p. 1



# OAR Box 1142
Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 19 ) IV-F-1 7

Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/23/200810:21:21 AM Sheet 19of 30P. 2 

# M-87-/ /

, IV-F-/7

Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc
. 1 1 Dupon t Circl e Washington , D

. C

. 2003 6 U

. S

. A

. (202 ) 293-588 6 Regulator yan d Trad e Fax : (202 ) 939-696 9 Counsellor s 

### Septembe r

30 , 199 1

Mr

. Donal dKopinsk i Standard s Developmen t an dSuppor t

Branc h Emissio n Contro l Technolog y Divisio n : • Offic e of Mobil e Source s \ ^^„ A U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y TM'

- 256 5 Plymout hRoa d An n Arbor , Michiga n 4810 5 Dea r Mr

. Kopinsk i Enclose dar e fiv e copie s of th e prepare dtestimon y tha t I delivere do n behal f

o f MB S a t th e Septembe r

26-2 7 hearin g i n Romulus , Michiga n o n th e safet y of propose d moto r vehicl e ("onboard" ) refuelin g vapo r recover y controls

. Als o enclose di s on e cop y o f th e vide o tha t

I showe ddurin g m y testimony , an don e cop y o f th e draf t fina l repor t

o f th e Californi aAi r

Resource s Boar do n comparativ e spillag e fro mStag e I I an dconventiona l servic e statio n refuelin g equipmen t tha t I referre dto

. W e ar e submittin g additiona l copie s o f th e vide o an dth e draf t final CARB repor t

t o th e Docket

. Additionally , I a menclosin g acop y o f th e Novembe r

2 , 1990 , lette r

fromth e America n Medica l Associatio n t o Congres s o n thi s subjec t tha t wa s referre dt o b y Ji m Tozz i i n hi s testimony

. M r Tozz i di dno t

hav e aprepare dstatemen t tha t ca n b e submitte dt o th e publi c docket

. Sincerely ,

Willia mG

. KA\y^r7 Enclosure s

Th e Multinationa l Companie s Multinationa l Busines s Service s Hambur g (40 ) 220-427 7 Multinationa l Lega l Service s 1 1 Dupon t Circl e Washington , D

. C

- (202 ) 797-712 4 Multinationa l Investmen t Service s 1 1 Dupon t Circl e Washington , D

. C-(202 ) 797-635 3P. 3



### Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc

. - 2
-

cc : Mr

. Richar dWilson , EP A Mr

. Stev e Silverman , EP A Mr

. Willia mBoehly , NHTS A Mr

. Pau l J

. Rice , NHTS A EP A Docke t

A-87-1 1P. 4



# S 1826 8 CONGRESSIONA L RECOR

D —SENATE November2, 1990

AMXRICA M MSDZCA L ASSOCIATION . 

### Chicago. IL. March 5. 1990
. Hon . JAM S L. WHITTSM, 

### V.S. House of

Representatives. Washington. 

## Da DEARMR . WHITTEW : 

### I a

m writin g t o pro vid e ouropinio n regarding onboard gasolin e vapo rrecover

y system s fo rautomobiles . Staf f member s o f th e AMA' s Scienc e an d Technolog y Oroup recentl y reviewe d thi s matte ran d offe rth e followin g comments . Th e par tof thi s issu e tha tth e AM A ca n mos tauthoritativel y commento n concern s th e measur

e o f healt h riskdue t o individual and/o rcommunit

y exposure s t o gasolin e vapors (mos tnotabl y benzen e an d othe raromati chydrocarbons ) an d th e likel y impact of suc h fugitive vapors during refuelin g o n atmospheri clevel s of

ozone . Th e degree of

human riskof

leukemi a from gasoline-associate d benzen e appears t o b e overstated b

y th e EPA . Tli e amounto f benzen e i n gasolin e l s roughl y of th e orde r of 5<n ; i ti s th e sol e aromati co f thos e i n gas o!in e tha ti s associate d with leukemi ai n humans , an

d the n onl y with long-term occu pational exposures . Th e exten tof th e pub -

. lie' s exposure t o benzen e in an outdoo renvi ronmentduring refuelin g i s expecte d t o b e inconsequential : ther e is . therefore , n o reaso n t o believ e tha tsuch minor , short ter m exposure s wil l b e harmful t o one' s health . Statio n and tanke remployees ' expo sure s ar e o f concern , which i s al l th e more reaso n t o contro l emission s prio rt o o ra t th e pump . Tlier e i s stil l n o genera

l agreemento n th e long-ter m human healt h effect s of low level s o f ozone . A review articl e o n thi s sub jec ti s enclosed . Th e EPA' s effort s t o reduce th e cauaes o

f episodi clevel s of

ozon e i n th e nonattainmen tarea s of

th e country shoul d continu e t o b e pursued : however , littl e I s ap t t o b e gained by th e onboar d contro l system s fo rthos e areas tha tare i n complianc e with

th e ai rstandard Th e "on-vehicle " syste m seem s t o b e a n unnecessaril y complicate d wa y t o contro l gasolin e vapors tha tare emitte d durin g th e refuelin g process . On e nee d no tb e a n engi neerin g geniu s t o se e th e numerou s point s o f syste m failure : e.g. . lin e rupture .iro m bot h accidental an d non-accidental occur rences , no tt o mentio n th e results o f ne glecte d o rincompeten tmaintenance . Auto emissio n control s are already to o hopelessl y complicate d fo rsimpl e maintenance , an d thi s additional device beg s fo rtrouble . l n summary , we fee l tha tvapo rrecovery system s placed i n cars probably will Increas e th e risko

f fire s i f crashe s occur . I n accord anc e with goo d medical practice , suc h sys tem s mus tb e teste d in laboratorie s an d the n i n rea

l lif e before the y are mandated , an d th e safety o

f suc h system s shoul d b e a basi cdeterminanto

f whateventuall y i s mandated . Th e healt h benefits o f havin g thes e system s l n automobile s woul d b e in consequential , considerin g tha tth e biomedi cal literatur e i s no ta tal l clea ro n th e effect s of greate rexposure s t o benzen e an d ozon e fo rlonge rperiod s o f time . An d final ly , i tI s more logical t o apply contro l system s t o servic e station s tha n t o ten s of million s of vehicle s o n highways . W e appreciate havin g thi s opportunit y t o expres s ou ropinio n t o yo u and trus tl twil l b e helpfu l an d Informative . Sincerel y yours . JAMES S . TOSS . M.D. . 

### Acting Executive Vice President*P. 5



### Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc

.

TESTIMON Y O F WILLIA M G . KELLY , JR . Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc . 1 1 Dupon tCircle , Washington , D.C . 2003 6 Publi c Hearin g Befor e th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y an dth e Departmen t

o f Transportatio n o n th e Safet y of

Onboar dRefuelin g Vapo r Recover y System s Septembe r

2 6 an d27 , 199 1 Detroit , Michiga n

M y nam e i s Willia mG

. Kelly , Jr. , an dI a mher e representin g Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc

. o

f Washington , D.C

. Multinationa l Busines s Service s i s a n independen t consultin g firmwit hexpertis e i n th e analysi s of regulator y issues

. I n thi s capacity , w e hav e bee n aconsisten t participan t

i n th e analysi s of

regulator y alternative s fo r controllin g refuelin g emission s fo r th e las t fiv e years . I n additio n t o presentin g a majo r cost/effectivenes s stud y o f onboar dan dStag e I I control s i n 1987 , an ddetaile d analytica l comment s o n EPA' s Augus t 198 7 rulemakin g proposal , w e have , sinc e then , monitore dtechnologica l development s an dStat e an dloca l regulator y development s wit hregar dt o Stag e I I controls

. Moreover , bein g locate di n th e Distric t o f Columbia , a n are awhic hha s require dStag e I I control s o n it s servic e station s sinc e th e 1970s , w e hav e acquire dsubstantia l first-handexperienc e wit hth e systems

. W e ar e appearin g her e toda y t o presen t informatio n o n recen t development s regardin g Stag e I I controls

. W e hav e reviewe dth e Departmen t of Transportation' s Jul y 199 1 assessmen t

ofth e safet y of

onboar dsystems , an dw e note dit s conclusio n tha t th e relativ e safet y an deffectivenes s of Stag e I I control s shoul db e considere da relevan t an dimportan t

facto r i n makin g th e fina l determinatio n o n whethe r t o promulgat e onboar drequirements

. NHTS A conclude dtha t becaus e onboar dsystem s woul dincreas e safet y risks , an dStag e I I system s woul dnot , whil e achievin g th e sam e emissio n contro l objectives , i t woul db e reasonabl e for EP A t o conclud e tha t

th e risk s pose db y onboar dsystem s ar e unreasonable

. I n th e Federa l Registe r notic e announcin g thi s hearing , EP A als o note dtha t paragrap h202(a)(4 ) o

f th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t prohibit s th e us e o

f mobil e sourc e emissio n contro l system s tha t

pos e a n unreasonabl e ris k t o publi c safety , an dtha t i n determinin g whethe r

a n unreasonabl e safet y ris k exists , th e Administrato r of EP A mus t consider , amon g othe r

factors , th e availabilit y o f alternativ e system s tha t woul d no t caus e o r

contribut e t o suc hsafet y risks

. W e woul dad dtha t apar t fro mth e specifi c languag e o

f paragrap h202(a)(4) , i n genera l th e concept s o f unreasonabl e ris kP. 6



### Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc

. - 2
-
an dsafety , a s bot halega l matte r an damatte r

o f commo n sense , woul dappea r t o requir e consideratio n of practicabl e alternative s tha t woul davoi dincreasin g risk s t o publi c safety , especiall y sinc e Stag e I I control s ar e alread y require db y th e Clea n Ai r Ac t fo r "moderate " an dwors e ozon e nonattainmen t areas . EPA' s notic e of

thi s hearin g reference da n Augus t 199 1 documen t

entitle d"Summar y o f Change dCircumstances"

. W e hav e reviewe dtha t document

. Th e state dpurpos e o f th e documen t

i s t o provid e asummar y o f relevan t change dcircumstance s sinc e Augus t 1987 , whe n th e Agenc y issue dit s rulemakin g proposa l an ddraf t Regulator y Impac t Analysi s for

onboar dcontrols

. Th e Agency' s 198 7 analysi s containe d extensiv e discussio n o f th e relativ e cos t

an deffectivenes s of

Stag e I I controls ; however , th e "Summar y of Change dCircumstances " documen t doe s no t updat e th e Stag e I I portio n of

th e analysis

. Thus , ther e i s aclea r nee dfor suc ha n update

. W e not e tha t EPA' s Offic e of

Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an dStandard s ha s recentl y develope d adraf t technica l guidanc e documen t for Stag e I I control s tha t

addresse s man y ofth e relevan t factor s tha t

w e ar e goin g t o discuss

. I n considerin g th e safet y risk s associate dwit honboar dcontrols , th e followin g factors , amon g others , relatin g t o require dStag e I I system s ar e relevant : Th e effectivenes s o

f Stag e I I control s i n reducin g refuelin g vapo r emissions , an drelate demission s suc ha s undergroun dtan k emptyin g losses ; th e timelines s o

f Stag e I I i n reducin g thos e emissions ; th e reasonablenes s ofth e cost s o f installin g an dmaintainin g Stag e I I systems ; th e public' s abilit y t o us e Stag e I I nozzle s withou t undu e inconvenience ; an d th e relativ e safet y of

