P.1 

OAR Box 1819 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

161) IV-D-175 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/10/2008 8:57:01 AM Sheet 161 of 348 
P.2 

Multinational Business Services. Inc. 

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W. 

Washington, D. C. 20036 

U. S. A. (202) 293-5886 

Regulatory and Trade 

Counsellors 

January 6, 1987 

The Hon. J. Craig Potter 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation 

Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street , SW.Room 937 W 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Mr. Potter: 

Multinational Business Services ("MBS") has begun a study of the cost impacts 

of onboard vapor recovery controls in conjunction with the consulting 

engineering firm of Mueller Associates, Inc. ("MAI"). MBS is contributing its 

expertise in regulatory analysis and economics and MAI is contributing its 

expertise in mechanical engineering, production engineering, and cost 

estimating. The study is being sponsored by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers 

Association of the United States, Inc. and the Automobile Importers of America, 

Inc. 

An important initial step in this study is the design of a practical 

representative onboard system that could be added on to models already fully 

designed, and a system that could be incorporated into models to be designed in 

the future. These designs will form the basis for estimating capital (or "upfront") costs and unit costs for implementing onboard controls. 

MBS and MAI, in consultation with experts from many domestic and foreign auto 

manufacturers, have prepared designs for such representative "add-on" and 

"clean sheet" systems. We are enclosing these designs for your review, and we 

invite your comments. 

You will find that these designs differ in some respects from designs which 

have previously appeared in various studies and papers. The text accompanying 

the designs explains those differences and why they are deemed necessary. We 

feel that the designs are based on a realistic appraisal of vapor recovery 

effectiveness factors, safety requirements, and driveability and durability 

concerns; however, we do not claim to have completely resolved all the problems 

faced by onboard systems in those areas. 

Since the designs incorporate a number of valves, solenoids, filters and other 

parts that may need periodic maintenance or replacement, we also plan to 

evaluate such needs and the associated costs for including onboard controls in 

I&M programs. We would appreciate any comments you might have on this aspect 

of the study as well. 

Trade & Finance Center*. 11 Dupont Circle, Washington Telex.* 499 3870 MBS UI 

European Office: Hamburg, West Germany (40) 220-4277 

Far East Office: Tokyo, Japan (03)423-1851 
P.3 

V 

ENV,noNMENTA'LpaftTt 

Ar^rv

ROTBCr'ON 

JM' 2 5 sny 
^ Multinational Business Services, Inc. 

- 2 -

The next step io -j>ur? study will be to estimate the unit costs for the various 

components of the representative designs. After that, we will examine how to 

fit the representative add-on design to certain specific models and then 

estimate the costs for any necessary modifications and fittings. Four models 

have been selected for this exercise: The Honda Civic Station Wagon, the Dodge 

Shadow Sedan, the Ford Taurus V-6 Sedan, and the Chevrolet Caprice V-6 Sedan. 

We believe these four models, intended to represent the subcompact, compact, 

intermediate, and large car classes, should provide a basis from which to 

extrapolate the approximate capital costs to individual manufacturers for 

modifying models which have already been designed. 

Included in the package with the representative designs is the methodology that 

we plan to use to estimate the costs for adding the representative systems onto 

the specific models. 

As you will observe, we have devoted considerable effort to developing a sound 

technical foundation for this study. Therefore, we and MAI request that you 

and your staff meet with us soon to discuss these designs and the cost 

methodology. We will contact you shortly to arrange a mutually satisfactory 

time for such a meeting. 

Sincerely, 

William G. *y\yyjyt '* 

Enclosure 
P.5 

ONBOARD REFUELING VAPOR RECOVERY 

COST STUDY 

REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM DESIGNS 

SYSTEM COMPONENTS 

COST METHODOLOGY 

DECEMBER 1986 

MUELLER 

ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Consulting Engineers 

1401 S. Edgewood Street 

Baltimore, Maryland 21227 

Multinational Business Services, Inc. 

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N..W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 
P.6 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM DESIGNS 

Mechanical Seal Onboard Refueling System Design 

Liquid Seal Onboard Refueling System Design With 

Dual Canisters 

"Clean-Sheet" Design 

SYSTEM COMPONENTS 

Nozzle Seal/Relief Valve Assembly (Mechanical Seal) 

Refueling Vapor Vent Valve Assembly 

Anti-Spitback Gate Assembly 

Refueling Vent Shutoff Valve and Condensate 

Return Check ValveVapor/Liquid Separator 

Activated Carbon Canister 

COST METHODOLOGY 30 

Page 

1 

3 

4 

8 

12 

14 

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 
P.7 

INTRODUCTION 

This document describes three generic onboard refueling 

vapor recovery systems and their key components. These systems 

have been synthesized based upon meeting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) draft testing procedures for both 

refueling vapor recovery as well as the normal fuel tank 

evaporative emissions expected from vehicle operation in the 

field. In addition, extensive use was made of previous research 

and studies regarding refueling vapor recovery. However, what is 

presented in the following pages represents considerable thought 

and effort beyond the detail level of systems that have previously been presented in the available literature. This additional 

effort has been aimed at gathering insight from the automotive 

manufacturers and automotive hardware suppliers on the design 

options of the candidate systems and at developing more detailed 

designs of the system components representative of high-volume 

automotive production. 

Previous systems often looked at specific aspects of 

operation, for example, the generation of vapor volumes using 

different fuel pipe seal configurations. However, most of those 

systems were not specified to the detail necessary to meet all 

the practical, real-world problems faced by an onboard refueling 

vapor recovery system, or the constraints posed by implementation 

within the vehicle structure. For instance, integrity of the 

fuel system (onboard vapor recovery system components would be 

considered part of the fuel system) is paramount from not only 

component placement considerations on the vehicle, but from the 

component design perspective as well. 

Regulatory constraints will also influence the design of 

onboard refueling vapor control systems. For example, some 

states currently require the filler tube to accommodate Stage II 

refueling nozzles, even though Stage II systems would be rendered 

redundant for those vehicles having onboard vapor recovery 

systems. It is presumed that for some unspecified time period, 

vehicles with onboard refueling vapor recovery systems would 

still have to comply with Stage II nozzle requirements because of 

the time required to change state laws, because implementation of 

onboard refueling vapor controls may be done on a phased-in 

approach, and because some classes of vehicles (e.g., medium and 

heavy duty, spark ignition trucks) may not be required to use 

onboard refueling vapor controls (meaning that Stage II systems 

may not be abandoned in some areas even if onboard refueling 

vapor controls are implemented on light duty vehicles). 

Properties of fuels likely to be encountered in the future 

were also considered in the design of the onboard refueling 

system components--all the elastomers chosen are those compatible 

with alcohol-gasoline fuel blends. 
P.8 

All the_ practical^ real-world considerations of design, 

manufacture and vehicle integration have been taken into account 

to the extent that is possible given the current status of 

onboard vapor recovery system development and engineering 

knowledge. 

