-PJ
_ 

### OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart

Document

Number: 

### 153 ) IV-E-2

6 Docket Number: 

### A-87-1 1

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

Sheet 153 of 242P. 2

/ £%\

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y %-~r£ R- 8 7-.2 1

AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5 FE B 2 3 198 8 OFFIC E O F AI R AN O RADIATIO N

MEMORANDU M SUBJECT : EPA/NTE AMeetin g Regardin g Onboar d Refuelin g

Emissio n Control s FROM : TO : THRU : Ala n Schuler , Mechanica l Enginee r

Standard s Developmen t and Suppor t Branc h Publi c Docke t A-87-1 1 Glen n W . Passavant , Senio r Projec t Manage r .y^J^ v ^ ^ ^ Standard s Developmen t and/cf u Cheste r J . France , Chie £ Standard s Developmen t eAd S O n Februar y8 , 198 8 representative s o f th e Nationa l Equipmen t Associatio n (NTEA ) me t wit h representative s o f Offic e o f Mobil e Source s a t th e Moto r Vehicl e E m Laborator yi n Ann Arbor , Michiga n t o discus s onboar d re f emissio n control s fo r heavy-dut ygasoline-fuele d vehicle s representative s fro mNTE Awer e Loui s Kleinstive r an d Oliver . Th e representative s fro mEP Awer e Joh n Anderson , Passavant , an

d Ala n Schuler . NTE Arequeste d th e meetin g EPA' s hardwar e displa yo f a n onboar d refuelin g contro l an d t o discus s th e relate d concern s o f secondar yv manufacturers . Truc k EPA' s issio n uelin g Th e Kevi n Glen n t o se e syste m ehicl e A t th e beginnin g o f th e meeting , genera l question s wer e aske d o f NTE At o bette r clarif ywh o the yrepresented . NTE A als o aske d genera l question s o f EP At o hel p clarif yth e intende d applicatio n o f th e onboar d refuelin g proposal . EP A the n explaine d th e incrementa l change s tha t manufacturer s coul d mak e t o existin g evaporativ e system s t o incorporat e onboar d refuelin g emissio n controls . Drawing s fro ma handou t describin g refuelin g emissio n control s and th e hardwar e displa y wer e use d t o hel p illustrat e a n onboar d system . Acop yo f thi s handou t i s attached . Th e discussio n appeare d t o answe r man yo f NTEA' s question s concernin g th e mechanic s o f onboar d systems .

6J-P. 3

NTE Awil l prepar e comment s regardin g onboar d refuelin g emissio n contro l systems . EP Aaske d tha t NTE Ainclud e a n approximat e breakdow n o f constituen t vehicle s b yGVWR , an

d th e effec t o f onboar d system s incrementa l t o existing evaporativ e emissio n contro l systems . EP Aals o aske d NTE At o discus s th e existing effec t o f evaporativ e standard s o n secondar y manufacturers , how member s presentl yaddres s safet yconcern s whe n modifying vehicles , the projecte d affec t o f a n onboar d rul e ma

yhav e on th

e availabilit yo f origina l manufacture r parts , an

d an yEP Aaction s whic h ma yhel p t o mitigat e an y concerns .P. 4

Overview o f EP A Proposa l for Refuelin g Emissio nContro l

Januar y 198 8P. 5
Overview Descriptio no f th e Problem Descriptio no f Technologie s Availabl e Analysi s o f Technologie s Conclusion sP. 6

Descriptio no f th e Problem

• Automotiv e refuelin g emissions : Vapo r displacemen t fro

m vehicl e tank(901 )

- Spillag e (51 ) Vapo r displacemen t fro

m undergroundtan kven t (5t ) 1 Uncontrolle demissio nlevel s ar e - 6. 5 g/gallo no f dispense dfue l 1 Thi s i s equivalen t t o abou t 0,2 5 g/mil e 1 Represent s - 2 1 o f tota l VO C emissio ninventory (450,00 0 tens/year ) • Tw o reason s for concer nwit hvehicl e refuelin g emissions : 1 ) Ozon e precursor s 2 ) Health s effect s of emission sP. 7
Th e Ozon e Problem Ozon e ai r qualit y

continue s t o b e a substantia l problem i n many part s o f th e countr y 7 6 majo r metropolita narea s exceede dthe Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standar ddurin g 1983-198 5 (Figur e 1 ) Tota l populatio no f thes e area s inexces s o f 7 7 millio n EPA' s preliminar y

assessmen t indicate s tha t man y mor e area s faile dt o mee t th e ozon e standar db y th e Decembe r 198 7 deadlin e Substantia l deterioratio ninai r qualit y projecte dby

lat e 1990 s VO C reduction s o f 1 0 t o 7 0 percen t ar e neede dt o reac h attainmen t wit hth e standar d(Figur e 2 )*Q S = 0.1 2 pp m 1-hou r concentration . >ected exceedanc e day s calculate d pe r 4 0 CF R 50. 9 i s wit h expecte d exceedance s o f mor e tha n > day s pe r yeo r hov e bee n truncate d t o 100 .

