P. 1



# OAR Box 1856 Prepped byKeeiaRichards



### Document

Number: 

# 69 ) ll-A-06
Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/24/200812:41:50PM Sheet 69of 82

# Ami IJ. fi-Oie

EPA-AA-SDSB-85- 6 Technica l Repor t

Refueling Emission s fromUncontrolle d Vehicle s

By Dal e Rothma n
an d Rober t Johnso n

NOTIC E Report s d o no t necessaril yrepresen t fina l EP A o r positions
. The yar e intende d t o presen t analysi s o f issue s usin g dat a whic har e available
. Th e purpos e i nth e releas e o f suc h i s t o facilitat e th e exchang e o f technica l Technica l decision s technica l currentl y report s informatio n an

d t o infor

mth e publi c development s whic hma yfor mth e basi s fo r decision , positio no r regulatoryaction
. o f a technica l fina l EP A

Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h Emissio nContro l TechnologyDivisio n Offic e o f Mobil e Source s Offic e o f Ai r an

d Radiatio n U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc yTabl e o f Content s Pag e N o

I . Background 1 II . Parameter s Affecting Refueling Emission s l A . Difference s Betwee nVehicl e Tank Temperatur e an

d Dispense d Fue l Temperatur e B . Dispense d Fue l Temperatur e C . Fue l Volatilit y(Rei d Vapo r Pressure ) D . Vehicl e Difference s E . Othe r Factor s III . Baseline Refueling Tes t Program8 A . Vehicle s an

d Tes t Condition s B . Tes t Procedur e 1
. Overvie w 2
. Effect s o f Vehicl e Preconditioning C . Tes t Result s 1
. Summary 2
. Paramete r Effect s a . Difference s Betwee nVehicl e Tank Temperatur e an dDispensed Fue l Temperatur e b
. Dispense d Fue l Temperatur e c . Fue l Volatilit y(Rei d Vapo r Pressure ) d
. Othe r Parameter s 3
. Difference s i nVehicle s an d Vehicl e Configuratio n 4
. Predictio nEquatio n a . Fitte d Mode l 1
. Coefficient s 2
. Variabilt y b
. Comparison s t o Result s from Othe r Studie s IV . Calculatio n o f Nationwid e Emissio nFactor s 3 8 A . Introductio n B . Descriptio no f Refueling Emissio nFactor s C . Calculatio no f Displacemen t Emissio nFactor s 1
. Methodology 2
. Source s o f Dat a 3
. Ai r Qualit yan d Healt hEffect s Scenario s 4
. Consumptio nWeightin g Calculatio n 5
. Emissio nRate s 6
. Effect s o f Fue l Weatherin g D . Conclusion sP. 4

I . Background Th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc yi s currentl yi n th e proces s o f developing an d evaluating a Federa l tes t procedur e fo r th e measuremen t o f vehicl e refueling emissions
. Refuelin g emission s ar e o f direc t concer ndu e t o thei r benzen e conten t an d th e potentia l healt heffect s o f exposur e t o gasolin e vapor s i ngeneral
. Also , the ycontribut e t o ozon e formation , an d ar e o f particula r concer ni narea s whic hcurrentl yd o no t mee t th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandard s (NAAQS ) fo r ozone . Thi s repor t describe s EPA' s baselin e program t o measur e refueling emission s fromuncontrolle d vehicles , an d t o investigat e th e sensitivit yo f thes e emission s t o variou s parameters . An emissio nfacto r equatio nbase d upo nth e variou s parameter s wil l b e develope d tha t wil l b e use d i nmakin g comparison s wit hth e result s o f othe r refueling emission s studies
. I t wil l the nb e use d t o estimat e emissio nfactor s unde r a rang e o f conditions
. II . Parameter s Affecting Refueling Emission s A s wa s describe d byHochhause r an d Campion , th e generatio n o f refueling emission s . i s a comple xproces s "involving non-equilibrium , unsteadystat e interphas e hea t and mas s transfe r i na systemwher e th e mod e o f contac t betwee nga s an d liqui d canno t b e easil ydefine d o r modeled."[1 ] I t ha s bee n shown , however , tha t fairl ygoo d estimate s o f refueling emission s ca nb e obtaine d fromempirica l equation s base d upo n a few , eas yt o determin e parameters.[1,2,3 ] Thos e parameter s tha t appea r t o explai nth e mos t variabilit yare : 1 ) th e differenc e betwee nth e temperatur e o f th e dispense d fue l an d th e tank fuel , 2 ) th e temperatur e o f th e dispense d fuel , an d 3 ) th e fue l volatility
. Difference s i nth e physica l configuratio n o f vehicles ' fue l tank s an d fil l neck s ca nals o affec t refueling emissions , bu t thi s i s a variabl e tha t ca nno t b e easil yquantified
. Amor e complet e descriptio no f eac ho f thes e an

d othe r parameter s considere d i s give ni nth e following sections
. A . Difference s Betwee nVehicl e Tank Temperatur e an d Dispense d Fue l Temperatur e Amajo r facto r i ndetermining th e leve l o f refueling emission s i s AT , th e differenc e betwee nth e temperatur e o f th e fue l i nth e vehicl e tank an d th e dispense d fue l temperature. . Th e additio no f fue l tha t is
. warme r tha nth e fue l i nth e vehicl e tank i ntur nwarm s th e tank fue l an d vapo r space , resulting i nth e vaporizatio no f additiona l gasolin e an d expansio no f th e vapo r mixture
. Thi s conditio n i s knowna sP. 5

-2

-
vapo r growth
. O nth e othe r hand , additio no f colde r fue l t o a warme r tank cool s th e fue l i nth e tank an d some o f th e vapo r presen t i s condense d int o liquid
. Thi s conditio ni s known a s vapo r shrinkage
. Whe nbot hfuel s ar e a t th e same temperatur e (A T = 0 ) neithe r vapo r growt hn o vapo r shrinkag e occur s an d th e volumetri c refueling losse s ar e almos t identica l t o th e amoun t o f vapo r displace d b yth e incoming gasoline
. Nearl yeverypreviou s stud ydealing wit hvehicl e refuelin g emission s ha s recognize d th e importanc e o f th e relationshi p betwee nAT and tota l refueling emissions.[1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 , 11,12 ] Thi s effec t i s generall yexpresse d a s change s i nth e rati o o f eithe r th e volum e o f vapo r displaced , o r gram s o f H C emitted , t o th e gallon s o f fue l dispensed
. I nal l cases , a n invers e relationshi p betwee nA T an d volumetri c refueling emission s ha s bee nsee na s i s illustrate d i nFigur e l take n froma stud

yb yth e Stanfor d Researc hInstitute
. I ngeneral , th e same resul t hold s fo r th e mas s o f refueling emissions
. However , du e t o th e changing constituent s o f th e vapor , a t large r negativ e value s o f A T a positiv e relationshi p betwee n A T an d mas s emission s results.[1,2,3,6,9 ] Thi s "turning over " effec t i s show ni nFigur e 2 , als o take nfromth e SR I study
. B . Dispense d Fue l Temperatur e Th e temperatur e o f th e dispense d fue l (T 0 ) ca nexer t a distinc t impac t upo nrefueling emissions , separat e fromit s us e i nth e determinatio no f AT . I t ha s long bee nknowntha t th e amoun t o f vaporizatio no f gasolin e varie s directl ywit h temperature . Thi s i s th e reaso ntha t mixtur e enrichmen t device s ar e require d fo r col d starting
. Al l othe r factor s being equal , emission s woul d therefor e b e lowe r a t colde r dispense d temperatures , sinc e les s fue l woul d b e vaporized. * Severa l o f th e previou s studie s hav e considere d th e effec t o f dispense d temperatur e upo nrefueling emissions.[1,2,3,4,6 ] I nsevera l o f these , th e valu e o f AT i s no t separatel y compute d an

d controlled , s o i t i s difficul t t o separat e th e distinc t effect s tha t th e dispense d fue l temperatur e ha s o n refueling emission s from it s rol e i nvapo r growt ho r shrinkage
. Figure s 3 an d 4 , however , showth e effec t o f dispense d fue l temperature , whe nA T i s als o accounte d for , a s see ni ntw o o f th e previou s studies.[1,6 ]
*I t i s interesting t o not e tha t thi s wil l no t b e th e cas e fo r th e temperatur e o f th e tank fue l (T T )
. Lowering T Ta t a constan t T 0 wil l creat e lowe r value s o f AT , resulting i nvapo r growt han d increase d emissions
.- 3 - P. 6

-3 0 - « INITIA L TAN KTEMPERATUR E MINU S 0ISPENSE 0 PUEL TEMPERATUR E —~r SA-J750-J , FIGUR E 1 VAPOR-LIQUI O VOLUM E RATI O VERSU S INITIA LA T Source : Stanfor dResearc hInstitut e (9 )- 4 - P. 7

-1 0 - » INITIA L TAN KTEMPERATUR E MINU S 0 . SPENSE D FUE LTEMPERATUR E - '" •^.p.,,, ,

Sour c . : Stanfor d R.searc * Institute d ^P. 8

EFF 

## EC TO F DISPENSE D TEMPERATUR E

7. 0 - T

a. o

! ft.O

jij O

« 1
o

D l ^ . TEMF-=« S FIGUR E 3 1 S 197 S a 9 cite d

. 7 S Gas- 6 Par t II , Augus t 15,i*'=> . Source : EP A

^por t 75-Ga s b b j Scot t Environmenta l (6 )

9. 0

Ik o

o

«. o
H9P . T««r.-3 0 a. o 12J 0
J. . t

> O H 1 AJ 0

^.TM.O C A-6

-
C . Fue l Volatilit y(Rei d Vapo r Pressure ) RV P i s a measur e o f "front-end " volatility , o r th e eas e o f vaporizatio no f gasolin e a t 100°F ; th e highe r th e RVP th e greate r th e vaporizatio npotential
. Refueling event s occur nea r thi s temperature , therefor e refueling emissio nrate s shoul d varywit hRVP ; al l othe r factor s bein g equal , highe r RVP fue l yielding highe r emissions
. I nmanyo f th e previou s studies , th e RVP o f th e fuel , it s effec t bein g recognized , wa s hel d constant . Othe r studie s hav e attempte d t o explor e th e relationshi p betwee nRVP an d refueling emission s i n a quantitativ e fashion.[1,2,4,6,9 ] Figure s 5 an d 6 showcharacteristi c increase s i nrefueling emission s a t a highe r RVP.[1,6 ] Thi s relationshi p i s als o note d i n othe r studies
. Afe wstudie s hav e als o considere d th e effec t o f dispensing a fue l o f on e RVP int o a tank wit hresidua l fue l o f a different , lowe r RVP.[3,9 ] Th e genera l resul t i s large r vapo r growt ha s a resul t o f th e dispense d fue l vaporizin g t o increas e th e hydrocarbo nconcentratio ni nth e tank t o th e highe r vapo r pressur e o f th e dispense d fuel
. D . Vehicl e Difference s A s wit han

ytyp e o f emissions , ther e wil l b e difference s i nresult s fromdifferen t vehicles
. I nth e cas e o f refueling emissions , thes e difference s ar e primaril yrelate d t o th e vehicle' s fue l tank system . Fue l tank s var yi nsize , shape , positio no f th e fillpip e (i.e. , rea r fil l o r sid e fill) , fil l nec k design , an d interna l baffling
. Difference s i nth e area s o f th e evaporativ e surfaces , effectiv e heigh t o f th e fillpip e ove r th e evaporativ e surfac e an

d turbulen t interaction s betwee nth e entering fue l an d existing vapor s ar e among th e mos t likel ycause s fo r th e difference s tha t ar e observe d i nrefueling emission s betwee n vehicles
. Fe wo f th e previou s studie s o nvehicl e refueling , emission s hav e specificall yaddresse d th e issu e o f difference s betwee n vehicle s in.term s o f emissions
. Thi s i s du e predominantl yt o th e fac t tha t mos t o f thes e studie s wer e concerne d wit hth e efficienc yo f variou s contro l strategies , an d th e percentag e o f vapo r recovere d wa s o f mor e interes t tha ntota l emissions
. Still , Scot t Environmenta l Technologynote d th e strong vehicl e effec t o nrefueling emission s a s evidence d byth e increase d variabilit yi nthei r result s a s large r number s o f differen t typ e vehicle s wer e used.[6 ] Stanfor d Researc hInstitut e ha sP.1 0



# EFFEC TO FFUE L VOLATILIT Y



# a 3

30.0 0

OJ O -30.0 0



### Source : EP

A Repor t#D-« - h uScot tEnvironmenta l( 6 -IOJO O AT fiDEC*EE3 1) n - __*.*=i2. o--+—»»-•• »

FIGUR E S

r t7S 

### - a 

### as- 6 Par

t.. . *..« * «.1«» . - e 

### " e d 

### b ySco t

s o.0 0 s o 0 0

aPvV= 7 - + p |GUR E e

### -8

-
note d no t onl ychange s i nemission s betwee nvehicles , bu t als o a change

- i n th e shap e o f th e regressio nlin e relating refueling losse s t o AT.[9 ] Also , Exxo nResearc han d Engineering ha s foun d averag e losse s a t th e sam e tes t condition s ranging from 4. 5 t o 5. 4 gm/ga l depending o nth e vehicle.[13 ] Thus , although th e previou s studie s hav e no t specificall yaddresse d th e issu e o f difference s betwee nvehicles , it s effec t ha s bee nnoted
. 

### E . Othe r Factor s Severa l othe r factor s tha t ma yhav e a neffec t upo n refueling emission s hav e bee nconsidere d i npreviou s studies
. Among thes e are : fil l rate , [1,9 ] amoun t o f residua l fue l i n th e tank,[3,9 ] tota l amoun t o f fill,[1,3,9 ] positio no f nozzl e i nth e fill-neck,[9 ] an d ambien t temperature.[3,8,9 ] Th e magnitud e o f thes e effect s i s muc hles s tha ntha t fo r an yo f th e factor s describe d previously
. Therefore , thi s stud yha s bee ndesigne d primaril yt o determin e th e effect s o f AT , dispense d temperature , and fue l volatility ; an d an yinsight s tha t ca nb e obtaine d abou t thes e othe r effect s o r difference s betwee nvehicles , wil l b e secondary
. III . Baselin e Refuelin g Tes t Program A . Vehicle s an

d Tes t Condition s Eigh t vehicle s i nal l hav e bee nteste d i nth e baselin e program . Thes e consis t o f si xlight-dut ygasolin e vehicle s and tw o light-dut ygasolin e trucks
. Th e tank size s var yfrom vehicl e t o vehicle , a s d o th e configuration s o f th e tank s and thei r interna l baffling
. Alisting o f th e vehicle s i s give ni n Tabl e 1
. Th e majorit yo f th e testing wa s performe d o nth e 198 3 Cutlas s Supreme , a s i t wa s th e firs t vehicl e tested
. Th e matri xo f paramete r condition s unde r whic hth e Cutlas s wa s teste d i s showni nTabl e 2 , along wit hsimila r bu t les s extensiv e matrice s fo r th e 198 4 Escor t an d th e 198 3 Reliant
. Th e testing o f thes e vehicle s a t th e variou s paramete r condition s allow s fo r a mor e complet e compariso no f th e difference s i nrefueling emission s betwee nvehicles
. O f particula r interes t her e i s th e differenc e i n refueling emission s betwee nside-fil l an d rear-fil l vehicles
. O f al l th e vehicle s tested , onl yth e 198 3 Cutlas s Supreme i s a rear-fil l vehicle , an

d th e futur e flee t i s expecte d t o b e dominate d by side-fil l vehicles
. Th e remaining vehicle s wer e teste d primaril ya t on e se t o f paramete r conditions
. B ytesting severa l vehicles , an indicatio no f th e rang e o f refueling emissio nrate s canb e obtained
.

