# MEMORANDUM lNTEDS TATES 9fJROtM:NTAL PROTECTI)N 

## AGeC Y 

## NAn::.NAJ.. VEH I CLE #D 

## FLB.. EMISSIONS I.PB:RA.lCRY 2ffi5 

## PLYMOUTH RQAD 

## />HIJ**~** 

## MO-tGAN 

## 48105-2400



# October24, 2013 

# SUB.JECf: Manufacturer Data on Ethanol Measurements in the SHED FROM: Glenn W. Passavant, Office of Transportation and Air Quality TO: Public Docke t EPA-HQ-OAR-20 11-013 5 Attached are e-mails from Ford and GM providing EPA data on the fraction of ethanol in the SHED for measurements of various types of evaporative emissions for gaso l ine containing 10 percent ethanol. EPA considered this input in decision making with regard to the values for fixed correction factors for FID- based SHED evaporative hydrocarbon measurements

# Passavant, Glenn From: Sent: 

## M i ddleton , Kenneth (K . C .) [km i ddle1@ford . com] Monday, June 10,2013 12 : 32 PM 

## To: Passavant, Glenn 

# Cc: Glod i ch , Jeffrey (J . M .) Subject: 

## RE: INNOVA data for ORVR tests Attachments: 

## FORD FFV Evap and ORVR Ethanol Adjustment Data.pdf Glenn, Attached is a PDF file which includes lnnova and impinger for both FFV Evap. and FFV**OR~R** 

## (this is the same data I provided at our meeting last Thu rsday). In the PowerPoint which Jeff provided at the meeting, the FFV ORVR resu lts were split onto two pages (the first page was impinger and the second page was lnnova). If you need this data in Excel, please let me know and I can forward you the Excel files which I used to create the PDF. Thanks. Regards, 

# Ken Middleton Supervisor , Evaporative and Advanced Certification Phone: (313) 805-8233 

## From: Passavant, Glenn [ mailto:passavant.glenn @ epa.gov] 

# Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 12:09 PM 

## To: Midd l eton, Kenneth (K.C.) 

# Subject: INNOVA data for ORVR tests Hi Ken: 1

## read your chart 6 (Ethanol Adjustment Factor f or ORVR) as for impinger only . Do you have any INNOVA data for ORVR? Thanks Glenn W. Passavant US EPA/ASD Acting Director Data 

## & Testing Center Ann Arbor, M l 48105 734 - 214-4408(office) 517-902-7565(cell)

1

### Fo rd M otor C ompany lnnova and l mpinger Data Com parison (F FV Testing wi t h E 10) 2-day, 3-day a nd Running Loss Test Resu lts l mpl ng er 2-0ay HIS Day•1 Dayl2 2008 MY 4 . 6L F FV wlo Adjustment Econollne Complete Adjusted veh . 8 E 41 - 4 . 6-J-730 %Difference 2009 MY 5 . 4L FFV**o** Adjustment 0 . 038 0 . 290 0 . 483 E><pedition 

### [Actusted 0 . 040 0302 0499 veh . 9851 - 5 . 4-C-796 'II> Dilrerenoe 5 .26% 414% 3 . 31% 2009 MY 5.4L FFV wl o Ad j ustment Econollne Com p lete [Adjusted w h . 9E4 1 -5 . 4-J -S24 % Difference 2009 MY 5 . 4L FFV w lo Adjustment 0 . 041 0 .. 271 0 . 478 Econoline Incomp lete**~djusted** 0 . 041 0275 0 . 481 Veh . 184W401 % Difference 0 .00% He% 0.63% 2010 M Y 3 . 0L FFV Escape :W i o Adjustment veh . A M71 - 3 . 0 - J-966 Adjus ted % Difference w /o Adjustment 2010 t.f'f 3 .0 L FFV Fusion Adjusted veh.**ADE1-3 ~5**  ')(, Oiffel8nce l mpinger Avenage % Diff erence 2 . 63% 2 . 81% 1.97% Avg_% D ltferenoe: H S + Wo rot Day ( A II Tests) I n nova 2-0ay HIS oay • 1 

