modeled together Gives larger hydrocarbon credit for increased OxygenGives larger hydrocarbon credit for increased Oxygen

29

How does the Predictive Model Differ from How does the Predictive Model Differ from the U.S. EPA Complex Model?the U.S. EPA Complex Model?

- High Emitters -- High Emitters -

U.S. EPA Complex ModelU.S. EPA Complex Model Has high emitter elementHas high emitter element High emitter element developed from data from only 32 High emitter element developed from data from only 32

vehicles.vehicles.ARB Predictive ModelARB Predictive Model

Predictive Model includes high emitters as part of Predictive Model includes high emitters as part of random on-road fleet sample. random on-road fleet sample.

ARB staff found that the lack of stability in the high ARB staff found that the lack of stability in the high emitters was consistent with the conclusions of the emitters was consistent with the conclusions of the Auto/Oil Study.Auto/Oil Study.

30

Differences Between the EPA and Differences Between the EPA and CARB ModelsCARB Models

ARB PMARB PM EPA CMEPA CMData PointsData Points 69006900 53005300

Number of VehNumber of Veh 11001100 512512

960 (normal)960 (normal) 480 (normal)480 (normal)

140 (high)140 (high) 32 (high)32 (high)

Number of FuelsNumber of Fuels 250250 200200

Vehicle TypesVehicle Types CA certifiedCA certified 1990 MY Tech1990 MY Tech

(1981-1991 MY)(1981-1991 MY)

31

Percent Change in HC Emissions Percent Change in HC Emissions 0 Percent to 3.5 Percent Oxygen0 Percent to 3.5 Percent Oxygen

ARB Predictive ModelARB Predictive Model

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

Predictive Model Normal Emitter Higher Emitter

Upper Bound

Estimate

Lower Bound

32

Percent Change in NOx Emissions Percent Change in NOx Emissions 0 Percent to 3.5 Percent Oxygen0 Percent to 3.5 Percent Oxygen

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Predictive Model Normal Emitter Higher Emitter

Upper Bound

Estimate

Lower Bound

ARB Predictive ModelARB Predictive Model

33

High EmittersHigh Emitters

Predictive Model DatabasePredictive Model Database 140 High Emitters (Ave. > 2 x Standard)140 High Emitters (Ave. > 2 x Standard) 960 Normal Emitters960 Normal Emitters

Auto/Oil AQIRP High Emitter Test ProgramAuto/Oil AQIRP High Emitter Test Program Tested high emittersTested high emitters Determined large test-to-test variability, concluded that when test Determined large test-to-test variability, concluded that when test

to test variability is accounted for, high emitters have similar to test variability is accounted for, high emitters have similar response to oxygen as normal emitters.response to oxygen as normal emitters.

U.S. EPA Database shows large test to test variabilityU.S. EPA Database shows large test to test variability Continue to be investigatedContinue to be investigated

34

EPA Data for High Emitters is Highly EPA Data for High Emitters is Highly VariableVariable

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Nor

mal

s

Hig

h

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Avg

. TH

C E

mis

sion

s D

iff.

(gm

/mi)

Avg

. TH

C E

mis

sion

s D

iff.

(gm

/mi)

Avg

. NO

x E

mis

sion

s D

iff.

(gm

/mi)

Avg

. NO

x E

mis

sion

s D

iff.

(gm

/mi)

36

Near Term WorkNear Term WorkFor August 31, 1999, WorkshopFor August 31, 1999, Workshop

Add flexibility to initial draft proposalAdd flexibility to initial draft proposalAdd CO credit for oxygen > 2%Add CO credit for oxygen > 2%Refine Predictive ModelRefine Predictive Model

37

Next Meeting - ProposedNext Meeting - Proposed

August 31, 1999August 31, 199910 am to 4 pm10 am to 4 pmARB facilities in El MonteARB facilities in El Monte