P. 1



### OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart

Document

Number: 

### 143 ) IV-E-1 6 Docket Number: 

### A-87-1 1

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

Sheet 143 of 242P. 2

o * ,_ . -J

1

. ft-8*7-:U

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5
NO V 2 3 I98 T OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N

MEMORANDU

M
SUBJECT :

FROM : EPA/IIH S Meeting

Emissio n Control s Regardin g Onboar d Refueling

TO :
THRU : 9 •+ - Glen n W . Passavant , Senio r Projec t Manage r Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h Publi c Docke t A-87-1 1
Cheste r J . France , Chief / Standard s Developmen t a n-o / Suy p
O n Octobe r 20 , 198 7 representative s o f th e Insuranc e Institut e fo r Highwa ySafet yne t wit h representative s o f EPA' s Offic e o f Mobil e Source s a t th e Moto r Vehicl e Emissio n Laboratoryi n An

n Arbor , Michiga n t o discus s onboar d refueling emissio n controls . Acop yo f th

e briefing tha t wa s presente d an d a lis t o f attendee s ar e attached . At th e beginning o f th e meeting , Charle s Gray , th e Directo r o f th

e Emissio n Contro l Technolog yDivision , reviewe d th e rational e use d b yEP Ai n making the decisio n betwee n onboar d an

d Stag e I I vapo r contro l systems . (Thi s rational e i s describe d full yin th e Preambl e t o th e Aug . 19 , 198 7 NPRM) . H e als o gav e a broa

d perspectiv e o

n how th

e onboar d an

d volatilit y proposal s wor

k togethe r t o reduc e th e ozon e level . Afte r th

e issue s i n th

e briefin g v/er

e discussed , ther e wa s a la b tour . Onboar d refueling contro l syste mhardwar e wa s displayed , an

d a carbo n caniste r flammabilit ytes t wa s performed . In thi s test , bot h spark an d flame source s wer e applie d t o carbo n fro ma n evaporativ e syste mcaniste r tha t wa s thoroughl ysaturate d wit h hydrocarbo n vapor . Th e tes t showe d tha t th e carbo n ca

n sometime s ligh t wit h a flam e sourc e bu t no t wit h a spark sourc e an d tha t the caniste r is*no t explosive
.P. 3

Befor e th e meetin g closed , w e aske d IIH S fo r thei r suggestion s o n ho w t o bes t perfor ma ris k analysi s o f onboar d refuelin g contro l systems . IIH S suggeste d a possibl e contractor , Failur e Analysi s Associate s (FAA) . IIH S mentione d tha t thei r experienc e ha s show n tha t implementin g ne w technolog yca n lea d t o recalls , eve n i f th e technolog yi s intende d fo r safet ypurposes . A s a n exampl e the ycite d th e recal l o f Mercedes-Ben z vehicle s equippe d wit h ai r bags . IIH S suggeste d tha t analyzin g curren t acciden t dat a t o tr y t o quantif yth e possibl e increas e i n vehicl e fire s tha t migh t occu r wit h onboar d refuelin g control s v/ould b e difficul t i f no t impossible
. Th e reaso n fo r thi s i s tha t th e availabl e acciden t dat a ar e ver y"noisy" , an d i t i s no t alway s possibl e t o identif yth e sourc e o r caus e o f a vehicl e fire
. IIH S als o speculate d tha t anyincrease d ris k o f fire s du e t o onboar d system s woul d likel yb e los t i n th e nois e o f th e data . IIH S suggeste d tha t phasin g i n anyne w requiremen t o n car s i s usuall yadvantageous . Withou t a phase-i n a manufacture r ma y pu t lo w grad e system s o n car s planne d fo r eliminatio n i n th e nea r future . Hov/ever , IIH S sai d tha t eve n wit h a phase-i n o f in , 25 , 4 0 an d 10 0 percen t th e FMVS S 20 8 standar d fo r passiv e restraint s stil l ra n int o problem s whe n som e manufacturer s decide d no t t o eliminat e vehicl e line s tha t wer e originall y intende d t o b e eliminate d a t th e tim e tha t th e phase-i n began . Problem s occurre d whe n th e decisio n no t t o eliminat e thes e vehicl e line s v/a

s mad e withou t leavin g sufficien t tim e fo r wel l integrated , hig h qualit ypassiv e restrain t system s t o b e designe d fo r thes e particula r vehicl e lines
.P. 4

