TABLE 3

Sign Test Statistics ‘and Confidence Levels For Comparison of
Medaan Emission Levels of Vehicles Tested on Fuel 1 ad Fuel 2

Oxidation Catalyst
Vehicles

1) Increases/Observatiaas
2) Confidence Level of
Increase/Decrease

Three-Way Catalyst
Vehicles

1) Increases /Observations
2) Confidence Level of
Increase /Decrease

Sign Test Statistics and Confidence Levels For Comparison of

BC co NOx EVAP
7/23 3/23 17/23 14/17
95.34 99.98 98.27 99.36

() (3) (x) ea)

BC co NOx EVAP
4/u 2/u 8/l 8/8
72.56 96.73 88.67 99.61 ~

(0) @) (t) (2)
TABLE 4

Median Emissions Levels of Vehicles Tested om Fuel 3 and Fuel 4

Oaxrdatica Catalyst
Vehicles

1) Increases/Observations
2) Confidence Level of
Increase/Decrezse

Three-Way Catalyst
Vehicles

1) Increases/Observations
2) Confidence Level of
Increase/Decrease

EC co NOx EVAP
6/17 1/17 10/17 14/26
83.38 99.99 $8.55 99.79
(D) () (D 2)
HC co NOx EVAP
3/9 27/9 4/9 7/8
74.62 91.02 50.00 96.48
(D) (D) (I) q@)


-13-

fuels for a vehicle either remains constant or becomes
larger over the useful life of the vehicle.

Because 50,000 mile test data were not available for
any test vehicle, projected 50,000 mile emission levels for
each nondevelopmental test vehicle were obtained by using
average back-to-back FTP results and 50,000 mile certifi-
cation data.

The sign test portion of the method of review was
designed to assure with 90% confidence that the sign test
would be failed if 20% or more of the vehicle fleet represented
by the sample fleet were to fail to meet Federal emission
standards for the fuel comparison considered.

Figure 1 depicts the risk of failing the method of
review versus the true fleet failure rate for various
sample sizes. It is clear from the figure that for small
sample sizes the risk of failing the criterion is high for
low fleet failure rates but decreases when sample fleet size
is increased.

The method of review was evaluated for the following
three fuel comparisons:

a) Fuel 1 with Fuel 2
b) Fuel 3 with Fuel 4

¢) Fuel l with Fuel 3


a

TABLE 9 — FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR GASOHOL TESTING PROGRAM
Fuel RON MON RVP % 160 °F Aromatics Ole£fins Saturates Ss. G.
1 96.5 60.7 9.0 20 20.5 “0.4 Tl. .7397
2 99.9 90.1 9.6 32 25.7 0.6 73.7 -7440
3 92.3 62.6 10.0 25 29.0 17.2 53.0 .7487
4 94,8 04.2 10.9: 42 20.9 1636 "54.5 .7526
5 96.4 00.6 10.0 38 34.6 17.6 57.8 7686
1978 pon
Winter Avg 92.9 03.9 12.5 36 67354
1977 MVMA
Winter Avg 92.6 84.2 12.2 36 29.5 8.0 62.6 7356
1975 MVMA
Summer Avg 92.1 04.1 10.1 30 28.9 5.8 65.2 «7402
1978 DoE ' “ft ot
Summer Avg 92.9 83.9 9.8 27 31.2 6.0 “62.8 +7416

Key to Fuels

l1-
2-

J

3
4
5

Indolene Type

Indolene Type/10% Ethanol mix
Howell Northern Summer Grade

Fuel 3/108 Ethanol mix

Blended Summer Grade and 10% (volume) Ethanol to resemble
Fuel 3 with respect to RVP and distillation curve.


Testing Programs
The testing programs which provided Gasohol data for
EPA's consideration are described below: :
1) EPA = DOE Gasohol program
Four emissions test laboratories participated in
a twenty-six vehicle testing program to measure the emis-
sions effect of the addition of 10% ethanol to unleaded
fuel. EPA provided the following fuels~/ to each laboratory:
1. Indolene - the standard emissions test fuel
(40 CFR 86.113-78)
2. Indolene mixed with 10% ethanol
3. A commercially available summer grade unleaded
gasoline
4. The above summer grade gasoline mixed with 10% ethanol
5. A gasoline blended with 10% ethanol with Reid
vapor pressure and volatility characteristics
similar to Fuel 3.
The standard 1978 Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for
tailpipe emissions was followed at each laboratory.
The specific characteristics of each program are

listed below:

s/ The fuels specifications are shown in Table 9 and
Figure 2.


