p. 1 

### OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart

Document

Number: 

### 152 ) IV-E-2

5 Docket Number: 

### A-87-1 1

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

Sheet 152 of 242P. 2 T** f "

r _fy UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5
OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N FE B 8 I98 8 MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Briefing t o Departmen t o f Commerc e FROM : TO : THRU : Joh

n F . Anderson , Senio r Projec t Manage r Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h Docke t A-87-1 1 Cheste r J . France , Chie f Standard s Developmen t a O n January28 , 198 8 a briefing wa s presente d t o Departmen t o f Commerc e staf f reviewin g th e onboar d refuelin g contro l proposal . Alis t o f attendee s i s attached . Als o attache d i s a cop yo f the briefing material s used . Durin g th e cours e o f th

e presentatio n w e wer e abl e t o resolv e a numbe r o f concern s whic h Departmen t o f Commerc e ha d concerning our proposal . Attachment s

> 7> 3P. 3

. * < J^f\rm£

- i offal /\^.r--e&s6tA)
^dt^/LA^
Gdum-BrtJ. Lt2Vl4r3iJ (l+rt< /ifpNOmZm. X>OK> ~-;'/v#- R

l fd-w/o. SUfi.-'mi ( U °|H^i l
,^^/^^ _ //**/ * ^$/WiT-s+-r-r>J £A*A$- : T "

r _£2 2 T>oCL /^QcJi^)39^-2^^3 ^XL^/Afc\CG/0A*^ ^*- £fifi /oM $ E?R 1 OtA 5iJfcHitJC-lc-tJ

r l^A^/o^(y^^/'/<n- &2& £>.'• ; "'"^ " .>'> • 0Cm-rlTT4/C*t\m> tVvn^ L fia^» /fl/ 4 A hoc Qfcpfii 3P*-d6tif

?6i~ Wf yjty &9-&&+Z.

^•A^-e&A4- -r?^'<?rs

y 377~ofry •?, '?'! -C

Q G\P. 4

Overvie w o f EP A Proposa l fo r Refuelin g Emissio nContro l

Januar y 198 8P. 5 Overvie w 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(90% )

- Spillag e (5% ) Vapo r displacemen t fro

m undergroun dtan kven t (5% ) Uncontrolle demissio nlevel s ar e - 6. 5 g/gallo no f dispense dfue l Thi s i s equivalen t t o abou t 0,2 5 g/mil e Represent s - 2 1 o f tota l VO C emissio ninventor y (450,00 0 tons/year ) Tw o reason s for concer nwit hvehicl e refuelin g emissions : 1 ) Ozon e precursor s 2 ) Health s effect s o f emission sP. 7 ' T i Th e Ozon e Problem Ozon e ai r qualit y

continue s t o b e a substantia l problem in man y part s o f th e countr y 7 6 majo r metropolita narea s exceede dth e 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 i nexces 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 dby th e Decembe r 198 7 deadlin e Substantia l deterioratio ni nai 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 withth e standar d(Figur e 2 )P. 8Figur e 2

APPROXIMAT E PERCEN T REDUCTIO N NECESSAR Y FO R

ATTAINMEN T O F OZON E NAAQ S

2 O o 3 Q U i a u o > 8 0 7 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 3 0
HIG H

I 1 1 I I I I I fi l I I I I I I MEDIU M
I I I I I I I I I I I LO W 

# /f^^y''^</fm^^mw^ w 

# ^
cmr/AifE A
F l< 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 some 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 th e ozon e problemP.1 1
WH YCONTRO L REFUELINGEMISSIONS ? Provide s a tw o 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 refuellin g - benzen e i s a know

nhuma ncarcinoge nandgasolin e vapor s i n genera l ar e a concer n Ou r annua l inciden t reductio nestimate s for 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
• 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

GASOLINE FIL L LIN E

V

run* GASOLINE STORAG E TAN K

T lTypica l Current Evaporativ e Syste

m

PRESSURE/VACUU M RELIE FCA P EXTERNAL VEN T LIN E



### • \ FLOAT/ROLLOVE R VALV E WIT H .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 TOnboar dModification s

REMOV E EXTERNAL VEN T LIN E / SHORTE N

VAPO RLINE

MODIFIE D

3 LITE R CARBO N CANISTE ROnboar dPlu s Evaporativ e System

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

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

# I

1 4 GALLO N FUE L TAN K ^ PURGE VALV E

T O PURG E INDUCTIO N POIN T 3 LITER CARBO N CANISTE R

T JP.1 7 Implementatio nIssue s Onboar d • 4 9 - stat e or nationwid e strategy • No exemption s • 2 t o 3 year s o f manufacturers ' leadtime • Phase di na s flee t turnove r occur s - 50 1 i n5 year s Stag e I I • Nationwid e o r 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 • Minimal upfron t leadtime • Installe di n3 t o 7 year s.... . . , J..... . .. ^ . . In-Us e Effectivenes s System

