i 

Dispensing Equipment Testing With Mid-Level 

Ethanol/Gasoline Test Fluid

Summary Report

November 2010

Kenneth Boyce, Principal Engineer Manager – Energy

J. Thomas Chapin, Vice President – Corporate Research

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. 

333 Pfingsten Road

Northbrook, Illinois 60062
This publication received minimal editorial review at NREL.

NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
iii

Executive Summary

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) Nonpetroleum-Based Fuel Task is 

responsible for addressing the hurdles to commercialization of fuels and fuel blends such 

as ethanol that are derived from biomass. One such hurdle is the unknown compatibility 

of new fuels with current infrastructure, such as the equipment used at service stations to 

dispense fuel into automobiles. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Vehicle 

Technology Program and the Biomass Program have engaged in a joint project to 

evaluate the potential for blending ethanol into gasoline at levels higher than the present 

allowance of nominal 10 volume percent (E10). 

This project was established to help DOE and NREL better understand any potentially 

adverse impacts caused by a lack of knowledge about the compatibility of the dispensing 

equipment with ethanol blends higher than what the equipment was designed to dispense. 

This report provides data about the impact of introducing a gasoline with a higher 

volumetric ethanol content into service station dispensing equipment from a safety and a 

performance perspective. 

The project consisted of testing new and used equipment harvested from the field (all 

equipment UL listed for up to E10). Testing was performed according to requirements in 

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) Outline of Investigation for Power-Operated 

Dispensing Devices for Gasoline and Gasoline/Ethanol Blends With Nominal Ethanol 

Concentrations up to 85 Percent (E0-E85), Subject 87A, except using a CE17a test fluid 

based on the scope of this program. The primary focus was to identify leakage and assess 

other safety-related equipment performance as addressed by applicable UL requirements. 

The overall results of the program were not conclusive insofar as no clear trends in the 

overall performance of all equipment could be established. New and used equipment such 

as shear valves, flow limiters, submersible turbine pumps, and hoses generally performed 

well. Some new and used equipment demonstrated a reduced level of safety or 

performance, or both, during either long-term exposure or performance tests. Dispenser 

meter/manifold/valve assemblies in particular demonstrated largely noncompliant results. 

Nozzles, breakaways, and swivels, both new and used, experienced noncompliant results 

during performance testing. Responses of nonmetals, primarily gaskets and seals, were 

involved with these noncompliances. 
iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ASTM ASTM International 

CE17a Test fluid composed of predetermined amounts of aggressive ethanol and 

ASTM Reference Fuel C

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers 

UL Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
v 

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................ iv

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

Background ..................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 1

Test Items and Methods ...................................................................................................... 2

Test Items ........................................................................................................................ 2

Selection ...................................................................................................................... 2

Test Methods ................................................................................................................... 2

Test Fluid .................................................................................................................... 2

Test Methodology ....................................................................................................... 3

Results ................................................................................................................................. 5

Analysis............................................................................................................................. 12

Gaskets .......................................................................................................................... 13

Metallic Parts ................................................................................................................ 13

Used Equipment ............................................................................................................ 13

Breakaways ................................................................................................................... 13

Flow Limiter ................................................................................................................. 14

Hoses ............................................................................................................................. 14

Meter/Manifold/Valve Assemblies ............................................................................... 14

Nozzles .......................................................................................................................... 14

Shear Valves ................................................................................................................. 14

Swivels .......................................................................................................................... 14

Submersible Turbine Pumps ......................................................................................... 15

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 16

References ......................................................................................................................... 17

Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix B ....................................................................................................................... 22
1 

Introduction

Background

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) Office of Deployment and 

Industry Partnerships and the Center for Transportation Technologies and Systems’ Fuels 

Performance Group are responsible for addressing the hurdles to commercialization of 

fuels and fuel blends such as ethanol that are derived from biomass. One such hurdle is 

the unknown compatibility of new fuels with current infrastructure, such as the 

equipment used at service stations to dispense fuel into automobiles. 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, as of 2008 there were almost 

162,000 retail gasoline outlets in the United States.

