p.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

180)IV-E-53 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:57 PM Sheet 180 of 242 
P.2 

^*°>, 

Km; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

JUN I 6 1988 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

THRU: 

Onboard Hardware Presentation 

Allied Weight Engineers 

to the Society of 

John J. Gabrysiak, Chemical Engineer 

Standards Development and Support Bra 

Public Docket A-87-11 

John F. Anderson, Senior Project Manager 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

On Tuesday May 24, 1988, I presented EPA's new onboard 

refueling control hardware to the Society of Allied Weight 

Engineers at their International Symposium in Plymouth, MI. 

The hardware was presented at the Surface Transportation 

Government/Industry Session. A copy of the briefing materials 

used is attached. 

As part of my presentation I noted that the system is 

likely to add no more than about one pound of weight to the 

vehicle. In subsequent discussions, there was general 

agreement that an increase in weight this small would not cause 

incremental changes in other vehicle systems or components. 

Attachment 

6115W 
P.3 

; ' T " " • •» 

Onboard Refueling Control 

John J. Gabrysiak 

U.S, EPA 

May 24, 1988 
P.4 

Description of the Problem 

Automotive refueling emissions: 

Vapor displacement from vehicle tank (90S) 

- Spillage (51) 

Vapor displacement from underground tank vent (5%) 

Uncontrolled emission levels are - 6,5 g/gallon of 

dispensed fuel 

This is equivalent to about 0,25 g/mile 

Represents - l \ of total VOC emission inventory (450,000 

tons/year) 

Two reasons for concern with vehicle refueling emissions: 

1) Ozone precursors 

2) Healths effects of emissions 
P.5 

The Ozone Problem 

Ozone" air quality continues to be a substantial problem in 

many parts of the country, 

58 metropolitan areas exceeded the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard during 1985-1987 and thus did 

not meet the December 1987 deadline, 

Substantial deterioration in air quality projected by late 

1990s, 

Reductions in VOC emissions are needed to control ozone 

and reach attainment with the standard, 

VOC reductions also are valuable in attainment areas, 

Refueling controls will provide cost effective VOC 

reductions, 

Essentially all reasonable control strategies will be 

needed, 
P.6 

Direct Health Effects of Refueling Vapors 

Gasoline vapors appear to be carcinogenic: 

API Animal Studies found liver and kidney cancer 

tumors caused by gasoline vapors, 

Epidemiological studies weakly suggestive of human 

cancer caused by gasoline vapors, 

Uncertainty concerning which components of the 

gasoline vapors are responsible, 

Gasoline vapors classified as a probable human 

carcinogen, 

Benzene a known carcinogen: 

Benzene listed by EPA as a "hazardous air pollutant" 

under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act in 1977, 

Increased incidence of leukemia found among workers 

exposed to benzene, 

Animal studies also show benzene to be carcinogenic, 
P.7 

Description of Technologies 

Stage II Controls 

Onboard Controls 
FIGURE 2 

STAGE II VAPOR RECOVERY BALANCE SYSTEM 

METER 

GASOLINE FILL LINE 

PUMP 

GASOLINE STORAGE TANK 

;T3 
FIGURE 3 

ONBOARD VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEM 

FUEL FILL 

NOZZLE 

^ v J-TRAP 

LIQUID SEAL 

CARBURETOR (Sjjjt^^ , 

VEHICLE 

FUEL TANK 

DESIGNED 

SLOW LEAK 

^TyvJNGINE ^ 

GASOLINE VAPOR 

PURGE 

CONTROL 

CARBON 

CANISTER 

ro 
P.10 

Analysis of Technologies 

• In-Use Effectiveness 

• Cost Effectiveness 

• Other Aspects 
P.11 

In-Use Effectiveness 

System Control Efficiency 

Staqe II Onboard 

Theoretical* 951 981 

(which they are 

able to control) 

In-Use 62-861** 931 

(including tampering 

and maintenance) 

Actual Control Achieved 47-66% 861 

(including exemptions) 

* Stage II controls Displacement and Breathing Losses 

Onboard controls Displacement Losses 

** Stage II range is a result of the implementation period 

(3 or 7 years) and maintenance 
FIGURE 4 

O 

Z 

OL 

2 

u 

o 

z 

13 

Ul D 

U. 

u 

K 

Ik 

O 

z 

o 

o 

D 

Q 

U 

PERCENT VOC EMISSION REDUCTION 

FOR SI NONATTAMMENT AREAS 

90S 

701 

60S 

5 0 * -

4 0 * -

2 0 * 

10* -

ox I ' t ' I 

Stag* II (Ann. Enf.. Low DM.) 

Stag* II (Min. Enf.. Htoh DH.) 