Attendee s Lis t IIHS/EPAMtg . 10/20/8 7
IIH S Brian O'Neil l Saam i Shaiban i Joh n Coo k

EP A Charle s Gra

y Cheste r Franc e Joh n Anderso n Glen n Passavan t Kathlee n Steilen " Jean Schwendema n Pau l Lain

gP. 5

ONBOAR D REFUELINGEMISSION

CONTROL S A BRIEFINGFO RTH E INSURANC E INSTITUT E FO RHIGHWA

YSAFET Y OCTOBE R20 , 198 7 by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENC Y OFFIC E O F AI RAND RADIATION OFFIC E O F MOBIL E SOURCE SP. 6

OVERVIEW O F TH E BRIEFING Backgroun d Contro l System

Technolog y Question s fo r DiscussionP. 7

BACKGROUND Ozon e Formatio nan

dNonattainmen t Addressin g th e Ozon e Problem Why Contro l Refuelin g Emissions ? Refuelin g Contro l Option s Why i s Onboar dth e Preferre dOption ?P. 8

OZON E FORMATION Ozon e i s forme di na comple xphotochemica l reactio n involvin g oxide s o f nitroge n(NOx ) an dvolatil e organi c compound s (VOC ) Th e chie f wa y t o contro l ozon e i s t o reduc e VO C emission s Larg e variet y o f source s bu t mai none s ar e transportatio n an dindustria l processe sP. 9

OZON E NONATTAINMEN T Ozon e ai r qualit y

problem s ar e significan t an

dwidespread ; 7 6 majo r urba nnonattainmen t area s wit ha tota l populatio n affecte di nexces s o f 7 7 millio n(se e Figur e 1 ) Mos t o f thes e area s ar e expecte dt o fai l t o mee t th e Clea n Ai r Act' s attainmen t deadlin e o f th e endo f thi s yea r - thi s i s despit e man y

year s o f Federal , State , an

dloca l contro l effort s Reductio no f 1 0 percen t t o greate r tha n7 0 percen t wil l be . neede dt o brin g al l area s int o complianc e (se e Figur e 2 )

# J^gs» ~Figur e 2 

# "*aas r

«

2 O ( J 3 O U i a u o > 

# T*«^p^Wsss » y CTY/AIJE AP.1 2

ADDRESSINGTH E OZON E PROBLE M Th e refuelin g andvolatilit y

control s represen t two nationa l program s tha t wil l provid e VO C reduction s o f 1 0 percen t Thi s 1 0 percen t reductio ncombine dwit hth e 2 0 percen t reductio nexpecte dfro

m curren t Federa l Moto r Vehicl e Contro l Program s wil l provid e enougho f th e neede d reduction s fo r som

e area s t o reac hth e ozon e standar d(se e Figur e 2 ) Man y othe r area s wil l nee dsignifican t additiona l reduction s Th e State s hav e a majo r responsibilit y i nimplementin g loca l contro l measure s t o addres s th e ozon e problemP.1 3