1

 The equipment now in use consists 

of products from various manufacturers (some of which are no longer in business), of 

varying ages, maintained to varying degrees using different processes. The potential 

responses of the legacy base of installed fuel dispensing equipment to different fuel 

compositions such as E15 are unknown. 

Purpose

This project used a systematic method to evaluate the performance of fuel dispensing 

equipment when exposed to a defined test fluid. The tests provide a methodology for 

assessing the equipment response to the predetermined test conditions, with a focus on 

loss of containment (leakage) and other safety-related performance issues. 

In the equipment design process, materials are selected based on particular design 

considerations and performance requirements for the system. A key aspect of the 

selection is the compatibility of the materials (metals, plastics, and elastomers) with the 

fuel to which it will be exposed. Thus, an effective selection process is based on a 

comprehensive understanding of the material’s mechanical, physical, and chemical 

properties. These materials are selected and used to produce component parts of 

equipment. The intended use of the equipment is a critical parameter for defining the 

required performance with regard to specific attributes. 

In the case of fuel-dispensing equipment, materials that were selected—based on a 

characteristic compatibility with gasoline and gasoline/ethanol blends up to E10—may 

not exhibit the same compatibility with different fuel compositions. This program 

systematically evaluated the response of fuel dispensing equipment to exposure to 

ethanol/gasoline fuels with higher ethanol content by performing testing in the form of 

accelerated long-term exposure and subsequent assessment or safety performance.

Tests were conducted on new (previously unused) samples of equipment listed for 

gasoline and E10 use, and on used equipment that dispensed gasoline or E10 in the field. 

For harvested equipment, this testing was conducted to reflect a “second life” in 

dispensing a new fuel.
2 

Test Items and Methods

Test Items

NREL identified and procured the equipment to be tested. Samples were subsequently 

delivered and prepared for test at the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) facility. A labeled 

photo of fueling equipment is available in Appendix B. 

Selection 

NREL identified test items based on discussions with a variety of stakeholders with 

knowledge of the practical use of fuel dispensing equipment. Stakeholders provided 

information about the prevalence of particular equipment in the marketplace, and about 

installation and maintenance conditions and experience. After their input was gathered

and evaluated, specific pieces of equipment were targeted as preferred test items for the 

testing program. 

Equipment samples of identified test items were obtained for testing from various 

sources. Used equipment was obtained from the marketplace based on availability. The 

used dispensers were employed in different geographic locations for varying durations 

and may have been subjected to variable levels of maintenance.

The selected test items were listed for use with gasoline and E10. The legacy standards 

used to evaluate these products specify the use of ASTM Reference Fuel H test fluid 

(85% ASTM Reference Fuel C and 15% nonaggressive ethanol).

Preparation 

All samples were provided with closures to effectively seal all openings. Dispenser 

samples were modified to reduce their height to fit in the test chamber and to maximize 

test chamber space to generate data. Size reduction methods were selected to preserve as 

much as possible the integrity of the manufacturers’ assembled connections, joints, seals, 

and structure. 

Dispenser samples were configured for the Long-Term Exposure test with hanging 

hardware to simulate practical use and promote test efficiency. The hanging hardware 

consists of the breakaway coupling, flexible hose, swivel, and hose nozzle valve. After 

the Long-Term Exposure test, these samples were disassembled to perform applicable 

performance testing on the required equipment. 

Test Methods

Test methods were based on established, recognized protocols that were modified to 

address the specific focus of this program. 

Test Fluid 

The tests were conducted using CE17a test fluid, as defined by NREL. The test fluid was 

based on the same standard used to evaluate material compatibility for flexible-fuel 

vehicles. A 17% ethanol volumetric concentration was selected to address E15 use. This

was not a commercial fuel, but rather a test fluid selected for research purposes.
3 

CE17a test fluid consists of a mixture of 83% ASTM Reference Fuel C and 17% 

aggressive ethanol. Reference Fuel C is a 50/50 v/v blend of isooctane and toluene. 