### aay

_ n 2011 MY 6 . 2L FFV Super wlo Adjustment Duty Adjusted wh . BFA1 · 6 . 2 . J - 006 'Mo Difference 2011 MY 6.2L FFV S u per !wlo Ad]<lstment Duty Adj usted veh . BFA1-6 . 2 .J-007 % Ddlerence 2011 MY 5 . 4L FFV iwf o Adjustment Econollne Complete [AdJ us ted veh . BE4 1- 5.4- J-02 1 %0r fference w/o Adjustment 20 1 2 MY 2 .0 L F FV F ocus [AcJI11$Ied 

### veh. CL100 178 ')(, OiffeteOOO 2013 MY 3 . 5 L FFVTaurus !w lo Adju s tment 0 .076 0 .355 

## o . 2n veh . DPH1-3.5-J-2 1 4**~usted** 

## o .on 0371 0 .289 %Difference 1 .32'Mo 4 . 5 1 % 4.33% lnnova Average % Differ ance 1 . 32% 4.51 % 4.33% 

### [Avg % Oolfenance: HS +Worst Day (Al l Tests) 

### DATA SUMMARY ( In c ludes alllnn ova and l mpinger res ults) lnnova a nd lmplnger 2-0ay HIS 

## I Da v •1 

## I Day n ln nova a n d lmp i nger Average% D llf e rence 2 . 19% 

## I 3. 3 7% 

## I 2.76% Avg % ll!llerence HS +Worst Dey (All Tests) HIS+ W D

0 . 52 1 0 . 539 3.45%

0 . 519 0 . 522 058%

2. 0 2%

HIS+WD

0 . 43 1 0448 394'Mo 3. 114% 

## I HI S +WD 

## I I 2 .68% 

## I 3-{)ay RIL H IS Dayt1 Dayll2 Dayl3 HIS+WD O.o78 0.352 0 .399 0 .412 0 .490 . 001 No 0 .078 0 . 364 0 . 416 0 .421 0.499 adjustment 000% 3.41% 4 . 26% 2 . 18% 1 . 84% 0 . 099 0 . 266 0253 0.25ot 0 . 365 .001 N o 0 . 100 0 . 278 0260 0269 0378**~ustrnent** 1 .01% 4 .51% 

## 2n% 591 '1!. 3 . 56% 0 . 123 0.366 0 . 409 0.443 0.566 .001 No 0 . 1 23 0.373 0.416 0.447 0.570 adJ u s tment 000% 1.36% 171% 0.90% 0.71% 0 . 089 0466 0 . 523 0.59 1 0 . 680 . 001 No 0089 0 .494 0530 0601 0 . 690**~~** 000% 1. 65% 134% 1 .69% 1.47% 0 . 082 0 .180 0 . 132 0 . 123 0 .262 . 002 No 0.084 0.191 0 . 14 2 0 . 130 0 .275 adjustment 2.44% 6 . 1 1 % 7. 58% 5 . 69% 4 . 96% 0086 0 . 247 0252 0 . 296 0 . 382 002 No 1

### ~ustment I 0087 0.254 0259 0 . 304 0 . 391 1 . 16% 2.83'll> 2 .76% 2 . 70% 2.36'll> O.n% 3 . 31% 3. 4 1% 3.18% 2.48 % 0.00% I 2.37% 3-{)ay RIL HIS Day#! oayn Dayl3 HIS+WD 0 .048 0.266 0330 0.352 0 .400 001 No 0 . 048 0 . 273 0 . 336 0.359 0 .407 adjustment 0 . 00% 2. 63% 182% 1 99% 1.75% 0.074 0.298 0358 0 . 391 0.465 .001 No O.o78 0.304 0370 0 . 401 0.479 ed J ustment 5 . 41% 2-01% 335% 2.58% 301'll> 0089 0.284 0265 0 . 245 0.373 OOONo 0.095 0.288 0270 0 . 254 0 . 363 adJustment 6.74% 1 . 41% 1 . 89% 3.67% 2 .88% 0 .040 0 .208 0 . 192 0 . 163 0 .2 48 . 001 No 0042 0 . 216 0200 0.189 0 . 258 adjustment 500% 3. 65% 417'll> 3 .88'll> 403'1!. 0 .035 0.276 0 .287 0 . 267 0 . 322 .000 No 0037 0. 290 0299 0 .276 0.336**a~ustmont** 5 .71'Mo 5.07% 4 , 18% 3 .37'Mo 4 . 35% 4 .5