The systems have been developed to a level that will permit 

the estimation of their cost using standard industrial engineering approaches. This includes the overall dimensions of system 

components and subcomponents, the material the components/ 

subcomponents are to be fabricated from, and other related information. Sketches of the developed components follow descriptions of their purpose, operation, location on the vehicle, and 

materials used for construction. 

The hardware described within this document will be used as 

a basis for further developing the costs to the automobile industry and the consumer of implementing onboard vapor control systems for light duty vehicles. Of major concern is the capital 

cost portion that will have to be invested by the industry prior 

to the manufacture of vehicles containing the onboard systems. 
P.9 

REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM DESIGNS 
P.10 

Mechanical Sea 1 Onboard. Refueling System Design 

A. System Operation/Design Considerations 

The primary feature of this system is the mechanical nozzle 

seal which prevents any fuel vapors from escaping during refueling. When refueling, the gasoline vapors are routed from the 

tank through the nozzle-actuated vent valve, through the vapor/ 

liquid separator, then to the onboard canister. Control of 

evaporative emissions during vehicle operation between refuelings, is accomplished by a typical design evaporative emission 

control system using a pressure/vacuum valve to minimize vapor 

generation (fuel weathering) by slightly pressurizing the fuel 

tank. Evaporative fuel vapors are routed to the onboard refueling canister. In most cases, a single canister would be used for 

both refueling and evaporative emission control. However, in 

some vehicles, space availability and/or fuel system design may 

dictate the use of two separate canisters. If two canisters are 

used, the refueling and evaporative functions may or may not be 

separated. 

Safety pressure relief valves are built into the mechanical 

seal and the vapor loss seal to vent liquid gasoline back out the 

filler pipe in the event of a nozzle shut-off failure. The 

safety pressure relief valves are constructed so that the gasoline will flow out at low velocity much as it would with a nozzle 

failure event with a conventional, current vehicle fuel system; 

that is, the person dispensing the fuel would not be sprayed by a 

high-velocity stream of gasoline. 

A liquid shut-off valve is used with this system to control 

the fill level in the tank. Also, as with current designs, 

ullage space is always required to accommodate liquid expansion. 

The liquid shut-off valve is actuated by the rising level of 

gasoline in the tank during refueling. When the desired fill 

level has been achieved, the vent to the canister is closed, 

causing dispensed gasoline to fill the filler tube, actuating the 

nozzle shut-off mechanism. The liquid shut-off valve also incorporates a one-way valve for the line from the vapor/liquid 

separator. 
p.11 

The filler cap inthis system would have to be a pressure/ 

vacuum type* serving the function of safety vent valve under both 

pressure and vacuum conditions. The nozzle safety pressure 

relief valves would have to be set at an opening pressure lower 

than the filler cap for this system to operate properly. The 

vapor seal valve should offer low resistance to vacuum, assuring 

the filler cap limits vacuum build-up in the tank. 

This system uses a mechanical refueling vapor vent valve 

actuated by nozzle insertion to vent the tank to the refueling 

canister during refueling. The mechanical vent valve has a fuel 

shut-off valve to prevent liquid gasoline from being pumped into 

the vapor/liquid separator (or even the refueling canister) in 

the event of a refueling nozzle shut-off failure. When the 

mechanical vent valve is closed, it prevents gasoline from traveling to the canister in the event of a vehicle rollover, thus 

performing the function of a rollover valve. 

Some vehicle fuel systems maintain pressure in the fuel tank 

whenever the conditions are such that vapor is evolved from the 

gasoline. The pressure is dissipated when refueling by removal 

of the fuel tank cap. The loss of hydrocarbons from tank 

pressurization is estimated to be about 10% of total refueling 

losses (for mechanical seal systems) under worst case conditions 

only for those systems which retain fuel tank pressure under all 

the conditions which favor vapor generation. (This loss would be 

less on a percentage basis for liquid seal systems because of the 

larger amount of vapor produced with liquid seal systems.) 

Because of the variable requirement for containing the 

hydrocarbons from tank pressurization, and the small relative 

impact, hardware to contain this potential loss was not included 

in the generic system design for costing purposes at this time. 

The current onboard vapor recovery test procedure proposed by the 

EPA does not address the loss of hydrocarbons from tank 

pressurization when the fuel cap is removed before refueling. 

A vapor/liquid separator is located between the vent valve 

and the canister to prevent any liquid gasoline from reaching the 

canister. A line is provided from the vapor/liquid separator 
P.12 

back to the .tank to return any liquid gasoline and/or condensate 

to the fuel- tank. 

An anti-spitback gate is used to prevent any potential 

gasoline loss through the safety pressure relief valves from 

gasoline traveling up the filler tube at high velocity because of 

filling dynamics. This valve is located at the end of the filler 

neck in the tank. This type of valve is currently used on some 

vehicles. 

This system assumes a fuel injected engine, so venting of 

the fuel system in the engine compartment is not a concern. It 

also assumes that purging would be accomplished using 

microprocessor control. A single electric solenoid purge valve 

controls the flow of the purge stream into the engine. The 

solenoid valve may have to have increased flow capacity and the 

microprocessor purge control logic altered to accommodate higher 

purge flow rates to adequately purge the onboard canister while 

minimizing driveability and exhaust emission effects. 

B. Hardware Items Unchanged From Current Vehicle Fuel Systems 

• Rollover valve. 

• Tank vent and/or pressure/vacuum valve. 

• Filler cap (unless not already a pressure/vacuum type). 

• Filler tube anti-spitback gate (if used). 

C. Hardware Items Requiring Revision 

• Filler tube (attachment of mechanical vent valve). 

• Tank (addition of liquid shut-off valve opening). 

• Canister (size and location) to accommodate both 

refueling emissions and diurnal evaporative emissions. 

• Microprocessor program revision to accommodate expanded 

purge control strategy. 

• Purge solenoid valve (increased, flow capacity). 
PURGE, TO ENGINE 

VAPOR/LIQIHD SEPARATOR 

SOLENOID PURGE VALVE 

NOZZLE ACTUATED VENT VALVE 

MECHANICAL NOZZLE SEAL 

EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS AND 

REFUELING VAPOR CARBON CANISTER 

ROLLOVER VALVE/ PRODUCTION VENT ASSEMBLY 

ANTI-SPITBACK GATE 

CONDENSATE CHECK VALVE AND 

LIQUID SHUT-OFF VALVE 

W VT OltCmPTKM MATtMAL •PIC***' 

REFUELING VAPOR RECOVERY 

MECHANICAL NOZZLE SEAL 

MUELLER ASSOCIATES. WC MlUa-IPf. MP 

»ATHl/*B/gfc[»CAH: NONE | |>A*M 1 Ot I 

CO 
Liquid Seal -Onboa.rd Refueling System Design With Dual Canisters 

A. System Operation/Design Considerations 

This system incorporates two canisters primarily because a 

carbureted fuel system is assumed and the carburetor float bowl 

hot soak evaporative emissions need to be accommodated. In 

addition, the system assumed here uses a liquid seal to obtain a 

cost estimate in comparison to a mechanical seal system. The 

original evaporative fuel system is retained (though sized to 

handle 11.5 RVP fuel) to control evaporative and running losses. 

