&EPA
Air and Radiation EPA420-S-05-007
June 2005
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Analysis of and Action on
State of Connecticut
Department of Environmental
Protection's Request for a
Waiver of the Oxygen Content
Requirement in Federal
Reformulated Gasoline
-------
EPA420-S-05-007
June 2005
of on of
of
for a of the
in
Transportation and Regional Programs Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
ANALYSIS OF AND ACTION ON
STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION'S
REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE OXYGEN CONTENT REQUIREMENT
IN FEDERAL REFORMULATED GASOLINE
I. INTRODUCTION
The Connecticut reformulated gasoline (RFC) area is required under the Clean
Air Act to use RFC containing 2% oxygen by weight, unless that oxygen content
requirement is waived by EPA. Connecticut has requested a waiver of the RFC oxygen
content requirement for the Connecticut RFC area.1 This document discusses the
Clean Air Act oxygen content requirement for RFC, EPA's authority to waive that
requirement, the basis for Connecticut's request for a waiver, and the basis for EPA's
determination to deny Connecticut's request. Additional information is available in an
accompanying Technical Support Document.
A. The RFG Oxygen Content Requirement and EPA's Waiver Authority
Under the Clean Air Act ("CAA" or "the Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 7545(k)(2)(B), nine
geographic areas in non-attainment for the ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), as well as other areas that subsequently are reclassified as
severe ozone nonattainment areas, are required to use reformulated gasoline. CAA §§
211 (k)(10)(D), 211 (k)(5). Certain other ozone non-attainment areas may "opt-in" to the
RFG program as a means of addressing their ozone non-attainment problems. CAA
§211 (k)(6). The Act specifies certain gasoline content requirements for RFG. CAA §
211 (k)(2). Of particular importance for Connecticut's request is the Act's requirement
concerning the oxygen content of RFG and EPA's authority to waive that requirement.
Section 211(k)(2)(B) of the Act provides:
The oxygen content of the [reformulated] gasoline shall equal or exceed
2.0 percent by weight (subject to a testing tolerance established by the
Administrator) except as otherwise required by this Act. The Administrator
may waive, in whole or in part, the application of this subparagraph for
any ozone nonattainment area upon a determination by the Administrator
that compliance with such requirement would prevent or interfere with
The term "Connecticut RFG area" as it is used in this document means the entire State of
Connecticut and includes the Connecticut State portion of the Hartford-New Haven-
Springfield Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA), the Connecticut State
portion of the New York City CMSA, and the opt-in areas of Litchfield, Hartford,
Middlesex, New London, Tolland, and Windham Counties, Connecticut.
-------
attainment by the area of a national primary ambient air quality standard.
Thus, EPA has discretion under this section to waive the oxygen content
requirement if it determines that compliance with the oxygen content requirement would
prevent or interfere with attainment of a primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) in an ozone nonattainment area. This section requires, at a minimum, that an
applicant seeking a waiver must clearly demonstrate the impact of a waiver for each
applicable NAAQS. See Daws v. EPA, 348 F.3d 772, 779-80 (9th Cir. 2003)(affirming
EPA's evidentiary standard in the context of EPA's denial of California's waiver
request.)2 EPA may take into consideration other available information in evaluating
a request for a waiver.3
A key threshold question before the Agency when considering such a request is
whether there has been a clear demonstration of the air quality impacts of a waiver of
the RFC oxygen content requirement. To address the air quality impacts of a waiver,
one must, as a technical matter, consider the gasoline fuel properties of the RFC that
would likely be sold in the area with and without an oxygen content waiver. From this
information, one must then evaluate the impact that a change in fuel properties would
produce on emissions of pollutants. The expected change in emissions of pollutants
associated with those different RFC blends is needed to evaluate the impact of a
waiver on attainment of a NAAQS. All relevant categories of emissions need to be
considered.
EPA cannot make a determination of interference with or prevention of
attainment of any NAAQS due to compliance with the oxygen content requirement
unless the projected emission impacts of a waiver are analyzed for each applicable
NAAQS. Absent such an analysis, EPA is not able to determine whether a waiver
would aid, hinder, or have no effect on attainment of a NAAQS.