Aggressive ethanol as defined in SAE Publication J1681, Gasoline, Alcohol, and Diesel 

Fuel Surrogates for Materials Testing,2 is a mixture of synthetic ethanol and the following 

aggressive elements in defined amounts: deionized water, sodium chloride, sulfuric acid, 

and glacial acetic acid. The added elements are representative of contaminants found in 

ethanol. The test fluids were prepared the same day they were used. 

Test Methodology 

Tests were conducted in accordance with the applicable methods specified in the Outline 

of Investigation for Power-Operated Dispensing Devices for Gasoline and 

Gasoline/Ethanol Blends With Nominal Ethanol Concentrations up to 85 Percent (E0-

E85), Subject 87A,3

 except for the use of the CE17a test fluid. The testing methodology 

was developed with significant industry participation. These test criteria are defined to 

address reasonable safety of the equipment, focusing on loss of fuel containment and 

other safety-critical performance such as loss of ability to stop fuel flow or failure of 

breakaway couplings to separate at appropriate forces.4 A brief summary of the test 

protocols follows; unless otherwise noted, references are to UL Subject 87A:

• Long-Term Exposure – Section 29. Samples were filled with test fluid and placed 

in a 60oC + 2oC chamber for 2,520 hours. A 50 psi leakage test was conducted 

weekly and the test fluid was replaced with fresh test fluid. Extracted test fluids 

were retained for subsequent analytical testing from one new and one used 

dispenser of similar design. Following Long-Term Exposure testing, samples 

were subjected to applicable performance tests depending on equipment type. 

• High-Pressure Leakage Test – Section 30. Samples were subjected to a 

hydrostatic or aerostatic pressure of 150% of the rated value, but not lower than 

75 psi. 

• Meter Endurance – Section 31. Meter samples were operated at rated pressure for 

300 hours, and then subjected to a leakage test at 150% of rated pressure, but not 

lower than 75 psi. 

• Endurance Test – Pumps: Section 32. Pump samples were operated at the 

maximum discharge pressure developed by the pump for 300 hours. 

• Hydrostatic Strength Test – Section 34. Samples were exposed to an internal 

hydrostatic pressure of 250 psi for 1 minute. 

• Leakage and Electrical Continuity Test – Section 35. Hose samples were 

pressurized and the electrical resistance was measured.

• Hose Bending Test (Filled) – Section 36. Hose samples were filled with test fluid 

and subjected to a defined bending process for 3,150 cycles per day for 6 days. 

• Low-Temperature Test – Section 37. Hose samples were filled with test fluid for 

conditioning for a specific duration, then drained and capped. Following the 

conditioning, the samples were placed in a chamber at –40oC to + 2oC for 16 

hours, and subsequently bent around a mandrel with defined properties. 
4 

• Seat Leakage Test – Breakaway Couplings: Section 38. Breakaway coupling 

samples were uncoupled and subjected to a hydrostatic or aerostatic pressure of 

150% of the rated value for 1 minute. The test was then repeated with a pressure 

of 0.25 psi. 

• Operation Test – Electrically Operated Valves: Section 39. Electrically operated 

valve samples were connected to a test fluid system under rated pressure with the 

valve in the open position and fluid flowing, then the valve was closed to 

determine if there was continued fluid flow. 

• Electrical Continuity Test – Section 42. The electrical resistance across the 

element was measured.

• Pull Test – Breakaway Couplings: Section 43. Breakaway coupling samples were 

subjected to a pull force to verify that they would separate at a force value not 

more than the rated value and not less than 100 pounds. 

• Endurance Test – Breakaway Couplings: Section 44. Reconnectable breakaway 

coupling samples were subjected to 100 cycles of separation and reconnection. 