Stag e I I controls

. Th e Effectivenes s of

Stag e I I Equipmen t

an dProgram s I n recen t years , Stag e I I effectivenes s ha s bee n prove n t o b e ver y hig hunde r real

worl dconditions , an di t i s improving

. Perhap s th e bes t testamen t

t o thi s fac t

i s tha t mor e an dmor e portion s o f th e countr y hav e bee n adoptin g Stag e I I program s o n th e basi s o f thei r prove n practicalit y an deffectiveness

. A t th e tim e of

EPA' s 198 7 rulemakin g proposa l for onboar dcontrols , Stag e I I program s ha dbee n adopte di n Californi aurba n areas , th e Distric t o f Columbia , th e St

. Louis , Missour i metropolita n area , an dFairfa x County , Virginia

. Sinc e then , th e followin g additiona l area s hav e adopte dprograms : Th e entir e Stat e o f Ne w Jersey , th e entir e Commonwealt ho f Massachusetts , th e remainde r o f California , th e Ne w Yor k metropolita n are a (includin g Lon g Island) , th e Stat e o f Wisconsin , th e Cit y o

f Philadelphia , th e Seattle , Washingto n an dPortland , Orego n metropolita n areas , an dDad e County , Florid a(th eP. 7



### Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc

. - 3
- Miam i area)

. A t

th e tim e o

f thi s hearing , regulator y proposal s for Stag e I I program s ar e pendin g for

th e Commonwealt ho

f Pennsylvania , an dBrowar dCounty , Florida , an dsevera l othe r

area s ar e activel y developin g regulator y proposals

. I t i s noteworth y tha t

implementatio n of

Stag e I I control s ha s continue dt o sprea d throug hStat e an dloca l actio n despit e th e possibilit y tha t th e federa l governmen t migh t issu e onboar dcontro l requirements

. I n examinin g th e publicly-state d rationale s for

th e thi s activity , i t

ca n b e observe dtha t

on e o f th e principa l base s i s tha t Stag e I I program s ca n b e implemente da t ahig hleve l o

f effectivenes s withi n a few years , wherea s afedera l onboar dprogra mca n b e full y implemente donl y a t th e rat e tha t ne w vehicle s replac e th e existin g fleet , whic hwoul drequir e atim e fram e o f twent y year s o r

more . Thi s i s a n importan t poin t wit hregar dt o effectiveness , sinc e eve n i f

onboar dcontrol s coul dachiev e effectivenes s clos e t o tha t achieve dwit h Stag e I I control s i n th e lon g term , i n th e interi mthe y woul dsuffe r fro masubstantia l effectivenes s disparit y tha t coul dneve r

b e mad e up . A t th e presen t

time , area s tha t

hav e alread y adopte dStag e I I program s accoun t for approximatel y 3 6 percen t of th e gasolin e pumpe di n al l ozon e nonattainmen t areas . Ou r calculation s for

thi s estimat e ar e attached

. No t onl y doe s thi s attes t

t o th e effectivenes s of

th e systems , i t

als o reduce s th e ai r

qualit y benefit s tha t

coul db e gaine db y requirin g onboar dcontrols

. And , eve n i f EP A wer e t o decid e t o requir e onboar dcontrols , thi s tren do f adoptio n o

f Stag e I I control s woul db e require dt o continu e unde r

th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t i n orde r

t o achiev e attainmen t o f th e ozon e standar dwithi n th e nea r term

. Wit hregar dt o th e effectivenes s o f Stag e I I programs , ther e ar e thre e element s tha t influenc e th e outcome : (1 ) Th e effectivenes s o f th e hardwar e i n capturin g refuelin g vapor s whe n ne w an dproperl y maintained ; (2 ) th e actua l effectivenes s o f th e equipmen t

i n day-to-da y use , takin g int o accoun t wea r an dtea r

an dfailure s t o perfor mmaintenance ; an d(3 ) th e exten t t o whic hsmalle r

station s ar e exempte dfro m th e requirements

. Wit hregar dt o th e effectivenes s o f ne w an dproperl y maintaine dequipment , a t presen t al l area s wit hStag e I I program s ar e relyin g o n th e Californi acertificatio n progra mwhic hrequire s tha t Stag e I I equipmen t

perfor ma t

aminimu meffectivenes s o f 95 % unde r

actua l operatin g condition s a t commercia l servic e station s wher e i t i s teste db y th e State

. I n reality , th e equipmen t ofte n test s ou t

a t highe r tha n 95 % effectiveness

. Fo r

example , th e ne w Amoc o vacuu massis t syste mwhic hutilize s a bootles s nozzl e ha s bee n teste da t virtua l 10 0 percen t

effectiveness , accordin g t o Californi aofficials

. Wit hregar dt o th e in-us e effectivenes s o f Stag e I I equipment , ther e hav e bee n significan t

advance s durin g th e las t few years . Sinc e 1987 , nozzl e manufacturer s hav e develope dboot s tha t ar e substantiall y mor e durable , an dman y olde r car s wit hP. 8



### Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc

. - 4
- shar p projection s aroun dth e fillpip e openin g hav e bee n retire dfro mth e fleet. Accordin g t o Emc o Wheaton , sale s o f it s replacemen t

boot s droppe dprecipitousl y afte r introductio n of

it s widely-use d400 0 serie s nozzle s wit hth e mor e durabl e boots

. I n addition , MB S personne l hav e monitore daservic e statio n wit hth e Emc o Wheato n nozzle s ove r

th e las t thre e year s an dhav e observe dtha t th e boot s no w appea r

t o b e almos t tear-proo f

an dwil l ofte n las t

for ove r tw o year s o r

more . O f course , th e ne w syste mbein g installe da t Amoc o station s achieve s hig h effectivenes s withou t

an y boo t

a t all , thu s eliminatin g th e possibilit y for an y los s o

f effectivenes s du e t o boo t tears

. A s aresul t

o f th e stimulu s fro mAmoco , Stag e I I equipmen t

manufacturer s an ddispense r manufacturer s ar e activel y workin g o n competitiv e design s tha t shoul db e comin g o n th e marke t withi n th e nex t

yea r o r two

. I n addition , i n recen t

year s Stat e an dloca l government s hav e acquire dgreate r sophisticatio n i n enforcemen t an dpubli c education , tw o inter-relate dfactor s tha t ca n influenc e effectiveness

. Thos e official s hav e foun dtha t whe n th e publi c understand s th e benefit s of

th e equipment , the y ca n activel y assis t i n assurin g prope r maintenanc e b y reportin g problem s the y se e t o servic e statio n personnel , o r t o enforcemen t

official s vi aa n 80 0 number

. Publi c educatio n als o ca n minimiz e an y abusiv e mishandlin g o

f equipmen t

an dspillag e o

f gasolin e an dengende r amor e cooperativ e attitud e i n statio n personnel

. Sinc e th e 198 7 notic e o f propose drulemaking , MB S an dSierr aResearc hhav e submitte dt o EP A ne w dat ao n th e siz e distributio n o f servic e statio n population s whic hshow s tha t

th e Agency' s preliminar y estimate s o f effectivenes s los t

throug h exemption s fo

r smalle r station s wa s greatl y overstated

. EPA' s 198 7 estimat e wa s tha t exemption s woul dreduc e effectivenes s b y approximatel y 2 3 percent

. Th e newe r dat ashow s tha t

th e exemptio n facto r

woul dreduc e effectivenes s b y amaximu mo f approximatel y si x t o te n percent

. Thes e reductio n estimate s ar e base do n th e assumptio n tha t

th e exemptio n level s specifie di n th e statut e woul db e adopte db y th e Stat e an dloca l governments

. However , th e statut e allow s Stat e an dloca l government s t o adop t

stricte r exemptio n levels , o r

non e a t all , an dt o dat e th e area s tha t hav e adopte dStag e I I program s hav e specifie dexemptio n level s stricte r tha n th e maximu mallowe db y th e statute

. Moreover , man y area s d o no t allo w station s t o retai n exemption s i f

the y ar e substantiall y modifie do r perfor mundergroun dtan k work , an dne w station s ofte n ar e exclude dfro mexemptions

. Therefore , i n th e longe r ter mo f fiftee n o r

twent y years , whic hi s th e implementatio n tim e fram e for onboar d controls , almos t

al l servic e station s i n thos e area s ar e likel y t o hav e Stag e I I controls , regardles s o

f thei r size

. Wit hregar dt o th e potentia l effect s o f spillage , approximatel y tw o year s ag o th e America n Petroleu mInstitut e commissione dastud y o f whethe r mor e gasolin e spillag e occur s wit hStag e I I equipment , thereb y reducin g it s effectiveness

. Th e stud y compare dspillag e observe da t station s equippe dwit hStag e I I control s an dP. 9



### Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc

.

conventiona l equipmen t i n th e Distric t

o f Columbi aarea . API' s stud y conclude dtha t Stag e I I control s caus e mor e spillage , bu t th e resultin g reductio n i n overal l effectivenes s work s ou t

t o onl y approximatel y tw o percent

. Th e AP I stud y caugh t

th e attentio n o

f Californi aofficials , an dthe y decide dt o conduc t thei r ow n stud y a t

Californi astations

. A t

thi s time , California' s Ai r Resource s Boar d ha s issue dadraf

t final report , whic hw e wil l submi t t o th e record

. It s finding i s tha t Stag e I I control s resul t

i n les s spillag e tha n conventiona l equipment

. Th e differenc e i n outcom e betwee n th e tw o studies , thoug hno t o f grea t import , coul db e accounte d for b y th e fac t

tha t th e AP I stud y wa s conducte di n th e Distric t of Columbia , wher e olde r equipmen t

ha s bee n mor e prevalen t an dther e ha s bee n virtuall y n o publi c education

. Finally , sinc e w e ar e locate di nth e Distric t o f Columbi aan dhav e agrea t dea l o f familiarit y wit hth e Stag e I I progra mthere , w e shoul daddres s wha t migh t b e referre dt o a s th e "lowe r bound " o

f Stag e I I effectivenes s tha t wa s presente db y EP A i n it s 198 7 rulemakin g proposal

. Th e Agenc y use dth e Distric t o f Columbi aprogra m t o illustrat e a"minima l enforcement " scenario , an dthi s scenari o yielde daver y lo w effectivenes s estimate

. Afte r investigatin g thi s poin t extensively , w e hav e conclude d tha t th e District' s pas t

experienc e canno t

b e considere drelevan t t o arealisti c assessmen t

o f Stag e I I effectiveness

. W e hav e previousl y commente do n thi s issue , bu t th e followin g point s regardin g th e Distric t o f Columbi asituatio n bea r repeating , sinc e EPA' s lower-boun destimat e ha s bee n frequentl y emphasize db y opponent s o f Stag e I I controls :

• EP A ca n requir e effectiv e enforcemen t program s an dplan s t o d o so .