B. Connecticut's waiver request
In a letter dated April 22, 2002, from Connecticut Governor John G. Rowland to
then Administrator Whitman, Connecticut expressed intent to submit a waiver request
under CAA Section 211(k)(2)(B) from the federal RFC oxygen content requirement. In a
letter dated September 29, 2004 from Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) Commissioner ArhturJ. Rocque, Jr., to Assistant Administrator Jeff
Holmstead, Connecticut officially submitted such a request for the Connecticut RFC
2 Docket A-2000-10, lll-A-1.
3 For further discussion of EPA's interpretation of the authority to grant a waiver under
section 211 (k)(2)(B), see Appendix A of [Docket A-2000-10, ll-B-1].
-------
area.4 The submission stated that because MTBE was banned in the State of
Connecticut beginning January 1, 2004, and because of the Act's oxygen content
requirement for RFC, ethanol would be used as an oxygenate in the RFC areas in the
State of Connecticut. DEP asserted that the use of ethanol as a replacement for MTBE
in RFC would result in an increase in Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and oxides
of nitrogen (NOx) during the summer ozone season. DEP further argued that
"increases in these pollutants will immediately interfere with Connecticut's ability to
attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for both one-hour and eight
hour ozone...and fine particles."
II. ERA'S ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION THAT CONNECTICUT DEP
SUBMITTED
A. Basis for DEP's request for a waiver
DEP's request for a waiver is based primarily on its contention that use of
ethanol-oxygenated reformulated gasoline will interfere with attainment of the ozone
and particulate matter NAAQS because:
The NOx and VOC emissions performance of ethanol-oxygenated RFC
will be worse than the emissions performance of the MTBE-oxygenated
RFC supplied to Connecticut prior to its MTBE ban or to non-oxygenated
fuel.
Commingling and permeation resulting from ethanol use will increase
VOC emissions compared to MTBE-oxygenated or non-oxygenated RFC.
Ethanol-oxygenated RFC will not provide the NOx reduction benefits
expected under the RFC program because the Complex Model does not
fully capture the effects of oxygenates on vehicle emissions of NOx.
The transport of ethanol into the Connecticut area would cause an
increase in emissions due to additional ships and barges transporting
ethanol into the Connecticut area for adding to RFC at terminals.
Fine particulates will increase because the NOx emission performance will
be worse for ethanol blended RFC as compared to the fuel under an
oxygen waiver.
Docket OAR-2004-0429-0001.
-------
B. Major limitations in the information submitted by DEP
As discussed above, a key threshold technical issue in evaluating a waiver
request is to evaluate the emissions impact of a waiver. The emissions impact of a
waiver is basically a comparison of emissions with a waiver ("waiver") to emissions
without a waiver ("no waiver"). This comparison is needed to clearly demonstrate
whether a waiver would aid, hinder, or have no effect on attainment of a NAAQS.
Certain information is required in order to make a quantitative estimate, or even a
reasonably certain qualitative directional estimate, of the emissions changes that a
waiver might produce. This information includes knowledge of certain emission-related
properties of the reformulated gasoline that would be supplied to Connecticut with and
without a waiver. Models relating these fuel properties to vehicle emissions would then
be used to estimate percent differences in emissions between the "no waiver" and
"waiver" conditions. Additionally, on-road and off-road gasoline emission inventory data
are needed in order to convert relative (%) changes to absolute (tons/day) changes.
Inventory information may be necessary even to perform a directional analysis. The
need for this information is described in detail in the accompanying Technical Support
Document.
Connecticut's submissions included essentially no information or analysis of the
expected fuel properties of RFC with and without a waiver. Connecticut did not provide
sufficient information or analysis to show either quantitative or directional estimates of
the emissions differences between "no waiver" and a "waiver," for the pollutants
contributing to ozone formation, NOx, VOCs and carbon monoxide (CO) or subsequent
conversion of NOx to particulates. NOx, VOCs, and CO each affect ozone to a varying
degree, and their emissions rates could be altered by a waiver. Changes in VOC, NOx,
and CO emissions were not quantified, and the lack of adequate information and
analysis means that even the direction of any change in NOx and VOC is not clear.