• Operation Test – Swivel Connectors: Section 45. Swivel connector samples were 

subjected to 100,000 cycles of operation under defined conditions. 

• Endurance Test – Hose Nozzle Valve: Section 46. Hose nozzle valve samples 

were subjected to 100,000 cycles of operation. 

• Pull Test – Hose Assemblies: Section 49. Hose assembly samples with end 

couplings were subjected to a 400-pound pull force. 

• Shear Section – Section 61. Shear valve samples were subjected to a bending 

moment of not more than 650 pound-feet to verify the valve would close. 

• Ozone Test – Section 62. Specimens from hose samples were exposed to ozone 

for 70 hours and examined for cracking. 

• Dielectric Strength – UL 79, Section 61. Pump samples were subjected to a 60 Hz 

potential of 1,460 V applied between live electrical parts and dead metal for a 

period of 1 minute. 

Equipment testing is typically terminated when a noncompliance is noted. However, in 

the interest of gathering the most data possible, testing after a noncompliance was 

continued to the degree possible in this program. In some cases, test results are 

interdependent and the root cause of noncompliances in one test may lead to 

noncompliances in others. 
5 

Results 

Table 1 contains a summary of the test results observed on the new dispenser samples 

and dispensing equipment subassemblies. Dispenser samples were configured with 

hanging hardware for the Long-Term Exposure Test. 

Table 1. Tests on New Samples

Sample Tests Conducted Results

Dispenser #1 Long-Term Exposure

High-pressure Leakage

Compliant

Compliant

Meter/manifold/electric 

valve assembly #1

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Meter Endurance

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant. Leakage noted during 

endurance test from meter and valve seals. 

As a result, no further testing could be 

conducted.

Dispenser #2 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Compliant

Compliant

Meter/manifold/electric 

valve assembly #2

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Meter endurance

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant. Leakage noted during 

endurance test from valve seals. As a result, 

no further testing could be conducted.

Breakaway #1 

(reconnectable)

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Seat Leakage

Pull

Endurance

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant. Poppet disengaged and 

leakage noted.

Compliant

Compliant

Breakaway #2 

(reconnectable)

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Pull Test

Seat Leakage

Endurance

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Seat Leakage

Pull (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant. Leakage noted.

Compliant

Inconclusive. Sample separated at 180 psi 

and could not reach 250 psi test pressure

Compliant
6 

Sample Tests Conducted Results

Breakaway #3 

(reconnectable)

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Seat Leakage

Pull

Endurance

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Seat Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant. Poppet o-ring displaced and 

leakage noted.

Compliant

Noncompliant. Leakage noted.

Inconclusive. Sample separated at 178 psig 

and could not reach test pressure. 

Compliant

Breakaway #4

(non-reconnectable)

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Pull

Seat Leakage

Electrical continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Breakaway #5

(non-reconnectable)

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Pull

Seat Leakage

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Flow Limiter #1 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Hose Assembly #1 Long-Term Exposure

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Hydrostatic Strength

Ozone

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Hose Assembly #2 Long-Term Exposure

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Pull

Hydrostatic Strength

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Hose Assembly #3, with 

integral swivel

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage 

Swivel Operation

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Hydrostatic Strength

Ozone

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Hose Assembly #4 Long-Term Exposure

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Pull

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Hose Assembly #5 Long-Term Exposure

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Pull

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant
7 

Sample Tests Conducted Results

Hose Assembly #6 Long-Term Exposure

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Hydrostatic Strength

Ozone

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Hose assembly #7 Long-Term Exposure

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Hydrostatic Strength

Ozone

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Hose assembly #8 Long-Term Exposure

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Hydrostatic Strength

Ozone

Noncompliant. Ferrule started leaking during 

pressure testing in week 8 of long-term 

exposure.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Hose #9 Hose Bending Test (Filled)

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Low Temperature

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Nozzle #1 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Endurance

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Inconclusive; nozzle shut off flow after approx. 