• Althoug hther e wa s virtuall y n o enforcemen t of th e Stag e I I progra mi n th e Distric t unti l severa l year s ago , th e Distric t nov/ ha s a n effectiv e enforcemen t program . Ther e ha s bee n virtuall y n o educatio n o f th e publi c o r

servic e statio n personne l i n th e District , an dstation s hav e no t poste doperatin g instructions

.

• Th e failur e o

f adjacen t suburba n area s t o implemen t Stag e I I program s engendere dgrea t

resentmen t

an dresistanc e toward s th e progra mo n th e par t o f servic e statio n personnel

.

• Th e Distric t

i s aver y smal l an disolate dmarket , an dconsequentl y equipmen t manufacturer s di dno t mak e effort s t o educat e servic e statio n personne l regardin g equipmen t

improvement s an dprope r maintenance

. Becaus e adjacen t

populou s area s d o no t

hav e Stag e I I programs , an dbecaus e th e Distric t

ha s agrea t

influ x of tourists , man y motorist s wh o pum p thei r ow nP.1 0



### Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc

.

gasolin e i n th e Distric t hav e n o previou s experienc e wit hth e operatio no r benefit s of

Stag e I I controls

. MB S ha s prepare dachar t tha t take s int o consideratio n al l o f th e abov e factor s tha t bea r o n Stag e I I effectivenes s an dtha t hav e undergon e change s sinc e th e 198 7 rulemakin g proposal , an dcompare s th e Stag e I I effectivenes s wit honboar d effectivenes s tha t

woul db e expecte di f

regulation s wer e promulgate dunde r th e 199 0 Amendments

. Th e char t i s base do n th e mos t recen t availabl e governmen t projection s of

gasolin e consumptio n an dflee t replacement , an ddetaile dnote s concernin g assumption s an ddat asource s ar e attached

. Thi s i s th e EP A char t

fro mit s 198 7 propose danalysis ; thi s i s th e char t showin g th e ne w MB S estimates

. Th e Stag e I I curv e assume s tha t onboar drequirement s ar e no t promulgated

. I t

ca n b e see n tha t

eve n makin g mor e favorabl e effectivenes s assumption s fo

r onboar dcontrols , ther e i s n o wa y tha t the y ca n achiev e effectivenes s comparabl e t o Stag e I I programs , particularl y whe n th e hug e onboar dtim e la g i s take n int o consideration

. Thi s pictur e doe s no t improv e a s aresul t

o f onboar dbein g essentiall y anationwid e program , sinc e Stag e I I ca n als o b e require do n anationwid e basi s if th e Agenc y wer e t o determin e tha t i t i s neede dfo

r contro l o

f ai r toxic s i n additio n t o ozone , an dStag e I I control s ca n b e implemente dmuc hfaste r tha n onboar dcontrols

. Th e Reasonablenes s o

f Stag e I I Cost s Th e Stat e an dloca l government s tha t hav e adopte dStag e I I program s t o dat e hav e al l carefull y examine dStag e I I cost s an dhav e foun dthe mt o b e reasonabl e an dver y attractive

. Cos t

estimate s b y virtuall y al l source s translat e t o afractio n of acen t pe r gallo n o f gasoline

. I t

ca n b e expecte dtha t

thi s situatio n wil l continu e a t th e least , an d cost s ar e likel y t o com e dow n whe n on e look s t o th e future

.

• Th e recen t

developmen t

of single-hos e multi-produc t dispenser s ("MPDs" ) wil l eventuall y reduc e th e numbe r o f nozzle/hos e unit s tha t

mus t b e outfitte dwit h Stag e I I equipmen t

an dmaintained

. Ne w dispenser s wil l incorporat e Stag e I I pipin g an dvacuum-assis t devices

.

• Th e growin g marke t fo r Stag e I I control s i s stimulatin g competitio n i nth e developmen t

o f equipmen t

whic hi s mor e durabl e an dcheaper , an dlarge r an d longe r productio n run s coul dallo w pric e reductions

.

• Continuin g changeove r t o current-generatio n equipmen t wit hbette r

durabilit y i s reducin g maintenanc e costs

.

• Inspection/enforcemen t program s ar e becomin g mor e efficient

.P.1 1



### Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc

. - 7
- A frequentl y overlooke dcos t advantag e o

f Stag e I I control s i s thei r fue l conservatio n attribute

. Thi s i s referre dt o b y EP A a s "recovery credits " i n it s cos t calculations

. Unlik e onboar dcontrols , wher e an y fue l conservatio n i s ver y speculative , th e fue l conservatio n benefit s of Stag e I I control s ar e definit e - approximatel y on e gallo n for ever y on e thousan dpumpe d- du e t o suppressio n o f evaporatio n i n th e storag e tank s b y th e recovere dvapors . Thi s translate s int o cos t saving s fo

r servic e station s an d energ y conservatio n for th e country

. O n anationwid e basis , th e fue l saving s woul d b e ove r ninet y millio n gallon s o f gasolin e pe r

year . Eas e o f Operatio n an dConsume r Acceptanc e o

f Stag e I I Control s A t th e tim e EP A develope dan dissue dit s 198 7 rulemakin g proposal , ther e wer e concern s raise db y th e Agenc y an dsom e othe r intereste dpartie s regardin g possibl e difficultie s pose dfor

self-serv e motorists

. Som e believe dtha t muc hStag e I I equipmen t

wa s heavy , awkward , an drequire dsubstantia l insertio n force

. Thes e concern s hav e almos t

completel y vanishe dwit hintroductio n o f desig n improvement s ove r th e las t

fe w years , a s demonstrate db y th e continuin g sprea dof Stag e I I programs . Tw o year s ag o MB S produce da n educationa l vide o o n Stag e I I control s tha t show s som e o f thes e improvements

. W e ar e goin g t o sho w tha t vide o now . Th e vide o w e ar e showin g wa s update djus t las t year . MB S wil l submi t severa l copie s o

f th e vide o t o Docke t A-87-11 , an dintereste dpartie s ca n obtai n additiona l copie s b y contactin g u s directly

. Th e bootles s nozzl e show n i n th e vide o wa s aprototyp e of tri e nozzl e no w bein g use d o n th e Amoc o system

. Clearly , th e us e o f suc hasyste mvirtuall y eliminate s an y noticeabl e handlin g difference s betwee n Stag e I I an dconventiona l systems

. Thi s a newspape r

a dtha t Amoc o ha s ru n i n th e Washington , D.C

. area , an di t illustrate s ho w competitio n i s stimulatin g furthe r improvements

. (I n connectio n wit hthi s ad , w e woul dnot e tha t

althoug hi t

assert s tha t

othe r Stag e I I nozzle s ar e difficul t t o use , w e believ e suc ha n assertio n i s no t justifie dif

th e othe r

nozzle s ar e up-to-dat e equipment ; however , ther e i s som e validit y t o th e assertio n for th e Distric t

o f Columbia , sinc e jus t

th e othe r

da y on e o

f ou r staf f checke dove r

thirt y o f th e Distric t station s an dfoun dtha t man y stil l ha dno t

complete dth e transitio n t o moder n hardware. ) Stag e I I equipmen t manufacturer s hav e als o informe du s tha t the y ar e workin g o n balanc e syste mboot s whic hwil l requir e eve n les s insertio n forc e tha n th e bes t no w available , possibl y a s muc ha s fifty percen t less

. Unti l recently , publi c educatio n throug hus e o f visua l material s suc ha s vide o publi c servic e announcement s an dhandout s wa s minimal

. However , th e consequence s wer e no t ver y significan t

fro maconvenienc e standpoint

. Th e experienc e i n area s wher e Stag e I I control s hav e bee n introduce dwithou t widesprea dpubli c educatio n ha s bee n tha t ther e i s a n initia l sligh t negativ e reactio n unti l peopl e hav e use dth e equipmen tP.1 2



### Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc

. - 8
-
severa l time s an dbecom e familia r wit hit , an dthe n complaint s disappear

. I n area s wher e th e populac e ha s becom e familia r wit hth e equipmen t

an dit s benefits , suc h a s California , peopl e hav e tol du s tha t the y prefe r

Stag e I I station s ove r

conventiona l station s becaus e the y appreciat e it s ai r qualit y benefit s an dbecaus e the y notic e tha t the y d o no t

hav e t o smel l th e vapor s whe n the y fill up . Incidentally , i n thi s er ao f increase dpubli c awarenes s of environmenta l problems , w e se e activ e participatio n b y consumer s i n reducin g pollutio n t o b e apoin t i n favo r o f th e Stag e I I approac hrathe r tha n th e opposite

. Safet v o f Stag e I I Control s I n showin g th e MB S vide o t o audience s w e hav e notice dtha t the y see mt o acquir e amuc hbette r

gras p of

th e potentia l safet y problem s whe n the y se e th e animate d portio n of

th e video , becaus e the y becom e awar e o f ho w alarg e volum e o

f vapor s i s displace dfro mth e tan k ver y quickly

. Th e Senat e repor t

i n connectio n wit hth e recen t Clea n Ai r

Ac t Amendment s note s tha t astud y b y Failur e Analysi s Associate s foun dtha t Stag e I I system s "can preven t abou t hal f o f al l gasolin e fires (bot hrefuelin g an dnon-refueling ) a t ga s stations. " (S.Rep

. 101-22 8 a t

40-41. ) MB S ha s no t

conducte dan y independen t stud y o f thi s issue , bu t w e hav e questione dStag e I I equipmen t manufacturer s an dStat e an dloca l official s i n area s wit hStag e I I program s a s t o whethe r the y kno w o

f an y safet y problem s cause db y moder n Stag e I I equipment , an dth e answe r ha s alway s bee n a negative

. I n addition , w e ar e no t awar e of

an y documentatio n tha t woul dreflec t safet y incident s relate dt o moder n Stag e I I controls

. On e woul dexpec t t o se e som e data , whethe r

anecdota l o r

statistical , if

ther e wer e problems , give n th e exten t o f real-worl dexperienc e wit hStag e I I systems

. Therefore , i t appear s tha t

a t th e leas t Stag e I I control s d o no t creat e safet y problems , an da t bes t the y improv e safety

. I n summary , w e agre e wit hth e Departmen t of Transportatio n tha t

i t i s necessar y t o conside r th e inadvisabilit y of

imposin g th e safet y risk s relate dt o onboar dcontrol s i n th e contex t

of th e availabilit y of

Stag e I I control s an dthei r prove n effectivenes s an d safety , a s wel l a s thei r

eas e of operatio n an daffordability

. Attachment sP.1 3

Federal Regiate r

/ Vol

. 52 , No

. 16 0 /

Wednesday , Augus t

19.198 7 /

Propose dRule s 3117 9 

### K tn 0 0 

### K

to t o fc?

• 3

•UU 3 6ujX}duu 3 a

p 6ujpn^o y > o uoj^onpo y %

### FIGUR E1 9/26/9 1



## 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 

# PercentO f Nonattainmen tArea Gasolin e Throughpu tPotentiall y Controlle d B y Onboar d An d Stag e II Control s Ove rTim e

STAG E I I



# o%4—+—+—+—f - '9 1 '9 2 '9 3 '9 4 '9 5 '9 6 '9 7 '9 8 '9 9 '0 0 '0 1 '0 2 '0 3 '0 4 '0 5 '0 6 '0 7 '0 8 '0 9 '1 0

—90 % In-Us e Effectivenes s 80 % In-Us e Effectivenes s 

### Fo r detail s concernin g principa l assumption s an ddat asources , se e attache dnotes

. Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc

.