The second canister is devoted to controlling refueling emissions. The systems are separated because back pressure during 

refueling could potentially force vapors backward through the 

carburetor vent and out the air cleaner assembly. . 

The prominent design feature of this system is the liquid 

seal. The flow of gasoline down the filler tube is assumed to 

create a slight vacuum, drawing fuel vapor and a small amount of 

air with it which prevents much of the refueling vapor from 

escaping up the filler tube. The liquid seal is formed through a 

tube shape similar to a "plumbing trap." The major advantages of 

the liquid seal are its relative simplicity compared to a mechanical seal and a resultant potential lower cost. A major 

disadvantage of liquid seal systems is that more gasoline vapor 

is generated per gallon of fuel dispensed in comparison to mechanical seal systems. The increase is believed to be caused by 

increased fuel agitation and the addition of small amounts of air 

drawn into the tank during refueling. Mechanical seal systems 

physically prevent any loss of refueling vapors and cause less 

fuel agitation because vapor and air are not being drawn into the 

tank with the fuel. Thus, to contain refueling emissions, a 

larger canister and vapor/liquid separator would be required for 

liquid seal systems relative to the same vehicle fuel system 

using a mechanical seal. The amount of vapor increase for liquid seal systems relative to mechanical seal systems is believed 

to be around 50% based on recent test data (SAE Paper No. 861551) 

from internal and external liquid seals, and from a production 
P.15 

fillpipe. T-he onboard_refueling canister for a liquid seal 

system would therefore have to be made correspondingly larger in 

volume compared to the same system using a mechanical seal. 

Liquid seal systems need a minimum height between the filler 

tube entrance to the dispensing point inside the fuel tank to 

work properly. Some vehicles would require major relocation of 

their filler tube relative to the tank to attain the minimum 

height. Those vehicles would probably have to use a mechanical 

seal system in the interim until a major redesign of the body is 

done, because of the cost of redesign. Thus, the decision on 

which system to use depends on many factors that may not be 

readily obvious. 

Liquid seal systems are attractive in that they present no 

change in refueling procedure from that presently required for 

vehicles using unleaded fuel. Compared to liquid seal systems, 

mechanical seal systems are likely to have a "nuisance factor" 

associated with nozzle insertion. 

Proper operation of liquid seal systems is dependent on 

consistent dispensing fuel pump flow within the proper range of 

flow rates. In order for a liquid seal to work at its best 

effectiveness requires a constant gasoline flow at a rate high 

enough to keep the J-tube filled and to draw vapors released in 

the filler tube into the fuel tank. A flow rate which is too 

high may cause repeated, premature shut-offs to occur. (EPA has 

suggested a 10 gallon/minute maximum flow rate from gasoline 

dispensers to address this issue.) A flow rate which is too low 

may allow gasoline vapors to escape back out the filler tube 

during refueling. 

A variant of the liquid seal approach is the so-called "noseal" system where the present filler tube system is retained 

without modification in conjunction with an onboard refueling 

canister. This approach was not considered because of its dubious control efficiency, its potential for spitback, and minimal 

cost savings over a liquid seal design. 

A liquid shut-off valve is used to control the fill level in 

the tank, just as in the single canister system. The refueling 
P.16 

vapors are routed, through the mechanical vent valve to the vapor 

liquid separator. The mechanical vent valve is required to allow 

pressurization of the tank during operation (to retard vapor 

formation) and serves as a rollover valve for the line to the 

vapor/liquid-separator. 

The vapor/liquid separator is required to remove entrained 

droplets from the refueling vapors and channel them back to the 

fuel tank along with any condensed vapors. A check valve in the 

condensate line (located in the liquid shut-off valve) prevents 

back flow of vapor and/or liquid from the tank. 

Each canister requires its own purge line to the engine. 

Purge is assumed to be microprocessor controlled. A single purge 

solenoid is assumed to be able to control the purge from both 

canisters, though with increased flow capacity. Purge rates from 

each canister would be controlled using orifices and line backpressure. However, revised purge logic and memory requirements 

are assumed to be required to adequately purge the canisters 

without adverse impact on driveability and/or exhaust emissions. 

A liquid seal system will be more sensitive to refueling 

system backpressure. Therefore, the refueling vent line, mechanical vent valve, vapor/liquid separator, and refueling canister 

must all be sized larger than their mechanical seal counterparts. 

B. 

C. 

Hardware Items Unchanged From Current Vehicle Fuel Systems 

Rollover valve. 

Pressure/vacuum valve in evaporative emission purge line. 

ardware Items Requiring Revision 

Tank (Provision for liquid shut-off valve). 

Filler tube (addition of nozzle-actuated mechanical vent 

valve). 

Resized evaporative canister to accommodate 11.5 RVP 

fuel. 

Microprocessor program modified to accommodate revised 

purge strategy. 

Solenoid purge valve (increased flow capacity). 

10 
(T 

REFUELING VAPOR 

CARBON CANISTER 

SOLENOID 

PURGE VALVE 

VAPOR/LIQUID SEPARATOR 

LIQUID SHUT-OFF VALVE 

AND CONDENSATE CHECK VALVE 

LEAD RESTRICTOR DOOR 

NOZZLE ACTUATED VENT VALVE 

EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS 

CARBON CANISTER 

J-BEND LIQUID SEAL 

PURGE, TO ENGINE ROLLOVER VALVE/PRODUCTION VENT ASSEMBLY 

T T W 

J9S. 

PHCt»TKm I MATKNIAL 

REFUELING VAPOR RECOVERY 

LIQUID SEAL SYSTE M 

MUELLER ASSOCIATIS. WC MWow . MP 

BATHl/lt/OfchCAtl. NQ N £ | " |>A'M t or Y 
P.18 

"Clean-Sheet" Design 

A. System Operation/Design Considerations 

The clean-sheet design operates in principle the same as a 

mechanical seal system. The major difference is that the vent 

valve, rollover valve, evaporative vent, and the vapor/liquid 

separator are all integrated into a single assembly. This 

reduces the number of separate components required, requires one 

less hole in the tank, reduces inventory and assembly costs, and 

makes the system less susceptible to damage in a collision. The 

clean sheet design represents an optimum design approach which 

would be best accommodated by a -phased-in approach to 

incorporation in new vehicle designs should onboard refueling 

vapor containment be required by EPA regulations. The previous 

two designs are more typical of optimum transition systems which 

would be applied to present design light duty vehicles. Though 

the system sketch displays electrical actuation of the vent valve 

of the clean-sheet design, vacuum and mechanical (via bowden 

cable) actuation are also possible. A single canister is shown 

as part of the clean-sheet schematic diagram on the following 

page. However, some vehicles may find it advantageous to use 

more than one canister because of volume constraints in the 

vehicle. 

B. Hardware Items Unchanged From Current Vehicle Fuel Systems 

• Filler tube vent line. 

• Anti-spitback gate (if used). 

C. Hardware Items Requiring Revision 

• Refueling Cap. 