### -9

- P.1 2

Tabl e 1

Yea r Make/Mode l 198 3 198 3 198 4 198 4 198 3 198 3 197 9 vehicle s Teste d Tank Vo l Olds
. Cutlas s Supreme Buic k Skylar k Chevrole t Celebrit y For d Escor t LDT CrownVictori a Plymout hRelian t x,, , Dodg e Truc k W15 0 197 9 Chevrole t 3/ 4 To n Pickup 18 . 14 . 16 . 13 . 1 8 1 3 1 8 1 5 4

. 0

. 0

. 0

. 0 19. 6 Comment s

Rear fil l Fue l Injecte d Vertica l Tan

kP.1 3

-10

- Tabl e 2 Refueling Emission s Tes t Matri x 198 3 Oldsmobil e Cutlas s Fue l Dispense d Temperatur e Tank Temperatur e 80 , 92 , 100 , 120° F 80 , 92 , 100 , 120° F 80 , 92 , 100 , 120° F 80 , 92 , 100 , 120° F 80 , 92 , 100° F 80 , 92 , 100° F

198 4 Ford Escor t Fue l Dispense d Temperatur e Tank Temperatur e 9. 0 RV P 11. 9 RV P 10. 0 RV P 12. 6 RV P 82° F

92° F 82° F 92° F 92° F 82° F

9. 0 RV P 11. 9 RV P 80° F

92° F 66° F 80' F 92° F 82 , 92 , 92° F 72° F 82 , 92 , 92° F 100° F

100° F

198 3 Plymout hRelian t Fue l Dispense d Temperatur e Tan K Temperatur e 9. 0 RV P 66° F 72° F 11. 9 RV P 66° F 72° F

80° F 82 , 92 , 100° F 92° F 92° F Remaining Vehicle s Fue l Dispense d Temperatur e Tan k Temperatur e 11. 9 RV P 80 , 92° F 92° F '

### -11

- P.1 4



### B . Tes t Procedur e 

### 1
. Overvie w Th e refueling emission s test s wer e performe d i nth e manne r outline d i n Tabl e 3
. Th e tes t vehicl e wa s pushe d int o th e Seale d Housin g fo r Evaporativ e Determinatio n(SHED ) "cold" , i.e. , a t ambien t temperature . A t thi s poin t ther e wa s a 1 0 percen t fil l i nth e tank
. Th e vehicle' s fue l tank wa s the n heated , eithe r bya singl e o r dua l heatin g blankets , t o th e desire d temperature , insid e th e ope nSHED. * operating insid e th e SHE D during thi s time
. e ha d generall ybee nheate d t o it s desire d temperatur e previously
. Th e purg e fan wa s Th e dispense d fue l

A t th e end o f th e heating phase , th e heating blanket s wer e unplugged , th e fue l nozzl e wa s inserte d int o th e fue l neck , th e mixin g fan s wer e started , an d th e SHE D wa s sealed
. A background reading wa s the ntake ninsid e th e seale d SHE D befor e th e refueling began
. Th e refueling wa s the nperforme d by turning o nth e fue l car t fromoutsid e th e SHED . Th e refueling ende d a t a 9 5 percen t fill , eithe r whe nth e nozzl e ha d automaticall yshu t off , o r whe ni t wa s shu t of f manuall y outsid e th e SHED . Th e firs t metho d led t o som e problem s wit h spillage , s o i nth e late r testing onl ymanua l shutof f wa s used
. Temperatur e sensor s wer e locate d a t thre e point s insid e th e tank , i nth e fue l cart , an d a t variou s othe r place s i nth e testing setup , an

d value s wer e recorde d approximatel yeverytwo minute s throughou t th e test . Th e measurement s o f refueling emission s wer e mad e wit hth e us e o f a Flame Ionizatio n Detectio ndevice
. 2
. Effect s o f Vehicl e Preconditioning A s wa s describe d i nth e previou s sectio ndetailin g th e tes t conditions , th e vehicle' s fue l tank s wer e heate d eithe r b y singl e o r dua l blankets
. Th e earlies t test s o nth e 198 3 Cutlas s wer e th e onl yone s wher e a singl e blanke t wa s used
. Heatin g o f th e fue l tank wa s don e wit hth e genera l constrain t tha t vapo r and liqui d temperature s no t b e allowe d t o diffe r by mor e tha n6°F
. Unde r thes e conditions , th e tim e require d t o hea t th e tank t o th e desire d temperatur e wa s i nmanycase s excessive , i.e. , anaverag e o f thre e hour s t o reac ha tank temperatur e o f 1Q0°F
. Also , sinc e th e tank wa s onl yheate d frombelow , temperatur e stratificatio n occurre d insid e th e tank ,
I na fewo f the test s th e vehicl e wa s drive no na road circui t befor e th e refueling , heatin g th e vehicle' s fue l tank i nth e process .P.1 5



### -12

-

Tabl e 3 Tos t Sequence l Dra 

### i n an

d refue l tan.

- 1 0 percen t of fuel capacity
. J ; Pus

hvehicl e int £ she

d thecmocouples 

### ^ 3 

### . connec t heat Dl«* « d tempe 

### rature , A

### Hea

t vehicl e tan * to * ' mser t fuel nozzle
. , ^'"shs df 

### d star

t mixin ga nn

### „ D 

### , . * , TaK

e i""a l sampl

e ceadi n 

### |L^ clty i


### \\\ Remov

e vehicl e fro

mshed
.P.1 6

-13

- wit hth e . vapo r temperatur e temperatur e bysevera l degrees
. wa s unclea r a s t o whethe r a n vehicle' s fue l tank
. lagging behind th e liqui d A t th e tim e o f refueling , i t equilibriu

mexiste d i nth e
Th e us e o f dua l heatin g blanket s (the second blanke t bein g use d t o hea t th e to p o f th e fue l tank ) drasticall yreduce d th e heatin g tim e required , an d alleviate d th e proble m o f temperatur e stratificatio n i nth e fue l tank
. Thi s approac hwa s therefor e adopte d a s th e standar d tank heatin g procedure
. Figure s 7 , 8 , an d 9 sho wth e result s o f th e refueling test s fo r variou s method s o f vehicl e preconditioning
. Thes e dat a ar e solel yfromtest s o nth e 198 3 Cutlass , a t a constan t RVP an d dispense d temperatur e i neac hcase . Figur e 7 give s a compariso n o f th e result s whe nth e vehicl e wa s heate d b ya singl e blanket , heate d b ydua l blankets , o r drive no na road circuit
. Figur e 8 show s furthe r result s whe nth e vehicl e wa s heate d bydua l blanket s compare d t o whe n i t wa s drive no na road circuit
. Finally , Figur e 9 show s th e result s o f test s i n whic hth e vapo r and fue l temperature s insid e th e vehicle' s fue l tank wer e permitte d t o diffe r markedly
. Severa l conclusion s ca n b e drawnfromthes e tes t results
. Refueling emission s wer e lowe r byapproximatel y0. 7 gm/ga l whe n unde r singl e blanke t heatin g versu s dua l blanke t heating
. Larg e difference s i nth e fue l tank liqui d an d vapo r temperature s ma yaffec t refueling emissions , wit hlowe r emission s resulting whe nth e vapo r temperatur e lag s behind th e liqui d temperature . Th e result s fromth e road circui t test s appea r t o fi t bette r wit hth e singl e blanke t tests , bu t hal f o f thes e als o fi t wit hth e dua l blanke t test s fairl ywell.* * I t i s unclea r ho wmuc ho f th e differenc e betwee nthe singl e an

d dua l blanke t tes t result s ca nb e explaine d b yth e temperatur e stratificatio n i nth e vehicle' s fue l tank , an d wha t mus t b e explaine d b yothe r factors
. Becaus e o f it s heating tim e advantages , an d th e questio no f tank equilibrium , dua l blanke t heatin g wa s use d i nth e actua l baselin e testing
. Th e result s from

th e test s o nth e vehicl e prepare d o nth e road circuit , whic har e take nt o represen t a real-lif e situation , sugges t tha t th e dua l blanke t heating procedur e mayyiel d slightl yconservative , bu t generall yaccurate , estimate s o f refueling emission s i nrea l lif e situations
.

* * Whe n9 0 percen t confidenc e interval s fo r th e regressio n line s ar e used
.P.1 7 

# m\<$MmWWP.W im

A T(DEGREE S F

R V P = ! C

. 2

3 * > < = p 

### C5 P

. TEM P • s 

### 9 2

3.B B

S.Q B UR L SLPN^E T POR O PRE P

-IS

. B -IB. B - K B •• • S . B IB. B 15. B



## ^rcurrc ; EL2

.-15

- P.1 8

i 

## w s

i 

### i n 

# LD5 

# 5E5<SM/BBL '

1 1 X^ m. U 

### •a a s H . B HB



# icn 

# i n

. m n i n

~ H

^ 

# s

*

_ .

_ 

## m • 

## s

r u 

## s h J S

< < <
'-4 H H


# - • - i

> •* r <



## I I 

# i n TO 

# m

'TO I D 

## Z D


# i n 

# a n .7 ^

I I L D 

## N 

## "T J 

## C ?-P. U

-16

-


### C . Tes t Result s 1
. Summary I t ha s bee nfoun

d tha t th e refueling emissions , i ngram s o f H C pe r gallo no f fue l dispensed , ca nb e estimate d accuratel y bya multipl e linea r regressio nmode l relating refueling emission s t o th e differenc e betwee nvehicl e tank temperatur e an d dispense d fue l temperatur e (AT) , th e dispense d fue l temperature , an

d th e fue l volatility
. Th e effect s o f vehicl e configuratio n wer e explore d an d found t o b e o f some significance. * Th e following genera l conclusion s ca nb e reache d fromth e results
. a ) lowe r tank temperatures , relativ e t o th e dispense d fue l temperature , yiel d highe r emissions , b ) highe r dispense d temperature s yiel d highe r emissions , c ) highe r RV P dispense d fue l yield s highe r emissions ; and , d ) vehicl e configuratio n ca nhav e a significan t impac t o nrefueling emissions
. Amor e detaile d loo k a t eac ho f thes e factor s follows
. 2
. Paramete r Effect s
a . Difference s Betwee nVehicl e Tank Temperatur e an d Dispense d Fue l Temperatur e Du e t o th e phenomen a o f vapo r shrinkag e an d vapo r growt h th e differenc e betwee nth e tank temperatur e an d th e dispense d fue l temperatur e ha s a significan t impac t upo nrefueling emissions
. Thi s differenc e i s define d herei na s T T- T 0 an d wil l b e referre d t o a s AT . Th e tank temperature , T T , i s measure d a s th e liqui d temperatur e i nth e vehicl e fue l tank
. Figur e 1 0 show s a plo t o f refueling emission s agains t AT . Th e genera l trend o f highe r emission s a t ' lowe r A T values , representing mor e vapo r growth , i s apparen t eve nwhe n othe r factor s suc ha s dispense d temperatur e an d fue l volatilit y ar e no t considered
. Ver yfe wtest s wer e runa t negativ e value s o f AT , an

d non e belo wAT = -12 , s o th e turnove r i nth e
Th e result s o f al l o f th e vali d test s performe d o neac h vehicl e ar e summarize d i nAppendi xA . Thi s include s th e specia l test s runo nth e Cutlas s i nadditio nt o th e primarybaselin e testing
.P.2 0

o w V I z M • > VI r. e 1 K X <

> ( A W ( A t o 

# s © 

### z • J 

# a •

4
o O I T ••

•

•

*

*

•••
o c o • * • • • •

•
•• • • •

• ••* • : •• • • • • : #N : :. .

, •C N •C N •» •••

••

•••

•• ••

••

... .

•* * •' " 4 •* * * 4 * co

o S § § o S =

> S = > 5 c S o S ° ' •. * ° ^ •, n 2 &

*• (l«£/-oi6 ) SZSS0 1 ONn^i** ^

-IT
- •
o o o I P ©

o •o 1 1 o> 1 t 1 •1 1 1 o 1 o * o 1 1 N 1 ^ 1 4 t 1 1 o I o 4 O 1

— 1 XP i n i • i i 1 o 1 o * o 1 • 1 c s 1 c s 1 4 1 t i o l o 4 O
1 M 1 • t 1 o l o * o 1 1 V 1 • 1 ! o 1 o 4 O l o 1 1 t » 1 4 1 1 i e 1 o 4 o l o l o i t 4 1 1 i o i o 4 O 1 o 1 1 f » 1 1 4 1 1 I o i o 4 O

o ^ ( h e «• * o M u 

### S o 

## T B * r r < » « H

•

- --18

-

relationshi p betwee nA T an d mas s emission s note d earlie r from othe r studie s i s no t see nhere
. b
. Dispense d Fue l Temperatur e Figure s 1 1 an

d 1 2 illustrat e th e effec t tha t th e dispense d fue l temperatur e ca nhav e upo nrefueling emissions
. Thes e plot s ar e separate d byfue l volatility , and th e refueling emission s value s ar e plotte d agains t A T i norde r tha t th e effect s o f dispense d temperatur e ca nb e separate d fromthes e othe r parameters . Th e value s plotte d a t eac hAT ar e th e mea n responses , along wit hth e standar d deviatio no f th e observe d tes t result s (wher e applicable ) fo r a rang e o f AT s centere d a t tha t point
. Asmalle r standar d deviatio na t a give npoin t i nthes e plot s wil l no t necessaril ymea na mor e precis e point , a s th e same numbe r o f test s wer e no t performe d a t eac hpoint
. The yar e presente d her e solel yt o giv e a nindicatio no f th e variatio ni nth e tes t results
. Th e figure s indicat e i ngenera l tha t highe r dispense d temperature s wil l yiel d highe r refueling emissions
. Thi s i s especiall ytru e a t value s o f AT around 0F ° wher e a 10° F chang e i nT Dproduce s a 1 gm/ga l chang e i nemissions , wit h th e effec t bein g les s notabl e a t highe r value s o f AT , wher e al l value s tend t o converge . Thes e result s ar e consisten t wit h thos e see ni npreviou s studies
. c . Fue l Volatilit y(Rei d Vapo r Pressure ) Figure s 1 3 an

d 1 4 illustrat e th e effec t tha t th e fue l volatilit yca nhav e upo nrefueling emissions
. Th e formo f thes e plot s i s th e same a s i nthos e use d t o illustrat e th e effec t o f dispense d fue l temperature , onl yher e th e dispense d fue l temperatur e i s hel d constan t a s oppose d t o th e fue l volatilit ybein g fixe d previously
. Thes e figure s giv e a clea r indicatio ntha t a highe r fue l volatility , denote d b ya highe r RVP , wil l yiel d highe r refueling emissions , a s wa s see ni nothe r studies
. A s wit hth e dispense d fue l temperature , thi s effec t i s mor e noticeabl e a t lowvalue s o f AT . Severa l test s wer e runwher e a fue l wit ha lowe r volatilit ytha nth e dispense d fue l wa s place d i nth e vehicle' s fue l tank
. Thi s represent s th e cas e i nwhic ha vehicle' s fue l weather s an

d lose s some o f it s volatilit ybetwee nrefuelings
. Th e expecte d result , a s describe d i nth e SR I study , i s highe r emission s resulting fromvaporizatio no f th e dispense d fue l t o increas e th e hydrocarbo nconcentratio ni n th e fue l tank t o th e highe r vapo r pressur e a t th e dispense d fuel
. Th e result s from thes e test s ar e show ni nFigur e 1 4 a s th e thre e singl e points* , an d reaffir

m th e result s i nth e SR I study.[2 ]P.2 2

•

7 .BB f



## A1 \ J ^••• 4 \ 

## Z iSs.aa V \j \ 

### \I\ U Lf l M.aa V 

## i n 0



# - •L 3.0B 1 — - i a

i i .a l r<i 1

LQ \a. a 

### Z \ La 7 

### . a ! Olfi. B y LTIS- B 

### U l QH. B 

### J -19 - 

## DISPENSE D TEttPSRMIUR E EFFECTS R V P = 

## g. a PS I

DIS P TEMP."3 2 F

* 0 ISP

. TEMP.-3 2 * "



# T^—^r-^r^- - -••
A T

# CDEGREE 5 F )

RVP =11. 9 PS I

. D ISP. TEMP.-B 2 F

, o ISP. TEMP--9 2 F



# i 

# i \

w1

—* ~ n m fl MB . B

,.. . < * '•• " "• ' 

# ATC DEGREE S F )
FIGURE S 1 1 »"<> 1 *P.2 3

-20 -

0 I SPEI N 

# FUELVOLATILIT YEFFECT S
5 

### E D Te^PERp"^ ^ 5 2 F

g ea r . RVP = 9 3 P5 I

, RVP*

I •9 P S I RVP- i 2 B P S

MB . a 

## A T COEGREE S F >
DISPENSE DTEMPER A TUR E 9 2 F

# R V P
- 

### a a PS I
B RV P - I 0 0 PS '

t HVP- I 1- 9 PS I

u RVP-II.9+IB. B PS I

HB. B 

# ATC0EEREE 5 F >

- a a_A

.-21

-
d
. Othe r Parameter s I t ha s bee nsuggeste d tha t othe r parameters , suc ha s ambien t temperatur e an d fue l dispensing rat e mayinfluenc e refueling emissions
. I nthi s particula r testing program , i t appear s tha t th e tim e require d t o hea t th e vehicle' s fue l tank an d th e dispensing rat e o f th e fue l ma yb e o f some significance
. Th e desig no f thi s program , however , ha s mad e an ysignifican t analysi s o f thes e effect s virtuall y impossible
. Thus , althoughth e presenc e o f thes e effect s ar e recognized , the ycanno t b e determine d here
. Also , i n compariso n t o th e effect s du e t o AT , th e dispense d fue l temperature , fue l volatility , an d vehicl e configuratio n (discusse d i nth e nex t section) , thes e othe r effect s ar e o f muc hlesse r significance
. 3
. Difference s i n Vehicle s an d Vehicl e Configuratio n Fo r mos t o f th e vehicle s tested , ther e i s insufficien t dat a t o d o independen t paramete r analyses
. Therefore , a multipl e linea r regressio nha s bee nfi t usin g al l o f th e data , an d th e residuals , th e actua l value s minu s th e value s predicte d b yth e regressio nequation , hav e bee nexamined.
. Th e differen t pattern s i nth e residual s from vehicl e t o vehicl e ca ngiv e a n indicatio no f th e vehicl e effects
. Figure s 15-2 2 sho wth e residual s plotte d agains t th e predicte d value s fo r eac hvehicl e individually , al l plotte d a t th e same scale
. O f particula r interes t i nthes e residua l plot s ar e th e residual s associate d wit hth e LT D CrownVictoria , th e Escort , an d th e Reliant
. Th e residual s associate d wit hth e LT D ar e quit e extreme , highe r tha nthos e associate d wit han yo f th e othe r vehicle s asid e froma fe wtest s o nth e 198 3 Cutlass
. Thi s mayb e du e t o th e LDT' s uniqu e fue l tank configuration ; it s heigh t dimensio nbein g large r tha nit s width , wit halmos t n o dro p i nth e fil l neck
. Thi s configuratio n i s atypica l o f th e automotiv e fleet , an d th e result s from th e test s o nth e LTD woul d ske wth e predictio nequatio nderive d fromth e multipl e linea r regressio nmodel
. Thus , althoughth e LT D show s th e potentia l rang e i nrefueling emissio nrates , it s tes t result s hav e no t bee n use d i nformulating th e predictio nequatio nt o b e use d here
. Th e result s ar e als o liste d i nAppendi xAunde r th e heading Fue l Weatherin g Tests .'