TABLE 5

Sign Test Statistics and Confidence Levels For Comparison of
Median Emissions Levels of Vehicles Tested on Fuel 1 and Fuel 3

Oxidation Catalyst
Vehicles

1) Increases/Observations
2) Confidence Level of
Increase/Decrease

Three-Way Catalyst «
- Vehicles

1) Increases/Observations
2) Confidence Level of
Increase/Decrease

Estimated Ratio of Mean Emissions Levels for Vehicles
Operated on Different Fuels by Catalyst Technology
by Pollutant by Fuel Comparaison

Technologv Fuel /Fuel

BC co NOx EVAP
23/17 13/17 15/17 13/18
97.55 97.55 99.88 98.94

(2) (1) ea) (1)
BC co NOx EVAP
378 4/8 7/8 3/7
63.67 36.33 96.48 77.34
(1) ° q@) (1) (2)
TABLE 6

BC co NOx EVAP
Oxidation Catalyst 2/1 0.835 0.633 1.120 1.522
4/3 0.768 0.632 1.105 1.603
3/1 1.083 1.115 1.151 1.507
Three-Way Catalyst 2/1 0.937 0.806 1.087 1.467
4/3 1.116 0.925 1.086 1.426
3/1 1.101 1.066 1.109 1.268


Source

Ann Arbor!
Ann Arbor!
Ann Arbor!
Ann Arbor
Ann Arbor
Ann Arbor
Ann Arbor
Ann Arbor
Ann Arbor
Ann Arbor
Ann Arbor
RTP?

RTP
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
swri?

SWRI

swri

Model
Year

1979
1978
1978
1979
1978
1978
1978
1977
1978
1979
1978
1977
1979
1976
1977
1977
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978

Test Vehicle Description

Vehicle

ID

noool
NOo002
NO003
N0004
NO005
NO006
NO007
NOo008
NO009
NOOLO
Nooll
RMUST
RLTDI
BOXC1]
BOXC2
BoOOo1]
B0002
BO003
BO004
BOO00S
BO006
BO007
B0008
BO0009
B0010
SSAAB
SCHEV
SMUST

Make/Model

Ford Thunderbird
Ford Bobcat

Ford Maverick
Ford Pinto
Pontiac Sunbird
Chrysler Omni
Plymouth Salon
Chevrolet Impala
Buick Regal I
Toyota Corolla
Buick Regal II
Ford Mustang
Ford LTD II
Chevrolet Impala
Pontiac Astre
Volvo 242

Ford Pinto

AMC Gremlin
Buick Century
Oldsmobile Delta
Ford Futura
Buick Skyhawk
Pontiac Sunbird
Plymouth Salon
Plymouth Horizon
Saab 99GL
Chevrolet Malibu
Ford Mustang

88

Cal./Fed.

Appendix 1

Configuration:

Developmental

California
Federal
Federal
California
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
California
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
California
California
Federal

Federal |".

Federal | |.
Federal | '

California
California
Federal
Federal
California
California
Federal

sat

Catalyst

Three-way
Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation
Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
Three-way
Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
Three-way

« Three-way

Oxidation °
Oxidation
Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation


Table 8 Sample Sizes and Critical Values for Application
of the Standard of Review with Probability of
Failure Equal to 90% for a Fleet Failure Rate of 20%

Sample Size Critical value(c) Exact Risk of Failure
for Fleet Failure Rate
. of .20
10 17 ~893
na 1 914"
12 1 931
13 1 945
14 1 956
15 1 965
16 2 ".859
17 2 882
1s 2 902
1s 2 -917
20 2 931
21 2 942
22 2 952
23 3 -867
24 3 886
25 3 ~902
26 3 916
27 3 928
28 3 -939
29 3 948
30 4 877
31 4 893
32 4 ~907
33 4 +919
34 4 930
35 4 939
40 5 -924
as 6 -910
59 7 -897

100 16 920


Table 1 Average Emissions Levels by Pollutant by Fuel for
All Oxidation Catalyst Vehicles

2.
3.

-

ALL PROGRAMS = OX CATALYSTS

OVERALL AVERAGES

FUEL © 1°

VARIANCE

No osst

OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL 2

VARIANCE

NO oss?

OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL 3

VARIANCE

no oss?"

OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL

VARIANCE

no oss

OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL 5
VARIANCE
No ossl

- nc? . co?
0.795 8.771
01485 41.754
25, 2a,
HC co
0.665 5,326
0.268 13,868
23, 23,
HC. CD
0,826 9.953
0.387 49,693
19, 19
He co
0,653 6.705
0.102 13,985
17,17.
HC co
0,808 7,307
0.273 29,4854
19.19,

number of observations

units in g/mi
units in g/test

nox?

1.528
0.187
ean

nox
1.706
0.1835
236

wax
1,586
0.194
194

NOx
1.704
0.304

17.

NOX
1.705
0.155

19.