WH YCONTRO L REFUELINGEMISSIONS ? Provide s a tw o percen t VO C reductio n Fe w remainin g VO C contro l strategie s ca nprovid e mor e reductio n Reduction s ca nb e achieve dcos t effectivel y whe ncompare d t o othe r availabl e contro l alternative s Reduce s exposur e t o toxi c vapor s durin g refuelin g - benzen e i s a know

nhuma ncarcinoge nan

dgasolin e vapor s i n genera l ar e a concer n Ou r annua l inciden t reductio nestimate s fo r controllin g refuelin g emission s ar e 4 wit hjus t benzene , 1 4 i f benzen e an dC 6 above , an

d4 2 i f benzen e an

dal l ga s vapor sP.1 4

REFUELINGCONTRO L OPTION S Two option s for controllin g refuelin g emissions : servic e statio ncontrol s - Stag e II , o r vehicl e control s - Onboar d Bot honboar dan

dStag e I I ar e technicall y

feasibl e an

d cos t effectiv eP.1 5

WH YI S ONBOAR DTH E PREFERRE DOPTION ? Onboar dwil l provid e a greate r in-us e contro l effectiveness : 8 3 percen t vs , 48-6 6 fo r Stag e I I Onboar di s nationa l i nscop e providin g VO C andtoxi c benefit s t o al l area s o f th e countr y Stag e I I arguabl y

coul db e implemente dquicker , bu t thi s i s unlikel y i nman y area s an dit s overal l effectivenes s i s heavil y dependen t ona long-ter

m commitmen t o f substantia l governmen t enforcement.resource s - an y short-term Stag e I I advantag e i s highl y

speculativ e an

dquickl y overshadowe d by onboard' s greate r contro l effectivenes s Onboar dca nb e singl y

implemente dor a s a nadd-o nt o ou r Federa l Vehicl e Certificatio nProgra m whil e Stag e I I woul d requir e eac hstat e t o adop t regulation s coverin g thei r servic e station s Onboar davoid s th e geographi c boundar y competitivenes s problem o f Stag e I I Onboar davoid s consume r inconvenienc e o f Stag e I IP.1 6

CONTRO L SYSTEM

TECHNOLOG Y Fue l system s prio r t o control s Evaporativ e contro l syste

m Onboar dcontro l techniqu e descriptio n Onboar dhardwar e (lab )P.1 7

FUE L SYSTEM S PRIO RT O CONTROL S (PRE-1972 ) Fue l System Emissio nSources : fue l meterin g system (carburetor ) an

dfue l tank (se e Figur e 3 ) Mai nsourc e o f fue l meterin g emission s i s carbureto r floa t bow l ven t - vente dt o engin e compartmen t o r carbureto r inlet/ai r cleane r Fue l tank s wer e vente dt o th e atmospher e eithe r throug h th e fille r ca por a ven t tub e wit hanoutle t somewher e unde r th e body

o f th e ca rP.1 8

Figur e 3 F-LJEI - SYSTEM S F' R I O R T O CONTRO I

BOW L VEN T CONFIGURATION S

TYPICA L TAN KCONFIGURATIO N

CAP . FILLERTUB E

FUEL GAUG E (TAN KUNIT)P.1 9

EVAPORATIVE CONTRO L SYSTEM Control s require do nFedera l vehicle s i n197 2 Contro l System

Descriptio n(se e Figur e 4 ) Seal s of f fue l syste

m (carbureto r o r fuel-injecto r andfue l tank ) Route s vapor s t o storag e devic e Restore s capacit y

o f storag e devic e fo r subsequen t vapo r loading s by

purgin g durin g vehicl e operation Genera l Configuratio n Pressure/Vacuu

m Relie f Fil l Ca p Vapo r line s (connecte dt o fue l tank , carburetor , canister , an dintak e manifold ) Carbo nCaniste r (approximatel y

on e lite r i nvolum e fo r passenge r cars ) Purg e Valve(s ) (betwee ncaniste r an dintak e manifold ) Float/Rollove r Valv e an