.. —

•

i H •• — •

C S a —

« *

•. IM * •

1 M M '

1 M M •

1 !" •* < * *

S 0* 1 < VH *

« 3 -

w•>M« ' tf) 4 ) O B

• •M W ~

1983 Olds

. Cutlas s Suprem e

•••. . " ••* * ••* . ••

•*

•••

•M M ' predicte d (gm/gal )

, 1983 LT D Crown Victori a

;

Predicte d (gm/gal )
FIGURE S 15-1 8 -22
-

t.f » •
C O '•" » • O l 

# I - 

# •

m 3 tfi 0 Qg..frrv t

* !-

• 1984 For d Escor t

•••

•* • ••• •• • •••

mm t.rrn

^^

t.mm

, a ^ t.tlT f Predicte d (gm/gal )

1 M M *

1 U M

1 !" • (9 V , E 0 )
. M M

• M
.... . 3 tf) O B

. . M X

• 1 .M l •198

3 Plymout h Relian t

•

•

Predicte d (gm/gal) , RESIDUA L PLOT

S B YVEHICL E P.2 5

•CO I I O I O

3 D i n

• o 

### ro H (A 0 3

- < < m o r - m Residua l (gm/gal ) 

### i i i i

O a.
. o I r * tt O . t o a I O Q t

tt o » a ( O 3 < o a > (f t

o

Residua l (gm/gal ) 

### i i i i I Residua l (gm/gal ) 

# i i i i i i 3 

# "1 '

" O 's i ^ a : tti Q . - 

# oi l

« * ! • i i 

### o. i ! t o| ; V. J CO s i 0 ) s :

tt O . o I r r tt 

## 1 I U l 0 > 

## i t

i i Residua l (gm/gal ) 

### IIiii* i



### I i1984ChE 

# J I i | & : •H j j "-24

-
Th e residua l plot s associate d wit hth e Escor t an d Relian t bot hshowa distinc t patter no f underestimatio no f refueling losse s (positiv e residuals ) a t lowpredicte d values , an d overestimatio n o f highe r predicte d values
. Thi s woul d indicat e tha t th e fitte d mode l here , dominate d bydat a fromth e rear-fille d 198 3 Cutlass , ma yno t b e th e mos t accurat e fo r othe r vehicles , particularl yside-fille d vehicle s whic hhav e a larg e vertica l dro p i nth e fil l neck
. Afurthe r compariso nca nb e mad e byfitting a multipl e linea r regressio nmodel , base d upo nth e sam e parameter s a s discusse d before , fo r th e Cutlas s tes t result s an d fo r th e Escor t tes t results
. Thes e ar e th e onl ytw o vehicle s tha t hav e larg e enoughdat a base s t o mak e reasonabl e paramete r estimates
. Th e resulting fitte d model s ar e a s follows : Cutlass : Refueling Los s (gm/gal ) = -5.58 4 - 0.114[AT(°F) ] + 0.0857[T o (°F) ] + 0.520[RVP(psi) ]

R 2 = 0.85 6 Escort : -6.6 8 Refueling Los s ( g 1 7 - 0.039[AT(°F) ] R 2 = 0.91 2 (gm/gal ) = 0.081[T D (°F) ] 0.545[RVP(psi) l
Th e resulting equatio nindicate s tha t th e primarydifference s i nrefueling emissio nbetwee nthes e vehicle s lie s i nth e amoun t o f vapo r shrinkag e o r vapo r growt htha t occur s durin g th e refueling event . Thes e processe s woul d naturall yb e relate d t o vehicl e configuration , s o thi s resul t appear s reasonable
. Afe wmor e insight s ca nb e gaine d froma nexaminatio n o f th e residua l plots
. Asid e fromth e Celebrit ywhos e residual s ar e consistentl ynegative , althoughno t a s extrem e a s thos e fo r th e LTD , th e residual s fo r al l vehicle s generall yfal l withi n + 1 gm/gal
. Thi s include s th e tes t result s from th e tw o light

dut ytruck s whic hagre e wel l wit hth e predictio nequation , eve n thoughi t i s base d primaril yupo nautomobil e tests . I nsummary , i t i s clea r tha t difference s d o exis t from vehicl e t o vehicle
. Nevertheless , a nequatio nbase d upo nal l o f th e data , excep t th e LT D test s fo r reason s a s note d before , appear s t o wor k wel l o naverage . 4
. Predictio nEquatio n
a . Fitte d Mode l Aprimarygoa l o f thi s stud yha s bee nt o develo p an emissio nfacto r equatio nbase d upo nth e parameter s tha t affec t refueling emissions
. Thi s ha s bee nachieve d b yfitting a-25

- multipl e linea r regressio nmode l wit hth e dat a fromseve n o f th e eigh t vehicle s tested. * Th e predictio nequatio ndevelope d fo r refueling emission s froma nuncontrolle d vehicl e i s give na s follows : Refueling Los s (gm/gal ) = -5.90 9 - 0.0949[AT(°F) ] + 0.0884[T D (°F) ] + 0.485[RVP(psi) ]

R 2 * 0.78 6 MS E = 0.73 2 Thi s equatio nwil l b e use d t o estimat e emissio nfactor s unde r a rang e o f conditions , an d als o wil l b e compare d wit h result s from

othe r refueling emissio nstudies
. Th e rang e o f condition s ove r whic hactua l test s wer e mad e i s give n below : T 0 T o T o 1
. 66-68°F ; RVP » 9.0-11. 9 psi ; A T 78-85 8 F ; RVP = 9.0-12. 6 psi ; AT 88-95°F ; RVP = 9.0-11. 9 psi ; A T Coefficient s 0 t o 10° F

- 2 t o 40F ° -1 2 t o 32F °

Eac ho f th e parameter s include d i nth e regressio nmode l i s statisticall ysignifican t a t a confidenc e o f 99. 9 percent , i.e. , ther e i s les s tha na 0. 1 percen t probabilit ytha t an yo f th e thre e parameter s ha s n o effec t upo nrefueling emissions
. Th e magnitud e o f th e effect s du e t o eac hparamete r i s give nby th e associate d coefficien t i nth e regressio nequation
. A10F ° increas e i n A

T wil l lowe r refueling emission s bynearl y1 gm/gal ; a 10° F increas e i nT Dwil l increas e refueling emission s nearl yl gm/gal ; an d a 1 ps i increas e i nRV P wil l increas e refueling emission s nearl y0. 5 gm/gal
. Ther e wa s some consideratio na s t o whethe r a linea r mode l i s sufficien t t o explai nth e dat a ove r th e rang e o f condition s wher e th e regressio nequatio ni s applicable
. Aloo k a t th e residual s (actua l gm/ga l minu s predicte d gm/gal ) ca n giv e an indicatio na s t o whethe r th e assumptio no f linearit yi s appropriate
. Figure s 23-2 6 showth e residual s plotte d agains t th e predicte d value s an d agains t eac hindependen t parameter . Th e residua l scatte r i nthes e plot s appear s random , an d n o systemati c trend s ar e evident , whic hwoul d indicat e significan t nonlinearity
. Also , severa l othe r form s o f th e regressio nwer e considere d i nwhic hinteractio nan d nonlinea r term s wer e included
. Thes e ar e presente d i nTabl e 4 , along wit hth e associate d R*
. Th e R " valu e i s a measure , o f a model' s
Doe s no t includ e testing o nth e LT D o r th e specia l test s o nth e 198 3 Cutlas s (singl e blanket , etc. )-26 -

Tabl e4 

### AlternativeJ^rmi^tion s o f Regressio nMode l
R 2 P.2 9

Gm/Ga l = 1 ) ex p [a 0 +a l (TT)+az(RVP)+a,(To)(T T ) + a y (T 0 )(RVP) ] 2 ) ex p [a o +a l (T T )+a,(T 0 ) + a,(RVP) ] 3 ) a 0 +ai(TD)+a,(TD)(T T ) + 

### a,(Ti)(Ti ) 4 ) a,+ai(AT)+a,(AT 2 )+a,(T 0 ) + a y (RVP ) 5 ) a o +ai(AT)+a2(T 0 ) + a,(RVP ) 80 5
.82 3
.61 3
.79 0
.78 62.500 0

7.000 0

I .500 0

I.000 0

h.6000 0

K-.24564-14 *

. 5000 0

-1.000 0 • RESIDUA L VALUE S vs . PREU.CTE OVALUE S FittedMode . Al l Vehicle s

•• ••• ••

••••

•. I r o I

-».500 0

i uuo u 2. UOOO 3 . 77/ B 5.555 6 7.333 3 -r~*~"s.m i

2.6BB 9 4.666 7 6.444 4 8222 2 10.00 0 PREDICTE D (gm/gal )P.3 1

a

- M m a M • a 1 X X 4 ( • H

. c a > C O 

# I

< > 

### 3 o a M C O 

# a •

• •

•

* •

o o o i n f * •

•

*

a o o o N • > 1
-28 -

• • • • • 1 #

1 j | 1 • •1 

### * 1 *

1

•

•• * ••• • •• •

•C N • • • • •. • •* ••• •¥ * * » i * * 

### •••*' •. t* •

••••I

: . •••N
•

•• •• ••• • A, * . . N #• * ••* : t : : ••••:

•*

• • •• *



### § 1 o

. A

### °. s » •

° S o ° a m

. ' i /TS6/UI5 ) 

### T«naisa a * •

•

•

• • • •

' •

a

a a u i i a

a A> o i

. . » • i i 1 o 1 o •a i i r « i • i i i a 1 o •o i . 1 I A

- 1 -" •

### i 1 O & 1 

## ° •

•o • 1 N i a 1 N • i i i a i a •a 1 • 1 *" " tN 1 ; i > t i a i a •o 1 A-

• 1 i a i a

. 3 i O

i <• * r 1 i 3 i O
•3 i a i i 1 o i 3 i 3 i r* i ' l i i a i 3 r a
i 3 3 3 32.500 0

2.000 0 •

1.500 0 RESIDUA L VALUES vs . DISPENSE D TEMPERATUR E

> • •

• • • 1.000 0

.6000 0

.0000 0

.5000 0 •

I.000 0 I N J VO I

1.500 0 •

-2.000 0 *
•

bO.OO O ...J—— -

64.00 0 68.00 0 7 6.00 0 64.00 0 92.00 0

7 2.00 0 BO.00 0 88. 00 0 , « . 96. 00 02.500 0•

•

2.000 0*

•

1.500 0•

t

1 OOO O

^•

- 1 a) J ^ 5000 0• 

## ft 4 g.ooooo* 

## o l - l C O 

# a -.SOOQ O

-I . ooo o*

•

-1.500 0•

*

I , uuu u* •

B .t>OU O •

•

2 4 •
J > • 2 3 • 3 3 4 2 4

. 2 * 2 5 3 3 • •

UOOO O RESIDUAL VALUE S vs .

»

• 2
2 •

•

a.500 0 10.00 0 FUEL VOLATILITY
2
•

•

• 2 5 2 • 2 3 3 • 3 4 4 4 2 4 5 2
4 5 2 5 5 • 3 2 5 2 3 2 2 •

• * I

nn
- 5 ° ° .2.00 0 n.oo o'* •

. . t

. - i\ •

•

•

•

•

1 3

. 0 0 0 1 

### o 1 1

tP.3 4

l i

- abilit yto . predic t trend s tha t ar e presente d i nth e data
. Thes e result s showtha t th e linea r mode l i s sufficien t t o mode l th e baselin e refueling data , an d it s simple r for mmake s i t easie r t o interpret
. 2
. Variabilit y Ther e i s a larg e amoun t o f variabilit yi nth e result s from th e refueling emissio ntests ; value s range d fromunde r 3. 0 gm/ga l t o ove r 11. 0 gm/gal
. Nearl y8 0 percen t o f thi s variatio n i s explaine d b yth e thre e parameters : T 0 , AT , an d RVP , a s indicate d b yth e R 2 valu e associate d wit hth e regressio nmodel
. However , a fai r amoun t o f variabilit y remain s unexplaine d a s show nb yth e mea nsquare d erro r valu e o f 0.55 7 gm/gal
. Muc ho f th e remaining variabilit yi s du e t o th e difference s i nvehicle s a s discusse d before , bu t othe r factor s ar e als o involved
. Severa l part s o f th e tes t procedur e ar e subjec t t o certai ndegree s o f error , an d ca ntherefor e lead t o tes t variability
. Th e firs t o f thes e involve s th e heatin g o f th e fue l tank i nth e vehicl e a s mentione d before
. Wha t effec t th e heatin g rat e mayhav e i s unclear
. Th e same ca nals o b e state d fo r th e dispensin g rat e o f th e fuel
. Th e heating o f th e dispense d fue l i nth e fue l car t als o varie s somewhat , an d coul d verypossibl yslightl yaffec t th e RVP o f th e fuel
. Al l o f th e abov e effect s ar e generall ynegligible , however , i ncompariso nt o th e effect s cause d byeve na smal l fue l spil l o r spitbac k a t th e en d o f a refueling
. Test s i n whic hspill s estimate d a t ove r 1/ 2 o f a cup occurre d wer e generall yvoided , excep t wher e n o significan t effec t wa s noted
. However , eve n a spil l a s smal l a s 1 1/ 2 tablespoo n coul d generat e a on e grampe r gallo nincreas e i nemission s i f i t wer e t o completel yevaporate. * Th e concer nove r spill s wa s larg e enought o chang e th e tes t procedur e use d i nthi s program t o cal l fo r manua l shutof f o f th e dispense d fuel
. Also , th e effec t i s larg e enought o warran t being considere d i n determining th e tota l emissio nfactor
. Thi s wil l b e discusse d mor e i nth e section s dealin g wit hth e refueling emissio nfactor
. b
. Comparison s t o Result s fromOthe r Studie s Th e predictio nequatio nderive d her e ca nbe : 1 ) use d t o mak e comparison s wit hth e result s measure d fromothe r studies , an d 2 ) compare d t o predictio nequation s derive d elsewhere
. A brie f summaryo f th e result s fro mothe r studies , an d ho wthey compar e t o thos e inthi s study , i s give n i n Tabl e 5
. Overal l th e result s o f thi s stud yar e i ngoo d agreemen t wit hpas t work
. Using 1 0 grams/tablespoo nan d assuming a 1 5 gallo nrefueling
.P.3 5

Summ a -32 -

Tabl e 5 ofj^lt s fro

m Previou s Studie s

Comment s & Relatio n Stud y To('°F ) AT(°F ) RVP(psi ) t o Curren t Stud y Scot t 55-7 0 -3 0 t o 3 0 8.8 , 12. 0 Laboratory study;(lab)s i mila r effect s see n for RVP , To , an dAT ; resultinggm/ga l 0-0. S gm/ga I lower 1S7 5 Scot t 80-8 5 -2 0 t o 3 0 8.0-8. 8 Fiel dstud y of 4 (station ) Stag e II Recovery

System s o nvehicle s at a servic e statio n ; som e bas e Iine testingdone ; mea nvalue s fro

m baselin e result s agre e wei I w

i t h prediction s fro

m thi s study . 1S7 5 CAPE 9 30-9 0 -4 0 t o 4 0 7-1 3 Performe di n SCOT T mini-she d onvehi cI e tanks ; no test s of positiv e AT s a

t highe r T 0 s ; canonl y compar e wit h curren t stud

y a t aroundAT=0F° ; agreemen t i s goodi

nthi s range .P.3 6

-33 - Tabl e 5 (cont'd ) Summary o f Result s fro

m Previou s Studie s

Comment s & Relation Yea r Stud

y T 0 (°F ) AT(°F ) RVP(psi ) t o Curren t Stud y 197 5 SR I 68-8 5 -3 0 t o 4 5 6.9-8.6(10.6) Test s a t a statio nona vehicl e fue l tank ; comprehensiv e test s lookingat man y independen t variable s tha t affec t refuelin g emissions ; goo d genera l agreemen t wit hcurren t study ; slightl y lo w at lo

w AT s an dhighe r a t highATs . 197 6 ER& E 10-10 0 -2 0 t o 1 0 7-1 3 Fue l tanktested i ncontro l le

d env i ronment ; vapor s collecte d i nTedla r bag ; yield s result s 1-1. 5 gm/ga l lower at 0 ° AT , nearl y equa l at 10 ° AT . 197 6 Unio n75-8 5 -2 0 t o 3 0 8.8-9. 0 Teste drando m vehicle s at a refuelin g station ; 2 9 used fo r bas e Iin

e results ; estimate s 1 gm/ga l lower at 0 ° AT , approximatel y equa l at AT 10 °P.3 7

Summary -34 -

Tabl e 5 (cont'd ) ofpo^lt s fro

m Previou s Studie s

Yea r 197 8 Stud

y ER& E

197 8 Mob i I 

### T 0 

### (°F ) Ali!f )

8 5

82-8 5 

### -1 RVP(psi ) 9. 1 Comment s & Relatio n

t o Curren t Stud

y Lookin gat efficienc y

of a n onboar dcontro l syste m on3 vehicles . Baselin e es t imate s .7-1. 6 gm/ga l lower thanpredicte d b y curren t study . 8.2-12. 0 Test s ona

singl e vehicle . Goodagreemen t wit hprediciton s fro m curren t study .-35

-
I n orde r t o estimat e th e result s fromothe r studie s using th e predictio nequation , informatio ni s require d o nth e tes t conditions : fue l RVP , tank temperature , an d dispense d fue l temperature . Als o th e refueling losse s nee d t o b e reporte d i n tota l gram s pe r gallo no f refill , o r i na for mtha t ca nb e readil yconverte d t o thi s form
. Onl ya fewo f th e previou s studie s me t al l o f thes e criteria
. I nthei r test s involving Stag e I I vapo r recoveryvapo r balanc e system s a t a retai l gasolin e station , Scot t Environmenta l arrive d a t estimate s fo r uncontrolle d emissions.[6 ] Thei r stud yinvolve d tw o phase s o f testing : th e firs t o nthirt ycontro l vehicle s a t a servic e statio nan d th e second o nrandomvehicles
. Fo r eac hphase , two serie s o f vehicle s wer e tested
. Averag e RV P an d dispense d temperatur e ar e onl yprovide d fo r th e tw o serie s i nth e second phas e o f testing
. Thes e tw o serie s yielde d baselin e emission s o f 5.50 5 and 5.59 3 gm/gal
. Th e averag e fo r th e othe r factor s ar e als o give nfo r thes e tw o series ; RVP = 8.028 6 an d 8.6440 , dispense d temperatur e = 81.26 5 an d 81.019 6 °F , and tank temperatur e = » 81.86 7 and 82.079 6 respectively
. Usin g thes e condition s an d th e regressio nequatio nderive d i nthi s report , estimate s o f 5.10 9 and 5.35 2 gm/ga l ar e obtained
. Thes e ar e slightl ylowe r tha n obtaine d byScott , bu t stil l wel l withi nth e rang e o f uncertaint yi nth e data.[6 ]
I na stud

ydon e b

yth e Mobi l Researc han d Developmen t Corporatio ni n197 8 a serie s o f refueling emissio ntest s wer e runo na 197 8 Pontia c Sunbird
. During thes e test s th e vehicl e wa s equippe d wit ha nonboar d contro l system , s o th e tota l H C emission s give n i s th e su mo f th e H C collecte d i nth e caniste r an d th e refueling emission s measure d i nth e SHED . Thes e test s wer e performe d i n a SHED , i nth e same genera l manne r a s th e tes t i nthi s study , wit hth e onl yexceptio nbein g tha t th e vehicl e wa s preconditione d bydriving an d no t jus t heatin g o f th e fue l tank.[13 ] Th e Sunbir d wa s teste d a t th e following conditions : dispense d temperatur e = 82-85°F , AT = 0F° , an d RVP ranging from8. 2 t o I2.01bs
. Th e resulting losses , along wit hth e estimate s from.thi s stud yar e give nbelow
. Th e equatio n derive d i nthi s repor t i s no t strictl yapplicabl e a t RVP level s unde r 9.0 , bu t th e estimate s ar e give nher e regardless
. Mea n estimate s fromthi s stud yar e generall yo nth e hig hend o f th e range s give nb

yMobil , bu t als o not e th e variabilit yi n thei r tes t results
.8.2-8. 5 8.6-9. 0 10.3-10. 6 11.2-11. 4 11.8-12. 0 8