19B5 1990 

I ' I ' I ' I ' I » I ' I ' I » I • I • I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' 

1995 2000 2005 2010 

BECJNNINO Of YEAR 

\M 

to 
P.13 

Strategy 

Stage II 

Onboard 

Cost Effectiveness 

Nationwide Program 

Annual VOC 

Reduction 

(1000 Mq/Yr 

190-270 

290 

Annualized 

Cost 

($HM/Yr) 

190-220 

200 

Cost 

Effectiveness 

(t/«q) 

860-1120 

850 

Strategy 

Stage II NA 

Onboard 

Non-Attainment Program 

Annual VOC Annualized 

Reduction 

(1000 Mq/Yr 

66-100 

110 

Cost 

UM/ft) 

58-92 

(195-295)* 

180 

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/Hg) 

850-1100 

(2700-3600)* 

2200 

Includes approximately \.r per refueling event inconvenience 

cost 
P.14 

Other Aspects of Comparison 

Consumer Reaction 

ONBOARD: Consumer should see no difference in the 

refueling operation, 

STAGE II: The vapor recovery nozzles are larger and 

more difficult to- operate, Problems in filling 

non-vehicle related tanks, 

Distribution of Costs 

ONBOARD: The vehicle purchaser will bear the 

onboard cost of about $19 per vehicle, 

STAGE II: The service station owner will bear the 

average vapor recovery system cost of about 

$11,500, Many small businesses, 

Maintenance/Enforcement 

Onboard: Onboard controls should be 

"maintenance-free" and not dependent on enforcement, 

Stage II: The efficiency of Stage II controls is 

dependent on routine maintenance and enforcement, 
P.15 

Other Aspects (continued) 

Safety 

Onboard: Some concern that adding an onboard system 

could create or enhance safety hazards of' motor 

vehicles, 

Stage II: Safety not evaluated, 

EPA studying onboard safety issues; safety does not 

have to be compromised, 
P.16 

Overview 

EPA published a study of the feasibility of onboard for 

comment on August 8, 1984, 

EPA formally proposed the adoption of onboard refueling 

controls in August 1987 

r 

Some comments since the proposal have contended that 

onboard will add complexity; therefore it is inherently 

less safe 

EPA's anticipated designs were fairly simple (Figure 1) 

Manufacturers' proposed onboard designs appear to be much 

more complex (see Figures 2 and 3) 

EPA has undertaken the development of a simple onboard 

control system to address the "added complexity" issue 

This briefing describes the development of the new hardware 
PRESSURE / VACUUM 

RELIEF CAP 

FIGURE 1 

Integrated Evaporative/Refueling System 

J - Tube Seal 

NOZZLE ACTUATED 

ROLLOVER/VENT VALVE 

5/8" DIA. 

.05" DIA. LIMITING 

ORIFICE 

^J-TUBE SEAL 

\ 

DESIGNED SLOW LEAK 

14 GALLON FUEL TANK 

PURGE VALVE 

TO PURGE 

INDUCTION 

POINT 

3 LITER 

CARBON 

CANISTER 
FIGURE 2 

ENGINE 

VACUUM CONTROL SOLENOID 

AEFUEUNQ VAPOR 

;ARBON CANISTER 

3 /U IN. I.D. VAPOR UNE 

NOZZLE-ACTUATED 

VENT VALVE 

FUEL TANK 

CONDENSATE CHECK VALVE AND 

LIQUID SHUT-OFF VALVE 

LIQUID/VAPOR METERING TEE 

LIQUID TRAP VAPOR/LIQUID 8EPARATOR 

3/4 IM. LO. VAPOR UNE 

VACUUM PURGE VALVE SS •MlaiU m*mm» 

REFUEUNQ VAPOR RECOVERY 8V8TEM 

CHEVROLET CAPRICE 

miff * |MQCi*m. me mauvcMm. no 

^^^ ^ MW i n >I|WMH none. ISHETtH Y-amtaat. 
P.19 

FIGURE 3 

EVAPORATIVE/REFUELING 

VAPOR RECOVERY 

SYSTEM 

MANIFOLD PRESSURE 

VEHICLE SPEED 

COOLANT TEMPERATURE 

© 

®— 

©-

© u. 