### NOTE S T O FIGUR E1

I nal l estimates , gasolin e throughpu t i s treate da s aprox y fo r refuelin g emissions

. Onboar deffectivenes s estimates : Th e estimate s assum e minimu m95 % effectivenes s o nne w cars .

• Th e in-us e effectivenes s scenario s o f 90 % an d80 % represen t arang e fo r

th e effectivenes s reduction s tha t coul doccu r durin g th e lif

e of th e vehicle s du e t o wea r an dtear , malfunctions , an dtampering

. Th e 80 % scenari o appear s mor e likely , base do nEP A dat afo r

curren t evaporativ e system s analyze db y MB S i nrulemakin g comment s prio r t o th e legislation

.

• Estimate s o

f ne w vehicl e production , surviva l rates , gasolin e mileage , an dvehicl e mile s travelle dfo r ever y mode l yea r o f eac hvehicl e typ e fo r

eac hyea r

o f th e projection s wer e derive dfro mThe Motor Fuel Consumption Model: Fourteenth Periodical

Report (Decembe r

1988) , prepare db y Energ y an dEnvironmenta l Analysis , Inc

. fo r th e Departmen t

of Energy

.

• Bot hestimate s assiun e tha t regulation s woul dexten donl y t o Light-Dut y Vehicles , sinc e onl y LDV s ar e covere db y sectio n 202(a)(6 ) a s amende di n 1990

. Stag e I I effectivenes s estimate : Assume s 95 % effectivenes s fo r ne w equipment , th e minimu mrequire db y th e Californi acertificatio nprogram , whic hal l othe r area s hav e s o fa

r followed

.

• In-us e effectivenes s (IUE ) reflect s reduction s du e t o inadequat e maintenanc e an dmalfunctions

. IU Ei s assume dt o b e 88 % currentl y wit hannua l enforcemen t inspections , althoug hsom e dat aindicate s tha t a n IU Eof

a t leas t 90 % o r highe r shoul d b e expecte dwit hmor e frequen t inspection s o r

wit hup-to-dat e Stag e I I technology

. IU Ei s projecte dt o increas e t o 90 % ove r tim e a s aresul t

o f improve dequipment , mor e efficien t enforcemen t

an dbette r

publi c education

. Se e th e MB S comment s o n thi s poin t

submitte ddurin g th e rulemakin g prio r t o th e 199 0 Amendments , an dSierr aResearch , Inc. , "A n Analysi s o

f Stag e I I an dOnboar dRefueUn g Emission s Control " (1988)

. Th e ne t effectivenes s estimat e of 81 % take s int o accoun t exemption s fo r

independen t

station s pumpin g no t

mor e tha n 50,00 0 gal

. pe r

mont han dothe r

station s pumpin g no t

mor e tha n10,00 0 gal

. pe r month

. Sierr aResearch , supra , foun d i n analyzin g 198 8 dat ao nservic e statio npopulation s i nmetropolita narea s tha t thes e smalle r

station s accounte dfo r

abou t 7.5 % o f th e gasolin e pumped

. Th e actua l reductio ndu e t o exemption s migh t tur n ou t t o b e considerabl y smaller , sinc e area s tha t

hav e s o far

adopte dStag e 1 1 requirement s withou t federa l compulsio n hav e opte dfo r exemptio n level s of betwee n zer o an dabou t 20,00 0 gal

. pe r

month

.


### Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc

.

XI

### The Stag e II startin g poin t o f 25 % i n 199 1 reflect s a n MB S calculatio n (attached ) showin g tha t ozon e non-attainmen t

area s that hav e alread y adopte dStag e II requirement s compris e (conservatively ) 35.55 % o f non-attainmen t

are agasolin e throughput , bu t

no t all o f th e equipmen t

ha s been installe dye t

i n thes e areas . County-by-county fuel consumptio n informatio n fo

r area s subject

t o Stag e I I control s i s 1982 dat afro mAppendi x Go

f EPA' s Jul y 1987 Draft

Regulatory Impact Analysis: Emission Regulations for Gasoline-Fueled

Motor Vehicles -Volume 1, Analysis of Gasoline Marketing Regulatory Strategies. Tota l gasolin e throughpu t

i n non-attainmen t

area s i s 1989 dat aprovide db y EPA' s Office o f Air Quality Plannin g an d Standard s (cop y attached)

. It i s assume dtha t

onboar drequirement s are no t promulgate dan dtha t

al l non-attainmen t

area s classifie da s "moderate " or wors e compl y wit hth e Ac f s Stag e II requirement s withi n fiv e years . It i s assume dtha t

non-attainmen t

area s classifie da s "marginal " wil l eithe r reac hattainmen t

withou t Stag e II o r

implemen t Stag e n . Stag e II effectivenes s o

f 81 % b y 199 6 i s assume dt o increas e graduall y t o 83.8 % b y 200 6 a s aresul t o f assume d improvement

i n IU Et o 90% , a s note dabove , an dat leas t partial los s o

f exemption s b y ne w an dmodifie dsmalle r stations , a s note dabove

.

Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc

.

## Multinationa

l B usines s Services , Inc

. STAG EI I REQUIREMENT S I N PLAC E
Stat e Californi a

D.C

. Florid a Massachusett s Missour i

Ne w Jerse y Count y Alamed a Butt e Contr aCost a E l Dorad o Fresn o Imperia l Ker n King s L.A

. Mader a Mari n Merce d Montere y Nap a Orang e Place r Riversid e Sacrament o Sa n Benit o Sa n Bernadin o Sa n Dieg o Sa n Francisc o Sa n Joaqui m Sa n Mate o Sant aBarbar a Sant aClar a Sant aCru z Solan o Sonom a Stanislau s Sutte r Tulan e Ventur a Yol o Yub a Dad e Al l Frankli n Jefferso n St

. Charle s St

. Loui s St

. Loui s Cit y Al l Throughpu t (000 ) 490,26 1 75,36 3 304,04 4 50,28 9 216,14 1 46,95 1 168,44 6 36,44 0 3,347,92 1 36,51 1 110,88 0 68,79 6 118,96 5 54,02 4 933,20 6 83,16 7 280,85 1 368,93 6 14,63 9 360,46 4 788,40 7 247,11 3 146,57 4 320,47 1 66,99 0 62568 8 82,50 6 96,77 2 167,58 7 144,77 3 29,46 3 124,01 9 226,15 4 47,09 3 ; 26,97 9 271,62 9 646,93 6 2,226,85 9 j 45,16 9 ! 86,83 5 88,64 7 ', 148,14 8 j 475,83 6 j 3,133,10 2 |

i i

J

### Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc

.

Ne w Yor k

Oregon *

Pennsylvani a Virgini a Washington *

Wisconsin* *

Tota l Through p Area s W /

Stag e
Tota l Through p Area s w / Stag e Ne w Yor k

King s Queen s Richmon d Bron x Rocklan d Westcheste r Nassa u Suffol k Clackamu s Multnoma h Washingto n Philadelphi a(City ) Fairfa x Clar k Snohomis h Pierc e Kin g Kenosh a Milwauke e Ozauke e Racin e Sheboyga n Washingto n Waukesh a utl n I I Requirement s

n t I n Non-Attainmen t I I Requirement s Throughpu t

I n Non-Attainmen t

Area s 120,65 7 276,75 3 382,68 6 100,19 1 140,95 2 98,70 8 321,34 3 548,60 7 483,61 3 87,03 8 262,83 6 80,85 6 397,93 0 197,31 8 76,92 0 118,33 0 176,79 4 523,08 7 55,55 2 333,63 8 34,77 0 66,40 7 47,72 3 47,54 0 110,63 7

22,520,93 1 21,195,07 0

59,623,65 4
%o f Non-Attainmen t

Throughtpu t Subjec t T o Stag e I

I 35.55 %

Curren t Ozon e Standar dAttainmen t Statu s Uncertain

. * Stag e II Requirement s Enacte dBu t Coverag e No t

Finalized

.P.1 9

SEP-20-199 1 15=0 9 FRO M ORQFS.ESD.CPB/1S B RT PN C T O 8202939696 9 P.0 2

TABL E 2 - 2 . ESTIMATE D GASOLIN E CONSUMPTIO N

FO ROZON E NONATTAINMEN T AREA S
* I j STAT E I ALABAM A | ALASKA 1 ARIZON A | ARKANSA S I CALIFORNI A I COIORAO O 1 CONNECTICU T | DELAWAR E I OISTRIC T O F COL . | FLORIO A | GEORGIA I HAWAI I| IDAH O | ILLINOI S | INDIAN A | IOU A KANSA S KENTUCK Y LOUISIAN A M A IH E MARYLAN D MASSACHUSETT S MICHIGA N MINNESOT A MISSISSIPP I MISSOUR I MONTAN A NEBRASKA - NEVADA
•- NE

WHAMPSHIR E NE WJERSE Y NEW-MEXIC O NEWYOR K NORT HCAROLIN A NORT HOAKOT A OHI O OKLAHOM A OREGO N PENNSYLVANI A RHOO E ISLAN D SOUT HCAROLIN A SOUTHOAKOT

A TENNESSE E TEXA S UTAH VERMON T VIR6INI A WASHINGTO N WES T VIRGINI A WISCONSI N WYOMIN G NATIONWID E

SOURCES : (

( I PERCENTAG E O F 198 5 1 1 1 THROUGHPU

T I N | 1 TOTA L 198 9 I NONATTAINMEN T THROUGHPU

T (1 ) 1 AREA

S (2 ) • 2,122138 0 I 28 1 239,01 7 | O K 1.709,888 . | O X 1,277,91 0 | 2f t 13,338,83 1 | 90 * 1,535,44 9 | Of t 1,498,24 4 | 100 * ] 349,25 5 j 10W | 182,32 4 | IOC S I 6,162,55 2 | 47f t| 3,673,87 4 I 43 1 I 392,49 S 1 Of t| 487,78 4 | Qf t| 4,994,27 6 I 68 X I 2,642.27 1 1 45f t! 1.409,91 4 j Of t 1,298.79 2 1 Z2f t 1,851,13 6 : 4S X 2,040.06 7 | 18f t 638.28 9 ! 65f t 2.157.84 8 ' 87f t 2,521.20 8 1 100f t 4,378.61 1 . 55f t 2,102.36 2 i Of t 1.258,28 5 | 2f t 2,758*38 3 1 SI S 452,88 9 1 O S 801.11 5 1 Of t 633.267 . | Of t 527,29 7 I 71f t 3,479,75 2 1 100f t 820,56 6 j Of t 5,769,79 6 i 67f t 3,369,49 8 ! 41 * 361,25 9 | Of t 4,951.18 5 | 72f t 1.751.59 0 | Of t 1,368.25 0 | Of t 4,709,00 3 | 81f t 384,98 7 1 100f t 1,503,67 2 | 24 % 398.12 5 | Q S 2.634.77 6 I 52 X 8,792.62 8 1 47 % 640,85 8 | 52f t 283*99 3 | Of t 3,044,44 1 | S4 S 2.337.04 1 | Of t 836,89 1 1 29f t NONATTAIKNEN T | THROUGHPU