• Theoretical * (whic hthe y ar e abl e t o control ) • In-Us e (includin g tamperin g an dmaintenance ) • Actua l Contro l Achieve d (includin g exemptions ) Contro l Efficienc y

Stag e I I 95 % 62-86%* * 48-66 % Onboar d

98 % 93 % 83 %

* 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 o r 7 years ) an

dmaintenanc eF, g ur e 4 . PERCEN T VO C EMISSIO N REDUCTIO N 100 % 90 % - E u o > c fr a E U J 3 a > c H 3 H V £ •» - 0 c JO u a • o 0 a : K 80 % 70 %
• 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % 198 5 Fo r6 1 Nonattainmen t Area s

Onboar d 83 %

Stag e I I (Ann
. Enf.
. Lo w Dif. )

T—i—i—i— r 66 % Stag e I I (Min
. Enf.
. Hig h Dif. ) 48 %

"i—r—i—i—i—i—i—i— r ]—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i— p -i—i—i—i—i—i— r 199 0 199 5 200 0 200 5 201 0

Beginnin g o f Yea r
T l C ORis kReductio nfor Refuelin g Control s

Baselin e Stag e I I Nationwid e Onboar d Averag e Annua l Reductio n

G V 6 0 23-3 3 3 8 Stag e I I Non-Attainmen t 10-1 5 '\ 1 5 5- 8 1 0 2- 4 B z

7 3- 4

. 1P.2 1

Averag e Stag e I I Cos t for Existin g Station s

Tota l Capita l Cos t Annua l Cost s Fue l Recover y

Credi t Ne t Annua l Cos t

Averaq e Servic e Statio nThroughpu t (qal/month ) 5,00 0 5,70 0 1,46 0 13 0 1,33 0 Onboar dSystem 35,00 0 185,00 0

12,20 0 23,20 0 3,35 0 7,30 0 88 0 4,67 0 2,47 0 2,63 0 Cos t Pe r Vehicl e (incrementa l t o evaporativ e controls ) Firs t Pric e Recover y Credi t LD

V $ 1 7 4 LD T HDG V $ 2 3 $ 3 1 6 1 5 Lifetime Cos t $1 3 $ 1 7 $ 1 6P.2 2

' .

Strategy Stag e I I Onboar d

Strategy Stag e I I N A Onboar d * Include s cos t 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 Progra

m Annua l VO C Reductio n (100 0 Mq/Y r 66-10 0 11 0 approximatel y

\H Annualize d Cos t (flM/Yr ) 58-9 2 (195-295) * 18 0 pe r refuelin g Cos t

Effectivenes s ($/Mg ) 860-112 0 85 0
Cos t Effectivenes s ($/«q ) 850-110 0 (2700-3600) * 220 0 even t inconvenienc eP.2 3

Onboar dIncrementa l Cos t Effectivenes s

$/M q 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 dat $7, 5 M

M 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 1 I nN A areas , i f $250/M g benefi t 85 0 fo r A A reduction s andbenzen e an

d> C 6 incidenc e reduction s ar e value da t $7, 5 1 I nN A areas , i f $250/Mg benefi t fo r NEG , A A reductions , an

dal l incidenc e reduction s ar e value da t $7. 5 M

MOthe r Aspect s o f Compariso n

Consume r Reactio n ONBOARD : Consume r shoul dse e no differenc e i nth e refuelin g operatio n STAG E II : Th e vapo r recover y

nozzle s ar e large r an

d 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 onenforcemen 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 tSafet y

Onboard : Some concer ntha t addin g a nonboar 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 EPA 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 w e asses s th e increas e i nsafet y ris k(i f any ) tha t ca nb e expecte dt o resul t fro

m th e installatio no f onboar d refuelin g contro l hardware ? Ho w 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 syste m change s (suc ha s fue l injection) ? Wha t safet y engineerin g solution s ar e availabl e t o eliminat e or minimiz e thes e risks ? Ho w muc hleadtime i s necessar y

t o provid e fo r necessar y safet y engineering ? How d o w e asses s th e benefi t o f eliminatin g existin g safet y risk s whic hmigh t occu r i nconjunctio 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 w e evaluat e th e benefit s o f th e potentia l reductio n i nservic e statio nsafet y

risk s (fro m reduce dspillag e and containmen t o f vapors) ? Wha t safet y benefit s ca nw e expec t fro

m th e volatilit y rule ?Conclusion s

Refuelin g emissio ncontrol s (onboardor 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