Evar?.
Beret.
1.826

18.

Evap
&.728
5.232

iy,

EVAaP
5.66
20,082
18.

EVAP
8.878
84,150
16.

Evap
8.366
36,426
16>


emissions performance for the vehicle. For some vehicles
more repetative tests were run on the exhaust emissions
‘portion than on the evaporative emissions portion of the
test.

Summarization of Data

The average emission level for each pollutant for
each vehicle and test fuel is shown in Appendix 2. The
list is separated by catalyst technology (oxidation catalyst
vehicles and three-way catalyst vehicles). It should be
noted that the summaries for vehitles which were tested by two
laboratories include data from both laboratories.

Overall average emission levels by fuel and
pollutant were computed for each catalyst technology
from the vehicle averages. They appear in Tables 1 and 2.

Comparision of average results of fuels 1 and 2
and of fuels 3 and 4 indicates that average CO values
Gecreased while average NOx and evaporative emissions rose
with the use of alcohol in the fuel for both technology
groups. The results on exhaust hydrocarbons (HC) were
mixed, however. Average HC emissions values decreased with
the use of both alcohol fuels (fuels 2 and 4) for oxidation
catalyst vehicles but decreased between fuels 1 and 2 and
increased between fuels 3 and 4 for three-way catalyst:

vehicles.


SOURCE

z2z=2e8 we

aa a z2z22

~~ a manne

mn

>a om

VEX

SAAB
Saab
SAAU
0005
0005
Ovus
0005
vgs
von
oon
worn,
oon
wont
ovoz
ovoe
ovoe
0002
ouo2
Ouus
oous
vove
0066
0009
0005

oogy °

Ov09

vauy

FUEL

wu wie

re)

veuwn =

“9 088

4

nN WwW NH FN NN NR

~ un

wn

sw un we

wen

2

ue
VAR

O,u0l
0,003
uv.

0,000
0,000
O,u0l
0,003
0,005
v,u0)

0,000

0,002 ,

0,001
0,000
0,002
0,007
0,000
0.0

0,000
0,004

0,108

0,009
¥.v0>
0,002
0,000
O,vu0
O,u0l

U.05)

MEAN
3.02
atu
4a,ut
4,70

4y10

cw
vA

o,vul
0,0i2
0,002
0,0u0
u,020
O,Vlo
G,500
0,000
v,eds
0.045
1,380
0,00
0,000
0,220
0,235
0,090
0,005
0.000
0,278
1.16t
0.012
0,003
Ont?
oars
ood
Ouen

1,575

waa

stutv

*EAN

0,26

Its
deta!

re

bX
VAR

0,000
0,000
0,006
0,000
9,002
0,008
0,000
0,000
0,002
9,000
0,003
0,000
0,060
0,00)
0,006
0,002
9,004
0,002
0,015
0,013
0,001
u,0

v,u4at
o,uer
0,018
O00
o,dul

0 fhe

STUEV
0,01
O,et
0,04
0,08
0,04
0,03
0,04
0,01
0,04
0,01
0,05

KEAN

7.19
4.81
$.70
1.40
2.57

2.55
sot
5.72
3,Ut
3,25

EVAP
VaR

13,834
0,76)
0,304
0,00)
0,07
0,036
0,076
0,500
0,000
0,u0S
0,623
tases
O,174
0,393
1,326
0,793
O.u1s

0,061

0,395
1,019
C.$o4
o,oon

O,o4u9

STutv
3,72
o,u8
0,95
0,04

0,20


za Fy AAwaA >A ADAM AAR DARA MmMmrmrmarnme

7

0010
Qv09
0009
0v09
0009
v09
AK‘CcO
anco
HERC
MERC
Tuyo
Toyo
voo1,

ooo *

0003
0003
0003
0v03
0004
0004
0004
0004
0007
0v07
0007
ov07
uou7y
vou

000k

-—nuwnen

ww ns

ze Ny SUN Ww © Be

ne Nw &

f.vw

0,0
0,000
v,0

0,0

0.0

0,0

0,013
0,080
Out
0,013
oO.