T 1 585.73 4 0 0 22.60 6 12.009,48 3

0 1,498,24 4 !
349.25 5 1 182,32 4 | ! 2,868.91 4 I ! 1.580.79 5 | 0 0 3,381.92 4 1,187,51 6 0 280,69 5 839,00 9 372,27 1 415.04 1 1.867.01 3 2.521.20 8 2,423,16 7 0 29,99 8 | 1,417.39 5 ! 0 

## Io 1 ° | 376,20 0 | 3,479,75 2 

### Io | 3,877,64 9 | 1,384.08 9 

## 1 ° | 3.586,49 0

0 0 3.818.01 3 384,98 7 360,68 6 0 1,373,43 0 4,127,69 9 340,19 6 0 1,652,37 0 0 242,59 0 2.121,96 8 I 37 S 1 786,91 1 

## I

1

288.30 2 | Of t| ° 1 115,292.69 5 | S2 S | 59,623,654 ^ 1 ) Ftdan l Hlajnra

y Adartnistntlon , Monthl y Gaso l In aReport s 

## 1

A i Raporta d 1 n NP

N 199 0 Factboo k

_ 2 ) Calculate d fro n 198 5 NED S Gaso l In aContractio n Rw * Usin g Monattalna m araa * a s liste d i n •Ozon aan d Carbon Monoxid aAroa s Vlolitln o th aNAAOS'



### 2* 8P.2 0



## THE ' 0 0 £ A/g W NOZZLB



## OnlyAmoc omake spumpinggasolin eeasie ro njo uan deasie ro nth eenvironment. Th ebulkyvapor recoverynozzle sa totherstation sar

edfficul tandiriitatin gtouse . ButAmoco' sne wnozzl ei sslee kan d streamlined . An dn oothervapor-recoverysyste mdoe sabetterjob o f colectin gozone-causin g hydrocarbons . S ogiv eyoursel f

andth eenvironmentabreak. Tr yAmoco' sne wnozzle .P.2 1



# Technica l Pape r FINA L DRAF T

Caffomi a Ai r Resource s Boar d


# 91-CD-TP- 1 Septembe r 199 1

COMPARISO N O F SPIL L FREQUENCIE S AN D AMOUNT S A TVAPO R RECOVER Y AN D CONVENTIONA L SERVIC E STATION S I N CALIFORNI A

b y Robert L
. Fricke r Jame s J
. Morgeste r G
. Henry Jorda n Californi a Ai r Resource s BoardP.2 2

Compariso no f Spil l Frequencie s an dAmount s a t Vapo r Recover y

an dConventiona l Servic e Station s i nCaliforni a Rober t L . Fricke r Jame s J . Morgeste r G . Henr y

Jorda n Abstrac t
Base do na surve y

conducte di

n198 9 and199 0 a t 2 1 conventional-nozzl e an d3 3 vapor-recover y nozzl e equippe dservic e station s inCalifornia , Californi a Ai r Resource s Boar dstaf f conclud e tha t conventiona l nozzle s i n Californi a produc e a greate r numbe r o f quantifiabl e spill s (> . 1 ml ) an da greate r averag e volum e pe r spil l tha nd o vapor-recover y equippe dnozzles . Thi s conclusio ni s base donsurve y result s showin g conventiona l nozzle s havin g spill s 30.3 % o f th e tim e a t four fuelin g interval s v s 22.3 % fo r vapo r recover y

nozzles , andhavin g anaverag e spil l volum e o f 13. 1 m l v s 10. 6 m l fo r vapo r recover y

nozzles . However , i f anextraordinar y spillag e even t fo r a conventiona l nozzl e note ddurin g th e surve y i s subtracte dfrom th e tota l quantifie dspil l volume , th e averag e volum e pe r quantifiabl e spil l fo r a conventiona l nozzl e woul ddro pt o 10. 8 ml , whic hi s ver y clos e t o th e 10. 6 ml averag e volum e pe r quantifiabl e spil l wit ha vapo r recover y nozzle . I n addition , conventiona l nozzle s i nCaliforni a produc e abou t 1 4 percen t mor e dro p( < 1 ml ) spillag e tha nd o vapo r recover y nozzles . Dro pspillag e ha s no t bee nquantifie da s t o th e volum e o f gasolin e i t represents .


## INTRODUCTION Startin g in1976 , ai r pollutio ncontro l district s (APCDs ) inCaliforni a wit hmajo r metropolita narea s bega nadoptin g rule s t o contro l th e releas e o f gasolin e vapor s ( a precurso r t o th e formatio no f ozone ) durin g th e fillin g o f vehicl e gasolin e tank s a t retai l servic e station s i nth e districts . APCD s requirin g suc hequipmen t typicall y hadno t attaine dth e Californi a o r federa l ambien t ai r qualit y standar dfo r ozone . Equipmen t controllin g th e releas e o f gasolin e vapor s durin g th e fuelin g o f vehicle s i s referre dt o a s "Phas e I I vapo r recover y equipment. " Mos t vapo r recover y nozzle s ca nb e distinguishe dfrom conventiona l nozzle s by a rubber-typ e boo t aroun dth e nozzl e spou t tha t i s use dt o captur e gasolin e vapor s escapin g from a vehicl e fue l tank . B y

1986 , 9 0 percen t o f th e gasolin e sol dinCaliforni a wa s dispense dthroug hretai l servic e station s equippe dwit hPhas e I I controls . I n198 8 th e Californi a Ai r Resource s Boar d(CARB ) require daJJ L APCD s i

n th e Stat e t o adop t rule s tha t require dth e Installatio no f Phas e I I vapo r recover y

equipmen t a t ne w retai l servic e statio nanda t existin g retai l station s wit ha

nannua l gasolin e throughpu t o f greate r tha n480,00 0 gallons . Suc hequipmen t wa s require di norde r t o contro l th e releas e o f emission s o f benzene , whic hha dpreviousl y bee nidentifie db y th e CAR B a s a toxi c andcancer-causin g pollutant . Thus , thos e district s inCaliforni a tha t ha d no t previousl y

require dinstallatio no f Phas e I I equipmen t wer e no w require d t o d o so . Complianc e wit hthi s requiremen t by affecte dexistin g station s wa s t o b e accomplishe dwithi ntwo year s afte r adoptio no f a nappropriat e rul e b y a district . A s note dabove , man y o f California' s district s wer e alread y complyin g wit hth e ne w requirements .P.2 3

Wha t th e ne w

requirement s mea ni s tha t b y th e beginnin g o f 1991 , a ver y larg e majorit y

o f retai l servic e station s inCaliforni a wil l no t hav e conventiona l nozzle s bu t wil l hav e vapo r recover y nozzles . Thi s trendwil l increas e a s th e year s g o by . Sinc e th e firs t installatio nan dus e o f Phas e I I vapo r recover y nozzle s inCalifornia , th e CAR B initiall y receive da considerabl e numbe r o f complaint s abou t th e difficult y in-usin g thes e nozzle s andabou t possibl e exces s spillag e wit hthei r use . Consequently , supplier s o f th e Phas e I I equipmen t hav e bee nina continua l proces s o f refinin g th e desig no f thi s equipmen t inorde r t o increas e it s eas e o f us e andt o decreas e spillage . Becaus e inth e nea r futur e onl y a relativel y

smal l numbe r o f retai l servic e station s inCaliforni a wil l b e equippe dwit hconventiona l nozzles , CAR B managemen t decide di t wa s tim e t o conduc t a compariso nstudy o nth e spillag e potentia l o f conventiona l andvapo r recover y nozzle s inCalifornia . Th e purpos e o f th e stud y wa s t o determin e th e spillag e frequenc y an damount s associate dwit hth e two type s o f nozzles . Subsequently , from Jul y 198 9 t o Februar y

1990 , staf f o f th e Complianc e Divisio no f CARB , afte r receivin g prope r training , wer e dispatche dt o numerou s servic e station s inCaliforni a inorde r t o observ e an ddocumen t fueling s a t thes e station s an dany relate dspills . Th e methodolog y an d result s o f thi s stud y ar e documente dinthi s paper , alon g wit hsubsequen t conclusions .

METHODOLOG Y
PRE-SURVE YEXPERIMENTATIO N Definin g a Gasolin e Spil l
I ntheory , a gasolin e spil l a t a servic e statio ncanb e define di nman y ways : tha t it i s th e poin t i nth e refuelin g proces s wher e th e spillag e occur s (pre-fuel , fueling , shutoff , post-fuel ) an dtha t eac hpoin t constitute s a separat e spill ; tha t spille dgasolin e onth e sid e o f a vehicl e constitute s a separat e spill ; tha t smal l drop s th e size s o f dimes , quarters , an dhal f dollar s tha t hav e falle nont o th e concret e surfac e constitut e a spill ; tha t onl y

a certai nmeasurabl e are a o f spille dgasolin e o nth e concret e surfac e tha t ca nb e easily , accurately , an dconsistentl y

relate d bac k t o a specifi c volum e o f spille dgasolin e constitute s a spill ; an dtha t spillag e o f any

kin da t any

poin t durin g th e fuelin g proces s shoul db e agglomerate dan

dconstitut e on e spill . I norde r t o hel pdefin e a spill , staf f o f th e Californi a Ai r Resource s Board' s (CARB's ) Complianc e Divisio nconducte dexperiment s a t servic e station s i

nth e Sacrament o are a o f California , wher e variou s volume s o f gasolin e wer e spille dfrom a graduate dcylinder , from a se t heigh t (3 0 in.) , ont o th e concret e surface . Staf f discovere dtha t th e smallest , bes t continuou s measurabl e spil l (i nsquar e inches ) tha t wa s quantifiabl e (i n milliliters ) wa s 1 ml . Belo w tha t volume , th e gasoline , fallin g from a heigh t o f 3 0 in. , tende dt o stic k t o th e wall s o f th e graduate dcylinder , an dth e amoun t tha t di dspil l tende dt o dispers e int o scattere dspot s o nth e - 2 -P.2 4

concret e surface . I t wa s als o note dtha t spill s o f 1 ml o r greate r produce d a temporar y

stai ntha t coul db e measure dafte r th e perso nfinishe drefuelin g he r o r hi s vehicle . Consequently , staf f decide dt o defin e a spill , i npart , a s tha t volum e o f spille dgasolin e tha t produce donth e concret e surfac e a staine dare a (sometime s wit hgasolin e o nit ) tha t wa s equivalen t t o 1 m l o r greate r o f gasoline . Staf f wa s als o ver y concerne dabou t whe ni nth e fuelin g cycl e a spil l occurred ; s o staf f decide dt o defin e a spil l i nterm s o f whe ni t occurred : pre-fuel , whic hinclude s removin g th e nozzl e from th e dispense r an d insertin g i t int o th e vehicl e fil l pipe ; fueling , whic hinclude s th e dispensin g proces s from star t t o th e nozzl e shut-of f phase ; shut-off , whic h include s any