14,000 cycles of endurance and would not 

allow further flow. As observed the test 

terminated in a safe condition.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Nozzle #2 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Endurance

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Nozzle #3 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Endurance

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Inconclusive; nozzle shut off flow after approx. 

83,000 cycles of endurance and would not 

allow further flow. As observed the test 

terminated in a safe condition.

Noncompliant. Leakage noted.

Compliant

Compliant

Nozzle #4 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Endurance

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant. Leakage noted.

Compliant

Compliant
8 

Sample Tests Conducted Results

Nozzle #5 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Endurance

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Nozzle #6 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Endurance

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Noncompliant. Leakage noted.

Compliant

Noncompliant. Leakage noted.

Compliant

Compliant

Shear Valve #1 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Hydrostatic Strength

Shear Section

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Shear Valve #2 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Hydrostatic Strength

Shear Section

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Shear Valve #3 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Hydrostatic Strength

Shear Section

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Submersible turbine 

pump #1

Long Term Exposure

Hydrostatic Strength

Dielectric Strength

Compliant

Inconclusive. Required test pressure could not 

be applied based on sample configuration.

Compliant

Swivel #1 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Operation

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Swivel #2 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Electrical Continuity

Operation

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant 

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Swivel #3 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Operation

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant. Leakage noted after 

approximately 26,000 cycles on swivel nut.

Noncompliant – leakage noted at swivel nut.

Compliant

Compliant
9 

Table 2 contains a summary of the test results observed on used dispensers and 

dispensing equipment subassemblies.

Table 2: Tests on Used Samples

Sample Tests Conducted Results

Dispenser #3 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Compliant

Compliant

Meter/manifold/electric 

valve assembly #3

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Meter Endurance

High-Pressure Leakage repeated

Hydrostatic Strength

Operation Test – Electrically 

Operated Valves

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant. Valve did not shut off flow.

Nozzle #7 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Endurance

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Noncompliant. Leakage noted during pressure 

testing starting in week 10 of long-term 

exposure.

Noncompliant. Leakage noted.

Noncompliant; 100,000 cycles completed but 

leakage noted.

Noncompliant. Leakage noted.

Compliant

Compliant

Breakaway #6

(reconnectable)

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Seat leakage

Pull Test

Endurance

Seat Leakage

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant 

Noncompliant. Seat leakage noted at 71 cycles. 

Noncompliant. Leakage noted.

Compliant

Hose assembly #10 Long-Term Exposure

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Pull

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Hose assembly #11, with 

integral swivel

Long-Term Exposure

Swivel Operation

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Hydrostatic Strength

Ozone

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Dispenser #4 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Compliant

Compliant

Meter/manifold/electric 

valve assembly #4

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Meter Endurance

Compliant. 

Compliant

Noncompliant. Leakage noted during 

endurance test from meter and valve seals. As 

a result, no further testing could be conducted.
10 

Sample Tests Conducted Results

Nozzle #8 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage 

Endurance

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Noncompliant. Seat leakage noted during 

pressure testing in week 9 of long-term 

exposure.

Noncompliant. Leakage noted.

Noncompliant; 100,000 cycles completed but 

seat leakage noted

Noncompliant. Leakage noted

Compliant

Compliant

Breakaway #7

(reconnectable)

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage 

Seat Leakage

Pull

Endurance

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Seat Leakage

Pull (repeated)

Electrical Continuity

Hydrostatic Strength

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant. Separated above rated value. 

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Inconclusive. Sample separated at 208 psig and 

could not reach test pressure

Hose assembly #12 Long-Term Exposure

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Pull

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Hose assembly #13, with 

integral swivel

Long-Term Exposure

Swivel Operation

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Hydrostatic Strength

Ozone

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant; cracking noted

Dispenser #5 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Compliant

Compliant

Meter/manifold/electric 

valve assembly #5

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Meter Endurance

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant. Leakage noted at valve seal. As 

a result, no further testing could be conducted.