0,0

0,003
0,009
0,054
0,008
0,026
0,000
0,005
0,003
0,004
0,005
O,uol
0,004
0,008
0,v0l
0,057
vue

O,yot

0,0
0.01
0,0

0.0

4.79
B20
ook

boo

0,101
0,019
0,302
0,0u2
6,6

0,0

0,592
1,039
2,455
0,650
1.201
0,075
1.6lo
0,058
1.60
0,147
2,208
0.971
2,003
0,245
12,040
Pra |

L.boe

0,0
0,006
0,0

0,0

0,029
0,005
0,095
0,016
0,05)
0,u04
0,004
0,001
0,015
0,003
Q,008
0,007
0,003
0,001
0,069
0,073
0,054

a nog

0,08
0,0

0.0

0,0

0,0

0,20
0,70
0,09
0,03
0,0

0,0

0,17
0,07
0.31
0,13
0,23
0,06
0,07
0,04
0,12
0,21
0,03

3.44
4,60
4.7t
1.32
2.44
5.85
3.98
6,01
10.97
14,86
1.27
6.19
4.39
9.93

4,28

0,064
0,969
0,160
0,007
0.013
21,410
9,548
9,724
12,792
7,028
6,095
16,986
1,368
6,625
0,4ot
0,0
6,045

0 106

2.57

Q,0n

P.b2

b.08


4)

-6-

with oxidation catalysts and four with three-way
catalysts. The FTP performed included the SHED
procedure on both tailpipe and evaporative emissions

(including alcohol measurements).

The Southwest Research Institute, under contract
to EPA, tested two oxidation catalyst vehicles
and one three-way catalyst vehicle on the full
FTP, including the SHED procedure. Replicate

tests were performed on fuels 3, 4, and 5 only.

Other sources

1)

2)

The Ford Motor Company presented test results

on nine vehicles, five with oxidation catalysts

and four with three-way catalysts, tested on
specification indolene and indolene + 10% ethanol.
The 1978 FTP, including the SHED portion, was
followed for each vehicle. Aaditional FTP and SHED
tests were performed on two of these vehicles

using EPA fuels 1, 3, and 5.

General Motors Corporation tested one three-way

catalyst vehicle on its own indolene and indclene


1)

2)

3)

The EPA MVEL tested eleven vehicles; seven with
oxidation catalysts and four with three-way
catalysts. FIP's including the SHED procedure
were performed on each vehicle. Some replicate
tests were conducted as well. Three vehicles tested
had been included in the earlier Ford Gasohol
testing program. Because testing began before the
arrival of the fuels specifically procured for
this program, specification indolene was used

from laboratory supplies until the program fuels
arrived.

The EPA laboratory at the Research Triangle

Park tested two oxidation catalyst vehicles.

FTP's, including the SHED procedure, (including
alcohol measurements) were performed on each
vehicle for all five fuels. Data on evaporative
emissions for the 1977 vehicle were not included

in the analyses of Gasohol data because the
vehicle model year predated the 1978 SHED standards.
The Department of Energy Research Laboratory

in Bartlesville, Oklahoma tested ten vehicles, six


Table 2 Average Emissions Levels by Pollutant by Fuel for
All Three-Way Catalyst Vehicles

ALL PROGRAMS ~ 3=wAY CATALYSTS”

‘ OVERALL AVERAGES

1.
2.

3.

FUEL 1

VARIANCE

no oBst

OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL 2

VARIANCE

NO o8s2

OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL 3

VARIANCE

NO o8s2"

OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL a

VARIANCE

No asst

OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL s

VARIANCE

no oBst

Hc?
0.338
0,01!

fl.

HC
0,317
0,008

11.

HC
0,370
0,027

9,

HC
0,413
0,023

9.

HC
0,440
0,017

%

number of observations

units in g/mi
units in g/test

cot nox?
8,862 0.666
12,426 -0,093
114,00 4te
co NOX
3.919 0.724
6.005 0,099
coarse
co NOX
5.696 0,648
16.080 0.155
5, o.
co Nox
5.269 0.704
13.909 0.185
9, es
co NOx
5.680 0.719
12.757 05469
3, %

Evap?

2.194
0.776
8.

EVAP

3.219

1.385-
be

EVAP
3.303
1,980

8.

EVAP
4.710
3.514

B.-

EVAP
&.478
3.403

8.


-8-

5) Prior to the September 6 hearing, Automotive
Testing Laboratories, Denver, Colorado) completed
a high-altitude alcohol fuels testing program on
an EPA contract. Ten vehicles were tested using
the 1975 FTP on indolene and indolene with 10%
ethanol. Because the high altitude is expected to
effect emission levels, results of the program *
were reviewed but not included in the analysis of
Gasohol data. ;

For the purposes of the analysis of the Gasohol data,
the specification indolene and indolene with ethanol fuels
were considered to be sufficiently similar to be compared
without distinction in this analysis.

The set of vehicles, then, whose emissions values were
analyzed consisted of 26 oxidation catalyst and 12 three-way
catalyst vehicles. Of these, 14 oxidation catalyst and 8
three-way catalyst vehicles were tested on all five fuels on
both the exhaust and evaporative emissions portions of the
Federal Test Procedure. Appendix 1 contains a list of each
test vehicle whose emissions were included in the Gasohol data
base.