7 % 2 . 99% 3. 08% 3. 05% 3. 18% 0 . 00% 3.29% 3-Day 

### I RIL 

# I HIS 

## I Da y#1 

## I Dayn 

## I Dav l3 

## I HIS+ WD 2 .50% 

## I 3. 17% 

## I 3. 28% 

## I 3. 1 2% 

## I 2 .79% 0 . 00% 

# J 2.76%

## Ford Motor Company lnnova and lmpinger Data Comparison (FFV ORVR Testing with Ethanol Fuel Blend) ORVR Test Results with lmpinger Adjustment to OMHCE grams/gallon Vehicle# Type of Vehicle Date of Test ORVRSHED lmpinger FlO Result Adjusted (g/gallon) Result (OM HCE g/gallon) ODC1-3.0-F-632 2000 MY Taurus FFV 4K EDV 5/19/1999 0 . 022 0 . 022 1DD1-3.0-125 2001 MY Taurus FFV DDV 11/8/1999 0 . 104 0 . 106 1DD1-3 .0-125 2001 MY Taurus FFV DDV ' 11/19/1999 0.100 0.100 1DD1-3.0-125 2001 MY Taurus FFV DDV 2/19/2000 0.044 0.045 1DD1-3.0-125 2001 MY Taurus FFV DDV 2/24/2000 0 . 155 0.156 1U51-4.0-C-420 2001 MY Explorer FFV 4K EDV 4/6/2000 0.004 0.004 1DD1-3.0-C-286 2001 MY Ta urus FFV 4K EDV 4/7/2000 0.036 0.036 2S11-4.0-J-035 2002 MY Exol. Sport Trac FFV 4K EDV 11/21/2001 0 . 021 0.021 3R31-3.0-J-604 2003 MY Ranaer FFV 4K EDV 1/29/2002 0.007 0.008 1U51-4.0-C-421 2001 MY EXPlorer FFV 4K EDV 217/2002 0 . 005 0 . 006 2U51-4 .0-J -236 2002 MY Exolo rer FFV 4K EDV 7/11/2002 0 . 143 0 .1 44 4S11-4 .0-J-913 2004 MY Expl. Sport Trac FFV 4K EDV 3/7/2003 0.015 0.016 4U51-4.0-H-190 2004 MY Exolorer FFV 4K EDV 10/3112003 0 . 005 0 . 006 6VC 1-4 . 6-F-444 2006 MY Crown Vic FFV 4K EDV 6/8/2005 0 . 008 0.008 6F61-5.4-F - 536 2006 MY F150 FFV 4K EDV 9/20/2005 0.097 0.100 AVERAGE: 

## ORVR Test Results with lnnova Adjustment to OMHCE grams/gallon Vehicle# Type of Vehicle Date of Test ORVRSHED Innova FlO Result Adjusted (g/gallon) Result (OMHCE g/gallon) AM71-3.0-J-966 2010 MY 3.0L FFV Escape 4K EDV 2/6/2009 0 .1 02 0.104 BFA1-6.2-J-007 2011 MY 6.2L FFV F-350 4K EDV 10/8/2009 0 . 019 0 . 020 BFA 1-6.2-J -00 7 2011 MY 6.2L FFV F-350 4K EDV 10/30/2009 

## 0 .013 0 .013 BE41-5 . 4-J-021 2011 MY 5 . 4L FFV E-150 4K EDV 2/18/2010 0.019 0 . 019 BF61-5.0-J-056 2011 MY 5.0L FFV F-150 4K EDV 8/13/2010 0.033 0.033 DPH1-3.5-J-214 2013 MY 3.5L FFV Tau rus 4K EDV 12/2/2011 0.019 0.020 AVERAGE: 