spill s whic hoccu r a t nozzl e shut-of f eithe r by automati c o r custome r controlle dshut-off ; an dpost-fuel , whic hinclude s an y spillag e occurrin g durin g remova l o f th e nozzl e from th e vehicl e t o hangin g th e nozzl e u po nth e dispenser . Furthermore , staf f als o decide dtha t spillag e a t any on e o f thes e interval s woul dconstitut e a separat e spill . Anothe r phenomeno nobserve ddurin g experimentatio no f measurin g spill s wa s gasolin e tha t spille do nth e sid e o f a vehicl e durin g th e refuelin g proces s bu t neve r fel l t o th e driv e surface . Experimentatio nwa s conducte d o nvehicle s t o se e i f gasolin e spille do nth e vehicl e from th e fil l pip e openin g t o th e bottom o f th e bod y

o f th e vehicl e coul db e measure dan d quantified . I t wa s discovere dtha t suc hvariable s a s th e fil l pip e height , shap e o f th e vehicle' s body , amoun t o f roll-unde r o f th e vehicl e (th e poin t wher e th e bod y

o f th e vehicl e slope s inward) , conditio no f th e vehicle' s paint , an

dho w muc hdir t wa s o nth e vehicl e influence dth e retentio no f an y gasolin e spille do nth e vehicl e downwar dfrom th e fil l pip e opening . I t wa s no t possible , however , t o obtai na constan t measurabl e amoun t tha t spille d onth e vehicl e surface . Nevertheless , i t wa s determine dfrom th e experimentatio ntha t th e spill s varie dfrom on e t o thre e milliliter s befor e the y woul ddri pof f ont o th e driv e surfac e a s drip s o r measurabl e spills . Therefore , t o accoun t fo r spill s onth e vehicle , staf f decide dt o us e a symbo l "V " o nth e surve y form t o indicat e a vehicl e spil l o f from on e t o thre e milliliters . I n quantifyin g th e volum e associate dwit h"V " spills , Complianc e Divisio n managemen t decide dtha t anaverag e o f two milliliter s pe r spil l woul db e used . Althoug hdrop s o f gasolin e (les s tha n1 ml ) tha t fal l from th e nozzl e o r possibl y

from th e sid e o f a vehicl e constitut e spillage , ou r pre-surve y experimentatio nindicate di t wa s difficul t t o relat e dro pare a siz e t o a know nvolum e o f spille dgasoline . I naddition , spille ddrop s o nth e surfac e evaporate dquickly . T o addres s insom e wa y th e phenomeno no f drop s spilled , staf f decide dt o simpl y coun t the m

durin g th e surve y an denter , onth e surve y form , th e numbe r o f drop s tha t occurre da t eac ho f th e fuelin g intervals . Variable s Affectin g o r No t Affectin g

Spil l Surfac e Are a Th e variabl e tha t ha dth e greates t effec t o nth e are a o f an y gasolin e spille dwa s th e driv e surfac e surroundin g th e gasolin e dispense r island s -3 -P.25 ,

wher e th e vehicle s parke dwhil e bein g refueled . Thi s wa s du e t o th e porosit y

an d surfac e conditio nwhic haffecte dth e absorbenc y o f th e driv e surface . Thi s wa s alway s concrete . W e foun dtha t ther e wa s n o constan t regardin g th e concret e conditions ; therefore , w e decide dt o d o a measure d spil l a t eac hservic e statio nprio r t o conductin g th e survey . Th e othe r variabl e tha t influence dth e spil l surfac e are a wa s th e heigh t a t whic hth e measure dgasolin e wa s poure dont o th e concret e driv e surface . Accordingly , w e decide dt o us e a constan t measure dspil l heigh t o f 3 0 inches . Thi s heigh t take s int o accoun t th e variou s height s o f vehicl e fil l pipe s an

d th e variou s location s o f th e fil l pipe s ondifferen t vehicles . I t wa s als o determine ddurin g experimentatio ntha t temperatur e an dwin d di dno t pla y

a neffectiv e variabl e inth e spil l process , bu t di d effec t th e spee di nth e evaporatio no f th e spille dgasoline . Therefore , staf f decide d no t t o collec t temperatur e an d win ddat a a s par t o f th e dat a collecte dfo r th e survey . GASOLIN E SERVIC E STATIO N SELECTIO N Th e proces s o f selectin g servic e station s havin g eithe r vapo r recover y or conventiona l nozzle s wa s mad e a s economicall y a s possibl e b

y choosin g station s a s clos e t o th e AR B Complianc e Divisio noffic e a s possible . Thi s offic e i s locate di nSacramento , California . B y drivin g around , th e projec t leade r fo r th e surve y develope da lis t o f vapo r recover y station s fo r th e Cit y o f Sacrament o ( a larg e metropolita narea ) an d a lis t o f conventiona l nozzl e station s locate dinsmalle r citie s an d communitie s i

nth e Sacrament o Valle y from Arbuckl e t o Redding , Californi a (Reddin g wa s th e largest) . Th e onl y selectio ncriteri a use dwa s tha t th e servic e statio nb e clos e t o a majo r roa do r freewa y t o hel pensur e tha t th e statio nwoul db e bus y an dtha t a cross-sectio no f th e type s o f peopl e i nCaliforni a woul db e usin g th e pump s a t th e stations . Servic e station s i nSacrament o hav e bee nrequire dt o us e vapo r recover y

nozzle s an

d relate dequipmen t sinc e 1980 . S o peopl e i n thi s cit y

hav e bee nexpose dt o usin g th e equipmen t fo r a considerabl e lengt h o f time . TRAININGO F OBSERVER S
Th e trainin g include dclassroom an d fiel dtrainin g a t servic e station s fo r al l th e member s o f th e surve y team (nin e people) . Th e trainin g wa s conducte dsolel y

b y th e projec t leade r i norde r t o minimiz e any variable s i

n th e dat a collection . Tea m member s wer e instructe donho w t o fil l ou t th e two type s o f form s t o b e use di nth e survey : Th e "Servic e Statio nSurfac e Spil l Surve y

Form " an

d th e "Vehicl e Fue l Spil l Surve y Form, " Figure s 1 an d2 o f thi s paper . Th e servic e statio nfor m containe dentr y

space s fo r suc h informatio na s inspecto r name , date , statio nname , typ e o f surfac e a t th e station , an

d result s o f spil l testin g o f variou s volume s o f gasoline . Th e spil l surve y

form containe dentr y

space s fo r suc hinformatio na s statio n data , type s o f nozzle s used , typ e o f vehicl e tha t refueled , fil l pip e location , gallon s dispensed , di d custome r to p off , typ e o f spillage , etc . Al l member s practice dspillin g measure dvolume s o f gasolin e (1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 10 , 20 , an

d 5 0 ml ) an

d measurin g th e surfac e are a o f th e ensuin g spill .

M t *in-»i** » *»•" *Figur e 1

STAT E OF CALIFORNI A AI RRESOURCE S BOARO COMPLIANC E DIVISION P.2 6

Pan e

AR B Inspecto r , ,

Statio nName . _ Addres s

Nozzl e Number(s ) and Amoun t

Surface : Concret e

Snoot h

Size : Draine d

Asphal t Rouq h

A T 3 0 INCHE S
SO . SO . 

### so . SO . 

### so . so . so . Oat e
APC D

Cit v

Othe r

Inche s • 1 Millilite r Inche s . 2 H i 1 1 i 1 iter j Inche s • 3 Milliliter s

. , , . Inche s • S Milliliter s

,. , Inche s . 1 0 Milliliter s

_ „ Inche s . ? 0 Milliliter s Inche s • S O Milliliter sP.2 7
Figur e 2 Sid e 1

irat e a » CAilraam a ai a KMwn i aeaa o CWUU H .ITIII M T.al.l
. ' " «•'«•
. >•' •

fl.Il M IM I »^__

_ CHlM I _^_

_ Tft
. a i irata a . H*
. •« ! t.l f t..« « l.l—«
. »- t M..*l. # •mm tirtjM U uaa. 0 * - •» * lAlAaC C Caaa-aaaala a I I - CM**fk««I M ••!•«. « I • AJft J C I • •.••.! . (alaaa ) lalaaa a I - ajaa a m • a. a aa.a. i (••>• > aaalat ) j . ajaa a • u• a..i. r ••••• • . • ajaa r N I • .tr t f - Aaaa a nt • M.aia. a . a - a.aa i a r • Maaa , 7 • aajaa a c a • C.a..a«laaa l a - BAlaa c a • a<a. < a • aaiaa a i a • lAJaa f _Il a Caa . , aaaa a I f.altl l /

_ a t faaaaralar a , r-t Maaala a ICWTIII T nm i n n MM I x-fi. . • Jaa »

- Jaa a • jaa a • Ma r • u» c • u- a • lia t aalaaa a

i a •axjaa j i a •IUIM I l a •aaaaa a l i •aajaa r

Maaaa r naai r 1 1 •TW

1 1 - »» f I
. •lir e ! • •n w t a - uv r u - a»> i nmmmu. twi n .IT K.W M Caaa*aa.a(a a oa l a.aa . a a •laa a • ••H A a a •I •I * laa i l a •n a

V - Itof.aaa a Caaalla a

fanyant a



### Sid e 2

ruci -
i

i i

t s t i t T t l If f

t l H • «

I t 1 1 VCMICt C N I H i«ra*t* A L C

ri*a i M M

L 19 •* • •VTCH C t M r o t i I t a '•

« HATI* ) 0I« # a #>#«i ~ r«« i •»IIL « »*• « "



### -6 -P.2 8

Thes e benchmar k surfac e area s an drelate dvolumes , whe ndon e a t th e station , woul dserv e a s guide s fo r judgin g th e are a an dvolum e o f any

spill . Tea

m member s wer e als o tol dt o documen t onth e spil l surve y form : (1 ) al l spill s o f 1 ml o r greater , (2 ) th e numbe r o f drop s tha t wer e spille da t eac hphas e o f th e fuelin g process , an d(3 ) gasolin e spille donth e sid e o f a vehicl e wit ha "V " symbol . Th e projec t leade r informe dthe - team tha t h e woul dmonito r eac h member' s methodolog y durin g th e firs t time a t a servic e statio ni norde r t o ensur e tha t al l member s conducte dth e benchmar k spil l tests , an dtha t the y measure dan

drecorde dany

spill s accordin g t o th e establishe dprocedure . Periodically , th e projec t leade r expecte dt o monito r th e performanc e o f th e surve y member s i

norde r t o ensur e consistenc y i nth e methodology . On e importan t fina l point : Complianc e Divisio nmanagemen t haddecide d tha t i t wishe dt o obtai n"rea l world " dat a a t a station~ i .e. , wit hth e statio ni

nth e "a s is " condition . Consequently , team member s wer e instructe dno t t o giv e statio noperator s advanc e notic e o f th e survey . Thi s no-notic e criterio ni s base donprio r experienc e tha t advanc e notic e can caus e excessiv e maintenanc e t o b e performe donth e equipmen t prio r t o a survey . I naddition , th e servic e statio noperator s wer e t o b e tol dtha t a n inspectio no f th e us e o f th e refuelin g equipmen t was bein g conducte drathe r tha na gasolin e spil l survey . Thi s statemen t wa s t o b e mad e i norde r t o reduc e th e chanc e o f bia s result s o f any full-serv e refuelin g operation . FIEL D OBSERVATION S Durin g th e perio do f Jul y 25 , 198 9 throug hJanuar y 11 , 1990 , team s o f one , two , an