For many vehicles, repetitive tests were run on each

fuel to establish more reliable estimates of the average


Probability of Failing the Standard of Review

#2 83 BY 25 25 27 BS 23

Bl

Legend

N = Sample Size

C = Critical value (fail standard of review
if C or more out of N observations
fail certification standards at projected
50,000 mile emissions levels)

4. 4. 4. i) rae 4.
at a a
Fleet Proportion Falling Certification Standards «

a4 2. Te oar, fe:

yee

Figure 1 Probability of Failing the Standard of Review for Different Sample Sizes and Critical

Values versus the True Proportion in the Fleet Failing Certification Standards

if


Characterization Report

Analysis of Gasohol Fleet Data to
Characterize the Impact of
Gasohol on Tailpipe and
Evaporative Emissions

December 1978

Technical Support Branch
Mobile Source Enforcement Division
Office of Mobile Source and Noise Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


-li-

large proportion of observed increases in emission levels
for a pollutant would indicate an adverse effect of the
alcohol fuel. By a similar argument, a small proportion of
increases in emission levels between fuels for a pollutant
would indicate a decrease in the emissions of the alcohol fuel.
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results of these tests by
catalyst technology comparing fuels 1 and 2 and fuels 3 and
4. As predicted by the comparision of average emissions
for fuels 1 and 2, HC and CO emissions decreased signifi-
cantly and NOx and evaporative losses increased significantly
for oxidation catalyst vehicles.

For three-way catalyst vehicles, the comparison of
fuels 1 and 2 showed a significant decrease in CO and
a significant increase in evaporative emissions. The
results of the comparision of fuels 3 and 4 were similar but
indicated only significant decreases in CO and increases in
evaporative emissions for both catalyst technology groups.—/

Though emission levels for pollutants differed
significantly between base fuels and their alcohol mixture
counterparts, the difference between emissions levels for

fuels 1 and 3 was as remarkable. Table 5 displays the

*
+/ Evaporative emissions are unaffected by exhaust

(catalyst) technology.


-10-

The significance of each of the above observations
was tested using one-sided sign tests, comparing a base
fuel and an alcohol fuel. The base fuel/alcohol fuel
pairs considered were: ‘

a) Fuel 1 (base) vs. Fuel 2 (alcohol)

b) Fuel 3 (base) vs. Fuel 4 (alcohol)
In each test for each pollutant the null hypothesis was
that the median emission level for that pollutant was
the same for both base and alcohol fuels. The alternative
hypothesis for both BC and CD was that the median emissions
level for the alcohol fuel was lower than that of the
base fuel. The alternative hypothesis for NOx and evaporative
emissions was that the median level was higher for the
alcohol fuel than that of the base fuel.

Emissions levels on each base fuel were compared to
emissions levels on its alcohol fuel counterpart for each
vehicle tested on both fuels. From this comparison, the
number of vehicles which manifested an increase
in average emissions between fuels was obtained.

If there were no real difference in any emissions
level attributable to a difference in fuels, the expected

zroportion of instances in which an increase between fuels

would occur for any pollutant would be 0.5. A


AVEHALE EMISSTUNS UY VEKICLE HY FUEL FUN UATUAT SUH CATALYST VEmiCLes

oo >wmseaxnseex sa

oe we w

tint
Lior
Liol
Lior
HUST
MUST
MUST
Must

MUST

CHEy"

Chey
CHEV
MUST
must
Must

N

Weuwwew wee neveseu

2
2
2,
i.
2

nw BP Nw We

o,41
0,52
0,38
0.61
3,62
2,62
5,15

70,004
0.018

“0,018

0,008
0,000
0,0

0,06
ON
OM
0,09
0,01
0.0

0,0

29,75
19,80
27,00
{7,20
25.50
3.95
2,52
2,81
6,07
5,08
5.04

o.esu
7,355
0.026
S.1o2
18,605
6.0
0.0

2.90
2.71
ule
2.27
431

ele
1.72
2.13
1,92

APPENDIX 2

0,08

. 0,030

0,008
0,06)
0,0
0,0

u,0

"0,0

0.0
0,005
0,0
0,093
0,007
0,000

0,002

vit
0,18
0,09
0.25

0,0

0,07
0.0

ont
0,08
0.01
0,04

PACE 4

20.51
19,24
21,63

6.56
27.28
23,87

O,ayu
U,teu
1,901
4,470

O5,912
0,056
0,01

16,115
7,220
0.174

v,to
0,35
1,38
2.i1

6.78
o,i9
0,03
4,01
2.69
0,42


000g
Obud
Ovog

0000

0006

0006
0006
0006
0v07
0007
0007
vou?
oou8
a0eg
0008
0008
voos
ove9
0009
0v09
9009
0009
oot
O01d
ove
vor
vor