## DATA SUMMARY (Includes alllnnova and lmpinger results)3.91% DIFFERENCE IN% OF STANDARD (lnnova and lmpinger): 0.38% % Difference ORVRSHED lmpinger Difference in FlO Result (% Adjusted %of of 0.20 g/gal. Result(% of Standard

standard) 0 . 20 g/gal. standard) 0 . 00% 11 . 00% 11.00% 0 . 00% 1.92% 52 . 00% 53 . 00% 1.00% 0.00% 50 .00% 50 . 00% 0.00% 2.27% 22.00 % 22.50 % 0 . 50% 0 . 65% n.50% 78.00% 0.50% 0 . 00% 2 . 00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18.00% 18 .00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.50% 10.50% 0 . 00% 14 . 29% 3.50% 4 .00% 0 . 50% 20 . 00% 2 . 50% 3.00% 0.50% 0.70% 71 . 50% 72 . 00% 0.50% 6.67% 7.50% 8 . 00% 0.50% 20.00% 2 . 50% 3.00% 0 . 50% 0.00% 4.00% 4 .00% 0.00% 3 . 09% 48 . 50% 50 . 00% 1 . 50% 4.64% AVERAGE: 0.40% % Difference ORVRSHED Innova Difference in FlO Result (% Adjusted %of of 0.20 g/gal. Result(% of Standard

standard) 0.20 g/gal. standard) 1.96% 51.00% 52.00% 1.00% 5.26% 9.50% 10.00% 0 . 50% 0 . 00% 6 . 50% 6 .50% 0.00% 0.00% 9 .50% 9 .50% 0.00 % 0.00% 16. 50% 16.50% 0 . 00% 5 .26% 9 . 50% 10.00% 0.50% 2.08% AVERAGE: 0.33%

# Passavant, Glenn From: Sent: 

## To: 

# Cc: Subject: Attachments: 

## Glenn , Jason , steven . j . horetski@gm.com Monday , July 22, 2013 12:50 PM Passavant, Glenn; Gordon , Jason@ARB Steve Douglas Ethanol Adjustment Factor GM T ier 3 FlO vs lnnova Compare_ARB_EPA_7-22-13.pdf ; ORVR Test - Em i ssions Speciation 071213.pdf

I evaluated some GM evaporative emiss i on SHED data to compare the FlO and INNOVA analyzer readings . I only loo ked at test data generated using test fuel containing 10% ethanol but with controlled RVP versus splash blended test fuel with an RVP i ncrease compared to the base test fuel. This limited the data sets to testing run w ith LEV 3 test fuel or GM blended Phase 2 MTBE fuel w i th 10% ethanol. Th i s unfortunately limited the data that was availab l e for evaluation. For some of the testing it appears that our IN NOVA analyzers used for development 3-Day Hot Soak testing were a little noisy . That also limited the available 3-Day data that could be evaluated . The evaporative em i ssion testi ng was run per the EPA CFR test procedures but us i ng CARB tempe ratures and test fuels . I analyzed passenger cars ( PC }, LOT 2 and LOT 3 /4 LEV 2 data and PC PZEV data . The GM SHEDs uti l ize analog Rosemount (Model FlO 1) FlO and digital photoacoust ic multi-gas (Model 3433) INNOVA analyzers. The FlO ethanol response factor is approx i mately 0 . 73. Displayed below is the data that was evaluated:

1

## GM Evaporative Emission SHED FID Versus INNOVA Data Compariso n GM Confidential Business lnfonnation Evop CARB 2..00y CARB 3-0ay Model Emil lion Vehicle SHED Y ea r Product S tandanl Class Vellicte No. Tul Fuel U -..rllf'lent HS Day1 Doy 2 Totol Hot Sook Day1 Doy 2 Doy 3 Tolol 20 10 Mai J>u LEV2 FFV PC 1AZN4040 Phaso 2 E10 FlO 0.026 0 . 252 0 . 227 0 . 278 0.090 0 , 259 0 .24 1 0.229 0. 349 IMOVI 0 .029 0 ,270 0 .244 0 .299 0 . 090 0.278 0 . 259 0.244 O.JM %0aho 11 . 54% 7.14% 7 .41% 7 . 55% 0.00% 7.34% 7 .47% 6 . 55% 5.«% 20 1 2**O~ando** LEV2 FFV PC X4PV132A Phase 2 E tC AD 0 . 024 0 . 33 1 0 .358 O .U2 