1 0 3 3 3 -36

-
RVP tt Test s Tota l H C (gm/gal ) Thi s Study * 3.72-6.8 2 5.5 2 4.2-5.6 0 5.7 4 5.9-7. 1 6.5 4 5.5-7. 0 6.9 5 7.0-7. 2 7.2 4 Th e Stanfor d Researc hInstitut e stud yinvolve d test s o n a 26-gallo n Genera l Motor s an d a 26-gallo n For d fue l tank use d i n 1973- 4 vehicles , a t a servic e station
. Th e result s fromth e test s o nth e G

Mtank a t a fil l rat e o f 5. 3 gallon s pe r minut e an d a fil l o f 2 0 gallon s ar e give nbelo walong wit hthi s study' s estimate s a t th e give nconditions.[9 ] Thes e test s represen t thos e mos t simila r t o thi s study' s testing
. Wher e th e condition s fal l withi nth e range s fo r whic hth e EP A equatio ni s applicable , th e agreemen t i s good , generall ywithi n .5 0 gm/gal
. Onl ywhe nth e equatio ni s extrapolate d fa r beyond it s applicabl e rang e i s ther e a significan t disagreemen t wit h th e SR I results , illustrating th e danger s o f suc hextrapolation
. GM/GAL RVP 8. 5 8. 5 8. 5 8. 5 8. 5 8. 5 8. 5 8. 5 Exxo nResearc han

d Engineerin g performe d a serie s o f test s o n3 vehicle s i n1978 , i norde r t o determin e th e efficienc yo f anonboar d contro l system.[13 ] Th e vehicle s teste d were : a 197 8 Caprice , a 197 8 Pinto , an d a 197 8 Chevette , an d th e tes t condition s were : A T = -1F° , T 0 - 85 ° F , an d RVP • 9. 1 psi
. Th e resulting average s fo r eac hvehicle , along wit h predicte d value s fromthi s stud yar e give nbelow
. GM/GAL AT 1 7 0rH 2 2 7 3 5 41. 5 4 3 To . 7 9 8 0 8 0 7 8 7 6 7 9 7 9 7 7 SRI[2 ] 5.1 3 5.0 3 4.8 2 4.5 2 3.0 7 2.0 9 1.2 6 1.4 2 Thi s Stud

y 6.8 5 5.2 8 5.1 9 4.9 2 2.3 7 1.8 8 1.3 0 0.9 4 Differenc e

1.7 2 .2 5 .3 7 .4 0 -.7 0 -.2 1 .0 4 -.4 8

Vehicl e Capric e Pint o Chevett e ERS.EC13 ] 4 4 5 9 5 4 T h i s

6 6 6 Stud y 1 1 1
Using 83.5° F an

d mid-rang e o f RVP interva lP.4 0

-37

-



### ^nt^an^es^ ntha , thos e teste dhere . F0 

### u r predictio nelation * tha t '—ur^^ Tthes e A Thavebeenfoun

di nth e" l e 

### TM M 1 

### S o 2 

### 5 associate dwith hi s acorrelatio ncoefficient , •: . o f onl y here 

### .[4 ] Th e £ ! s S 

### o i t ha s no t ^exclude d1^1 ^

\ e t

cegion s whe 

### r e 3 S l



### . i 

### r?.^^'ir.fiv » below

. r&PE9(EPA)[3 ] « rtnn*91(RVPHT 0 ) - 0.0012605(T T ) gm/ga l - Wt-0-°*1703 o + o O ^ ^

R ' - 0.94 5
. %E = c 0 6 t o 9 0 ° F T T- 5 0 t o 9 0 - P
R V P = 7 ps i T o - 5 0 t o 9 0 o * T = ^ t Q 8 Q o p RVP = 1 0 PS I To = 4 0 t o 8 0 o F T m3 Q t Q 7( J o p RVP = 1 3 ps i To - 3 0 n o Exxo n Rese^rcJwng^ncLi^ ^

R . . Q.95 1 S E = 12.4 %
R V P = 7 t o 1 3 ps i T o = 1 0 t o 10 0 ° F
T T= 3 0 t o 9 0 ° F A T > -2 0 ° F 

### g^L& l7 

### 8 + 

### 0.1303<T.>^^ ^

R , = 0.574 0 S E - 0.387 3 gm/ga l R V P = 8. 8 t o 9. 0 ps i T 0 = 7 5 t o 8 5 ° F T T= 7 0 t o 11 5 ° F

• A in thP CAPE-9 , Exxo nan d Unio n Th e equation s determine d i n the a CO T re.pectiy.ly
. U . studie s ar e base d upo n 140 , 4 3 an ^Exxo n studie s wa s 2,3 ] Th e testing don e i n tn e ^P.4 1

-38

- performe d o na vehicl e tank i na laboratorysetting.[1,3 ] Unio nperforme d it s testing o nvehicle s refueling a t a retai l gasolin e station.[2 ] A s i s readil yapparent , th e for mo f thes e thre e equation s diffe r among themselves , an d fromth e equatio nderive d i nthi s study
. Thi s make s a direc t compariso no f th e result s somewha t difficult
. Figur e 27 , however , show s plot s o f refueling losse s versu s fo r eac hequatio nan d th e Stanfor d results , a t a dispense d temperatur e o f 79° F an d anRVP o f 8. 5 psi
. AnRV P o f 8. 5 ps i i s slightl you t o f th e applicabl e range s fo r th e Unio n result s an

d thos e derive d here , bu t th e figur e i s stil l usefu l fo r comparison
. Figur e 2 8 show s a furthe r compariso no f thi s study' s result s t o earlie r wor k byEP Aa s cite d i nth e Scot t study.[6 ] Thi s i s show ni na separat e figur e a s th e condition s ar e slightl ydifferen t fromthos e sho wfo r th e othe r studies
. Figure s 2 7 an

d 2 8 sho wver ygoo d genera l agreemen t betwee n th e result s fromth e CAP E 9 , Stanford , th e earlie r wor k byEPA , an d thi s study , ove r thei r applicabl e range s o f AT . Th e studie s byUnio nand Exxo nyiel d somewha t lowe r estimate s o f refueling losse s a t negativ e value s o f AT , bu t thei r result s ar e no t radicall ydifferent
. Al l i nall , considering th e difference s i n testing apparatu s an d procedures , th e result s fromth e variou s studie s tend t o confirmeac hothe r and th e result s derive d here
. Considering th e result s fromthes e studies , i t appear s tha t th e predictio nequatio nderive d i nthi s repor t generall y provide s reasonabl yaccurat e estimate s o f refueling emission s base d upo nth e give nparameter s withi nit s applicabl e paramete r ranges . Therefore , ther e shoul d b e n o proble mi nusin g i t t o determin e averag e emissio nfactor s an d t o determin e contro l systemdesign s an

d efficiencies
. IV . Calculatio no f Nationwid e Emissio nFactor s A . Introductio n Analysi s o f th e baselin e tes t dat a ha s yielde d anequatio n tha t ca nb e use d t o calculat e emissio nfactor s representativ e o f variou s AT , T 0 , an d RVP condition s withi nth e approximat e limit s o f th e value s fo r th e origina l tes t parameter s (se e sectio nII I C 4)
. Give nthi s abilit yt o determin e emissio nrate s fo r differen t conditions , i t the n become s necessaryt o determin e th e mos t representativ e condition s i norde r t o calculat e a refueling emissio n facto r tha t wil l accuratel yreflec t nationa l uncontrolle d in-us e emission s levels
. Becaus e th e condition s tha t determin eC N U J OC 

## 3

ilVO/V'cC' ) S3SSQ 1

•6e --40 -

e o C M U J K



# ;ivs/ws ) sasso l-41

-

emissio n rate s (basicall ytemperatur e an d volatilit yo f th e fuel ) var yfromregio nt o regio nan d fro mseaso nt o seaso n withi na give nregion , i t wil l b e necessaryt o identif y regiona l an

d seasona l temperature s an d fue l characteristic s an d the nt o appl yth e appropriat e averaging t o determin e nationa l emissio nfactors
. I t i s als o importan t t o examin e seasona l emissio n factor s t o ensur e tha t summe r an d winte r emission s ar e no t significantl ydifferen t fromth e annua l averag e value
. Ther e ar e tw o basi c use s o f a refueling emissio nfactor : (1 ) t o calculat e ai r qualit yeffect s an d (2 ) t o determin e healt hris k du e t o exposur e t o th e pollutan t i nquestion
. Th e ai r qualit yeffec t o f VO C fromrefueling emission s consist s o f th e rol e thes e emission s playi nozon e formation
. Ozon e formatio ntend s t o b e a seasona l phenomenon , wit hmos t NAAQ S violation s occurring durin g th e spring an d summe r months , i.e , Ma ythroughSeptember
. Th e emissio nfacto r use d i n ai r qualit y calculation s shoul d therefor e appropriatel yreflec t th e condition s tha t ar e foun d durin g th e ozon e season . I nadditio nt o thei r rol e a s ozon e precursors , refueling emission s mayals o hav e environmenta l healt heffects
. Benzene , a known huma ncarcinogen , i s presen t i nsmal l amount s i n gasoline
. I naddition , recen t studie s hav e indicate d tha t othe r specie s o f VO C containe d i nrefueling emission s ar e possibl e carcinogens.[15 ] Althoughth e effec t o nhuman s i s no t full y known , refueling emission s maypos e a healt hris k t o servic e statio nemployees , self-servic e gasolin e customers , an d person s residing nea r servic e stations
. Becaus e suc hexposur e ris k represent s a year-round problem , th e emissio nfacto r use d i n determining healt hris k shoul d represen t averag e annua l conditions , althoughi f ther e ar e significan t seasona l variation s th e additiona l ris k pose d bythes e variation s woul d hav e t o b e evaluated
. Th e remainde r o f thi s repor t wil l begi nwit ha discussio n o f th e tota l emissio nfactor , whic hinclude s bot hspillag e an d displacemen t losses
. A nappropriat e spillag e emissio nfacto r wil l b e selected
. Th e proces s fo r developing th e displacemen t emissio n facto r wil l the nb e describe d i n detail , including th e methodologyused , source s o f data , selectio nof

- seasona l scenario s fo r ai r qualit yan d environmenta l healt heffects , determinatio no f representativ e temperatur e an d fue l volatilit y parameter s an

d emissio nfactor s fo r thes e scenarios
. Th e questio no f seasona l difference s i nth e emissio nfacto r wil l als o b e addressed
. Finally , a representativ e nationa l emissio n facto r fo r refueling wil l b e presented
.P.4 5

-42

-
B . Descriptio no f Refueling Emissio nFactor s Ther e ar e tw o type s o f refueling losse s tha t compris e a tota l refueling emissio nfactor
. Thes e ar e spillag e o f liqui d gasolin e during th e cours e o f th e refueling operatio n an d displacemen t losses , o r th e vapo r tha t i s force d ou t th e fillpip e during refueling
. Displacemen t losse s occu r during everyrefueling operation , whil e spillag e o r "spitback " i s a mor e infrequen t occurrence . 1
. Spillag e Losse s Avaryin g portio no f th e tota l refueling los s result s from th e spillag e o f liqui d gasolin e during th e refueling process . Th e amoun t o f suc hspillag e ca nvaryfroma fewdrop s o nth e sid e o f th e ca r o r pavemen t a s th e fueling nozzl e i s withdrawn fromth e fillpip e t o a cu p o r mor e spurting ou t o nth e ground a s a resul t o f "spitback " du e t o poo r fillnec k desig no r a malfunctioning fue l nozzle
. Probabl yth e majorit yo f spill s ar e les s extreme , coming abou t a s a resul t o f motorist s o r servic e statio nattendant s attempting t o "top off " th e vehicl e tank byrestarting th e nozzl e afte r automati c shutof f ha s occurred
. Suc hspill s ar e normall yno t large , o nth e orde r o f a tablespoo n o r so . Aspil l o f on e tablespoo nleave s a 9 t o 1 0 inc hdiamete r circula r spo t o nth e servic e statio npavemen t an d result s i nemission s o f abou t 1 0 grams . Thu s o na 1 0 gallo n fill , th e spillag e woul d equa l abou t on e grampe r gallo no f fue l dispensed
. Large r spill s suc ha s thos e accompanying spitback s o r nozzl e malfunction s ca nlead t o significantl y highe r emissions
. Aone-hal f cu p spil l fo r th e same 1 0 gallo n fil l lead s t o emission s o f abou t 8 gram s pe r gallon
. Thus , overall , spill s ar e o f concern . O f cours e no t everyfillup , o r eve neveryattemp t a t "topping off " result s i na fue l spil l an d differen t amount s o f fue l ar e spille d eac htime
. Unfortunatel yveryfewdat a ar e availabl e regarding eithe r th e quantit yo r th e estimate d frequenc yo f fue l spills , an d ther e i s considerabl e varianc e i n th e existing estimates
. EPA' s emissio nfacto r documen t (AP-42 ) present s a valu e o f abou t 0.3 0 gram s pe r gallo nbase d o na comprehensiv e stud

yconducte d b

yScot t Researc hLaboratorie s i n th e earl yI970's.[l6 ] However , anin-dept hrevie wo f thi s stud yreveal s th e author s belie f tha t the

- spillag e rat e estimate s shoul d b e viewe d a s minimu mvalues , rathe r than averages , du e t o th e presenc e o f observers , th e techniqu e use d t o estimat e spil l amounts , an d th e fac t tha t th e station s studie d wer e primaril yful l serv e rathe r tha nsel f serve.[17 ] However , anothe r EPAcontracto r repor t cite d a n estimat e o f 1.3 6 gram s pe r gallon , an d a 198 0 Calforni a stud yconducte d b

y-43

-
th e Sout h
. Coas t Ai r Qualit yManagemen t Distric t provide d informatio nwhic hindicate d anaverag e spillag e rat e o f abou t 0.8 0 gram s pe r gallo nfo r uncontrolle d nozzles.[18,19]
. i t shoul d b e note d tha t th e latte r stud yinclude d th e brie f perio d o f fue l shortage s i n1979 , whic hmayhav e encourage d a n abnorma l amoun t o f "topping off " o f fue l tank s an d henc e slightl yhighe r tha nnorma l spillage
. Th e wid e variatio ni n th e availabl e dat a o nspillag e rate s (mor e tha na facto r o f fou r amon gth e thre e studies ) i s o f some concern . Whil e ther e appear s t o b e goo d reaso nfo r th e variation , th e dat a i s inadequat e t o allo wdeterminatio no f a revise d emissio n factor
. I n th e absenc e o f mor e definitiv e informatio no nthi s topic , th e .3 0 grams/gallo nrat e containe d i nAP-4 2 seem s t o represen t th e bes t availabl e estimat e o f th e spillag e emissio n factor , s o thi s valu e wil l b e use d i nthi s analysis
. Th e remainde r o f th e discussio nwil l focu s o nth e displacemen t emissio n factor , bu t i t shoul d b e note d tha t th e emissio n facto r fo r spillag e mus t b e adde d t o th e displacemen t emissio n facto r i norde r t o arriv e a t a tota l refueling emissio nfactor
. 2
. Displacemen t Losse s A s discusse d earlier , ther e ar e thre e primaryfactor s an d severa l secondaryfactor s tha t determin e th e displacemen t emissio nrat e fo r refueling operations
. Th e primaryfactor s ar e (1 ) th e dispense d temperatur e (T D ) o f th e gasolin e (2 ) th e Rei d Vapo r Pressur e (RVP ) o f th e gasolin e an d (3 ) AT , o r th e differenc e betwee nth e temperatur e o f th e residua l gasolin e i nth e vehicl e tank (T T ) an d th e dispense d temperatur e o f th e gasolin e use d t o refil l th e tank (ie
. T T -T D )
. T o develo p emissio nfactor s fo r refueling operations , i t wil l b e necessary t o look a t thes e parameter s o na seasona l an d nationa l basis
. Th e mos t significan t o f th e secondaryfactor s ar e fue l tank configuratio n differences , th e effect s o f whic hhav e bee n describe d i nsection s I I an d II I above , an

d difference s betwee n th e RVP o f th e dispense d fue l an d th e residua l fue l i nth e tank , du e t o weatherin g o f th e tank fuel
. C . Calculatio no f Displacemen t Emissio nFactor s Thi s sectio nwil l deriv e nationwid e averag e value s fo r th e thre e majo r determinants , AT , T 0 , an d RVP , fromwhic hth e uncontrolle d displacemen t emissio nfactor s fo r severa l scenario s wil l the nb e calculated
. 1
. Methodology Overall , th e methodologyuse d i nthi s proces s i s t o weigh t th e availabl e regiona l temperatur e an d RV P dat a byregiona l highwayfue l consumptio nt o determin e averag e nationa l value s-44