• Filler Tube (addition of mechanical seal and evaporative 

seal) . 

• Canister size and location. 

• Microprocessor program to accommodate revised purge 

logic. 

12 
SOLENOID PURGE VALVE 

PURGE, TO ENGINE 

VENT VALVE, ROLLOVER VALVE, 

EVAPORATIVE VENT AND 

VAPOR/LIQIUD SEPARATOR 

INTEGRATED ASSYT , 

12 VDCVENT VALVE 

SOLENOID 

DESIGN ULLAGE 

ACTIVATED 

CARBON CANISTER 

CAP-ACTIVATED 

SWITCH 

^6A P 

MECHANICAL 

NOZZLE SEAL 

FILLER TUBE VENT LINE 

ANTI-SPITBACK GATE 

wr OltCMPTIOM 

REFUELING VAPOR RECOVERY 

CLEAN SHEET DESIGN 

MUBLLtn ASSOCIATES. IMC MHI«PW, MO , 

BAT! H/tt/9t)| »CAH. NONE I F*— I Q*H . 
P.20 

SYSTEM COMPONENTS 

14 
P.21 

Nozzle Seal/Relief Valve Assembly (Mechanical Seal) 

Purpose: To prevent fuel vapors from escaping to the atmosphere during refueling. 

Operation: When the nozzle is inserted through this device, a 

seal is maintained around the nozzle to prevent fuel 

vapors from escaping to the atmosphere. A safety 

pressure relief valve is incorporated into the seal 

to vent gasoline back out the filler pipe in the 

event of a nozzle shut-off failure. 

Location: Entrance of filler pipe. 

Materials: Terne-plated steel; Neoprene and Buna-N elastomers 

15 
i RIVET. 

TYP. 2 PLACES 

51 

DETAIL B 

FLAPPER VALVE 

SEE DETAIL.'B' 

m 

3D*" TYP 

BOTTOM 

VIEW TOP VIEW 

l r 

1.38 

. _4_ . 

j x d xm. 

|

 L kJgj^=Li 

LOO 

REt= 

SECT. A-A 

NOTES: 

^REMOV E ALL BURRS AMO SHAR P EOGES. 

.01 R MAX. OR CHAMFER. 

^ ROTARY SHAFT SEAL I "i A PURCHASED 

PART. CART MO. TB P. 

A 

1 UPPE R RETAINER 

\ 

SSTAff to TO) 

VALVE F1_APPER 

ROTARY SHAFT SEAL 

LOWE.R RETAINE R 

OESCRIPTION 

STEEL. 

VITON 

STEEL. 

PURCHASED 

•*>ICH>. 

NOZZL E SEAL/RELIE F VALV E 

ASSEMBL Y 

MUELLER ASSOCIATES. IHC B»HlmOf. MO 

a*Tl u/.a/ftfcl^CALE-. FULL | |>AOt | Q> T 
P.23 

Refueling Vapor Vent Valve Assembly 

Purpose: To open refueling vapor line only during refueling. 

The vapor vent line must remain closed when not 

refueling for two reasons: 1) to allow tank pressurization during vehicle operation to reduce vapor 

generation, and 2) to prevent loss of fuel from the 

tank which might occur in a vehicle rollover. 

Operation: Insertion of the nozzle during refueling operates a 

cam which lifts a reed valve allowing refueling 

vapors in the tank to travel to the refueling 

canister. 

Location: At the top end of the filler pipe. 

Materials: Nylon housing; terne-plated steel; Buna-N elastomer 

17 
00 

NOTES: 

1. REMOVE. ALL&URRS-i, SHARP EDGEt*.. 

2. NYLON PARTS MAX BE FABRICATEO FROW^ 

PLASTIC COMPATIBLE •/-// CIASOUNE A METHANOL 

3. ALL DIMENSIONS NOT SHOWN. 

04 1 V 

,U 

10 I RIVET WASHE R PLATE S. STEEL. 

tar OV 

NQ 

RWET 

C A M SP/>CER 

CAM PI N 

CAMIMATeO FLAPPER 

CAM FOLLOWE R 

C A M 

FLOA T BAL L 

UPPE R VALVE MSN-SLOWE R VALVE HSNG. 

DESCRIPTION 

S. STEEL . 

ALUM . 

*}T. STEEL 

BUf4A-»4 

0**» STC£I_ 

NX LON 

ALUM . 

NYLON 

NYLON 

NYLON 

MAMMAL 

3l«» 

3»fc 

hOW-TS. 

316 

tOfel-TE. 

REFUEUNG VAPOR VENT VALVE 

MUELLE R ASSOCIATES . IN C BnlllmOf . M P 

CATt y\/vlln\ SCALE: FULL. | |fAoe I ot* 1. 

r*o 

J*-. 
P.25 

Anti-Spitbaqk Gate Assembly 

Purpose: To prevent gasoline from sloshing back up the filler 

pipe from the fuel tank. This valve is already 

present on some vehicles and may not be required at 

all in some systems. (It is included here for purposes of completeness for system costing.) 

Operation: This valve allows gasoline flow only in one direction 

by being hinged to open with flow of gasoline down 

the filler pipe. 

Location: At the end of the filler pipe inside the tank. 

Materials: Terne-plated steel. 

19 
T-l 

SIMPLE PIN/HINGE ASSEMBLY 

r-O 

O 

2.5DIA ANTI-SPITBACK 6ATE 

GASOLINE TANK 

W] 

HINaE TIN 

GATE 

oi«ciu*>TK>M 

S. STEEL 516 

S. 3TEEL. 316 

ANTI-SPITBACK GATE ASSY. 

HU£U£ 111/1 

•CR ASSOCIATES. IHC B<Mlmof. MO 

'»/6fe| tcui . FULL | |>Attl | OI>T 
P.27 

Refueling Vqnt Shutoff Valve and Condensate Return Check Valve 

Purpose: To close the refueling vent valve when the fuel level 

in the tank reaches a certain level. To channel 

liquid from the vapor/liquid separator back into the 

fuel tank. 

Operation: As the fuel level in the tank rises during refueling, 

a buoyant ball within a cage rises to close off the 

vent line to the refueling canister. This causes 

dispensed gasoline to rapidly rise in the filler tube 

which then actuates the nozzle shut-off mechanism. 

The condensate check valve is actuated whenever 

a slight vacuum is created in the tank, allowing 

liquid to be drawn back into the tank. (The check 

valve is not required if the vapor/liquid separator 

is mounted on the tank at the origination of the 

refueling vent line.) 

Location: On the top half of the fuel tank. 

Materials: Terne-plated steel, Buna-N elastomers, nylon. 

21 
2.13 REF —• 

.09 

.19 

75 DIA. 

to 

to 

NOTES : 

l REMOVE BURRS *>5 SHARP EDC.ES. 

2.NYUJ N PART5 MAY 6 E FA6RICATEO 

FROM PLASTICS COMPATiei e w / 

6ASOL.INE \ METHANOL . 

3. ALL DIMENSIONS NOT NeCE-SSARlLY 

GWEj-4. 