### - - 

# - - - lnnova 0 . 026 0. 348 0 . 372 0.398 

# - - 

# - - - %00.. 6. 3 3% 5 . 14 % 3 . 9 1 % 4 . 19% 

# - - - - - 2012 V.,-ano LEV2 FFV PC 4CPN4010 Ph111 2 E10 F1D 0,040 0.336 0 . 24 3 0 .376 0 .085 0.226 0 . 181 0 . 169 0,311 lnnova 0.042 0.364 0 . 268 0.406 0.092 0 . 253 0 . 203 0.189 0.345 %Doh 5.00% 8.33% 10 .29% 7 .98% 8.24% 11.95% 12 . 15% 11.83% 10.93% 2014 ifTl>ala lEV2 FFV PC 1DGN 4143 LE V 3 E10 FlO 0.057 0 . 291 0 . 263 0 .348 0.118 0.164 0 . 077 0 .059 0 . 282 lnnova 0 . 058 0 .3 1 2 0.287 0 . 370 0.122 0 . 173 0.083 0 .064 0.295 %Delta 1.75% 7.22% 9 , 13% 6 .32% 3.39% 5 . 49% 7 , 79% 8 .4 7% 4 . 61% 2014 MaiJ>u L EV2 FFV PC 1EGN4331 LEV3 E10 FlO 0.060 0 . 340 0 .253 

### MOO 0.084 0.160 0 . 096 0 .074 0.244 Innova 0.06 1 0 .352 0 . 262 0 .41 3 0.084 0.175 0.106 0.083 0 . 259**%De~·** 1 . 6 7o/ o 3.53% 3 .56% 3 . 25% 0.00% 9.37% 10.42% 12 . 18% 6 .15% LEV 2 PC NA E10 M EAN% 5 . 66 % 6. 27% 6.1 7 % S.U% 2.9 1% 1.54 % t .AI% 9.7 1 % 6 .71% 2014 CTS PZEV PC 6 E AN4699 LEV 3 E10 FlO 0 . 051 0.173 0 . 1 1 9 0.224 

# - 

# - - - 

# - fnnov• 0.0 52 0. 1 82 0 . 125 0.234 

# - - 

# - - - %Ce llo 1 . 96 % 5.20% 5 .04% 4.46% 

# - - 

# - - - 201 4 XTS PZEV PC 6EGN4017 LEV3 E10 FlO 0.080 0 , 165 0 . 100 0.245 

# - - 

# - 

# - - lnnove 0 . 081 0,171 0 . 104 0.252 

# - - 

# - - - %Dell 1.25% 3,64% 4 .00% 2 .86% 

# - - 

# - - - PZEV PC NA E 10 MEAN 'h 1.61 % 4..42 % 4 .52% 3.6 6% 

# - - 

# - - - 20 12 Capti\11 LEV2 FFV LDT2 ZBLN4373 Phoso2 EtO F lO 0.024 0.245 0.288 0.292 0.054 0.364 0 . 331 0.264 0 .418 k1nova 0 . 024 0.256 0 .280 0 .304 0.054 0.382 0 . 347 0.298 0.438 %Delli 0 .00% 4 . 49% 4 .48% 4 . 11 % 

### o.oo% 4 . 95% 4 . 13% 4.93% 4.31% 201 2 Equinox LEV 2 FFV L DT

2 1 CLN44 52 Phase2 E1 0 FlO 0.036 0. 278 0 . 299 0 . 335 

### - 

# - - - - Inn ova 0.038 0.304 0 . 320 0 . 356 

### - 

# - 

# - - -**%Do~** 0 .00% 9 . 35% 7 .02% 6.27% 

# - 

# - - - - 20 1 2 E qui

nox LEV2 FFV LDT2 1CLN4504 Phose 2 E10 AD 0 . 022 0.230 0 . 264 0 . 286 0.066 0. 1 92 0 . 148 0 . 129 0 . 258 lnoova 0.024 0. 25 3 0 .283 0 .307 0.068 0.2 1 5 0.166 0 . 1« 0.283 %Della 9.09% 10. 00% 7 .20% 7 . 3 4 % 3.03 % 11.86% 12. 1 6% 11.63% 9.69% LEV2 LOT2 NA E10 MEAN % 3.03% 7.9$% 1.23% 5 .9 1 % 1.52% 