-

fo r th e appropriat e time period s fo r eac hscenari o t o b e evaluated
. Thes e averag e value s ca nthe n b e use d wit hth e multipl e linea r regressio n equatio ndevelope d earlie r t o calculat e representativ e emissio nfactors
. Th e availabl e dat a indicat e tha t ther e i s a considerabl e amoun t o f regiona l an d seasona l variatio ni nth e th e temperatur e an d RV P parameters , makin g suc ha weighting proces s necessary . Also , th e fue l consumptio npatter ni s fa r fromuniformthroughou t th e U . S . an d th e availabl e dat a ar e no t al l aggregate d a t th e same levels
. Fue l consumptio nan d RV P dat a ar e availabl e o na monthl ystate-by-stat e basi s whil e A T an d T 0 dat a ar e availabl e onl yo na monthl yregiona l basis
. Th e methodology use d t o aggregat e an d weigh t thes e parameter s wil l b e discusse d following a brie f descriptio no f th e source s o f th e fue l temperature , RV P an d fue l consumptio ndat a tha t wer e used
. 2
. Source s o f Dat a


### a . Fue l Temperatur e Dispense d temperatur e and A T dat a use d fo r calculating emissio nfactor s ar e availabl e froma 197 5 gasolin e temperatur e surveyconducte d fo r th e America nPetroleu mInstitut e (API ) b y th e Radia nCorporation
. [20 ] Th e yea r 197 5 i s considere d t o b e a representativ e yea r i nterm s o f temperature , sinc e th e averag e annua l ambien t temperatur e wa s withi non e degre e o f th e 3 0 yea r mean . Th e stud ysurveye d 5 6 U.S . gasolin e station s locate d i n2 2 cities ; thes e wer e groupe d int o si xgeographi c regions
. Th e si xregion s an d th e location s fo r th e station s surveye d ar e show

ni nFigur e 29 , an d th e monthl yA

T an d T 0 value s from

th e surve yar e show ni nAppendi xB . No t al l o f th e station s reporte d dat a fo r al l month s o f th e year , resulting i na fewgap s i nth e data
. Th e mos t seriou s o f thes e gap s occurre d i nth e Pacifi c Northwes t (regio n 6 i nFigur e 29 ) wher e A T dat a wer e reporte d onl yfo r th e mont ho f May . Sinc e th e Pacifi c Northwes t account s fo r onl y abou t 3. 5 percen t o f th e gasolin e consume d fo r highwayus e i n th e U.S. , i t wa s conclude d tha t thi s regio ncoul d b e omitte d fromth e analysi s withou t seriousl yaffecting th e accurac yo f th e results
. Alask a an d Hawai i wer e als o omitte d fromth e study , sinc e n o A T o r T 0 dat a wer e availabl e fromthes e states . Othe r mino r gap s o f a mont ho r s o i nA T an d T 0 data , primaril yi nth e Nort hCentra l U.S . an d th e Fa r Wes t (region s 4 & 5) , wer e fille d b ypoint s interpolate d fromth e existing data
.P.4 8

-45 -\ P.4 9

-46

-
b
. Nationwid e Fue l Consumptio n Nationwid e fue l consumptio n(gasoline ) bystat e wa s take n fromth e 198 3 versio no f th e DOT/FHw Apublicatio nentitle d HighwayStatistic s - Tabl e MF-26
. Thi s tabl e contain s estimate s o f monthl ygasolin e consumptio n fo r eac hstat e an d th e Distric t o f Columbia
. Tabl e MF-2 6 i s showni nAppendi xB . T o allo wfo r furthe r calculations , th e monthl ystat e fue l consumptio n figure s wer e summe d fo r eac hregio nthu s providing monthl yregiona l fue l consumptio nvalues
. c . RVP Th e RVP dat a wer e take nfrom198 3 ASTMmaximu m specification s fo r th e U.S.[21 ] Th e maximu mspecification s wer e use d rathe r tha ncurren t actua l level s o nth e assumptio n tha t recen t increase s i nRVP woul d continu e an d tha t by198 9 in-us e RVP level s woul d b e essentiall ya t th e maximu m value s specifie d by
. ASTM . Thi s i s alread yth e cas e i nsome area s o f th e country . Th e RVP value s fo r eac hstat e and mont har e als o show ni nAppendi xB . T o ge t th e RVP dat a o nth e same leve l o f aggregatio n a s th e temperatur e data , th e stat e RVP dat a wa s divide d int o th e same region s a s th e temperatur e dat a an d the nconsumptio n weighte d t o ge t weighte d RV P fo r eac hregio ni neac hmonth
. 3
. Ai r Qualit yan d Healt hEffect s Scenario s T o facilitat e assessmen t o f seasona l variatio ni n th e emissio nrates , fiv e seasona l ai r qualit yan d healt heffect s scenario s wer e establishe d an d AT , T D , an

d RV P value s wer e calculate d fo r each
. Th e firs t scenari o i s simpl yth e annua l averag e valu e fo r th e natio no r region
. Tw o additiona l six-mont hscenario s wer e chose nt o represen t warmweathe r versu s col d weathe r conditions
. "Winter " i s comprise d o f th e month s Octobe r throughMarch , whil e "Summer " consist s o f th e month s Apri l throughSeptember
. Tw o additiona l scenario s wer e chose nt o represen t th e month s i nwhic hmos t ozon e violation s occur . Thes e includ e a "Five Month " scenari o (Ma ythrough September) , an

d a "Two Month " scenari o fo r th e tw o pea k ozon e violatio nmonth s (Jul yan d August)
. 4
. Consumptio n Weightin g Calculatio n I norde r t o calculat e nationa l averag e AT , T 0 , an d RVP value s fo r th e five scenario s mentione d above , monthl yregiona l-47

-

dat a wer e consumption-weighte d b yth e regiona l fue l consumptio n value s for ' th e month s i nquestion
. A s explaine d earlier , monthl ystat e RVP an d fue l consumptio nvalue s wer e aggregate d o nth e same monthl yregiona l basi s a s th e T 0 an d A T data
. Th e generalize d equatio nfo r calculating consumptio nweighte d value s fo r eac hscenari o i s a s follows :

n I (AT R . rl )(FC R ,„ ) AT = R.M- I 

### FCTota l Wher e R= regio nnumbe r fro mFigur e 2 9 M= mont hnumbe r (o f th e seasona l scenario , no t necessaril yo f th e calenda r year ) n= numbe r o f month s an d numbe r o f region s evaluate d i n a give nscenari o AT R , n = temperatur e differentia l (AT ) fo r regio nR

during mont hM F C R , M= fue l consumptio nfo r regio nRdurin g mont hM FCrot. i = tota l nationa l fue l consumptio n(les s regio n

6 , Alask a an

d Hawaii)
. Th e keyparamete r show ni nth e equatio nabov e i s AT . Th e consumptio nweighte d value s fo r th e othe r tw o ke yparameter s fo r an ygive nscenari o ca nb e determine d b ysubstituting th e appropriat e monthl yT 0 an d RVP value s i nth e equatio nabove
. Thi s ca nb e don e fo r eac ho f th e scenario s mentione d abov e t o ge t th e appropriat e value s o f th e ke yparameter s fo r us e i nth e refueling emissio nequation
. Th e result s o f thes e weighting calculation s ar e show n i n Tabl e 6
. Regiona l an d nationa l averag e AT , T 0 an d RVP informatio n i s presente d fo r fiv e scenarios : annua l average , summer , winter , fiv e mont hozon e seaso nan d tw o mont hpeak ozon e season . Regiona l fue l consumptio n value s use d i nth e th e weighting calculation s an d percentage s o f tota l fue l consumptio nfo r eac hregio nar e als o show nfo r compariso n purposes . A s explaine d above , Regio n6 (Pacifi c Northwest ) ha s bee n omitted , a s hav e Alask a an d Hawaii
. A s woul d b e expected , T D , RVP an

d A T value s varybot hseasonall yan d fro m regio n t o regio nfo r an

ygive nseason . Reason s fo r thi s variabilit y ar e discusse d below
. A s ca n b e see n fro mth e table , dispense d fue l temperature s varyseasonall yan d fro mregio nt o region
. Thi s i s du e largel y t o climati c factor s suc ha s ambien t temperatur e and " th e amoun t o f sola r radiation
. Othe r relevan t variable s includ e th e volum e an

d dept ho f th e underground servic e statio ntanks , layou t o f th e fue l piping , compositio no f th e surfac e ove r th e tank s an

d associate d piping (e.g
. concrete , asphalt , grass ) an dP.5 1 '

SCENARIO : ! avpraa eAnnua l Fue lConsumpt

. (ga lxIO 6 ) % Tota l RV P(PSI ) AT(°F ) T D(°F ) Summe r (Apr-Oct ) Fue lConsumpt

. (ga lxIO 6 ) % Tota l RV P(PSI ) AT(°F ) T D(°F ) Winte r (Oct-Mar ) Fue lConsumpt

. (ga lxIO 6 ) % Tota l W P(PSI ) A T (°F ) T D(°F ) Weighte d

Siat' lAvg

.
96,050. 4
100. 0 12. 6 +4. 4 68. 9
51,846. 3
100. 0 11. 5 +8. 8 76. 2

44,204. 4
100. 0 13. 9 -0. 8 60. 3 -48

-

Tabl e6 r-mr-H^ Pan dRV

PParameter s REGION : 1 2 N.T^s t S.Eas t 3

S.Wes t

41,658. 5 20,381. 211,977. 6
43. 4 21. 2 13. 3 12. 4 +5. 7 +4. 0 62. 3 81. 8
22,815. 1 10,689. 0
44. 020. 6 12. 2U. 4 +10. 7 +6. 8 70. 7 86. 7

18,843. 5 9,692. 1
42. 6 21. 9 14. 6 13. 4 -0. 3 +0. 9 52. 076. 4 12. 5 11. 4 +3. 7 70. 5
6,232. 4
12. 0 10. 1 +7. 6 78. 6

5,745. 3
13. 0 12. 8 -0. 4 61. 8 4 N.Cent

. ;

5 Fa r W

.
10,225. 6 11,807. 6

10. 6 12. 6 +5. 5 66. 2
5,690. 2
11. 0 11. 2 +11. 7 74. 3

4,535. 5
10. 3 14. 3 -2. 4 56; 1 12. 3

11. 7 +0. 1 70. 5 6,419. 7
12. 4 10. 5 +3. 9 77. 2

5,388. 0
12. 2 13. 3 -4. 4 62. 4-49

-

2 3 4 5 1 „«*.,.•

. <

? u»« f N.Cent

. FarW

. Scenari o Nfes t S.Eas t

S.Wes t Na t V AV9JL

_N - ' a s

- Ozone

- 5 to._(Ma£geptl n ne^ : n^ 94 4 4 4,869. o D,**oo. ^ A , QQ 5 8 19,459. 4 8,956. 0 5,244. 4 Fue l Consumpt . 43,995. a (gal xIO 6 ) % Tota l RV P (PS D AT CF ) T D CF ) 100. 0 11. 3 +9. 4 78. 8 44. 2

12. 0 +11. 5 73. 8 20. 4

11. 2 +7. 5 88. 0 11. 9

9. 9 +7. 1 80. 8 11. 1

10. 9 +12. 1 79. 0 12. 4

10. 3 +5. 1 79. 0

Z ^664. 7 8.326. 23,760. 02.147. 7 2,103. 02.327. 8 Fue lConsumpt

. IB,M». ' (ga lxIO 6 ) % Tota l RV P(PSI ) ATCF ) T DCF ) 100. 0 10. 9 +9. 9 82. 7 44. 6

11. 5 +12. 5 78. 0 20. 1

10. 9 +8. 2 90. 5 11. 5

9. 8 +7. 0 83. 5 11. 3

10. 5 +13. 3 86. 5 12. 5

10. 0 +3. 2 83. 0-50

-

protectio n .fro

msola r radiatio nfo r th e tank system . Although ther e i s a strong correlatio nbetwee nambien t temperatur e (T A ) an d dispense d temperature , variatio nexist s du e t o thes e othe r factors
. I ngeneral , th e Radia nstud yfo r AP I show s th e averag e dispense d temperatur e parallel s th e averag e ambien t temperatur e curve , wit ha positiv e offse t (i.e. , T Di s alway s highe r tha n T A )
. Th e amoun t o f th e offse t varie s seasonall y an d regionally , undoubtedl ydu e t o climati c differences
. Th e RV P value s show ni nth e tabl e ar e ASTMmaximu m recommende d values
. Figur e 3 0 show s th e averag e seasona l an d regiona l variatio ni nthes e ASTMRVP value s an d th e resulting nationa l average s fo r winte r an d summer . Th e region s b ywhic h thes e dat a ar e aggregate d ar e thos e show n i nFigur e 29
. ASTM assign s eac hstat e a "volatilit yclass " an d specifie s maximu m recommende d monthl yRVP limit s base d o nth e climati c an d topographi c factors
. Th e fiv e volatilit yclasse s ar e designate d A , B , C , D , an d E , corresponding t o maximu mRVP limit s o f 9 , 10 , 11.5 , 13.5 , an d 1 5 psi , respectively
. I n addition , a numbe r o f state s hav e formall yadopte d RV P limit s simila r t o th e AST Mrecommende d levels.[22 ] Particularl y noteworth

yi s California , wher e RVP i s limite d t o 9 ps i durin g th e month s o f th e highes t ozon e concentration s i norde r t o decreas e VO C emissions
. In-us e RV P i s essentiall ydetermine d byth e gasolin e refiners , subjec t t o stat e law s and voluntarycomplianc e wit h th e ASTMrecommende d limits
. RV P varie s seasonall ya s wel l a s regionally , base d primaril yo nho wth e climat e an d topograph

y o f a nare a affec t vehicl e operation
. Fo r example , RV P i s highe r i nth e winte r t o assis t i ncol d starting bu t decrease s i nsumme r t o avoi d vehicl e driveabilit yproblem s suc ha s vapo r lock
. RV P value s ar e generall yhighe r fo r th e northeaster n U.S . tha nth e southeaster nU.S . I ngeneral , fo r an ygive n seaso no r area , RVP i s highe r a s ambien t temperatur e fo r an y give nmont hdecreases
. Th e overal l trend i nin-us e RVP ha s bee ntowar d highe r an d highe r value s i nrecen t years , du e t o change s i n vehicl e desig nan d gasolin e refining practices , leading t o th e conclusio ntha t b y199 0 th e in-us e value s wil l approximat e th e ASTMmaximu mlimits
. Th e fina l factor , AT , als o varie s seasonally , wit h positiv e value s bein g mor e predominan t i nth e summe r an d negativ e value s mor e prevalen t i nwinter
. Althoughther e i s a certai namoun t o f regiona l variation , th e seasona l value s ar e verysimila r fo r al l area s o f th e country . Ther e i s als o a certai namoun t o f diurna l variatio ntha t affect s A

T values , whic hexplain s th e presenc e o f someV) 0

- I C L 

# SEASONA LRV P VALUE S

AV G AN N 

## EZ l 

## R1 [S 3 R 2 

### NAT . AVG . SUMME R SEASONA L SCENARIO S

Figur e3 0 

### WINTE R



# is aR5 IP.5 5

-52

- negativ e value s i nth e summe r an d positiv e value s i nth e winter
. - T 0 i s mor e stabl e tha nT Tdu e t o th e insulating effec t o f th e ground i nwhic hth e servic e statio nstorag e tank s ar e buried
. Sinc e vehicl e tank temperature s follo wambien t temperature s mor e closely , th e likelihoo d i s strong tha t T T wil l b e lowe r fo r thos e vehicle s fuele d i nth e morning , resulting i n negative , o r a t leas t les s positive , A T values
. Conversely , diurna l heatin g woul d likel yresul t i n highe r T Tvalue s i nth e afternoon , resulting i npositiv e ATs . Th e distanc e a ca r i s drive nbefor e refueling als o affect s T T(T Tincrease s wit hdistanc e driven , u p t o a point ) whic hi ntur naffect s AT . Sinc e thes e diurna l effect s ar e recurring an d ongoing , on e woul d expec t th e difference s betwee nsumme r an d winte r AT s t o b e cause d b y climati c and no t diurna l variations
. 