DE.TA1L A 

SCALE: 2/ 1 

SECTION A- A 

(•RT 

Kt 

I 

"Or 

GASKE T 

SPRING RETAINER 

SPRING 

VALVC STE M ASSY. 

HOSE NIPPLE INSERT 

FLOAT BAL L 

FLOAT VALVE BODY 

HOUSING 

OESCRIPTION 

BUNA-N 

STEEL 

STEEL 

NYLOM 

STEEL 

NYLOJM 

NYLON 

STEEL. 

SPECIF. 

REFUELING VENT SHUTOFF VALVE. 

AMO CONDENSATE RETVJRM CHECK VALVE. 

MUELLER ASSOCIATES. INC Bfltlmpf, MP 

PATE i./yl/tV. | fjCAt^l *. FUL L I 1*,»

0

« \ °-* T 

to 

CO 
P.29 

Vapor/Liguid._ Separator 

Purpose: To intercept and retain droplets entrained in the 

refueling vapor stream and allow for liquid (whether 

r-etained droplets or vapor condensate) to return to 

the fuel tank. 

Operation: The droplets are separated from the vapor stream by 

impingement and by gravity separation. The design of 

impingement separators is not an exact science, 

especially for the very fine gasoline droplets (in 

the range of 0.1 to 10 microns) that would be expected to be entrained in refueling vapors. Much experimentation will be required to identify the size and 

configuration of the vapor/liquid separator so that 

it will perform with high separation efficiency but 

with low flow restriction. 

Location: In the refueling vent line between the fuel tank and 

the refueling canister. May be mounted directly to 

the tank at the initiation of the refueling vent 

line. 

Materials: Polyethylene housing and nylon mesh compatible with 

alcohol-gasoline blends. 

23 
VAPOR OUT 

to 

j** . 

125 TYP 

1 ' " M~ 

ADHESIVE SEAL 

-.75 HOSE TYP 

VAPOR/UQUD IN 

UQUD/CONOENSATE RETURN UQUID REUEF SLOT 

MOUNTING TABS (3) 

\ »_ A/ 

s 

Z.O 

_J 

4 AR OPEN CELL l=OAM 

AR MESH FABRIC KYLO M 

UPPER HOUSING PLASTIC 

"V 

LOWER H0U5ING PLA6TIC 

WT MaCMFTKMt MATIMAL 

VAPOR - LIQUID SEFtARATOR 

nu.LLiw *I«OCIATE» . wc •ammoam. « F 

»*" ll/ia/Bfj »cmi FUL L | |>AO« | OF r 
Activated Carbon Canister 

P.31 

Purpose: To adsorb and store fuel vapor until the vapor is 

purged from the canister and directed into the engine's intake manifold. 

Operation: Upon vehicle refueling, fuel vapor is forced from 

the tank to the activated carbon canister via a 

tank vapor release valve. Normal diurnal effects 

also force vapor into the carbon canister, although, in some systems, this canister may be an 

entirely separate unit. The onboard microprocessor activates the purge valve solenoid only when 

the engine is running and at a preset operating 

temperature. While purging, filtered air is 

pulled in through the activated carbon, thus 

drawing the fuel vapor molecules from the carbon 

granules and freeing them for use in the engine's 

intake system. 

Assumptions: The canister is the largest single component of the 

onboard system and as such it is the component that 

potentially will be the hardest to integrate into 

the vehicle. For the purposes of this cost estimating study the following assumptions on canister 

performance were used: 

• Carbon apparent density: 270 +^ 30 gms/liter. 

• 30 gms butane/liter working capacity (based on 

Mobil and Exxon SAE papers Nos. 861560 and 

861551 and carbon supplier literature). 

• 7.3 gms hydrocarbon/gallon gasoline dispensed 

based on using the equation developed by EPA 

assuming an 11.5 RVP fuel, 83°F dispensed fuel 

temperature, a tank fuel temperature of 80 F, 

and a mechanical seal. Liquid seal systems are 

assumed to generate 11 gms hydrocarbon/gallon (a 

25 
. nominal 50% increase) which is based on experimental' tests conducted to date (SAE Paper No. 

861551). 

Refueling Loss (gm/gal) => 

-5.909 - 0.0949 [ T ( F) ] + 0.0884 [T (°F)] + 

0.485 [RVP (Psi)] 

• 15 gallon fuel tank as base case. 

• Tank refueling volume 85% of rated capacity. 

• Diurnal hydrocarbon emissions: 30 gms; 11.5 RVP 

fuel; 15 gallon tank (SAE 861551). 

• Carbon canister sized to contain refueling 

emissions and a diurnal heat build, with a 10% 

safety factor. 

• Nominal values of tank fuel temperature and 

dispensed fuel temperature for the proposed EPA 

Test Procedure were used to calculate the grams 

of vapor generated per gallon of gasoline 

dispensed. The worst case combination of tank 

and dispensed fuel temperature (78 F and 85 F, 

respectively) would add 0.56 grams vapor per 

gallon of gasoline dispensed to the nominal 

value of 7.3 grams vapor per gallon gasoline 

dispensed. 

• Cylindrical shaped canisters, whenever possible. 

Using the above assumptions as a base results 

in a calculated carbon volume of 4.5 liters. The 

overall size of the canister must take into account 

the housing and manifolds at the ends which are 

required to direct the flow of vapors and purge air 

to the carbon in an efficient manner. Most 

canisters have filters in the manifolds to prevent 

dirt from contaminating the carbon. An overall 

size increase of 20% over the volume of the carbon 

required is assumed to take into account the 

canister housing with manifolds. For the nominally 

sized canister depicted in the assumptions 

requiring 4.5 liters of carbon, an overall canister 

volume of 5.6 liters is assumed to be required. 

26 
. The_canister dimensions listed on the canister 

sketch assume a length over diameter ratio of 1.5, 

a commonly used ratio for good canister performance. Irregularly shaped canisters tend to have 

lower working capacities which must be taken into 

account in practical, real-world installations. 

A sensitivity analysis will be performed to 

estimate the effect of fuel RVP on canister size. 

Of particular interest will be lower fuel RVPs (9 

Psi to 11.5 Psi) corresponding to values which 

might be implemented should fuel volatility 

controls be required by EPA regulation. 

Clean purge air is essential to canister 

durability. The placement of refueling canisters 

outside the vehicle structure where they will be 

exposed to road dust and water spray increases the 

requirements on the purge air filter. Remotely 

mounted purge filters or replacement at regular 

maintenance intervals may be necessary to guarantee 

acceptable refueling canister life. 

To prevent physical deterioration of the 

carbon particles, the carbon in canisters is packed 

very tightly during manufacture. If the carbon 

particles are allowed to move, they break apart, 

compacting together which inhibits vapor flow and 

adsorption which decreases canister working 

capacity. As the canister gets larger, tight 

packing gets increasingly more difficult to 

accomplish. Thus, the wall strength of canisters 

will have to increase in a greater proportion than 

the increase in volume to maintain tight packing of 

the carbon over the life of the canister. Larger 

canisters will have thicker wall sections and/or 

reinforcement ribs to maintain rigidity. 