### un. 1.50% 1.11% 7.00% 2015 Tahoe LEV2 FFV LDT3/ 4 XECSE02 1 LEV 3 E10 AD 0.052 0.205 0 . 141 0 .257 0. 171 0.254 0 . 164 0 . 146 0.'125 In nova 0 .0 53 0.226 0 . 157 0 .2 79 0.171 0 . 274 0 . 179 0 . 159 0.445 % Daft• 1.92% 10.2 4 % 11.35% 8.56% 0 .00% 7.87 % 9 . 15% 8 . 90% 4 .7 1 % 2014 Silwrado LEV2 FFV LDT3/4 XECPE047 LEV3 E 10 FlO 0 . 100 0.373 0 .286 M 73 

# - 

# - - - - tnnova 0.103 0.410 0 . 316 0 .513 

# - - 

# - - -**%01~** 3 .00% 9 . 92% 1D.49% 8.46% 

# - 

# - - 

# - - 201 0 H3T LEV 2 FFV LDT3/ 4 X3581206 Phace 2 E10 FlO 0 .033 0 . 382 0 . 4 10 0,4 43 

## - 

# - - - - k1nov1 0 .033 0.377 0 . 422 0 . 455 

# - 

# - - - - %0aho 0.00% 4 . 14 % 2 .93% 2.71% 

# - 

# - - - - LEV 2 LOTl/ 4 NA E10 MEAN% 1.64% 8 .10% 1.25% 6.58% 0.00% UT% t.15% UO% 4.7 1%

• IN N OVA Was Loss Than FlO , Juot Usle<l tho FlO Va l ue

## GM Evaporative Emission SHED FlO Versus INNOVA Mean Data Comparison GM Confidential Business 

### 1nrormat1on ! 

## e ......., CARB2-0ay CARB3-Day

n 

## s..ndar Vehicle

d 

## c... . Vehicle No. Teat Fue l OttaSII N HS Oayt Oay2 Tot al N H o t Soa k Day I Ooy2 O ay3 Total LEVZ PC NA EIO 

## leAN of LEV z P 5 5.66% U7% 1.17% 5 . &6% 4 2.11% 1.54% 1.41 % 9.76% 1.71 % LEVZ LDT2 NA EI O 

## fAN of LEV Z LD 3 3 . 03 % 7.15 % 1 . 23% 5 . 91% z 1 . 52% IA6% 1.50% 1.21% 7 . 00% LEVZ LDT314 NA EIO**~of** LEV 2 LDl l 1 .64% 1. 10 % 1 . 25% Ul% I 0 . 00% 7.17% 1.15% 1.90% 4.71 % L EVZ AU. NA EIO WofAU. LEV 11 3.44% 7A4% 7 . 12% 6.11% 7 1 .47 % 1 . 29 % 8.03 % 8.91% 6.16 % PZEV PC NA EIO EAHofPZE VP 2 1 . 61% 4.42% 4 .52% 3.66% 

# - - - 

# - - 

# -**-~** ----- 

### '**~ ~** **-~** ·····- - -·-······- --- -- -----**~-** -

# C) 

# c:: 

# ·-

I , 

# tn 

# t! c 0 

# ·- 

# ... ftS 

# ·-

# ~ CJ G) 

# c. 

# > tn tn 

# > c M

# ~ 0 """""' 

# ·- 0 

# tn N 

# 0 tn**~** 

# ·- E 

# - :::s 

# w 

# ..,

# Outline

• Test Condition Review • ORVR Results • Composition of ORVR Emissions



# MWV ORVR Emissions Speciation/ July , 2013

# Test Conditions Canister Pre Aging

• TF1 (9.2 psi RVP, E10) • Load Rate= 40 g/hr, Purge 400 BV@ 22 . 7 LPM, • Vapor concentration 50°/o • Minimum 10- 15 aging cycles, 12 cycles performed 

# ORVR Prep

• Butane Load Rate = 40 g/hr, 2 g BT • Soak 1 hr • Purge canister with 400 BV at 22.7 LPM

Canister- 2.1 L BAX 1500 

# + 110 ml virgin BAX 1500 trap/test 

# MWV ORVR Emissions Speciation/ July , 2013

# Test Conditions ORVR

• 34 gallon tank, filled to 10% • Soak fuel system (2 . 1 L canister disconnected) for at least 1 hour at 80°F • Complete refueling test 