### 5
. Emissio nRate s Give nth e weighte d regiona l an d nationa l averag e T 0 , AT an d RV P value s i nTabl e 6 fo r eac ho f th e fiv e scenario s unde r consideration , w e ar e no wprepare d t o calculat e th e emissio nrate s fo r eac ho f th e scenario s and t o asses s ho wth e variatio n i nth e ke yparameter s affect s emissio nrates . Thes e emissio nrate s fo r th e differen t scenario s ar e calculate d quit e simpl ybysubstituting th e T 0 , AT an d RV P value s o f Tabl e 6 int o th e multipl e linea r regressio nrelationshi p develope d earlie r (give nbelow ) an d solving fo r th e emissio nrat e (ER)
. E R= -5.90 9 - 0.0949A T + 0.088 4 T 0 + 0.48 5 RVP Th e result s o f thes e calculation s fo r eac ho f th e fiv e scenario s ar e show ni nTabl e 7
. Thi s emissio nrat e dat a ca n b e compare d regionall ywithi neac hscenari o an d betwee nth e variou s scenario s o na seasona l basi s fo r eac hregio nan d nationally
. Turnin g firs t t o th e regiona l evaluatio nwithi neac h scenario , severa l point s shoul d b e noted
. First , overall , th e regiona l value s fo r eac hscenari o ar e relativel yuniformgive n th e variatio nsee ni nth e ke yparameter s o f Tabl e 6
. Al l value s fal l withi n+ 1 0 percen t o f th e nationa l averag e fo r tha t scenario , wit hth e exceptio no f th e southeaster nU. S (Regio n2)
. I neac ho f th e fiv e scenario s th e emissio nrat e expecte d i nth e Southeas t exceed s th e nationa l averag e fo r tha t scenari o bybetwee n1 6 an d 1 9 percent . . Th e highe r emissio n rate s i nth e southeaster nU S apparentl yoccu r becaus e o f th e 1 0 t o 16F ° highe r dispense d temperature s encountere d there , a s compare d t o th e nationa l average . Simpl ybyusin g th e coefficien t fo r T 0 i nth e emissio nrat e equation , i t ca n b e-53

-

Tabl e 7 Displacemen t Emissio nFactor s 1 / P.5 6

REGION :

SCENARIO : Nat' l Avg . Average Annua l 5. 9 Summer (Apr-Sep ) 5. 6 Winter (Oct-Mar ) 6. 2 Ozone- 5 mo . (May-Sep ) 5. 6 02one- 2 mo . (Jul-Aug ) 5. 7 1 N.Eas t 5. 5 5. 2 5. 8 5. 3 5. 4 S 2

Eas t 7. 0 6. 6 7. 2 6. 6 6. 6 S 3

Wes t 5. 5 5. 2 5. 8 5. 4 5. 6 N 4

Cent . 5. 5 5. 0 6. 2 5. 2 5. 6 5

Fa r W . 6. 0 5. 6 6. 5 5. 6 6. 0

T7 ~ Displacemen t losse s onl y- a spillage facto r mus t be adde

dto deriv

e a tota l refuelin

gemissio nfactor
.-54

-

determine d tha t th e 1 0 t o 16F ° differenc e i nT 0 result s i nan increase

- o f 0. 9 t o 1. 4 g/ga l i nth e emissio nfo r th e variou s scenarios
. Thi s easil yaccount s fo r th e significantl yhighe r emissio nrat e i nth e thi s region
. Climatologica l difference s offe r th e mos t likel y explanatio n fo r th e highe r dispense d temperature s i nth e Southeast
. A s explaine d earlier , th e averag e T 0 valu e generall yfollow s th e trend o f th e annua l averag e ambien t temperatur e curv e fo r an ygive nregion , bu t ther e i s alway s a positiv e offse t (i.e. , th e T 0 valu e i s greate r tha nth e averag e ambien t temperature) , probabl ybecaus e o f sola r hea t gai nan

d th e therma l storag e effec t o f th e ground , whic hi n tur nar e modifie d b yth e othe r factor s note d above i n sectio n C-4
. Th e magnitud e o f th e offse t varie s during th e cours e o f th e yea r fo r mos t regions , particularl ywher e th e ground mayb e froze ndurin g th e winte r months
. I nsuc harea s T 0 may approac hth e ambien t temperatur e i nth e Spring , whe nth e ambien t temperatur e rise s relativel yquickl ywhil e th e soi l temperatur e increase s mor e gradually
. Th e offse t fo r th e Southeast , o nth e othe r hand , i s relativel yconstan t throughou t th e year , likel ybecaus e ove r mos t o f th e are a th e ground neve r freeze s an

d becaus e o f greate r sola r gain s an d highe r ambien t temperatures , particularl yduring th e Winte r months
. Second , comparing th e seasona l (summe r an d winter ) emissio nrate s t o th e averag e annua l rate s fo r eac hregion , al l th e emissio nrate s ar e withi n+1 0 percen t o f th e averag e annua l valu e excep t fo r th e Nort hCentra l U.S . I n thi s cas e th e seasona l variatio ni s o nth e orde r o f 12-1 3 percent , du e t o slightl ygreate r seasona l variatio ni nth e absolut e value s o f th e ke yparameters . Thi s relativel ysmal l seasona l variatio n i nth e emissio nfactor s i s likel ydu e t o th e existenc e o f offsetting factor s i nth e condition s tha t determin e bot hWinte r an d Summe r emissio nrates . I nth e Winte r months , RVP' s ar e hig han

d A T value s tend t o b e mor e negativ e tha ndurin g th e Summer . Bot ho f thes e trend s woul d tend t o increas e emissions , bu t the yar e offse t bylowe r dispense d temperatures , whic hten d t o decreas e emissions
. Conversely , during th e Summe r dispense d temperature s ar e higher , whic hwoul d increas e emissions , bu t th e highe r temperature s ar e offse t bylowe r RVP' s an d positiv e A T values , bot ho f whic htend t o decreas e emissions
. Third , comparing the
. tw o ozon e scenario s t o th e averag e annua l scenario , th e emissio nrate s fo r al l five region s an d th e nationa l averag e d o no t varyb ymor e tha n1 0 percent . In thi s cas e th e averag e annua l value s fo r eac hregio nexcee d the ozon e scenari o value s i na rang e o f 0 t o abou t 6 percent . S o overal l ther e i s goo d agreemen t betwee nth e averag e annua lP.5 B

-55

-
emissio n rate s pron e months
. Thi s level
. an

d th e emissio nrate s expecte d i nth e ozon e tru e fo r al l region s an d o na nationa l i s
6
. Effect s o f Fue l Weathering I nadditio n t o th e thre e primaryfactor s discusse d above , fue l weathering als o affect s refueling emissio nrates . Fue l tank weathering result s i na differenc e i nRV P betwee n th e dispense d fue l an

d th e residua l fue l i nth e vehicl e tank , wit h fue l i nth e tank losing volatilit ydu e t o th e evaporatio no f lighte r end s i nth e gasoline
. Th e ver ylimite d amoun t o f baselin e testing tha t wa s don e wit hlowe r RV P fue l i nth e vehicl e tank indicate s tha t a nincreas e i nemissions , o nth e orde r o f a gram

pe r gallon , resulte d froma nRV P differenc e o f approximatel y1. 9 ps i betwee nth e tank an d th e dispense d fue l (se e Sectio nIII.C)
. Thi s genera l phenomeno nwa s als o observe d i nth e SR I study.[2 ] Unfortunately , neithe r th e EP A no r th e SR I dat a ar e adequat e t o full ycharacteriz e th e effec t o f th e RVP difference , althoughthe yd o sho wth e directio nan d giv e a roughide a o f th e magnitud e o f th e change
. I norde r t o b e abl e t o includ e th e effec t o f tank fue l weathering i nth e emissio nrat e calculation , on e woul d als o nee d t o kno wth e averag e amoun t o f in-us e weatherin g tha t th e effec t o f th e refueling emissio n vehicl e and fue l ca nb e determine d o f tank weatherin g occur s betwee nrefuelings , i nadditio nt o resultan t differenc e i nRVP value s o n th e rate . Thi s include s bot hth e differen t effects
. Sinc e neithe r o f thes e variable s wit han

ycertaint ya t thi s time , th e effec t ha s no t bee ninclude d i nth e emissio nfacto r calculation
. Althoughrefueling emission s ma ythu s b e somewha t understated , thi s effec t mayb e partiall yoffse t b yth e metho d o f RVP determinatio nfo r th e calculation
. Us e o f th e AST Mmaximu mRVP limit s represent s EPA' s bes t judgmen t o f futur e RV P levels
. However , i f in-us e RVP level s shoul d b e lowe r tha nthes e maximu mvalues , th e resulting decreas e i nth e emissio nfacto r woul d tend t o b e a t leas t partiall yoffse t bya nincreas e i n refueling emission s du e t o fue l weathering
. D . Conclusion s A t th e beginning o f thi s investigatio ni t wa s fel t tha t i t migh t b e necessaryt o develo p bot ha seasona l emissio nfacto r fo r ai r qualit ycalculation s an d a naverag e annua l emissio n facto r fo r healt hexposur e ris k calculations
. However , th e relativ e uniformit yo f th e seasona l emissio nfactor s indicate s tha t th e averag e annua l value s ca nb e use d fo r bot hpurpose s withou t introducing an ysignifican t erro r int o th e ai r qualit y-56

- calculations
. I f onl yai r qualit ycalculation s wer e involved , i t migh t b e mor e appropriat e t o us e onl ya summe r emissio n factor , althoughb

ys o doin g tw o importan t "by-products " o f th e ai r qualit ycalculation , th e emission s inventorycalculatio n an d th e calculate d lifetime emission s reductio npe r vehicle , woul d bot hb e understated
. Anannua l averag e woul d b e mor e appropriat e fo r thes e latte r tw o purpose s a s wel l a s fo r healt h exposur e ris k calculations
. O nth e othe r hand , us e o f a naverag e annua l emissio n rat e fo r ai r qualit ydetermination s maytheoreticall yoverstat e th e ai r qualit ybenefit s somewhat
. Th e differenc e betwee n th e summe r an

d averag e annua l emissio nfactor s i s relativel ysmal l (les s tha n5 percent) , however , an d an ydifference s i nai r qualit ycalculations , i.e
. SMSA s brough t int o complianc e o r percen t chang e i nai r quality , woul d likel ydisappea r i nth e roundof f o f th e EKM Amodel
. Thu s i npractica l terms , i t woul d likel yb e verydifficul t t o se e an ydifference s i nth e ai r qualit youtput s resulting fromth e us e o f th e averag e annua l values , wherea s ther e are . rea l advantage s t o it s us e i nterm s o f emission s inventory , lifetime emission s an d cost

effectivenes s calculations
. Finally , i t doe s no t appea r tha t ther e wil l b e a nee d fo r seasona l emissio nfactor s fo r healt heffect s purpos e a s a resul t o f change s i nth e amoun t o f benzen e an d othe r potentiall yhazardou s specie s i nth e tota l VO C emitted
. Suc h emission s ar e a functio no f th e percentag e o f th e hazardou s pollutan t presen t i nliqui d gasolin e an d th e same temperatur e consideration s tha t affec t th e basi c VO C emissio nrate . I n orde r t o hav e significan t seasona l variatio n i n th e emission s o f thes e hazardou s species , then , eithe r th e seasona l percentag e o f thes e specie s i nth e liqui d gasolin e woul d hav e t o varysignificantl yor , sinc e suc hemission s ar e normall y expresse d a s a percentag e o f tota l VO C emissions , winte r an d summe r VO C emissio nfactor s woul d hav e t o diffe r significantl y fromth e annua l average . A s state d above , th e latte r conditio n Correspondingly , th e 1983/8 4 NIPE Rgasolin e significan t differenc e betwee nth a winte r an d percentage s i nliqui d gasoline
. Fo r thes e summe r an

d winte r benzen e fraction s i nthe average d abou t 1. 3 percent.[23,24 ] Simila r availabl e fo r othe r potentiall yhazardou s species , n o reaso nt o believ e tha t th e liqui d fractio n o f i s no t th e cas e survey s sho wn o summe r benzen e survey s averag e liqui d gasolin e dat a ar e no t bu t ther e i s thes e specie s varie s regionall yo r seasonally
. Therefor e i t i s reasonabl e t o conclud e tha t seasona l difference s i nth e emissio n factor s wil l no t necessitat e separat e emissio nfactor s fo r eithe r healt heffect s o r ai r qualit ypurposes .P.6 0

-57

-

c i t wa s decide d t o us e th e averag e Fo r thes e reasons , i t " a s s pe r gallo nfo r al l

pe r gallon
.P.6 1

Appendi xA
BASELINE TES T RESULT SP.6 2

Suprem e l9 8 3 OLdsncoil e Cutlas s Oisp^e l T^ratut e - 82' F 3 K* s

Tes t 84563 8 84563 9 84563 7 84563 2 84563 6 84563 1 84562 8 84563 0 85011 3 85011 4 85011 5 85011 7 85135 4 85135 5 84595 0 84595 1 84594 5 84594 7 85005 7 85010 4 84594 3 84594 4 84594 6 85010 5 85010 6 84594 1 84594 2 84594 8 84564 2 84564 1 84562 7 84529 4 84562 5 RV P 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 12. 6 12. 6 12. 6 12. 6 12. 6 TCF ) 1. 5 0
. 10. 8 8. 1 22. 0 18. 5 36. 7 37. 0 12. 0 7. 7 12. 3 11. 9 2. 3 1. 5 -1. 1
-. 8 11. 0 10. 0 10. 0 11. 1 17. 0 21. 7 20. 5 17. 2 18. 0 34. 0 39. 5 38. 8 -2. 0 7. 5 8. 2 16. 6 19. 0 Disp

. TempCF ) 80. 5 82. 0 82. 0 83. 9 81. 0 83. 5 82. 3 82. 0 80. 5 83. 3 80. 0 79. 8 81. 7 81. 5 81. 0 83. 0 81. 0 83. 2 82. 0 80. 8 85. 0 80. 8 83. 0 83. 8 81. 8 86. 0 82. 0 81. 2 Losse s (gm/gal ) 5.20 9 5.45 6 5.02 1 5.30 8 4.40 7 4.63 2 3.11 5 2.91 8 4.93 4 4.93 4 4.33 1 5.12 6 5.06 0 5.13 3 7.83 1 8.07 4 6.49 0 6.13 3 6.39 5 5.94 7 4.84 2 4.43 2 5.74 3 5.32 7 5.00 7 3.83 0 3.50 0 3.51 4

84528 9 84529 0 84528 0 84529 2 85011 0 85011 1 85011 2 85135 6 85135 7 9. 0

9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 -11. 0 8. 3 29. 0 27. 8 1. 5 1. 5 2. 2 15. 2 8. 4 82. 5 84. 0 84. 0 84. 0 81.0 ' 8.93 8 7.36 6 6.89 2 6.29 0 6.08 1 Lig

. TempCF) 82. 0 82. 0 92. 8 92. 0 103. 0 102. 0 119. 0 119. 0 92. 5 91. 0 92. 3 91. 7 84. 0 83. 0 79. 9 82. 2 92. 0 93. 2 92. 0 91. 9 102. 0 102. 5 103. 5 101. 0 99. 8 120. 0 121. 5 120. 0 80. 5 91. 5 92. 2 100. 6 100. 0 Disp

. Hea t

Vap

. Disp

. Losse s TimeTime TempCF ) Gal s (gms ) (nm. ) (mm. )

Dispense dTemperatur e 91. 0 92. 0 91. 0 91. 2 90. 5 90. 5 90. 0 88. 0 92. 0 6.95 2 6.32 4 4.25 7 4.09 7 6.47 0 6.83 1 5.88 7 4.70 0 6.06 0 83. 0

83. 0 93. 9 92. 5 102. 0 100. 5 116. 0 117. 0 92. 3 93. 0 93. 4 90. 5 82. 5 82. 5 82. 5 83. 0 92. 3 92. 5 93. 0 93. 0 102. 0 102. 0 103. 0 102. 5 98. 5 118. 3 118. 0 113. 5 83. 0 92. 5 92. 5 102. 0 101. 0

80. 0 100. 3 120. 0 119. 0 92. 0 92. 0 92. 2 103. 2 100. 4 14. 8

14. 7 14. 6 14. 6 15. 0 15. 5 14. 8 14. 6 15. 1 15. 1 15. 1 15. 1 15. 0 15. 0 14. 8 14. 8 14. 7 15. 0 15. 2 15. 0 14. 6 14. 8 14. 8 15. 0 14. 9 15. 3 14. 6 14. 8 14. 5 14. 5 14. 8 14. 5 14. 9 77. 1 80. 2 73. 3 77. 5 66. 1 71. 8 46. 1 42. 6 74. 5 74. 5 65. 4 77. 4 75. 9 77. 0 115. 9 119. 5 95. 4 92. 0 97. 2 89. 2 70. 7 65. 6 85. 0 79. 9 74. 6 58. 6 51. 1 52. 0 129. 6 106. 8 102. 0 91. 2 90. 6 2.5 2 2.5 3 2.5 8 2.6 7 2.6 3 2.7 0 3.0 0 2.5 8 1.9 7 1.9 8 1.9 8 2.0 2 1.9 8 1.9 7 3.3 0 3.4 2 3.2 5 3.3 3 1.9 8 2.0 0 3.3 5 3.1 3 3.3 3 2.0 5 1.9 7 3.5 0 3.2 7 3.2 3 28.0 0 24.0 0 52.0 0 50.0 0 36.0 0 37.0 0 74.0 0 67.0 0 42.0 0 32.0 0 30.0 0 48.0 0 . 28.0 0 32.0 0 24.0 0 24.0 0 60.0 0 46.0 0 46.0 0 45.0 0 35.0 0 40.0 0 37.0 0 39.0 0 39.0 0 68.0 0 61.0 0 72.0 0

=92° F3 HVP

s 81. 8 14. 5 100. 8 101. 014. 289. 8 119. 014. 3 63. 0 116. 014. 5 59. 4 92. 5 14. 9 96. 4 93. 5 15. 4 105. 2 94. 215. 1 38. 9 100. 015. 070. 5 97. 015. 1 91. 5 3.6 2 3.5 8 3.8 3 3.6 8 3.3 8

2.8 8 2.9 5 2.7 8 2.8 2 2.0 5 2.0 7 2.0 0 2.0 0 2.0 5 25.0 0 43.0 0 60.0 0 39.0 0 41.0 0

26.0 0 38.0 0 67.0 0 67.0 0 34.0 0 34.0 0 36.0 0 44.0 0 32.0 0P.6 3

84593 1 84593 2 84593 5 84593 7 85005 4 85005 3 84593 8 84593 9 84593 3 84593 6 85005 5 85005 6 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 84595 6 10. 0 84595 7 10. 0 84595 4 10. 0 84595 5 10. 0 84595 3 10. 0 -10. 5

-10. 3 2. Q 1. 0 2. 5 -1. 0 9. 5 10. 1 22. 1 30. 6 25. 9 28. 8 -11. 0 -10. 0 1. 8 2. 0 11. 8

84510 7 84527 6 84510 2 84510 3 84510 9 84510 5 84510 6 84527 5 9. 0

9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 -10. 8 -11. 0 2. 0 -1. 0 -3. 2 7. 1 3. 0 27. 5 92. 0 91. 3 90. 0 91. 0 90. 5 93. 0 92. 0 91. 8 92. 0 90. 9 93. 0 91. 2 91. 0 90. 0 90. 2 90. 0 90. 8

84528 6 84528 7 34596 1 84595 9

85090 4 85091 3 9. 0 9. 0 10. 0 10. 0

11. 9 11. 9 10. 5 -3. 5 -6. 0 -3. 9 10.25 0

11.43 1 8.30 7 7.27 0 10.06 0 9.76 5 8.06 6 7.81 5 4.92 1 3.31 1 4.06 6 4.82 1 8.59 7 8.12 8 6.96 6 7.24 0 6.47 9 81. 5

81. 0 92. 0 92. 0 93. 0 92. 0 101. 5 101. 9 114. 1 121. 5 118. 9 120. 0 80. 0 80. 0 92. 0 92. 0 102. 6 81. 5