LTus

aw Me He

- uw

NB w&

nn enw HAW

unos
u,001
v,v0s
U,v0r
0,000
0,000
0,004
0,002
0,000
ou
0,003
ov
0,005
uo
0,0
0,000
O,vuu
0,02
0.0
o,0
O,uge
Ou
6,00L
0.6
a.0
O,vou
0,003

Or)

0,008

V.Ue
O04
v.0h
O,os
u.ut
6,01
0,06
0,04
0.02
0,0
0.06
0.8
0,07
ou
0,0
0.92
0,09
0,05
v0
0,9
0,04
0.0
0,u3
ou
Pn)
Oeue
4,06
vu

0,09

1.40
3.4t
eho

12.99
6.20
14,00
19,35
8.05

17,10

19n7”

9,90
41,55
6,20
3,30
6,50
5.10
9.90
6.60
4,50
7,23
5.00
6.70
7.10
aye
“ol
S Ru
6,70

Oda

9.tsa
o,ous
v4
used
U,605
0,720
3,007
3.645
v.05
Ou
5.945
0,320
1,005
0,0
0.0
0,a90
1.290
v.10
0.0
0,0
ve lod
v0
0.0
0.0
vo
uyulo
usu
Aura

14,090

Ootl
6,012
0.6
O,0u2
0.603
0,002
0,001
0,005
oO,ont
0.0
0,015
O,00n
0,005
0.0
0,0
0,601
0.0
O.u0U
0,0
o,0
0,02
vd
o,ouy
oo
0.0
0,00)
O,u00
0,000

Oty

0,05
0,0
0.01
0,0
v0
0,05
Ou

0,02

1.98
2.29
3.95
2.92
0692
o.61
7.49
13.59
B49

2.95

2.de
S.ua
3.00

1.68

Ovidy
0,167
U,097
0,01)
O,eeu
0,994
0,644
0,471
0,051
0,0

0,267
0,025
0,465
0,0

0,0

0,086
0,072
2,521
0,0

0,0

v,le3

0,0


ok

-7-

with 10% ethanol fuels, following the 1975 Frp.

. snes : *
No evaporative emissions results were providea.+/

3) The EPA Mobile Emissions Test Facility and the

EG&G Laboratory under contract to EPA tested

three oxidation catalyst vehicles on indolene and
indolene with 10% ethanol. A modified version of
the 1978 FTP which did not include evaporative .

emissions testing was used by the EG&G Laboratory.

The 1977 FTP (non-evaporative) was performed
by the Mobile Emissions Test Facility.

4) The DOE Bartlesville Laboratory in an earlier
alcohol fuels program tested two oxidation
catalyst and two three-way catalyst vehicles
on indolene and indolene with 10% ethanol added.
Of these, the two three-way catalyst vehicles
were retested in the EPA-DOE program and data

- from both test programs were used in the analysis.

Aaditional emission tests by GM on 2 vehicles using
specification indolene, indolene + 10% ethanol and
adjusted RVP indolene + 10% ethanol were received to
late to incorporate into this analysis. Directionally,
these data show the same effect reported herein and
will be incorporated into this report.


Table 7
Method of Review Analysis
(# failures/total #)

COMPARING FUELS 1 & 2

HC co “NOx EVAP
AIT Programs (oxidation & three-way) 1728 0726 2/28 (3721
All Programs (oxidation catalysts only) 0/22 0/22 (2/22) 13/17
All Programs (three-way catalysts only) (1/6] 0/6 0/6 0/4
‘ COMPARING FUELS 3 & 4
AIT Programs (oxidation & three-way) 1723 1723 137237 (5721
All Programs (oxidation catalysts only) 0/17 0/17 (3/17) (5/16
All Programs (three-way catalysts only) (1/6) (1/6) 0/6 0/5
COMPARING FUELS 1 & 3
ALI Programs (oxidation & three-way) [4722]
All Programs (oxidation catalysts only) : {2/17} (4/17) (4/17] (5/16
All Programs (three-way catalysts only) 2/5 0/5 0/5 0/4

Brackets indicate failure with respect to the method of review


Source

Ford
Fora!
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford.
Fora!
Ford
Ford!
EG&G
EG&G
EG&G
General Motors

Notes:
RTP

Model
Year

1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1979
1978
1978
1978
1978

Test Vehicle Description (cont.)