dthre e person s wer e sen t by th e spil l projec t tea m leade r t o 3 3 vapo r recover y

station s i

nth e Sacramento , Californi a are a t o observ e fo r spillage s o f gasolin e an dt o recor dthei r findings . Thirty-seve nseparat e visit s wer e mad e a t thes e station s becaus e some station s wer e visite dmor e tha nonce . Al l o f th e vapor-recover y nozzl e equipmen t tha t was observe dfo r spill s wa s i

ngoo dworkin g order . Ninety-seve npercen t o f th e observe d fueling s wer e a t sel f servic e pumps . Th e vapor-recovery-nozzle-equippe dservic e station s wer e predominatel y balanc e typ e systems . O f th e 3 3 vapor-recovery-equippe dservic e stations , 3 1 wer e o f th e balanc e type , 1 Hir t vacuu m assis t type , an

d1 Heal y

assis t type . O f th e 3 1 balance-equippe dservic e stations , 7 wer e equippe do r partiall y

equippe dwit hOP W balanc e equipmen t whil e th e remainde r use dEmc o Wheato nbalanc e equipment . Durin g th e perio do f Septembe r 19 , 198 9 throug hNovembe r 17 , 1989 , on e an dtw o perso nteam s wer e sen t t o 2 1 conventional-nozzl e station s alon g Interstat e 5 freewa y i nth e Sacrament o Valle y t o observ e fo r spillage s o f gasolin e an

dt o recor dthei r findings . On e statio nwa s visite di nArbuckle , 3 inWilliams , 1 i

nOrland , 1 3 i

nRedding , an

d3 i nRe dBluff , California . Al l o f th e conventiona l nozzl e equipmen t tha t wa s observe dfo r spill s wa s i n goo dworkin g order . Ninety-seve npercen t o f th e observe dfueling s wer e a t sel f servic e pumps . Th e conventional-nozzl e equippe dservic e station s use dequipmen t manufacture dby

Emc o Wheaton , OPW , Husky , Catlow , Carder , Vikin g an dothe r -7 -P.2 9

equipmen t whic hcoul dno t b e identified . I t wa s als o observe dtha t i n conventiona l nozzl e equippe dstation s a mi xo f nozzl e manufacturers ' equipmen t wa s use da s a norma l practice , wherea s i nvapo r recover y

nozzl e equippe dservic e stations , on e manufacturer' s equipmen t wa s usuall y used . Al l th e member s o f th e surve y team wer e equippe dwit hsafet y equipment , prope r forms , andmeasurin g device s fo r conductin g spill s an dmeasurin g spill s durin g refuelin g o f vehicles : Th e member s wer e als o equippe dwit h clean-u pequipmen t fo r th e gasolin e tha t wa s spille dinorde r spil l size . I nobservin g th e fuelin g operation , staf f place d clos e t o th e vehicl e a s possibl e withou t interferin g wit h process . Whe na spil l judge dt o b e greate r tha no r equa l t o on e millilite r wa s observed , staf f measure dit s dimension s wit ha tap e measure , calculate d th e surfac e area , an dthe ncompare dtha t are a wit hth e benchmar k surfac e area s establishe dfo r 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 10 , 20 , and5 0 millilite r spill s whe nth e staf f firs t arrive da t th e station . Thi s compariso nwa s don e t o arriv e a t th e closes t approximatio no f th e volum e o f th e spill . "V " spill s an dnumbe r o f drop s observe dwer e als o documente donth e surve y form . t o determin e

themselve s a s th e fuelin g

RESULT S
SPIL L FREQUENCIE S AN D AMOUNT S OF SPILL S Spill s On e Millilite r o r Greate r (Measurabl e Spills ^

Tabl e 1 , a s follows , present s th e numbe r andpercentag e o f fueling s wit hmeasurabl e spill s a t th e fou r fuelin g interval s fo r vapo r recover y an d conventiona l nozzl e systems :

Tabl e 1 . Numbe r an dPercentag e o f Fueling s wit hMeasurabl e Spills .

Numbe r o f Percen t o f Servic e Numbe r o f Measurabl e Spill s a t Fueling s wit h Statio nTyp e Fueling s Fou r Fuelin g Interval s Measurabl e Spill s Vapo r Recover y

151 5 Conventiona l 149 6 23 2 24 9 15. 3 % 16. 6 %

A s Tabl e 1 indicates , a greate r percentag e o f conventiona l nozzle s had measurabl e spill s associate dwit hthe m a t th e fou r fuelin g interval s tha n di dvapor-recover y

equippe dnozzles . Tabl e 2 , a s follows , present s th e tota l volum e o f th e measurabl e spill s tha t occurre ddurin g th e fou r fuelin g interval s andth e volum e o f anaverag e measurabl e spil l fo r bot hconventiona l andvapo r recover y nozzl e systems :



### -8 -P.3 0

Tabl e 2. Tota l Volum e o f Measurabl e Spill s an dAverag e Volum e pe r Spil l

Typ e o f Fuelin g Vapo r Recover y Conventiona l Numbe r o f Tota l Volum e

Measurabl e Spill s a t o f Measurabl e Fou r Fuelin g Interval s Spill s 23 2 24 9 337 3 m l

555 5 m l Averag e Volum e

pe r Spil l
14. 5 m l 22. 3 ml

A s Tabl e 2 indicates , conventiona l nozzle s ha da greate r volum e o f measurabl e spillag e associate dwit hthe m tha ndi dvapor-recover y equippe d nozzles . A nextraordinar y

spillag e even t occurre dwhil e observin g conventiona l fuelings . Thi s even t produce dtw o larg e spill s (on e durin g fueling , on e durin g shutof f a t a singl e fueling ) tha t accounte dfo r approximatel y 19 i o f th e tota l amoun t o f measurabl e gasolin e spille dfo r conventiona l nozzles . However , eve nha dthi s even t no t occurred , th e tota l measurabl e amoun t spille dwoul db e 451 2 milliliters , anda naverag e measurabl e spil l woul db e 18. 1 milliliters , whic hi s stil l greate r tha nth e measurabl e spillag e from vapo r recover y

nozzles . A descriptio no f thi s even t follows : Durin g th e fuelin g proces s th e custome r ha dcontro l o f th e nozzle , bu t th e nozzl e kep t slippin g ou t o f th e vehicl e fil l pipe , allowin g a larg e amoun t o f gasolin e t o b e spille do nth e concrete . Subsequently , afte r th e custome r go t th e nozzl e t o sta y inserted , h e pu t th e fillpip e ca punde r th e trigge r o f th e nozzl e t o kee pi t operatin g by itself . Whe nth e nozzl e wa s suppose dt o shu t of f becaus e th e tan k wa s ful l o f gasoline , th e nozzl e di dno t shu t off , andgasolin e kep t spillin g o n th e concret e surfac e unti l th e custome r too k actio nt o sto pth e flo w fro m th e nozzle . Vapo r recover y

nozzle s hav e latchin g device s whic hkee pth e nozzl e inserte di

nth e vehicl e fillpipe . I naddition , vapo r recover y nozzle s hav e a secondar y

shutof f syste m

incas e th e primar y fails . Also , vapo r recover y balanc e nozzle s hav e aninterloc k syste m whic hprevent s gasolin e from bein g dispense dunles s th e boo t i s compressed , suc ha s occur s whe nth e nozzl e i s inserte dint o a vehicl e fil l pipe . Thes e desig nfeature s o f vapo r recover y nozzle s hel preduc e spillage .

" V Spill s

I nadditio nt o th e measurabl e spillag e o nth e concret e tha t occurred , ther e wa s als o spillag e tha t occurre do nth e vehicl e itsel f durin g som e o f th e refuelings . A s note dearlier , thes e spill s wer e calle d"V " spills . Tabl e 3 , a s follows , present s th e numbe r an dpercentag e o f "V " spill s tha t occurre ddurin g th e four type s o f fuelin g intervals .P.3 1

Tabl e 3 . Numbe r andPercentag e o f Fueling s wit h"V " Spills .
Servic e Numbe r o f Statio nTyp e Fueling s Vapo r Recover y

151 5 Conventiona l 149 6 Numbe r o f "V " Fueling s Spill s a t Fou r wit h"V " 

## Fuelin g Interval s Spills . %
10 6 20 5 7. 0 %

13. 7 % Tota l

Volum e o f "V " SPill S 21 2 m l 41 0 m l Measurabl e and"V " Spill s Combine d(Ouantifiabl e Spills ) Combinin g th e measurabl e spill s tha t reac hth e concret e o f th e servic e statio nsurfac e wit hth e "V " spill s tha t occu r o f th e sid e o f th e vehicl e give s on e th e tota l percentag e andvolum e o f spills , greate r tha non e milliliter , tha t staf f observe ddurin g th e survey . Thi s combinatio ni s referre dt o a s quantifiabl e spills . Tabl e 4 , a s follows , present s th e number , percent , an daverag e volum e o f quantifiabl e spill s observe ddurin g th e fou r fuelin g interval s o f th e survey . Tabl e 4 . Number , Percent , an dAverag e Volum e o f Quantifiabl e Spill s Observe dDurin g th e Survey . Numbe r & Percen t Fuelin g Interval s wit hQuantifiabl e Spill s 33 8 (22.3* ) 45 4 (30.335 ) Typ e o f Fuelin g Vapo r Recover y Conventiona l Tota l Amoun t o f Quantifie dSpi n 358 5 m l 596 5 m l Averag e Volum e

pe r Spil l 10. 6 m l 13. 1 m l
A s ca nb e see ninTabl e 4 , conventiona l nozzle s produc e a greate r numbe r o f quantifiabl e spill s an da greate r averag e volum e pe r spil l tha nd o vapor-recover y

equippe dnozzles . However , i f th e extraordinar y even t spillag e fo r a conventiona l nozzl e note dinth e discussio nunde r Tabl e 2 abov e i s subtracte dfrom th e tota l quantifie dspil l volum e o f Tabl e 4 (596 5 ml - 104 3 m l = 492 2 ml) , th e averag e volum e pe r quantifiabl e spil l fo r conventiona l nozzle s woul ddro pt o 10. 8 ml , whic hi s ver y clos e t o th e averag e volum e pe r quantifiabl e spil l wit ha vapo r recover y nozzle . 

## Drop s o f Fue l
On e o f th e observation s mad e by th e staf f durin g th e surve y wa s t o documen t th e numbe r o f drop s o f gasolin e tha t splattere do nth e concret e surfac e o f th e servic e statio ndurin g th e survey . Th e majorit y o f thes e drop s wer e th e siz e o f a dim e t o a quarte r bu t som e wer e larger . Al l wer e judge dt o hav e a surfac e are a equivalent , usually , t o muc hles s tha non e milliliter , whic hwa s th e spil l siz e counte db y th e staff . However , drop s wer e ver y

numerous , a s i s depicte dinTabl e 5 tha t follows .

•10 -P.3 2
.

Tabl e 5 .

Typ e o f Fuelin g Vapo r Recover y Conventiona l Instance s an d Numbe r o f Drop s o f Gasolin e Observe d Durin g th e Survey .