83. 0 91. 5 93. 0 90. 8 92. 0 102. 5 103. 0 109. 9 119. 0 117. 8 117. 2 82. 3 83. 0 93. 0 92. 3 102. 0 Singl eBlanke tData 90. 8 90. 0 90. 0 92. 7 93. 2 91. 6 91. 5 92. 5

92. 5 92. 0 6.35 3 6.65 1 5.98 0 6.15 3 6.55 4 5.02 7 5.06 0 3.45 3 80. 0

79. 0 92. 0 91. 7 90. 0 98. 7 99. 5 120. 0 Etoa dPre p Data 15. 2

15. 3 15. 0 15. 2 14. 9 15. 3 15. 2 15. 1 15. 1 14. 8 15. 2 15. 1 14. 9 14. 9 14. 8 15. 0 14. 6

92. 0 91. 6 4.81 5 6.06 0 7.98 5 6.51 4 Dispense dFue lRV

P

85088 5 11- 9 85088 711. 9 85090 1 H- 9 85090 211- 9 0. 0

3. 1

3. 2 3. 0 4. 7 4. 0 92. 0 90. 3 9.56 6

8.73 1 103. 0

88. 5 86. 0 37. 7

. 11. 9 92. 0 93. 9 78. 0

76. 0 86. 5 86. 0 84. 0 95. 6 96. 4 114. 0

105. 9 90. 0 87. 5 88. 7 155. 8

174. 9 124. 6 110. 5 149. 9 149. 4 122. 6 118. 0 74. 3 49. 0 61. 8 72. 8 128. 1 121. 1 103. 1 108. 6 94. 6 4.5 2 4.5 3 3.9 8 3.7 7 3.0 8 3.2 8 4.2 2 4.2 2 4.0 5 3.6 0 2.5 5 2.3 2 3.4 8 3.4 3 3.3 3 3.4 2 3.3 3 32.0 0 24.0 0 46.0 0 53.0 0 40.0 0 42.0 0 40.0 0 39.0 0 67.0 0 65.0 0 49.0 0 58.0 0 21.0 0 24.0 0 48.0 0 48.0 0 35.0 0

15. 0 14. 6 15. 0 15. 0 14. 8 15. 0 14. 9 15. 0

14. 6 13. 4 95. 3 97. 1 89. 7 92. 3 97. 0 75. 4 75. 4 51. 8 2.8 5 2.8 3 2.9 3 2.9 7 2.9 3 2.9 3 2.8 0 2.8 7 36.0 0 42.0 0 96.0 0 178.0 0 74.0 0 212.0 0 173.0 0 306.0 0

13. 5 14. 2 70. 3 81. 2 107. 8 92. 5 2.6 0 3.1 5 3.2 2 132.0 0 172.0 0 185.0 0 159.0 0
Tan KFuelRV

P= 10. 0 88. 0 90. 3 14. 5

14. 5

^ eVapor-Li^i dTextur eDifference s 90. 8 91. 0 89. 0 89. 0 8.22 0 8.14 0 8.94 7 9.09 3 94. 0

94. 0 93. 7 93. 0 86. 8

87. 0 104. 0 102. 5 15. 0

15. 0 15. 0 15. 0 138. 7 126.6 .

123. 3 122. 1 134. 2 136. 4 2.2 7 2.2 5

2.0 7 2.1 0 2.1 0 2.0 7 16.0 0 19.0 0

16.0 0 16.0 0 36.0 0 34.0 0P.6 4

!98 4 For d Escor t

85116 1 85116 2 85116 3 85116 5 85116 4 85116 6 85121 3 85121 4 85030 4 85001 2 85001 4 85031 1 85031 4 85031 2 85031 3 85001 3 85030 3 85001 1 85031 0 85030 9 85030 7 85030 8 85116 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 3. 7 4. 0 9. 3 12. 5 21. 2 22. 5 10. 5 20. 5 1. 5 12. 0 12. 7 2. 7 11. 8 11. 1 13. 4 3. 7 3. 7 13. 3 4. 5 12. 0 22. 0 23. 0 20. 2

85116 7 9. 0 85116 8 9. 0 85116 9 9. 0 85121 1 9. 0 84644 6 84644 7

35030 5 85030 6 11. 9 11. 9

11. 9 11. 9 Dispense d Temperatur e 80. 0 79. 0 80. 7 81. 0 80. 3 78. 5 81. 0 80. 5 81. 2 80. 0 80. 3 80. 0 81. 2 81. 0 79. 1 80. 0 80. 0 79. 6 78. 5 80. 5 80. 5 80. 0 80. 0
8. 9 4. 5 4. 8 6. 0 2. 0

. 7

7. 5 5. 0 4.45 6

4.30 8 4.26 9 4.57 4 4.22 1 3.15 9 4.67 3 4.34 6 6.09 1 5.75 0 5.60 6 5.59 5 5.69 4 5.65 4 5.45 5 6.25 5 5.99 1 5.89 0 6.27 9 6.07 7 5.39 0 5.20 2 5.56 7 83. 7

83. 0 90. 0 93. 5 101. 5 101. 0 91. 5 101. 0 = 80" F 2RVP

s 83. 010. 3 83. 010. 4 91. 9 10. 4 92. 5 10. 8 101. 8 10. 4 102. 5 10. 7 91. 710. 4 101. 010. 4 82. 7 92. 0 93. 0 82. 7 93. 0 92. 1 92. 5 83. 7 83. 7 92. 9 83. 0 92. 5 102. 5 103. 0 100. 2 Dispense dTemperatur e= 85. 0 89. 5 89. 7 89. 0 92. 5 92. 3 4.74 0 5.22 1 5.11 5 4.87 5 7.90 3 7.22 8 93. 9

94. 0 94. 5 95. 0 94. 5 93. 0 84. 0

94. 0 94. 0 82. 3 92. 7 92. 2 91. 8 83. 9 84. 0 93. 0 83. 7 95. 0 103. 0 105. 0 102. 0 90 9 F 2RVP

s 94. 5 93. 2 91. 0 96. 0 98. 2 98. 0 11. 0 10. 8 10. 9 11. 1 11. 1 10. 7 11. 2 11. 0 11. 6 10. 9 10. 4 10. 4 10. 5 10. 4 10. 4 45. 9 44. 3 44. 4 49. 4 43. 9 33. 8 48. 6 45. 2 67. 0 62. 1 61. 1 62. 1 63. 2 60. 5 61. 1 68. 8 69. 5 64. 2 65. 3 63. 2 56. 6 54. 1 57. 9 4.4 6 1.3 7 1.3 7 1.4 3 1.4 3 1.4 2 1.3 7 1.3 5 1.4 7 1.4 2 1.4 3 1.4 5 1.4 5 1.4 0 1.4 7 1.4 3 1.4 5 1.4 5 1.3 8 1.4 3 1.4 3 1.4 0 1.3 8 17.0 0 16.0 0 28.0 0 32.0 0 40.0 0 44.0 0 28.0 0 42.0 0 25.0 0 57.0 0 56.0 0 32.0 0 50.0 0 52.0 0 58.0 0 24.0 0 25.0 0 50.0 0 28.0 0 45.0 0 40.0 0 38.0 0 42.0 0

Dispense d Temperature = 66 9 F 66. 5 67. 5 5.02 9

5.28 6 74. 0

72. 5 73. 9

72. 0 10. 4

10. 4 10. 4 10. 4 11. 3 11. 4

10. 5 10. 5 49. 3 54. 3 53. 2 50. 7 89. 3 82. 4

52. 8 55. 5 1.4 0 1.4 2 1.3 8 1.3 8 1.6 3 1.6 3

1.3 5 1.3 7 32.0 0 30.0 0 32.0 0 30.0 0 26.0 0 21.0 0

6.0 0 5.0 0P.6 5

l98 3 piy^ u t hRfilian t

85115 1 85115 0 85115 2 85115 3 85115 4 85115 5 84548 6 84548 7 84549 2 84549 3 85115 7 85115 6 85115 9 85124 6 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 9. 0 9. 0 11. 9 11. 9 9. 0 9. 0 11. 9 11. 9 2.5
. 1. 7 10. 0 19. 3 14. 1 18. 0 1. 5 -1. 5 3. 0 1. 3 4. 3 4. 0 5. 5 5. 6

84641 0 84641 3 84645 4 84645 3 84641 2 84645 2 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 2. 7 13. 0
-. 9 -2. 0

. 5

. 5 80. 0 81. 8 81. 0 80. 0 79. 9 81. 0 90. 5 91. 5 ' 89. 0 91. 0 68. 0 69. 0 68. 0 68. 3

85020 5 85020 9 85020 8 85020 7 85020 6 85020 4 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 6.26 5

6.64 0 6.43 9 4.96 9 5.31 6 6.10 9 5.57 7 5.67 7 6.83 9 7.03 6 3.76 3 3.93 9 5.29 9 5.32 3 82. 5

83. 5 91. 0 99. 3 94. 0 99. 0 92. 0 90. 0 92. 0 92. 3 72. 3 73. 0 73. 5 73. 9 84. 3

84. 0 89. 0 97. 5 94. 0 99. 7 86. 5 87. 0 88. 3 89. 5 73. 2 72. 0 77. 5 78. 0 198 3 Buick Skylar

K

12. 7 10. 7 13. 2

. 7
-. 5 2. 6

85040 0 85040 1 85040 2 85040 4 85040 5 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 2 11. 8 U. O 1. 0 1. 8 90. 5 85. 0 94. 3 93. 5 92. 0 92. 0

80. 0 81. 0 78. 8 91. 8 92. 5 89. 4

80. 8 79. 2 80. 5 90. 8 90. 0

85068 9 85069 0 85069 1 85068 6 35068 8 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 11. 9 7.92 5

6.47 1 7.54 0 7.35 3 7.36 5 7.70 8 93. 2

98. 0 93. 4 91. 5 92. 5 92. 5 92. 2

91. 0 91. 9 90.0
. 90. 6 94. 3

19 8 4 Chevrole t Celebrit y 9. 8 10. 0 9. 8 9. 6 9. 5 10. 1 10. 4 9. 9 11. 2 11. 2 9. 7 9. 8 9. 7 9. 9

4.63 2 4.59 6 4.70 6 6.33 3 6.87 6 6.08 0 92. 7

91. 7 92. 0 92. 5 92. 0 92. 0 92. 2

92. 0 92. 1 96. 0 94. 5 94. 0 198 3 LET T Crow n Victori a 7.44 8 7.20 0 7.55 8 11.16 6 10.50 0 92. 0

91. 0 91. 5 91. 8 91. 8 61. 4 66. 4 63. 1 47. 7 50. 5 61. 7 58. 0 56. 2 76. 6 78. 8 36. 5 38. 6 51. 4 52. 7 1.3 2 1.3 2 1.3 0 1.2 8 1.4 8 1.3 7 1.9 2 1.8 7 3.1 2 3.1 7 1.3 0 1.3 2 1.2 8 1.3 0 16.0 0 16.0 0 32.0 0 44.0 0 32.0 0 38.0 0 38.0 0 38.0 0 42.0 0 43.0 0 6.0 0 4.0 0 12.0 0 14.0 0

13. 4 13. 6 13. 7 13. 6 13. 7 12. 0

95. 0 94. 0 94. 2 95. 4 94. 2

14. 5 13. 2 10. 3
-. 1 2. 6 81. 7 82. 3 82. 3 91. 3 89. 7 6.04 8 5.81 3 5.79 5 7.91 6 7.96 4 96. 2

95. 5 92. 6 91. 7 92. 3 92. 0

93. 0 93. 5 93. 2 93. 5 106. 2

88. 0 103. 3 100. 0 100. 9 92. 5 3.7 5 2.3 2 2.1 5 2.0 5 2.0 5 1.8 0 28.0 0 28.0 0 26.0 0 23.0 0 20.0 0 19.0 0

13. 6 13. 6 13. 6 13. 8 13. 7 13. 8

15. 4 14. 5 15. 4 15. 7 15. 6 63. 0 62. 5 64. 0 87. 4 94. 2 83. 9 1.7 8 1.7 8 1.8 5 1.9 5 1.9 5 1.9 3 44.0 0 38.0 0 40.0 0 58.0 0 38.0 0 36.0 0

114. 7 104. 4 116. 4 175. 3 163. 8
«i a*

- 1/ 4 Ton PicKu

p 197 9 Chevrole t -J/ 1 * iU " 16. 6

16. 6 16. 6 16. 7 16. 6 100. 4 96. 5 96. 2 132. 2 132. 2 2.0 2 1.9 0 2.0 5 2.3 0 2.2 5

2.3 3 2.2 7 2.3 0 2.4 3 2.5 8 53.0 0 51.0 0 42.0 0 34.0 0 36.0 0

32.0 0 23.0 0 28

. O C 38 .O C 32.0 CP.6 6

197 9 Dodge Truck W15 0 Q An 1 8 2 120. 0 2.4 7 46.0 0

85098 8 U- 9 , ZP.6 7

Appendi x B

Fue l Consumptio n Weighting Dat aHIGHWA YUS E O F OASOLIN E B YMONTH S - IM S

fill ! F M I MCIUBB MH M IJ WINllll lJ

WMTM-tM lU l m UllNI I TM Uw-t *

IT» H

*t*N k l*I U kut w klI f0**1 A DIIMA M WU(1I» 1 Ilftttt M I m . M cat . llO«I M LiMti * ||AM*I I i l l 1*01 1 UMIA M ||0M * |l*aU I IHIIKI I laaiiiJM * |«*I M IMIUA M MttAcaattTT I •ItalU I | BIUIMT A M I i tmin t MIIMI 1 MITM * MIIAU A MVM A M M NMVMI M M wMMI I M WMi l It * H wvg u awt a CAioti M BMT I Min t M i a
a u JUM M aaico a MUITIUMI A • M M IM.M * (aul a tuati M taai M Mtat * Itultll t TIM t • t u atinoa l viMiai * «*MIMT M w « < viitui * WIKOMI B WMMI M

m a t
M*utt*& i

U 1*1 1 u toasuariiaa . t t •*taaa tl l taci t T M Mt t a a MCIMM 1 I I • l a ctat i H a •Mtaa i V

I I • I I l . » t •1 1 4 I I 14. 1 1. 1 1. 1 a . * 14. a u n . i u i * • • • I I II. • n I I i * • • i * u . • n n a n a i t i t i t « . • a i t t i u i t t t i i I I n u i * • t.t t

-

m i l l oa to r « < * M **i u t • i tVIT B lu a M W M

III.Il l 14.tl * iii.ta a •l.M I 144.11 1 i*?.li ? 14.11 1 It.M t 11.Il l III.It * lia.ii i I I . i n 14.14 ? 1*4.Il l III.M l 4*.14 1 14.14 1 11*.Il l 144.11 1 •a.14 a nt.t n III.11 4 II*.11 4 III.4* 1 II.Il l 141.Il l 11.41 1 41. m aa.aa t I I . i n II*.i n tt.aa a II*.14 1 1*1.14 1 ta.it * tti.at * it*.aa i ?t.tt t ttt.tl * ta.ii a ••••4 * ii.u a III.11 4 III.** * 4 1 . *» 4 14.11 1 iia.ta i IM.tl t II.aa * 1*4.44 1 II.** • a.aii.aa i

a.a *

*lt*II tIM ? » uiaai tf i flMM M

m.at a 14.11 1 iti.ti t 14.11 1 m.i* i ti. m it.ti t II.t n t»4 . a n t n .a n n . i n 14.44 1 tl*.H 4 II*.1* 4 aa.i w ai.a u 11.1* 4 laa.ti a 11.44 1 I14.lt ! 141 . H I It*.t n 114 . I M aa.4* t lit.t? i 14.44 1 ii.ia * ii.n t ta. m tit . u t •1.4* 1 •11.14 1 111.14 * II.Il l •••.ti l 114.11 4 11.Il l tit.Il l 11.11 * 111.1* 1 11.11 4 111.li t 4M.14 * I I . H I 11.11 1 •••.li t in. m 41.11 1 m . m it.II I i.M.n i

•.i t

- t l Taraw a a n U»T I NO

T awac a

lit.tt i i t . n t 114.11 4 •t.tl * til.li t lit.li t •l.ll l 11.11 ? 11.41 1 411.11 1 Ml.11 4 It.44 1 11.11 1 til.ti l 111.11 4 III.Il l •a.ia a III.M l 114.41 ? 11.ti l 141.41 ? 111.11 1 141.11 4 141.11 1 II.Il l 114.11 1 11.11 4
' ti.tt t it,ti t i i . u t tn.li t 11.1* 1 in.ii i 111.14 4 14.14 4 111.14 1 114.ti l 11.14 1 til.Il l 14.ti t 111.14 4 tl.ll l 1Tt.** * 111.Il l 11.41 1 •1.44 1 II*.ti t III.Il l 41.11 1 111.Il l 11.11 1 T.Ml.41 1

l.t l

•f-i* i aiv n et-fai tTJ U Wil l

141.ti t 14.11 * III.Il l 11.11 4 141.Il l III,ti l 111.Il l tt.lt ? 11.11 1 411.11 4 tit.1* 4 14.11 4 11.ti t 144 . U t 1*1.11 * IM.M t •I.li t •14.11 1 111.1* 1 'tl.ll l 111.4* 1 114.li t tll.t M II*.M l 11.44 1 I**.Il l It.Il l 14.11 * M.M 4 tl.ll l I H . 1* 1 11.Il l 11?.14 1 141.11 1 tl.ll l 1*1.11 * lll.lt * tl.ll l 111.1* 1 tl.ll l ltt.lt * II.Il l 114.14 1 41?.41 * 44.11 * 14,ti t til.Il l 111.ti t 44.41 4 141,11 4 tl.ll l •.iti.ti t

•.i t

« « •UUlII I Miaciu . • M M

ut.at a II.ti t n t , ti t ita.tt t •14,14 * 111,ti l 111.Il l 11.14 4 14.11 1 411.11 1 ll*.l« * 11.Il l It.Il l 4I1.I1 1 til.Il l in.ta t m.ti t 111.14 * i n . ta t 41.11 1 III.l» l 111.14 1 •11.11 1 1*4.Il l 111.M l 114.11 1 11.11 4 41.I M •1.11 1 14.11 ? IM.lI t ii.tt a 4Jl.lt ! 114.14 * 11.14 1 441.14 1 Ul.li t 1*1.•* • 111.41 4 tt.tt t 111.M l tl.tt l 111.41 1 111,11 * I4.M 1 11.M l 111.Il l II1.4 M tl.ll l llt.tt l 14.44 * l.MI.M l