Vehicle

Froool
F0002
F0003
FO004
F000s
F0006
F0007
F0008
roo09
EMERC
EAMCO
ETOYO
GSUNB

Make/Model

Ford Fiesta
Ford Bobcat
Ford Fairmont
Fond Granada

Ford Developmental
Ford Developmental

Ford Maverick

Ford Light Duty Truck
Ford Thunderbird

Mercury Monarch
AMC Concorde
Toyota

Pontiac Sunbird

- Research Triangle Park
3 SWRI - Southwest Research Institute

Cal./Fed.
Configuration

California °
California
Federal
California
Developmental
Developmental
Federal
Federal
Developmental
Federal
Federal
Federal
California

Appendix 1

Catalyst

Oxidation
Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation
Three-way
Three-way:
Oxidation
Oxidation
Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation

Three-way

1 this vehicle was tested by both EPA - Ann Arbor and Ford Motor Company


-3-

A public hearing on the Gasohol waiver request was held
on September 6, 1978. At that time, the Ford Motor Company
presented data which indicated a potential problem with
evaporative emissions from vehicles fueled with Gasohol.

On September 15, 1978, the statutory ban on Gasohol
took effect. The Adminstrator suspended enforcement of the
ban during the remainder of 180-day waiver consideration .
period.

During this period of suspended enforcement, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of
Energy (DOE) conducted a cooperative Gasohol testing program.
Emissions testing programs were conducted at the following
sites: EPA - Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory (MVEL) Ann
Arbor, Michigan; DOE - Bartlesville, Oklahoma; EPA - Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, and the Southwest Research
Institute, Houston, Texas under contract to EPA. Additional
test results were received from the EG & G Laboratory in
Springfield, Virginia, EPA's Mobile Emissions Test Facility,
General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Automotive
Testing Laboratory in Denver, Colorado, and an earlier
alcohol fuels testing program conducted at the DOE - Bartles-

ville laboratory.


-14-

The first two comparisons were selected to assess the effect
ef ethanol as a fuel additive; the third was chosen to assess
the effect of the commercially available summer grade gasoline
fuel compared to the indolene test fuel.

Statistical procedures for each fuel comparison were
applied as follows: 50,000 mile emissions levels for each
test vehicle were obtained from certification records for
the test vehicle.—/ Projected 50,000 mile emissions levels
for a test vehicle were computed by adding the difference
between average emission levels for the two fuels to its
50,000 mile certification values. These projected values
were then compared to the emission standards. A failure was
scored when the projected value of any pollutant exceeded
the emission standard for the vehicle. Table 7 shows the
results of this analysis. Total failures for each pollutant
were then compared to the critical values computed for the
corresponding number of observations. If the number of
failures equalled or exceeded the critical value (c) for any
pollutant, the criterion was failed. Table 8 lists critical
values by sample size (total number of observations)

for the standard of review criterion.

*«

*/ The certification test results used were from the
emission data vehicle of the same description as
the test vehicles.


-16-

unleaded fuel has a statistically significant, adverse

effect on emissions. Carbon monoxide emissions decrease and
evaporative emissions increase consistently both for oxidation
catalyst and three-way catalyst vehicles. Furthermore,
application of the method of review shows that the data

fails to demonstrate that the use of 10% ethanol as a fuel
additive will not cause or contribute to the failure of any

vehicles to meet emission standards.


-2-

This analysis reveals that it cannot be concluded with
sufficiently high confidence that a 10% ethanol - 90%
gasoline mixture, “Gaschol", will not cause or contribute
to the failure of more than 208 of the vehicle fleet
represented by the test vehicles to meet the Federal
emissions standards.

Introduction N

Section 211(£)(3) of the Clean Air Act (Act) prohibits,
after September 15, 1978, the distribution in commerce of
any fuel or fuel additive not substantially similar to any
fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any
model year 1975, or subsequent model year, vehicle or
engine. Gasohol is such a fuel. However, the Administrator
may waive this prohibition if he determines that the fuel or
fuel additive, and the emission products thereof, will not
cause oz contribute to a failure of any emission control
device or system (over the useful life of any vehicle in
which such a device or system is used) to meet its certified
emission standards.

On June 19, 1978, EPA received such a waiver application
from "Gas Plus" Inc. of Nebraska and the Illinois Department

ef Agriculture.


TCMPCRATURD °F

450

400°

350

250

200

150

100

°r

T -

FUELS FOR GASOHOL
TEST PROGRAM
DISTILLATION CURVES

4

. 1 1 »

IBP

10

20

30 40 50 60 768 80 so

IPERCENT EVAPORATED


Summary

This paper presents an analysis of the data which was
developed in consideration of the request from "Gas Plus"
of Nebraska and the Illinois Department of Agriculture for a
waiver of the limitation and prohibition from use of up to
10% ethanol in unleaded fuel. The document comprises a
description of the test program that generated the data, the
analyses of the data, and a discussion of results of that
analysis.

Statistical analyses were conducted on the three
regulated tailpipe emissions components (hydrocarbons,
oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide) measured in the
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and on evaporative emissions
measured in the Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination
(SHED) procedure.