# @ 10 GPM. • Calculate emissions (g/gal). • Collect carbon samples from**cani~ter** 

# and trap . • Purge canister with 400 BV at 22.7 LPM • Reload with butane and repeat procedure as required with new trap 

# Tests conducted

• ORVR testing completed at emissions of o 

# 0.13 g/gal o 

# 0.15 g/gal o 

# 0 . 21 g/gal o 

# 0 . 26 g/gal Canister- 2.1 L BAX 1500 

# + 110 ml virgin BAX 1500 trap/test 

# MWV ORVR Emissions Speciati on/ July , 2013

# ORVR Results

Emission Fuel Canister Trap Canister+ Vapor Rate Dispensed Loading Loading Trap Generation (g/gal) (gal) (g) (g) Loading Rate (g) (g/gal) I • • • 

# • • 

# • 

# • I • 

# 17.9



# -- -·- -·· 

# 0.15 24.4 97.2 3 . 6 100.8 4.13

- - - ... -- "

- - 

# - ·- - 

# ·- ·- 

# 0.21 21.8 lj 

# 95 . 6 4.6 100.5 I 

# 4.61

-·- _IL__**-~ --~-**  

## --- 

# 0.26 19.6 92.5 5.2 97 . 7 4.48



# MWV ORVR Emissions Speciation/ July, 2013 5

# GC/FID Results ORVR Emission Rate- 0.13 g/gal 100%

90%

# ~ - -- -·-- -- --·--- --· · I 

## 80% 70% 

# - -- --- - - 

# --- ---- ----·- 

## ... 

# ----- • Trap Canister VI 

# - ';1. 

## 60% 

# 0 > 

# - • Trap Canister 

# PI 

# c 0 

## 50% 

# :.e Ill 

### 0 Q. 

# E 40% 

# 8 30% 20% 10%

0% 

# .. --·r - C4 

# cs Ethanol MTBE 

# C6,C7 C8 Aromatics 

# MWV ORVR Emissions Speci ation/ July , 2013 6

# GC/FID Results ORVR Emission Rate- 0.15 g/gal 100%

90% 80% 70% • Trap Canister VI 

# - '#. 60% 

# 0 > • Trap Canister 

# PI



# - c: 0 

## 50%**~** 

## 'iii 0 Q. 

# E 40% 

# 8 30% 20% 10%

0% 

# _11 --, , - -----,-- --, 

## C

4 

# cs Ethanol MTBE C6,C7 C8 Aromatics 

# MWV ORVR Em issions Speciat i on/ July , 2013 7

# GC/FID Results ORVR Emission Rate- 0.21 g/gal 100%

90% 80% 70%



# - ';1. 

## 60% 

# 0 > 

# - c 0 

## 50% 

# ... ·;;; 0 

# a. E 40% 0 

# v 30% 20% 10%

0% 

# -- - --r-- C4 

# cs Ethanol



## - 

# /AWV -----, MTBE • Trap Canister VI**~ Tr~p**  

## Canister 

# PI



# - ----

--·· 

## --- 

# --, 

# -- • --1 I 

## C6,C7 C8 Aromatics ORVR Em i ssi ons Speciat i on/ July , 2013 8

# GC/FID Results ORVR Emission Rate 100%

90% -1 

# I 80% - 70%



# - '*' 0 > 

# - 60% 

# c 

# .2 ;t:: 

## 50% Ill 

### 0 

# a. 

# E 40% 

# 8 30% 20% 10%

0% C4 

# cs Ethanol 

# MWV 

# - 0.26 g/gal

• Trap Can i ster VI • Trap Canister 

# PI

MTBE C6,C7 C8 Aromatics ORVR Em i ssions Speciation/ July , 

## 2013 9

# GC/FID Results Grouping of Compounds

• C4: butane • C5: pentane, methyl butane • C6: dimethyl butane, methyl pentane, hexane • C7: dimethyl pentane, heptane • C8: trimethyl pentane, octane • Aromatics: benzenes, toluene



# MWV ORVR Em issions Speciation/ July , 2013

# Findings

• Under these ORVR test conditions and emissions rates ranging from

. 0.13 to 0.26 grams/gallon, the primary components were C4 compounds (butane and iso- butane) • No ethanol seen in any of the ORVR emissions



# MWV ORVR Em i ssi ons Speciation/ June , 2013