0 0I ' i g u ru 2

APPROXIMAT E PERCEN T REDUCTIO N NECESSAR Y FO R

ATTAINMEN T O F OZON E NAAQ S

2 O » - u Q u i a o o > 6? 2 0 1 0 I . •••^*e • 

# 'Ll...

TT 1 ' " ' T f i I I | ' I I I I I I I A .•••• •i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 

# f'/f/////WWW//W/////^ LO W 11111111111111 1 1111111 1

• / /
CITY/AIJE A

Ic oP.1 0

ADDRESSINGTH E OZON E PROBLE M Th e Refuelin g an

dVolatilit y

control s represen t tw

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

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

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

WH YCONTRO L REFUELINGEMISSIONS ? • Provide s a two percen t VO C reductio n Few remainin g VO C contro l strategie s ca nprovid e mor e reductio n Reductio nca nb e achieve dcos t effectivel y whe ncompare d t o othe r availabl e contro l alternative s Reduce s exposur e t o toxi c vapor s durin g refuelilng. - benzen e i s a know

nhuma ncarcinoge nan

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

d4 2 i f benzen e an

dal l ga s vapor sP.1 2

Descriptio no f Technologie s
1 Stag e I I Control s Onboar dControl sFIGUR E 2 STAG E I I VAPO R RECOVER Y BALANC E SYSTE M

METE R

GASOLIN E Fil l I IH E

CASOLIN E STORAG E TAN K

T J C OTypica l Curren l Evaporativ e Syste m

>RESSURE/

VACUUM RELIE FCA P EXTERNA L VEN T LIN E



### t 

# X FLOA T /ROLLOVER VALV E WITH .05 " LIMITIN G ORFIC E / 3/8 " DIA . 8 ' LON G #

1 4 GALLO N FUE L TAN K PURG E VALV E

1 LITE R CARBO N CANISTE R T O PURG E

INDUCTIO N POIN TREMOV E EXTERNAL VEN T LIN E / X Onboar dModification s

SHORTE N VAPO RLINE

MODIFIE D

3 LITE R CARBO N CANISTE R

inOnboar dPlu s Evaporativ e Syste m

PRESSURE/VACUU M RELIE FCA P REMOV E EXTERNA L VEN T LIN E SHORTE N VAPO RLINE

MODIFIED FLOAT/ROLLOVE R VALV E WIT H .05 " LIMITIN G ORFIC E

1 4 GALLO N FUE L TAN K PURGE VALV E

^

3 LITER

CARBO N CANISTE R T O PURG E

INDUCTIO N POIN TP.1 7 Implementatio nIssue s Onboar d • 4 9 - stat e o r nationwid e strateg y • N o exemption s • 2 t o 3 year s o f manufacturers ' leadtime 1 Phase di na s flee t turnove r occur s - 50 % i n5 year s Stag e I I • Nationwid e or non-attainmen t area s onl y strateg y • ' Federall y

mandate dexemption s i nClea nAi r Ac t o f 10,00 0 gp m majors/50,00 0 gp

m independents , State s coul dimpos e les s generou s exemptio nlevel s • Minima l upfron t leadtime 1 Installe di n3 t o 7 year sP.1 8

In-Us e Effectivenes s System Contro l Efficienc y Staq e I I Onboar d • Theoretical * 95 % 98 % (whic hthe y ar e abl e t o control ) 1 Ir^Us e 62-86%* * 93 % (includin g tamperin g an dmaintenance ) • Actua l Contro l Achieve d48-66 % 83 % (includin g exemptions )

* Stag e I I control s Displacemen t an dBreathin g Losse s • Onboar dcontrol s Displacemen t Losse s * * Stag e I I rang e i s a resul t o f th e implementatio nperio d ( 3 or 7 years ) an

dmaintenanc eE

I d C P C *> » a. E U J • 3 o > c 1 ) < u

c o v < u j T ) 0 ) o : K Figur e 4 . PERCEN T VO C EMISSIO N REDUCTIO N 100 % 90 % H 80 % 70 % - 60 % - 50 % - 40 % - 30 % - 20 % - 10 % - 0 % Fo r6 1 Nonattainmen t Area s

Onboar d

Stag e I I (Ann
. Enf. , Lo w Dif. )
Stag e I I (Min . Enf. . Hig h Dif. ) 83 %

66 %

48 %

~\. —•—i—'—i—i—i—i— r 198 5 199 0 j—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i— r 199 5 200 0 200 5 201 0 Beginnin g o f Yea r