Due to variations in testing conditions and procedures,
some of the data made available to EPA were not included in
the analysis. In addition, data on fuel economy, and
unregulated pollutants, are not relevant to the waiver
request and hence, summarization is omitted here. /
A procedure for review was applied to the projected

50,000 mile emissions levels for regulated tailpipe and

evaporative emissions of each vehicle by catalyst technology.

*/ whese data will be reported sep¢rately.

&


AVENAGE EMISSIONS WY VEWICLE UY FUEL FUR Indet estat “Atel Yor ventoles

d

oe ® s&s e¢ & |

ovol
buol
ouot
VUOL
0002
0002
voue
ouo2

0002

00u7

\quu7
0007
ovo7
0007
0008
0008
0008
0008
oves
Ssuag

SUNB

3
4
4
’
2
3
4
>

é

wie wn oe

wntwan

4

0.37
O48
0,45
0,65
6,59
0.42
0,43
oat
0.45
0,30
0,28
0,20
0,05
0,24
0,53
0,47
0,75
0,05
0,52

O,ure

Ou

0,uU26

0.6
Ou

o,0

vet

oo

v.72

0,d8

0,0

0,012
0.0
0,0
uu
0.009
0,003
0.0

0,0

0,000

APPENDIX 2
Ou)
Qo ‘fe
0,0 -
v,0 -
0,10 2,19
0,06 3,43
a0) 2.98
0.0 41?
0,0 3.06
0,09 3,92
0,0 5.96
0,0 e.07
0,0 out
ve 5,84
0.16 1.08
0,0 1.97
0,0 1.28
0,0 2656
0,0 1,99
0,0 -
0,0 -

PAGE 4

o.as


SOURCE

ao» eco @eeeaca

VEK

Ux
oxel
oxce
uxc2
0003
v0Q3
0003
0003
0003
0004
0004
0004
oco4
0004
00605
0005
0005
0005
0005
0006
0006
Oude
0008
Q0us
0010
vole
volo

0010

FUEL

w

wr w we ws w wwe Hw ef wa

won

N Oss

uw

ow a

uC
van

0,002
0,005

0,931

0,007

0,007
0,0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.006
0,0
0,0
O.0
0,0
0,018
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0

0,014

Sslvev

v.04

O13
0,0

mE AN
6,74

oe!

tu
van

0,139
0,442
4,509
6,224
0,00

u,0

Stutv

0.37

uo

MEAN

Hux
VAK

0,042
0,095
0,024
0,088
0,000

o,0

0,005

STDEV
v.20
0,31
0,15

MEAN

3.37
4.82
4,02
4.69

evap

VAR

0,218
0,0
0.6
0.0
0.0
7,334

STUEV

0.31


-12-

results of sign tests performed comparing emissions data
derived using these two fuels. These tests indicated highly
significant increases in emissions levels for all polilutants
and evaporative losses for oxidation catalyst vehicles and

highly significant increases in NOx emissions in three-way
catalyst vehicles in going from fuel 1 to fuel 3.7
Estimates of the ratio of average emission levels
for the following fuel combinations were calculated to ‘
assess the relative directional (Table 6):
-Fuel 2 and Fuel l
-Fuel 4 and Fuel 3
-Fuel 3 and Fuel l
Each fuel to fuel ratio was computed using overall averages
for vehicles on which both fuels were tested.
Method of Review
A statistical method of review was established to
determine whether the applicant had demonstrated that Gasohol
would not cause or contribute to the failure of any vehicle to
meet emission standards during its useful life. This
method of review was designed as a one-sided sign test
and evaluates compliance using projected

50,000 mile emissions levels. The statistical method

assumes that the difference in emission levels between two


-15-

Application of the method of review was done separately
by catalyst technology. Evaporative emissions results were

examined in the aggregate.

Evaluation of the scores summarized in Table 7 using

eritical values in Table 8 resulted in the failure of the

a~ mr eeprto:

method of review by fuels containing alcohol compared to

--- + --—

indolene and the summer grade commercial fuel compared to
indolene.

Specifically, comparison of fuels 1 and 2 resulted in
a failure of the criteria on evaporative losses across both
catalyst technologies, on NOx for oxidation catalyst vehicles,
and on HC for three-way catalyst vehicles. Comparison of
fuels 3 and 4 yielded the same results, with the exception
that failures occurred for both HC and CO for three-way
vehicles. The fuel 1 to fuel 3 comparison, however, resulted
in the largest number ef projected failures. In that
instance, the criteria was failed on evaporative
emissions for both technologies, on all three tailpipe
emissions for oxidation catalyst vehicles, and on HC for
three-way catalyst vehicles.
Conclusions

The statistical analyses performed on the Gasohol data

indicate that the use of ethanol in 10% concentration in