The reliability and durability of larger 

canisters has not been demonstrated (primarily with 

27 
-. .regard tp physical degradation) and is a concern 

especially for light duty trucks which have longer 

emission system lifetimes. 

Canister sizing represents the most 

- uncertainty associated with the design of all of 

the onboard refueling system components. 

Experimentation using actual hardware will be 

required to accurately determine sizing 

relationships. Items which need to be determined 

with more certainty include vapor generation with 

liquid seal systems, the size of the safety factor 

chosen (10% may not be sufficient) and vapor 

generation from a diurnal heat build. 

Location: Preferably near the fuel tank as this location permits the least pressure drop in the vapor vent line 

to the canister. However, due to space constraints 

and drivetrain configuration limitations, placement 

may vary from model line to model line. 

Materials: Plastic housing, carbon (currently wood- or coalbased), perforated stainless steel, and open cell 

foam. 

28 
to 

— - ISO 

DETAIL A 

NO SCALE 

.080THK . 

N0TE5: 

i. THl5 i 

EMISSIONS PURGE 

FRESH AIR INLET, 2 NOk-V OIA. 

4 

@i THK. 

bU 

SAIWLE CANSTER 9ZES 

VOL.IL) 

4 

& 

8 

O'traJ 

C f 

7.3 

"7.7 

LU*J 

7 6 

I 0 9 

//.9 

WT.illn.) 

3.'7CI 

5.^3 

6.99 

DWS. 15 REPRESENTATIVE OF 

CHRYSLER CORP. PART MO 04241836 

8 

AR 

SCREEN 

ACTIVATED CARBON 

OOWNTUBE 

FILTER 

CANISTER HOUSINQ 

oiBcmrno-a 

ST. STEC l 

PLASTIC 

FOAM 

PLASTIC 

M W . 

ACTIVATED CARBON CANISTER 

yUELLIW ASSOCIATED WC »1M«OW . MD 

-*n\U\f,/nt. tcAni NOME &—\or\ | 
P.36 

COST METHODOLOGY 

30 
P.37 

-.ONBOARD REFUELING VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM 

COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY 

The purpose of this methodology is to provide a realistic 

and consistent approach to the cost estimation of onboard vapor 

recovery hardware. The cost estimating methodology described 

below will allow the classification of costs into generally 

accepted industrial cost accounting categories so that the capital cost to the manufacturer as well as the retail cost to the 

consumer can be estimated. 

Cost estimating in product manufacturing is usually defined 

as the determination of the factory cost for a component, subassembly, and final assembly based on a defined manufacturing 

process plan. The manufacturing process plan is developed based 

on the process sequence (operation) utilizing labor, equipment, 

and tooling to produce the manufactured item. 

In order to arrive at the selling price of a product, costs 

above factory costs and profit margins must also be determined.. 

A typical cost and price structure for a manufactured product is 

shown in Exhibit 1. In this structure, the indicated prime cost 

is the sum of direct labor and direct material. This cost when 

sum'med with manufacturing overhead yields factory cost or cost of 

goods manufactured. The total product cost is then obtained by 

adding selling expenses, general and administrative expenses, 

engineering/development costs, and any contingencies to the 

factory cost. The profit is then added to the sum of these costs 

to arrive at the cost to the consumer. 

This example is a very simplistic one and represents a basic 

case. The automotive industry is represented by a much more 

complicated situation as far as product manufacturing and cost 

accounting. For example, the automotive industry heavily relies 

on outside vendors for many of its component parts; these vendors 

in turn rely on other vendors for piece parts for these components. In each case, a cost could be developed using Exhibit 1 

to arrive at an estimate of the total assembly. One can easily 

see that for a study such as this one the level of detail can 

quickly grow out of hand. In order to construct a reasonable 

cost estimate for parts and systems that are not fully designed 

requires that many assumptions be made regarding the accounting 

structure of the industry. 

A simplified model has been used in the past by both the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the many other automotive industry organizations (1). The model was developed in 

order to arrive at the same type of estimates that are the goal 

of this cost study: cost to the consumer and the capital cost to 

the manufacturing organizations producing the product. This 

model was developed under EPA support. The reasons for using 

this model are twofold. First, the model has been the basis for 

the present estimates for onboard vapor control by EPA, MVMA, and 

31 
API. Secondly, the model i 

the correct level of -detail 

represent what is generally 

"phase two" estimates where 

of the estimator alone with 

similar complexity, materia 

mate is based on early prod 

development of the design s 

ware. The preliminary sket 

verted to costs by identify 

go into their manufacture, 

overhead, tooling, R&D, cer 

basic estimating technique 

on the industrial engineer' 

level of detail would requi 

would involve detailed proc 

subassembly, and final asse 

test equipment would be est 

through a quotation process 

scope of this study. Howev 

will utilize has proven to 

the industry approach with 

ment as the onboard systems 

s structured to do the estimates at 

The estimates we are developing 

considered to be preliminary or 

phase one is based on the experience 

respect to parts or assemblies of 

1, size, etc. The preliminary estiuct design specifications, hence the 

ketches for the vapor control hardches and specifications can be coning the materials and labor that will 

This cost will then be modified with 

tification, and other costs. The 

for the hardware still relies heavily 

s experience. An estimate at the next 

re complete design specifications and 

ess planning for each component, 

mbly. Detailed tooling and special 

imated with their design costs often 

This type of detail is beyond the 

er, the accuracy of the approach we 

be quite good and actually represents 

hardware at the same stage of developThe methodology assumes the industrial makeup as indicated 

in Exhibit 2. The manufacturing level can be a supplier, vendor, 

or another division within the auto company. The corporate level 

represents vehicle assembly, with the dealer retailing the vehicle to the consumer. The total cost would then be the retail 

price equivalent or RPE cost (2). 

It should be noted that supplier (or vendor) and division 

can be used synonymously since the cost to the corporate level 

will be the same even though the division is managed as a profit 

center. In other words, the corporation has placed the division 

in competition with other suppliers as a means of assuring a high 

level of efficiency. Therefore, the division's transfer price, 

as it is called, can be considered to be the same as an independent supplier's price to the vehicle manufacturer. 

With the three levels of industry making up the major 

elements of cost to the consumer, or, as used in this study, 

retail price equivalent (RPE), the basic formula is: 

32 
P.39 

Retail 

Price 

Equivalent 

Direct 

Matexfal 

fl + 0. 2 for Corporate 

Allocation 

Direct 

Labor 

0.2 for 

Fixed & 

Variable 

Overhead 

Su 

Pr 

] 

pplier I + 

of it 

Tooling 

Expense 

Land & 

Buildings 

Expense 

+ X, for Corporate + 

Allocation 

X- for Corporate 

Profit 

for Dealer 

Overhead 

Profit 

+ Research & Development + Tooling Expense 

Or, in abbreviated form: 

RPE = = ( [DM + DL + OH] [1 .4] + TE + LBE + RD + TE 

Direct materials entail those materials of which a given 

component is comprised. Actual weights of materials can be used, 

but in most instances, weight estimates based on drawings and 

sketches will be utilized. To determine the cost of materials, 

prices per unit weight as quoted in American Metal Market will be 

used, plus 10% to account for material waste and scrappings. 