T J C ORis kReductionfor Refuelin g Control s Averag e Annua l Reductio

n Baselin e Stag e I I Nationwid

e Onboar d Stag e II Non-Attainmen

t G V 6 0 23-3 3 3 8 10-1 5 >

C ~ 6 1 5 5- 8 1 0 2 4 

### B z

7 3- 4 4 1Averag e Stag e I I Cos t for Existin g Station s

- Tota l Capita l Cos t Annua l Cost s Servic e Statio nThroughpu t (gal/month )

5,00 0 35,00 0 185,00 0 5,70 0 12,20 0 23,20 0 1,46 0 3,35 0 7,30 0 P.2 1

Fue l Recovery Credi t 13 0 88 0 4,67 0 Ne t Annua l Cos t 1,33 0 2,47 0 2,63 0

Averag e Onboar dSyste

m Cos t Pe r Vehicl e (incrementa l t o evaporativ e controls ) LD V LO T HDG

V Firs t Pric e $1 7 $2 3 $ 3 1 Recovery Credi t 4 6 1 5 Lifetime Cos t f 1 3 J1 7 $1 6.

Strategy Stag e I I Onboar d

Strateg y Stag e I I N A Onboar d Cos t Effectivenes s

Nationwid e Annua l VO C Reductio n (100 0 Mq/Y r 190-27 0 29 0 Progra

m Annualize d Cos t (fl/Yr ) 190-22 0 20 0 Non-Attainmen t Proqra

m Annua l VO C Reductio n (100 0 Mq/Y r 66-10 0

- 11 0 Annualize d

Cos t ($M/Yr ) 58-9 2 (195-295) * 18 0 ••' " • * >

Cos t Effectivenes s ($/Mg ) 860-112 0 85 0

Cos t Effectivenes s 

### i.m) 850-110 0 (2700-3600) * 220 0 * Include s approximatel y

lU pe r refuelin g even t inconvenienc e cos tOnboar dIncrementa l Cos t Effectivenes s



# M 6 1 Area s N A are a VO C reductio nonl y

220 0 I nN A areas , i f benzen e incidenc e 190 0 reduction s ar e value da t $7, 5 1 I nN A areas , i f $250/M g benefi t 150 0 fo r A A reductio nan dbenzen e incidenc e reductio ni s value da t $7, 5 ffi' I nN A areas , i f $250/M g benefi t 85 0 for A A reduction s andbenzen e and> C 6 . incidenc e reduction s ar e value da t $7, 5 I nN A areas , i f $250/H g benefi t fo r NEG , A A reductions , an

dal l incidenc e reduction s ar e value dat $7, 5 M HP.2 4

Othe r Aspect s o f Compariso n Consume r Reactio n ONBOARD : Consume r shoul dse e n o differenc e i nthe . refuelin g operatio n STAG E II : Th e vapo r recover y

nozzle s ar e large r and mor e difficul t t o operate , Problem s i nfillin g non-vehicl e relate dtank s Distributio no f Cost s ONBOARD : Th e vehicl e purchase r wil l bea r th e onboar dcos t o f abou t $1 9 pe r vehicl e STAG E II : Th e servic e statio nowne r wil l bea r th e averag e vapo r recover y

system cos t o f abou t $11,500 , Many

smal l businesse s Maintenance/Enforcemen t Onboard : Onboar dcontrol s shoul db e maintenance-fre e an dno t dependen t o nenforcemen t Stag e II : Th e efficienc y

o f Stag e I I control s i s dependen t onroutin e maintenanc e an denforcemen tP.2 5
Safet y Onboard : Some concer ntha t addin g anonboar dsystem coul d creat e or enhanc e safet y

hazard s o f moto r vehicle s Stag e II : Safet y

no t ye t evaluated , Simila r concern s likel y EP A studyin g safet y

issue s Comparativ e ris kassessmen t for onboar dhardwar e Servic e statio nris kassessmen t Analysi s o f NHTS A

recal l dat a EP A wil l no t adop t a refuelin g requiremen t unles s i t i s convince dtha t i t ca nb e don e withou t increasin g safet y ris kP.2 6
Ke y Safet y Question s How d o we asses s th e increas e insafet y ris k(i f any ) tha t ca nb e expecte dt o resul t fro

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

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

risk s (fro m reduce dspillag e an

d containmen t o f vapors) ? Wha t safet y benefit s can - we expec t fro

m th e volatilit y rule ?P.2 7
Conclusion s Refuelin g emissio ncontrol s (onboar dor Stag e II ) ar e necessar y for ozon e attainmen t Bot honboar dan

dStag e I I ar e technologicall y

feasibl e an d cos t effectiv e Eac happroac hha s merit s i ndifferen t ke y parameters : . Geographi c coverag e Implementatio nRat e In-Us e Effectivenes s Contro l Achieve d Distributio no f Cost s Consume r Reactio n• Onboar dcontrol s ar e mor e favorabl e whe nal l i s considere d