Numbe r o f 

## Fueling s 151 5 149 6 Instance s o f Drop s

Durin g th e Fou r 

## Fuelin g Interval s 51 1 (34*) * 68 8 (46*) * Tota l Numbe r o f Drop s Occurrin g Durin g th e Fou r Fuelin g Interval s 249 7 (43*)* * 335 2 (57*)* *

* Calculate da s a percentag e o f tota l fueling s * * Calculate da s a percentag e o f tota l drop s tha t occurre dwit hbot h conventiona l and vapo r recover y nozzle s
A s Tabl e 5 indicates , th e instance s o f drop s occurrin g durin g th e fou r fuelin g interval s an d th e tota l numbe r o f drop s tha t occurre ddurin g thes e interval s happene dmor e ofte nwit hconventiona l nozzle s tha nwit hth e vapo r recover y

nozzles . Numbe r an

d Volum e o f Spills , an d Numbe r 

## o f Prop s Durin g Fuelin g Interval s
A s note dearlie r i n th e fou r differen t fuelin g fuel . A t eac h on e millilite r o r followin g table , drop s occurre di n milliliter ) ar e Tabl e 7 present s interva l

greate r Tabl e 6 eac hfu e use dfo r simila r i tota l numbe r o f drop s tha t th e methodolog y section , staf f observe dspill s a t intervals : pre-fuel , fueling , shutoff , an d post -

, staf f documente dwhethe r a "V " spil l occurred , a spil l occurred , an

d whethe r drop s occurred . Th e

, present s th e numbe r o f instance s tha t spill s an d ling interval . Th e notation s "V " an d "m " (fo r spills , an

d "D " i s use dfo r drops . Subsequently , nformatio nfo r th e tota l volume o f spill s an dth e occurre da t eac ho f th e fuelin g intervals .

Tabl e 6 . Numbe r o f Instance s o f Spill s an d Drop s inEac hFuelin g Interva l

Typ e o f 

## Fuelin g Vapo r Recover y Conventiona l Numbe r o f Instance s o fSpill s o r Drop s Pre-fue l Fuelin g Shutof f Post-fue l V M D VM D VMDVM D 

### 6 6 3 5 3 0 1 1 4 7 1 9 3 5

1 9 3 8 2

4 

### 2 1 25 5 10 5 13 8 2 3 6 0

75 

### 137 47 4 6 2 61 4

Tabl e 7
. Tota l Spil l Volum e an d Numbe r o f Drop s i n Eac h Fuelin g Interva l Typ e o f Fuelin g Tota l Spil l Volum e (i n ml ) an d Tota l Numbe r o fDrops Pre-fue l Fuelin g Shutof fPost-fue l V M D VM D VMDVM D 

### Vapo rRecover y 1 2 43 2 124 3 8 112 1 3 4 2 83 9 1 4 120 98 1 235 6 Conventiona l 1 2 6 5 173 3 8 166 2 35 21 0 350 0 9 2 15 0 32 8 305 2 A s reveale d b

y Table s 6 an d 7 , conventiona l nozzle s i n Californi a ar e mos t likely , first , t o produc e measurabl e spill s an d "V " spill s durin g th e 

### •11 -shutof f interval , and , second , durin g th e post-fue l interval . Vapo r

recover y

nozzle s ar e mos t likely , first , t o produc e measurabl e spill s an d "V " spill s durin g th e post-fue l interval , and , second , t o produc e measurabl e spill s durin g th e fuelin g interva l an d"V " spill s durin g th e shutof f interval . W e believ e th e highe r percentag e o f spill s produce db y conventiona l nozzle s i nth e shutof f interva l ma y b e du e (1 ) t o a highe r gasolin e dispensin g rat e observe dv/it hthes e nozzle s durin g th e surve y tha n observe dwit hvapo r recover y nozzle s (8. 3 gal/mi nv s 6. 9 gal/min) , an d(2 ) t o th e fac t tha t CAR B certifie dvapor-recover y nozzle s ar e require dt o mee t mor e stringen t shutof f criteri a tha nconventiona l nozzle s are . Thes e table s als o indicat e tha t a significantl y larg e numbe r o f drop s produce db

y bot hvapo r recover y an dconventiona l nozzle s occu r durin g th e post-fue l interva l o f fueling .

Soi1 1 Frequenc y

.an dAverag e Volum e Wha nAl l Measurabl e an d"V " Soili s (On e o r Several ) Occurrin g Durin g th e Fuelin g Proces s Ar e Define da s On e Spil l Onl y
Fo r th e spil l surve y discusse di

nthi s paper , th e metho dchose nan d usedfo r countin g th e numbe r o f spill s wa s t o coun t eac hmeasurabl e o r "V " spil l observe da t on e o f th e fou r fuelin g interval s a s a separat e spill . Afte r conductin g th e survey , w e discovere dtha t th e America nPetroleu m Institut e (API ) ha dconducte da spil l surve y slightl y

earlie r tha nour s an d i nth e Washingto nD.C . an dBaltimore , Marylan dareas . However , AP I counte d al l kind s o f spill s onth e concret e surface—fro m a singl e small-dro psplas h t o a spil l o f man y

milliliter s t o a combinatio no f spill s a t variou s fuelin g intervals—a s on e spil l onl y pe r fueling . AP I di dno t coun t "V " spill s o n th e sid e o f a vehicl e a s bein g spills , however . W e wer e curiou s ho w usin g suc ha methodolog y woul daffec t th e frequenc y an daverag e volum e o f spill s w e foundwit hth e two type s o f nozzl e system s studie d(vapo r recover y an dconventional) . S o w e reviewe dou r surve y dat a an drecounte dal l measurabl e (M ) an d"V " spill s tha t occurre ddurin g th e fuelin g proces s a s on e spil l onl y pe r fuelin g (i.e. , a "V " spil l an da on e millilite r spil l a t eac ho f th e fou r fuelin g interval s woul dequa l onl y on e spil l durin g th e fuelin g process) . A s w e di dwit hou r origina l countin g procedure , w e adde du pal l volume s associate dwit hindividua l "M " an d"V " spill s durin g th e fuelin g process . Ou r result s usin g th e ne w definitio nfo r a spil l ar e presente di nTabl e 8 a s follows . Becaus e AP I di da statistica l analysi s o f th e spil l dat a i t developed , w e als o di da standar dstatistica l analysi s o f th e two spil l frequenc y percentage s (16.6 * v s 20.7* ) tha t w e foundusin g th e AP I definitio no f a spill .

Tabl e 8 . Number , Percent , an dAverag e Volum e o f Spil l Usin g Concep t o f On e Spil l Onl y pe r Fuelin g

Fuelin g Typ e Vapo r Recover y Conventiona l Numbe r o f Fue1ing i 151 5 149 6 an d* o f Fueling s Tota l wit hOn e Spil l Spil l 

## Onl y pe r Fuelin g Volume 25 1 (16.6* ) 31 0 (20.7* )
-12 - 358 5 m l

596 5 m l Averag e

Vo1um e pe r Spil l 14. 3 m l 19. 2 m l

, . . ft b.l.lhaJ.. -A s show ni nTabl e 8 , ou r usin g th e concep t o f on e spil l onl y pe r fuelin g produce s dat a tha t indicate s tha t conventiona l nozzle s engende r a greate r percentag e o f spill s an da greate r averag e volum e pe r spil l tha nd o th e sam e conclusio nreache dwit hou r a spill . Th e differenc e i nth e percentag e an dvapo r recover y nozzle s i s als o th e extraordinar y

even t spillag e fo r a discussio nunde r Table s 2 an d4 i s vapo r recover y

nozzles . Thi s i s survey' s origina l definitio no f o f spill s betwee nconventiona l statisticall y

significant . I f conventiona l nozzl e note di nth e subtracte dfro m

th e tota l spil l volum e fo r conventiona l nozzle s o f Tabl e 8 , th e averag e volum e pe r quantifiabl e spil l fo r conventiona l nozzle s woul d dro pt o 15. 9 ml , whic hi s fairl y clos e t o th e averag e volum e pe r spil l wit h a vapo r recover y

nozzl e (14. 3 ml) . Thi s i s approximatel y th e sam e conclusio nreache dwit hou r survey' s origina l definitio no f a spill . SPILLAG E LOS S PE R100 0 GALLON S O F THROUGHPU T AP-42 , th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y documen t containin g ai r pollutan t emissio nfactor s (Supplemen t C , Septembe r 1990) , list s spillag e o f gasolin e fro m

gasolin e servic e station s a s 0. 7 l bpe r 100 0 gallon s o f throughpu t (Tabl e 4.4-7) . Thi s spillag e los s doe s no t differentiat e betwee n losse s fro m

vapor-recover y

nozzl e station s an dconventiona l nozzl e stations . Base do nth e spillag e amount s documente db y ou r survey , w e calculate d th e spillag e losse s pe r 100 0 gallon s o f throughpu t fo r bot hvapor-recover y an dconventiona l nozzl e stations . Ou r calculation s ar e a s follows :

Vapo r Recover y

Nozzl e Station s Given : 358 5 m l gasolin e spille dpe r 13,977. 7 ga l gasolin e dispense d durin g surve y

observation s 1 ga l o f gasolin e = 3785.3 0 m l o f gasolin e 1 ga l o f gasolin e weigh s 6.2 0 l b Thus : 

## 358 5 JL 6.2 0 0.0004 2 l bspillage/ga l disp .

Gi ven : 13,977. 7 * 3785.3 0 A 1 0.0004 2 x100 0 ga l = 0.4 2 l bspillage/100 0 ga l throughpu t Conventiona l Nozzl e Station s

596 5 m l gasolin e spille dpe r 15,891. 2 ga l dispense ddurin g surve y observation s 1 ga l o f gasolin e = 3785.3 0 m l o f gasolin e 1 ga l o f gasolin e weigh s 6.2 0 l b -13 -P.3 5

/ - 

## Thus : 1 5 891. 2 x

## 3785.3 0 x

## 1 ^ = 

## °- 0006 2 l b

## spillage/ga l disp .

0.0006 2 x100 0 ga l = 0.6 2 lbspillage/100 0 ga l throughpu t

CONCLUSION S Base donCaliforni a surve y data , conventiona l nozzle s i nCaliforni a produc e a greate r numbe r o f quantifiabl e spill s (> . 1 ml ) an da greate r averag e volume pe r spil l tha nd o vapor-recover y equippe dnozzles . However , i f a nextraordinar y

spillag e even t fo r a conventiona l nozzl e note ddurin g th e surve y

(producin g approximatel y 1 9 percen t o f measurabl e spillag e wit h conventiona l nozzles ) i s subtracte dfrom th e tota l quantifie dspil l volume , th e average yolume pe r quantifiabl e spil l fo r a conventiona l nozzl e woul d dro pt o 10. 8 mi , whic hi s ver y clos e t o th e 10. 6 ml averag e volume pe r quantifiabl e spil l wit ha vapo r recover y nozzle . I naddition , conventiona l nozzle s i nCaliforni a produce abou t 1 4 percen t mor e dro p( < 1 ml ) spillag e tha nd o vapo r recover y

nozzles . Dro pspillag e ha s no t bee nquantifie da s t o th e volume o f gasolin e i t represents .

•14 -