RPM 

TIME 

OISTANCE 

THROTTLE POSITION 

Q>» 

SYSTEM COMPONENTS 

• ='.=•- CA= 

2 ='•. = - ='•'..== ~-3 s - TMP • =N"=D 

3 "'mlm "AN* ;=\ r - ,NT==SAI_ =435. ; A = 

•l

 S: ,Si.~A\< -.SNT- EX7S?NA.~=w < 

i- :;r== ==NT:A w =as3StP= Cr-=C< .A,. = 

5

 = .? • ~A?»i< 

7 PErUELiNG VAPOR CANIS'S^ 

9 FILTER 

3 9'JSGS AtR rNLET - PSVC S 

»*SS CAP - PEAR SUSPENSION caCSSVs'.'EH* 

"PUCK - UNOSRHCCO 

REFUELING FILLER TUBE FEATURES: 

- NCZT-E SEALING CEViCE 

- -SFuSL.NG EVENT "£'. ;CE 

- P=S35UFS =£'-.=? ~EviCE:3) 

0 ;A?Ca-..N= - •=• Z 

• "ANK'«EN""-C»-CV£.P'»A^, £ 

2 auPGE-.Ne - 5/-6' 

3 ='-=GS-.N = -••-• 

4 'UPGESCLENCiO- SUTYCVC_ = 

5 ELECTRONIC CONTROL -NiT 

5 =

:

;A?CPAT;V= VAPO R CANtS'ER 

17 TO 3U.SVSL PURGE 

18 MANIFOLO VACUUM UiNg 

'9 VACUUM SOLENCIO - ON;CF? 

CCNTPC..EO 

- NCIZLESHuT-CFFitiCUiOl 

. VA'C R CCNNECCN TO CANISTER 

- '.;QuiOCAPflyCvEP'3PSV=NT;CN 
P.20 

Development of Simplified System 

Main goal was to resolve complexity issue 

Also desired to handle other specific hardware issues raise* 

in the past 

Established the following design constraints 

Simplicity of design, consistent with necessary function; 

components based upon current production hardware 

Began with typical current fuel tank components (Figure t) 

Design features (Figure 5) 

Fillneck seal - no modification to current systo 

required 

Vapor control valve - modified stock rollover valve 

Moderately increase orifice size 

Vapor lines 

Eliminate current refueling vent line 

Shorten evap vent line 

Carbon canister 

- • Move to rear of vehicle 

Enlarge from IL to 2.5L 

Overall, system is simplification of current designs (Figure 
FIGURE 4 

Typical Current Evaporative System 

PRESSURE / VACUUM 

RELIEF CAP 

EXTERNAL VENT LINE 

X 

FLOAT/ROLLOVER 

VALVE 

V 

ANTI - SPITBACK 

VALVE 

FUEL TANK 

3/8" DIA. 

8' LONG 

# 

PURGE VALVE 

1 LITER 

CARBON 

CANISTER 

TO PURGE 

INDUCTION 

POINT 

Tl 

ho 
FIGURE 5 

Onboard Modifications 

REMOVE 

SHORTEN 

VAPOR UNE 

r 

MODIFY 

ENLARGE 

CARBON 

CANISTER 

•a 

•o 
PRESSURE/VACUUM 

RELIEF CAP 

NO 

EXTERNAL 

VENT LINE 

FIGURE 6 

Onboard Plus Evaporative System 

SHORTER 

VAPOR UNE 

V 

MODIFIE

v

D 

\ 

FLOAT/ROLLOVER 

VALVE 

V 

ANTI - SPITBACK 

VALVE 

# = 

PURGE VALVE 

TO PURGE 

INDUCTION 

POINT 

ENLARGED 

CARBON 

CANISTER 

FUEL TANK 

TJ 

Iro Ico 
Review of Display Hardware 

First generation EPA system 

Examples of current fuel tank components 

New onboard system 
• 

0 

0 

Tesi 

System Performance 

System has consistently met 

substantial margin of safety 

Spitback appears 

c Emissions 

Number (q/qal) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

* 

.02 

.01 

.03 

.05 

.06 

.06 

.04 

.05 

,08 

,04 

.04 

,01 

,02 

All tests were 

Test Fuel 

proposed 

to be fully controlled 

Test Data Results 

Spitback 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Canister 

Weight 

gain (g) 

77 

73 

-

-

-

-

77 

79 

73 

85 

87 

85 

No 86 

conducted using nominal 

1" " "' 

standard with 

Comments* 

10 gpm 

10 gpm 

10 gpm 

5 gpm 

5 gpm 

5 gpm 

5 gpm 

5 gpm 

10 gpm 

10 gpm 

5 gpm 

4 gpm 

3 gpm 

9.0 RVP Federal 
Weight Change Due to Onboard 

Stock Evap Onboard 

Fillpipe 1285 g 1075 

Vapor Valve ~

 50 

Ball Valve -

 34 

Canister 596 1022 

Vapor Lines 1200 1300 

Tank (23 lb) 10304 IM 

13385 g 13785 g 

i = 400 g ~ .9 lb 

If vapor valve and ball valve are excluded as being specific to 

the onboard system, 

A = 316 g ~ ,7 lb 

Most of additional weight is a result of a larger canister 

+426 g, 
Conclusions 

Onboard control can be implemented with simple 

modifications to current fuel tanks 

Onboard can reduce overall system complexity 

System will not degrade safety, likely to improve safety