Direct labor includes the cost of laborers directly involved 

in the fabrication of a given component. It will be determined 

by using standard industrial engineering data and procedures. 

Overhead includes both the fixed and variable components of 

overhead. The fixed portion includes supervisory salaries, 

building maintenance, heat, power, lighting, and other costs 

which are substantially unaffected by production volume while the 

variable portion includes small expendable tools, devices, and 

materials used in production, repairs, and maintenance made to 

machines directly involved, and other overhead costs which tend 

to vary with production volume. 

A figure of 20% will be 

labor, and overhead costs to 

is the amount needed to cove 

front office. Also to the s 

costs, a figure of 20% will 

er's profit, approximately h 

taxes with the remaining por 

disbursements to stockholder 

used to finance working capi 

rent assets and/or decreases 

capital expenditures (long-t 

applied to the 

determine corp 

r the supplier' 

um of material, 

be applied to d 

alf of which is 

tion being divi 

s and retained 

tal requirement 

in current lia 

erm assets). 

sum of material, 

orate allocation which 

s support from its 

labor, and overhead 

etermine the suppliused to pay corporate 

ded between dividend 

earnings, which are 

s (increases in curbilities) and/or new 

33 
P.40 

/ / 

Tooling_ expense consists of four components: one-year 

recurring tooling expenses (tool bits, disposable jigs and fixtures, etc.); three-year non-recurring tooling expenses (dies, 

etc.); twelve-year machinery and equipment expenses; and twelveyear launching costs (machinery foundations and other incidental 

set-up costs) which we assumed to be 10% of the cost of machinery 

and equipment. 

The construction of new production facilities may be required in some cases and their cost will be amortized over 40 

years. In most instances, however, space in existing facilities 

will be assumed to be available for production purposes and, 

hence, is covered in the overhead costs. 

The sum of the above costs, that is, material, labor, plant 

overhead, tooling expense, corporate allocation, and profit, 

makes up the price (or, in the case of a division, transfer 

price) which the supplier charges the vehicle manufacturer for a 

given component. At the vehicle assembly level, charges will be 

allocated for the vehicle manufacturer's corporate level support, 

corporate profit, and the dealer's margin which includes sales 

commissions, overhead and profit. These charges are denoted by 

X., X. and X3, respectively in the equation. The sum of X., X_ 

and X_ is denoted by X in the abbreviated equation. The value of 

X has been under debate for a long period of time (3,4), and no 

concensus has been reached to date. The values of X most often 

mentioned and used are 1.27 and 1.8 (5). Both these values will 

be used in the cost analysis as lower and upper bounds of the 

range of costs onboard refueling vapor control systems are likely , . 

to fall within. (, ( 

Because of the need, in many instances, to make modifications to the vehicle structure or body to incorporate a component 

and to assemble it into a vehicle, these additional- costs will be 

accounted for at the division level and transferred to the corporate level at vehicle assembly. 

Production volume is a very important assumption since it 

dictates not only over what number of units costs will be amortized or spread, but also on what scale production will take 

place; in other words, the types and costs of machinery and 

equipment that will be involved. For this reason, the RPE estimates determined in this study are meaningless unless they are 

qualified with their associated production volume and are accurate only within some relevant range of volumes around that 

production volume. 

In some instances, more than one production volume will be 

assumed for the various individual parts making up a given component or system. This results from the assumption of necessary 

economies of scale for these parts where the vehicle manufacturer 

is not the only customer for whom they are produced. For example, hoses are frequently produced at higher unit volumes in 

order to satisfy more than just a single customer or market. 

34 
P.41 

By discounting aftermarket selling prices, when available, 

by between 174 to 1/5-Mbracketing of the supplier's price can be 

utilized as a check against developed estimates. However, because of differences between the assumptions inherent in this 

study and in actual production, variations may exist. It can be 

assumed that these differences result from a given component 

either being-of a somewhat proprietary nature and hence priced 

higher than developed (possibly, at what the market will bear) or 

are a result of subtle changes, for whatever reason, which do not 

allow full maximization of available economies of scale or a 

combination of the above two reasons. 

All of the RPE estimates to be developed are by definition 

subject to some error. But, in general, those components that 

are described in greater detail can be expected to be somewhat 

more accurate. The assumptions made are reasonable given the 

desire to have a generic representation of an automotive manufacturer. However, any one organization would have different economies of scale or might have different assumptions regarding 

tooling costs, amortization schedules, profit level, etc. for 

their own organization. However, it is expected that a number of 

vehicle manufacturers would probably be below these estimates and 

a similar number possibly above. As a result, this approach to 

the accumulation of costs should provide a reasonable estimate of 

the cost to the consumer and a cost to the industry. 

In order to take into account the various costs associated 

with the research, development, testing, and manufacturing of 

onboard vapor recovery systems, Exhibit 3 was developed. This 

exhibit represents the general steps that will be required to 

take the onboard system into production and out to the market. 

It is a generalization and does not represent a specific company 

nor every step in the process. However, it should represent the 

key steps and categories by which costs can be estimated and 

segregated. The purpose for going to this flow chart is to 

ensure that key capital cost components are not overlooked during 

the course of the analysis. This type of process chart lends 

additional structure to the cost analysis and estimation that is 

to be conducted. 

The actual work that is being conducted in the study follows 

the activity flow chart shown in Exhibit 4. This exhibit depicts 

both phases of the effort. The first dealing with the development and costing of a prototype system that can be applied to any 

vehicle by combining elements of the prototype and by substitution of alternative elements. For example, a liquid seal for the 

fill tube rather than a mechanical seal.' This approach will 

allow us to look at a variety of vehicle types and be able to 

synthesize a reasonable onboard vapor recovery system. The 

output of Phase 1 of the study will be cost estimates for the 

Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) for onboard systems installed in 

four different vehicle models. More importantly, this first 

phase will provide capital cost and fixed cost data associated 

with the four vehicle types. These data along with a knowledge 

35 
P.42 

of the industry and how these models relate to the total vehicle 

population can be used"to estimate the total fixed and capital 

costs associated with the introduction of onboard systems. 

Phase 2, as shown in Exhibit 4, will take the capital and 

fixed costs from Phase 1 and sum them for the industry. This 

phase will require the development of assumptions regarding the 

transferability of RDT&E results between vehicle lines of a 

single manufacturer, the time phasing of onboard control into the 

manufacturers line of vehicles, and other factors. The Phase 2 

final product will be the capital or "up front" costs associated 

with onboard systems that will be directly borne by the automotive industry. 

References 

1. Lindgren, L. H., Cost Estimations for Emission Control Related Components/Systems and Cost Methodology Description, EPA 

460/3-78/002, 1977. 