dLiquid/Vapor . Separato r (o

n some configurations )Figur e 4 Typica l Curren tEvaporative System

PRESSURE/VACUU M RELIE F CAP EXTERNAL VEN T LIN E

FLOAT/ROLLOVE VALV E
C 3/8 " DIA . 8 ' LON G
^ 05 " DIA . LIMITIN

G ORIFIC E PURG E VALV E

1 LITE R CARBO N CANISTE R T O PURGE

INDUCTIO N POIN T

1 4 GALLO N FUE L TAN KP.2 1

ONBOAR DCONTRO L TECHNIQU E DESCRIPTIO N Onboar dsystem s perform

th e same thre e basi c function s a s evaporativ e system s - onl y

durin g refuelin g Seal s of f fue l syste

m durin g refuelin g Route s vapor s t o a carbo ncaniste r Restore s capacit y

o f caniste r b y

purgin g store d vapor s an dburnin g them

i nth e engin e a s fue l Sinc e onboar drefuelin g contro l techniqu e i s nearl y identica l t o tha t use do ncurren t vehicle s t o contro l evaporativ e emissions , a singl e integrate dsystem ca nb e use dt o contro l bot hevaporativ e andrefuelin g emission s (se e Figur e 5 ) I norde r t o perform

th e thre e basi c functions . durin g refueling , th e curren t evaporativ e system require s th e followin g modifications : Additio no f a fillnec ksea l t o preven t vapor s fro m escapin g durin g refuelin g Enlargemen t o f vapo r line s an

dcaniste r t o captur e refuelin g vapor s whic har e generate dmor e quickl y andi na large r quantit y

tha nevaporativ e emission s ' Rollove r protectio nvalv e fo r ne w

ven t lin eFigur e 5 Integrate d Evaporative/Refuelin g Syste m J - Tub e Sea

l

PRESSURE/VACUUM RELIE F CA P NOZZL E ACTUATE

D ROLLOVER/VEN

T VALV E

^J-TUB E SEA

L \ DESIGNE D SLO W LEA K

1 4 GALLO

N FUE L TAN K 5/8 " DIA
.

.05 " DIA
. LIMITIN

G ORIFIC E PURG E VALV E

3 LITE R CARBO N CANISTE R T O PURG

E INDUCTIO

N POIN TP.2 3

OTHE RSAFET YCONSIDERATION S Servic e Statio nFire s Reduce dspillag e an

dspitbac k(du e t o provision s i n th e tes t procedur e an

dfue l dispensin g rat e limit ) Containmen t o f Vapor s In-Us e Performanc e Contro l o f exces s evaporativ e emission s Generall y lowe r vapo r loadin g o ncanister s Lowe r volatilit y

fuel s ar e generall y

safe r Implementin g onboar dcontrol s provide s th e opportunit y t o modif y presen t system s t o improv e safety . Fo r example : Accelerat e transitio nfro

m rea r fil l t o safe r sid e fil l

- Mov e externa l vapo r ven t line s insid e fillpip e Ad dflappe r valv e at fue l tank/fillpip e interfac e Bladder : Possibl e long-ter

m optio n- presentl y stil l i ndevelopment/conceptua l stag eP.2 4

ANALYTICAL QUESTION S FO RDISCUSSIO N How d o w e asses s th e increas e i nsafet y ris k(i f any ) tha t ca nb e expecte dt o resul t fro

m th e installatio no f onboar d refuelin g contro l hardware ? How d o thes e risk s compar e i ngenera l wit hothe r safet y risk s an di nparticula r wit hothe r fue l system change s (suc ha s fue l injection) ? Wha t safet y engineerin g solution s ar e availabl e t o eliminate o r minimiz e thes e risks ? How muc hleadtime i s necessar y

t o provid e fo r necessar y safet y engineering ? How d o w e asses s th e benefi t o f eliminatin g existin g safet y risk s whic hmigh t occu r i nconjunctio nwit honboar d installatio n(e.g. , exces s caniste r capacity , rea r t o sid e fill , expose dven t lines) ? How do . w e evaluat e th e benefit s o f th e potentia l reductio n i nservic e statio nsafet y

risk s (fro m reduce dspillag e an

d containmen t o f vapors) ? Wha t safet y benefit s ca nw e expec t fro

m th e volatilit y rule ?