Changes in CO emissions were not addressed.
If Connecticut had provided information and analysis on the change in fuel
properties and associated emissions that a waiver would be expected to produce, and
the resulting impact on ozone and particulate matter, EPA would be in a position to
thoroughly review the basis for these estimates (fuel property estimation and emission
modeling methodology), and evaluate the estimated impact a waiver might have on
ambient ozone and particulate matter.
DEP's original "intent to submit" letter indicated that they planned to provide this
information. Consequently, EPA responded that we were awaiting Connecticut's
documentation in support of Connecticut's plan to request a waiver. DEP did not
provide the information in their official request.
-------
EPA has considered the information that Connecticut has provided which may
be relevant to an analysis of Connecticut's waiver request. EPA has determined as
described in the Technical Support Document, that the relevant no-waiver to waiver
comparison cannot be made either qualitatively or quantitatively. In making this
evaluation, EPA has considered the information provided by Connecticut with regard to
the potential effect of a waiver on each of the pollutants, NOx, VOC and CO, for both
on-road and off-road gasoline vehicles and engines.
In order to evaluate the adequacy of the information submitted by Connecticut,
we have identified the information on fuel properties, vehicle fleets (e.g., on-road versus
off-road, older technology vehicles versus newer technology, etc.), and emission
sources (e.g., exhaust, "as blended" evaporative, commingling and permeation-related)
that would need to be provided to conduct an adequate waiver/no-waiver analysis. We
have also identified emissions models and other information necessary to make the
relevant emission estimates that could be utilized to make a waiver/no-waiver
comparison.
Based on the available information, EPA has concluded that neither the
magnitude nor even the direction of the NOx and VOC changes that would occur with a
waiver can be determined using the information provided. Although a gross directional
determination for CO emissions can be made, the change in CO likewise cannot be
quantified with the information provided by DEP.5
III. CONCLUSION
The information that DEP has provided fails to demonstrate what effect a waiver
would have on ozone or particulate matter levels in Connecticut. This is because: 1)
there are three pollutants whose emission rates could be altered by a waiver (NOx,
VOC and CO) and all three affect ozone formation to varying degrees; 2) the lack of
information on fuel qualities with and without a waiver and the lack of other relevant and
necessary information precludes even a directional estimate of the impact of a waiver
on NOx and VOC emissions; 3) the best estimate of the net impact of a waiver on CO
emissions is that CO emissions would be greater with a waiver than without, but the
difference cannot be quantified; 4) no analysis has been provided or performed, and
the information before the agency does not allow an analysis to be performed, on the
combined effect of these emissions changes on ozone.
In addition, (1) NOx emissions affect PM, (2) the lack of information on fuel
qualities with and without a waiver and the lack of other relevant and necessary
information precludes even a directional estimate of the impact of a waiver on NOx, (3)
CO plays a far less important role in ozone formation that NOx or VOC. Thus, even
though a gross directional determination can be made, such a determination provides
little useful information in making a judgement about the net impact on ozone formation
from a waiver.
-------
no analysis has been provided or performed, and the information before the agency
does not allow an analysis to be performed, on the effect of any NOx emissions
changes on participate matter.
Since no determination can be made regarding the overall effect of a waiver on
emissions related to ozone and participate matter, the information that DEP has
provided fails to clearly demonstrate what effect a waiver would have on ozone or
participate matter. Since this threshold demonstration has not been made, EPA is not
able to determine whether a waiver would aid, hinder, or have no effect on the
attainment of the ozone or particulate matter NAAQS, and therefore cannot determine
whether compliance with the oxygen requirement for RFC prevents or interferes with
attainment of the ozone or particulate matter NAAQS in the Connecticut RFC area.
EPA concludes that Connecticut's request therefore should be denied.
------- |