•-• 1

I m MBIM- I a iMt l Hl i - _

Ut.lt l 11,11 1 lit.ti l 1 1 . 4 M Ml.ti l 114.Il l 111.Il l tt.tt t 14,11 1 111.14 4 141.11 1 14.11 1 tt.tt t •11,li t lit,li t It*.li t lll.M t lit.Il l 111.tt i •a.it * 144.1* 1 llt.tt l tll.t M 141.11 4 141.I M tti.li t 41.14 1 •T.tt t 41.11 1 1 1 .M t IM.tl t Tl.lt * 411.11 1 til.Il l lt.ll ] ttl.11 4 Ut.lt l IM.41 * •It.M l M.I M 111.tl * I t , M l It*.ti l Tll.t M It.Il l 11.11 4 IIt.tl ? •tt.tt t ?•.*? • III.Il l II.Il l

•.M*.* M

a . M

M t t l tai t

in.i n t.ii t m.i t t 111.11 4 l.lll.li t III . M l 111.11 4 11.Il l 11.11 1 111.Il l III.Il l II.M l 11.ti l 111.Il l 111.1* 1 llt.tt l 111.ti t lit.Il l III.41 1 M.ll l 111.11 4 III.ti l III.?* * •tl.lt ? IM.1 M tll.t M

-M.I M 11.11 * 4?.li t It.H I IM.tl t 41,11 1 til.Il l 111.ti l 11.11 1 III.It ? lit.li t III.14 ? Mt.tt l 14.11 1 111.1* 1 M.I M tit,ti t tit,ti t M.ll l 14.11 * IM.I1 I IM.I4 4 TI.M ! IM.tl t 11.41 1
*.M*.II I

* . M
aiMua * u t*a t iMMf t

ITI.IT t ll.at a in.tt i in.ti t I.MT.t M III.Il l Ill.M I 11.ti t 11.14 1 111 . T M tlt.lt * tl.t M 11.41 1 411.14 4 111.41 1 141.14 1 111,li t 141.11 1 114.*4 t M.I M 11*.M l Itt.M I IM.tl t •M.M I I M.ll l

. 144.M l •I.I M Tl.t M lt.* M 41,M t Ml.M l M.M t •Mult ? tll.t M 11.M l 414.M * III.I4 t lll.M t lll.M t M.M 4 141.11 * M.I M III.Il l til.Il l •t.M l M.I M

. IM.I M iai.a u 11.M l IM.Il l M.M I t.TM.M t

•.t a
Mauaiaiaa l tV'lNI . wnw i

i n .i n it.tt t IM.tt t M.It * •11.11 * lit.41 * tit.Il l 11.44 1 14.11 ! •tt.tt t III.41 1 M.M t M.M I tit.li t tM.M t II*.11 4 111,14 1 Itt.M I IM.Il l u . m 111.41 1 !•?.•« • •14.11 1 It?.It I M.I M til.Il l M.I M M.tt l II.* M M.M t 111.Il l tt.M l 4TI.41 1 Itl.M * 11.11 1 Itl.M ? 14*.I M 1*1.11 * M».I4 * II.M » Ill.M I

. M.ll l Ill.M I M l . M l •t.M ? M.I M III.** * IM.M * 41.11 1 II4.1 M M.M t a.M*.M l

a . M

• « •MI M t * taai l av-t * a ttal l

IM.Il l 1.41 1 lll.M t tt.t u •u. m lit.i« i III.H * 14.11 * 14.44 4 4M.M I 111.11 * M.M t I t . 11 4 111.41 * IM.Il l III.ti l iti.ti a 141.li t 111.41 1 44.44 1 1*1.14 4 ltt.lt * tit.Il l 141.4* 1 •(.II * Ill.M I tt.M l tt.M * M.M I II,li t Mt.t M M.M I ttt.*l * 141.14 * M.4I I M l . tt i Itt.M I 11.11 1 Ml.H I 11.44 1 111.41 1 It.Il l Mt.tt l 1*1.11 1 •t.ll t tt.!! ! 114.14 4 IM.tl t tt.t u lit.14 ! tl.tt l •.M*.» M

* . M IM.M t

It.l M III.li t M.ll l •M.I M IM.I M M.I M I t.ti t ll.lt ! IM.tl t IM.Il l 14 . I M tl.tt l ttt.tt t IM.tl t IM.Il l a*.M a •it.i n I?I.i n .14.M l ua.I M iat.it * Ml.Il l III.Il l tl.t M IM.I M tt.tt t M.M * M.* M M.M * •ll.lt * M.M * II*.41 * It*.M l tt.M l IM.I M 141,ti t M.M * Ml.ti t I t . » M III.li t 11.ti t 111.1* 1 M l .I M 41.11 ? 14.11 4 lit.Il l lit.ti t M.I M IM.I M It,II I T.MI.I M

t . M Mctttat a

IM.M t i t.li t llt.t M t l .I M •M.It ? M.M t M.M * M.I M IS.li t Mt.lt t lll.M t 14.11 * tl.ll l 11*.ti t 114.11 1 M.it r I t M

l.tlt.M I Itt.M I 1 . lll.M t I.Mt.M I M.Mt.14 1 I.IM.t* * l.llt.M I Mt.t M IM.tl t i.Ma.ti t I.tit.n * IM.I M 411.1* 1 *.lll.?t ? l.MI.li t 1.Ill.M I

•l.M I I.III.I M llt.tt l I.1*4.41 1 1*1.11 1 1.1*1.I M M.M I Mt.lt t 141.4 M Ill.M I tll.t M Itt.M I tl.t M itt.ta i 14.18 1 u . m tt.ti a M.M * •Tt.aa a M.M * •ti.at a lit.at t I I . M l IM.M ! tll.t M tl.t M •11.11 1 tt.lt * II*.Il l II.I M 111.11 1 IM.M * *i.aa * ia.*t » Itl.M ? 111.41 1 M.I M llt.t M 11.11 ! f.BM.at a

t . M 1.111.14 4

1.tti.IT ? 1.til.Il l l.ail.n a l.lll.li t 1.414.41 1 41*.ti t IM.Il l Itl.M * IM.Il l l.lll.li t lll.M t a.in.i M I.III.I M Mt.t M 1 . IM.I M I.??*.ti l I.I4I.*? 4 I.IM.41 1 ltt.tt t 1.414.?? ! 111.4* 1 1.lit.Il l •.111.14 ? •M.M I 111.1* 4 t.411.41 4 1.111.14 1 111.11 1 l.MI.ti t ttt.tl l M.MI.Il l

IM. M CBJka M

lio n til t
aatta u •

— » tt.tt i •M.M t M.M I '1.41 1 IIJ.II I •it . t n it.ti * i t . ? n - i n ttt.ti i M.tt l I t ! 11.11 1 111.li t tl.ll l 11.ti l

-11.11 * II.li t U.tl ? It.ll l t.at i ti. m •it . n t tt.ll t 11.11 * M.ll l II.ti l -t.tl l 1* 1 It.ll l III.Il l I M •at.tt * M.ll l •l.ll l It.ll l -tt.ll t -It ! tt.ll t -t.tt t tl.ll l -t.tl l •II.li t 1*1.t* l t.ll t l.ll l 81.Il l •l.lt t -11.41 * 11.11 4 -14.11 1 l.MI.ti l

- r u -

t i n

-l. l t . l * . t t.l -l. t 1. 1 * . ? •1. 1 1. 1 l . t 1. 1 1. 1 >. > 1 . * 1. 1 l . t I t 1 . * l . l t . l 1. 4 -I. * l . t l . l 1. 4 l . l -l. l t . l l . l l . t l . l ••-,.; • t . l *. » -l. t -*. l l . l -l. t l . t -l. l -1. * 1 . * 1 . * 1 . * t . l l . t -l. t l . l -1. 4
l . t

-
tai l un . i n latai u l a taat i M- M wit * aa TMM I wit a n m M M * IIM I » M aat tMait ttau tM-IM *MHICT I MM I uuTa u **•?>!!* : j * MM I i t w i I M M M vauaa * A M cmttiu . IITMMI I m
—• * • • M M CMI II II MIIMI MaitlM* T AMIBlIIUTIM . I M '••Mil l MT * M CMI I I I B IMt l Hf-I . I MT M Mil ll tiMi i niTtttara M • BT-UTT . na mWT B MIIM HMTI I. t u t T M*TM ITMI M*MBCII I1M B Mai * MMi lCM*Mlf

KM MTM It M II I( I M mai n it * I B M M •Titif!" * ***• M l *** 1 1a a a a

9 z w i n t> o u u o K l m

o CA J 3

- J C O o

O

> 8 I « < O u i < oiootfiaTOOoauiinoooooaiAoaoaootftoooooommoooaooinaoinoooooooK ) uiianiomnininiAiAnAiniAininiAtnminiAiAtniAiAftiAiAtniAt n oioiaiflMuioooininoinuiainoiflaoaooiniAOininoaoininooioiAOOiAifliniAiooooooini n Oii)nn"nnitiiAii)nniflnni(iniAnifli(iijijiijinnijinniflAiAn>.ii)iAnniAiAnnnnniiiiAii)iAijin> - OioinoiAi/iifltfiiAU)ininin«ininininininiAinininirii^iAinioiAininoinininui « yifl^wo^^wrtrt^^n^Picj^n^rtnnEnnn^w^wnno^own'Ownn^n^^wflnrtrt^ *
QlflinOQOlfllfllfllAlAlAQtAtnQiAiriiAAiAiAl/lininiflQAIfllAlAQai/t ^ UII A——too * —— ———O —— o ——o —o o — — — —o —»nnoon - o —o o —o — o o —o ———o — lAOOOoauiifluiieouioiAooiAOiniAiniAinoaoaoaiAiflaoiflinooiAinoooooiiiiAifiiAinoi A 3noo»oo»--»o-o--o-o-----oooooo--«o--o o —ooooo - o - iti«oaooiAini(iiniiiitiOtAiAOiAiAinininiiiiAOi(ioaiflOiAiAOOin^oai(iiflinoiAOOiAiAinininoi A 3o-aa»oo------ a —-o---. —--o-oa-o--3>a--o o o-o o —-- - —o - lAinieoooiniflinifliAinoiAinoiflinininininmiAiAOQiniAiAinooinmoif l \ti m inoinooi/iiniAiflinoi n 3fl--tO O O'- O -OO " 0IO-- O o-oo - o - oinmoiAtfiiAiAiAiflininintAtAiAtAintAiAininiAifliAiAinifliAt t < tfl ——o —

—o —o—

—— ——o ———oooo o ——— — —oooooo o —oo o ———o ——oooo —~ oiaiaoienintttflMtnMiAwiniAiAiArtinttiflttMifltftAtntflr t ilf t——

O ——WOW

— —0. 0 O O —O —OOOOOOOOOOOOO O —o o —ooooo o —oooooo o — oin«ii0iAouonuioi«eaio«imooaooi«iflQOiflooQiAiiiooii)iAooutoiAiAiniAOOoooi A <ieo o —ooinoi/iooinoinioooommioioiflooiniooinioin—-ifliflooiflifloiA O —ooinioiflioift o«iBT*nioooQOtfiinooooaoifloooooau)oainoooininoow)oooiAOinifloooooooi n uiiAnmoniniAiniAnoininifliniAiAoiAiAiAtntiiiAoiAiAOiAViinoointfotnuaiAoiflooiniAint t oinoioiAOOooiainooooooKiooaoooiAOOooooinooaaoooKiooKioooaoooi n <!AOiAnoini<)iAinooiniAiAiAininoiniAin^iniAoiAiAiAiAiniflOiniAininiflininoifliAoiAintoi n Htj«N<ohujj<<ojnfl><<Qu-io«Ksuor"i»>>i*it<-uatx><i--z>> < «i<<<<uuuaand»"»»i«Jiiiiiiiizzzzzzzzaoo4tviinhi.3>>iiit t

a t c

—«n«lfl(8S( 00)O - Nn»Kl«Ml«Q-Nn«JliOM90 - NO«tniflf»S)0» O —NOTIfl<0r»«« O —(*

——— — —— —-NNNNNNnNNNnnnBonnnnniiitfttTiie* *-£.7 0

Q l I t a

OtMnao t

O C B o r » o r » O

t Ztfl « 0 <09 9 A)

O < 0 c o t » r » r » *

a i P I g o C to C O — </ i r » c e r » «or>. r »
3 e o —•m o o < p . C tc o c o c o ^

C O zjaonsn a i/i 3 r » c

o c o e o o o e n 11- 1 c

o •Q o UZ * T

»NI f t »P l 3 r > c o c o r » r » < 0 i . n o tf) >lDt«P)N 9 c o < < o c o (• •< o f* fl

o a to o ? » f » »• •o Nimootvif l < j 3

- ) a tI O O —

—N C O c < • » r « t o «J

T•« T o a a o « B tfl* N- ? »• c nu«rsini0iA « zn««at a * » < »< o *>* > m e

o •-> e

o Q . ZIUU1BUS S i o OZVIVIZL Z

—U J I I I I I I a« - M O « i

o*

a c - No* t

o( 0r »P.7 1

-58

- Referencej
. Refueling

— " rtf Vehicl e * SA E stud yo f ^ , j campion , Experimenta l Jt uY Raym0 n d J .

. . "A

n Expe , L Hochhause r Emissions / ^ W

^ 7 6
- „ servi c e Statio nVapo ^
PaP e r No . 760 3 se r ptoc edur e „ -Testin go ^ a cali forni » * » M-J . Doughert y o £ 2 : sv stem

OV. 1 " Memorandu m « ° n0l l C ° " " W " Tecnn ^sear= nDepartment , 

# SiA/a-" - •«

• „,„ „ s u

# -SP- E ..Expansio

n°* 60/3 . 76 -00 6 U-S M«*li»«,JS.VV97S

. t vsy ste mCertified 0 " IcTD

. Septembe r

^ ^R^ 6Jun ? I 982 '

• • • scr^^enta , -nnology

. Ba lance„Sys

-
^ r . . Servic e t Sta^ r s t R e O , r ^o. g . neerin g Hoonnause r

" v , 7 6 . Measurin g V ^ company . W 1 * * I O ° eaU , L« 7 6 ' JUl Y

"Evaluatio no t Ucatl o . iNo

. ^ fuelin g Emissions

. Recovery , ^f. l 2 , 1914 , R• astatio nvay ral iforn^

- Ma t Researc han a 7

- ^"nc eDiamon dBa« • £» „ Divis-n , Syste m*«\°TMiiel dCompan y" ° feSiSi^" - " 7 ^

_ l eDevelopmen t «-„ . SR E ••vapo r M<=° v c etY H .J

. « l I " e s ' .esti ^•* 3 .rM a S-' , W ' 4

- . Ef£ec t tn e£-£,*

.

—J 0

- .. . Stud yo L -ria D leS g -^mo D iles

. .

-ft-p dDurin g t » placemen t Vapo r *^te dig75 . Dl9 n P d u B fro m CEA-21

. Ma

yi° » wffic ienc y o t , Memorandum •« ; Contro l Eff * T s» Technica l> Co n.pan Y o r "Vapo r

c ° lStations , Un i o n0 1 1 1 0* a t TW O Servic e Departm ent , System s a t

ReS earc » M^J

. ° o U f

Teptem.e r

22 , 1975

. Em ission a« * California , Se p Emis sio nW* ' stat ion

. Ha y Pollutio n, * Exxo nR e " , , IQ75

. 

# MM ^ M^rssrcA. . -.« - California .P.7 2

-59

-
12
. "Ai r Pollutio nEmissio nTest : Emission s fro m Gasolin e Marketing Operation s a t Standard Oi l o f Californi a Retai l Station , Davis , California, " U.S . EPA , OAWM , OAQPS , EMB , Ma y1975
. 13
. "On-Board Contro l o f Vehicl e Refueling Emissions : Demonstratio no f Feasibility, " AP I Publicatio nNo . 4306 , Octobe r 1978
. 14
. "Vapo r Contro l Concepts, " M.W . Lieferman , in "Vehicl e Refueling Emission s Seminar, " AP I Publicatio nNo . 4222 , Decembe r 1973
. 15
. " AChroni c Inhalatio nStud yWit hUnleade d Gasolin e Vapor, " Journa l o f the AmericanColleg e o f Toxicology , American Petroleu

mInstitute , 1984
. 16
. "Compilatio no f Ai r Pollutan t Emissio nFactors, " (AP-42) , U . S . EPA , OAWM , OAQPS , 1977
. 17
. "Investigatio no f Passenge r Ca r Refueling Losses, " APTD-1453 , Scot t Researc hLab s for EPAan d CRC , September , 1972
. 18
. "Utilityo f Reactivit yCriteri a i nOrgani c Emissio n Contro l Strategie s for Lo s Angeles, " Fina l Report , EPAContrac t No . 68-02-1735 , December , 1975
. 19
. "Phas e I I Vapo r Recover yEvaluatio nProgram, " Sout h Coas t Ai r Qualit yManagemen t District , c.1980
. 20
. "Summar

yan d Analysi s o f Dat a Fro m Gasolin e Temperatur e SurveyConducte d a t Servic e Station s b yAPI " (AP I Publicatio nNo . 4278) , RadianCorporation , 1976
. 21
. "Standard D439-83, " Annua l Book o f ASTMStandards , Par t 23 , America nSociet yfor Teiting an d Materials , 1983
. 22
. "Diges t o f Stat e Inspectio nLaw s - Petroleu m Products, " Fourt hEdition , AP I Publicatio n926 , 1985
. 23
. "Motor ' Gasolines , Winte r 1933-84 " (NIPER-13 5 PP S 84/3) , U.S . DOE , Nationa l Institut e for Petroleu m an d Energ

y Research(NIPER) , June , 1984
. 24
. "Moto r Gasolines , Summe r 1984 " (NIPER-13 8 PP S 85/1) , U.S . DOE , NIPER , February , 1985
.