2. Malstrom, E. M. (Ed.), Manufacturing Cost Engineering Handbook , Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, 1984. 

3. Memorandum from Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett, Inc. to Will 

Smith, Economic Analysis Division, EPA, September 28, 1984. 

Subject: Report on EPA's Retail Price Equivalent 

Methodology. 

4. Jack Faucett Associates, Update of EPA's Motor Vehicle 

Emission Control Equipment Retail Price.Equivalent (RPE) 

Calculation Formula, May 13, 1985. 

5. Lingren, L. H. Revised Report of API/LHL Cost Estimate of OnBoard Vapor Recovery System and Review of EPA Technical 

Report EPA-AA-SDSB-84-01 on Feasibility, Cost and Cost 

Effectiveness of On-Board Vapor Control, for MVMA Contract 

Agreement 8504-CA-0900, September 28, 1984. 

36 
LO 

- J 

TOTAL 

PRODUCT 

COST T 

CONVERSION 

COSTS I 

PROFIT 

CONTINGENCIES 

SELLING EXPENSE 

ENGINEERING/DEVELOPMENT 

GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE 

MANUFACTURING EXPENSE 

INDIRECT MATERIAL 

INDIRECT LABOR 

DIRECT LABOR 

DIRECT MATERIAL 

MANUFACTURING 

OVERHEAD 

COSTS 

t 

PRIME COST 

J 

SELLING 

PRICE 

FACTORY COST 

OR 

COST OF GOODS 

MANUFACTURED 

EXHIBIT 1. STRUCTURE OF A COST ESTIMATE FOR A MANUFACTURED PRODUCT 

Source: Reference 2. 
P.44 

FULL COMPONENT/ 

SYSTEM COST TO < 

CONSUMER (RETAIL 

PRICE EQUIVALENT) 

DEALER LEVEL 

CORPORATE LEVEL 

(VEHICLE ASSEMBLY) 

MANUFACTURER LEVEL 

(SUPPLIER, VENDOR, OR 

DIVISION) 

EXHIBIT 2. THREE-LEVEL INDUSTRIAL MAKEUP 

Source: Reference 1. 

38 
COnSUMER OR 

RETAIL PRICE 

EQUIVALENT 

COST 

CONCEPTUAL 

SYSTEM OESIGNS 

FOR ONBOARD 

StSTEM 

VO 

FIXED AHO CAPIIAL COST 

OUTLAYS BT MANUFACTURER 

COMPONENT 

FUNCTIONAL 

SPECIFICATION 

ANO PRELIMINARY 

DESIGN 

CONFIGURATION 

OF COMPONENT 

BILL OF 

MATERIALS 

DIRECT 

MATERIALS AND 

LABOR COSTS 

ESTIMATION 

COMPONENT 

TOOL IMG ANO 

RID COSTS 

ESTIMATION 

SELECTION 

OF SPECIFIC 

VEHICLE 

MODELS 

INTEGRATION 

OF ONBOARD 

StSIEMS TO 

VEHICLES 

RESEARCH ANO 

(ADVANCED) 

DEVELOPMENT 

PRODUCT 

(ENGINEERING) 

DEVELOPMENT ANO 

TESTING 

DETERMINATION 

OF 

BOOY'STR'JCTURE 

MODIFICATIONS 

STRUCIURE/BOOY 

TOOLING COSTS 

ESTIMATION 

PROOUCIION 

ENGINEERING 

AND PLANNING 

(SEE EXHIBIT «) 

± *. 

ADDITIONAL 

FACILITY 

COSTS ESTIMATE 

CERTIFICATION 

COSTS 

ESTIMATE 

TOOLING 

AND 

EQUIPMENT 

PURCHASE 

BUILOING 

AND LAND 

COSTS 

SUM 

COSTS USING 

COST MOOEL 

CERTIFICATION 

[OSIS (PORTIONS 

NOT COVEREO 

BY OTHER 

CATEGORIES) 

TRAINING 

MANUALS AND 

TRAINING COSTS 

SUM 

CAPlTAl/FIIED 

COSTS 

SUH 

ACROSS 

INDUSTRV 

(MYMA/AIA) 

/TOTAIX 

/UPFRONT \ MA 

EXHIBIT 3. MBS/MAI STUDY PROCESS 
|PCNDIHG reoERAi ( 

REQUIREMENT 

(M-BOARO V.C . 

ADVANCED 

DEVELOPMENT 

AND 

TESTING 

0 MECHANICAL 

0 LIQUID SEAL 

O CARO/r.| . 

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT 

AND TESTING 

SPECIFIC MOOEL 

APPLICATION 

CONCEPT 

LEVEL 

LABOR*TORI 

EFFORT 

-Ml 

CANISTEft(S) 

{NOT CONFIGURATION) 

LOCATION ANO 

INTEGRATION 

OF 

CANISIER(S) 

CONFIGURATION 

OF 

CANISTER(S) 

0 VENT VALVE 

O VAPOD/LIQUIO 

SEPARATOR 

0 HOSE LOCATIONS. 

OIAMETER I LENGTHS 

O FILL VALVE 

O PURGE AIR FIHE R 

REQUIREMENT 

lOEflTIFV 

PLACEMENT 

OF OTHER 

REQUIREO 

COMPONENTS 

OCFfNC MOUNTING 

HAR0UARE AND 

. STRUCTURE 

CHANCE 

PROTOTYPE 

ENGINEERING 

(ftAROHARC AND 

SOFTWARE) 

CONSTRUCT 

PKOTOIIPC 

ITERATE 

TEST 

PHOTO HP E 

REFUELING MIO 

FTP 

TEST 

SHOCK. 

VIBRATION, 

COLLISION/ 

O 

ENGINEERING 

ORAMINGS ANO 

jSPECIFICATIONS 

PRODUCTION 

ElClNtERING 

AND PLANNING 

MAKE 

OU 

DEC IS 

OR 

ON 

JQUT Ot MOUSE 

PRODUCTION 

DRAUt.lGS AtlO 

SPECIFICATIOfiS 

-PRODUCTION ENGINEERING 

ANC PLANNING 

DESIGN 

TOOLING ANO 

DIES 

MANUFACTURE 

TOOLING AND 

DIES 

PRODUCTION 

INTECRAIION 

PMTSICAl PLANT 

ALTERATIONS 

O EQUIPMENT 

0 BUILOING 

TEST 

IOOUNC AN O 

1 

PRE-PRODUCTION 

VEHICLES 

-t- -

CCRHflLATION 

PROCESS 

(RIO) 

-I- -

ASSEHBL* 

INSTRUCTIONS 

TRAIN 

WORKERS 

COMPONENT 

"1 

' REQUIREMENT 

1 

i 

.1 

PROOUCTIOH 

INVENTOR' 

im 

VEH 

PRODU 

JUST 

IN 

TIME 

-P 

CLE 

CTIMI 

P«JOUCII<M 

i l 

FROH 

INVEtlTOAT 

HAMCTI K 

ANO SALES 

• 

EXHIBIT 4. COST ESTIMATING ACTIVITY FLOW CHART 

IS