Nozzle #9 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Endurance

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Breakaway #8

(reconnectable)

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Seat Leakage

Pull Test

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant. Separated above rated value. 

After separation, sample could not be 

reassembled to complete other tests. 

Compliant
11 

Sample Tests Conducted Results

Swivel #4 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Operation Test

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant. Body joint leaked after 

approximately 62,000 cycles. Swivel nut leaked 

after approximately 12,200 cycles.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Hose assembly #14, with 

integral swivel

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Swivel Operation

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Ozone

Noncompliant. Ferrule started leaking during 

pressure testing in week 7 of long-term 

exposure.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant – cracking noted

Dispenser #6 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Compliant

Compliant

Meter/manifold/electric 

valve assembly #6

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Meter Endurance

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant. Leakage noted during 

endurance test from meter and valve seals. As 

a result, no further testing could be conducted.

Nozzle #10 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Endurance Test

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant 

Noncompliant. Seat leakage noted and 

automatic shutoff not operating after approx. 

61,000 cycles of Endurance Test.

Compliant

Compliant

Breakaway #9

(non-reconnectable)

Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Seat Leakage

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Swivel #5 Long-Term Exposure

High-Pressure Leakage

Operation Test

High-Pressure Leakage (repeated)

Hydrostatic Strength

Electrical Continuity

Compliant

Compliant

Noncompliant; swivel nut leaked after 

approximately 3000 cycles. Testing on body 

joint was compliant.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Hose Assembly #15 Long-Term Exposure

Leakage and Electrical Continuity

Pull

Hydrostatic Strength

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant
12 

Analysis 

An exhaustive literature search was conducted on gasoline and gasoline-ethanol blended 

fuel compatibility with fuels infrastructure materials and equipment. From this 

investigation, numerous published reports have demonstrated that exposure to fuels such 

as ethanol/gasoline blends may affect materials that come into contact with the fuel. This 

may affect the performance of a formed part (such as a gasket) manufactured from such 

materials. The formed part may be affected to the degree that it modifies equipment 

performance with respect to a critical property. In this case, a change in equipment 

performance or safety may be noted. For this program, a change in equipment 

performance was gauged by response to the defined test conditions. 

Table 3 summarizes the performance of different types of equipment in the testing 

program. 

Table 3: Summary of Test Results on Different Types of Equipment

Equipment

Compliant Test 

Results on New 

Samplesa

Compliant Test 

Results on Used 

Samplesa

Overall 

Compliant Test 

Resultsa

Breakaways 2 of 5 1 of 4 3 of 9

Flow Limiters 1 of 1 – 1 of 1

Hoses/Hose Assemblies 8 of 9 4 of 6 12 of 15

Meter/Manifold/Valve Assemblies 0 of 2 0 of 4 0 of 6

Nozzles 3 of 6 1 of 4 4 of 10

Shear Valves 3 of 3 – 3 of 3

Submersible Turbine Pumps 1 of 1 – 1 of 1

Swivelsb 3 of 4 3 of 5 6 of 9 a

In the context of Table 3, “compliant” results is used to include fully compliant test results and inconclusive test results 

that did not directly manifest a hazard such as leakage during the testing that was able to be performed as a part of this 

research program. 

b

 Includes swivels integral to hose assemblies. 

For equipment with noncompliant test results, few leakages occured during the LongTerm Exposure test. The majority of leakages occurred during performance testing. 

These results may indicate that exposing some equipment to fuel blends with higher 

ethanol content may not produce an immediate or short-term response that would result 

in a leakage. However, this equipment may still demonstrate reduced effective life and in 

time lead to a reduced level of safety as assessed in the subsequent performance testing. 

Some equipment, both new and used, demonstrated performance during and after the 

Long-Term Exposure test that indicated a reduced level of safety or efficacy, or both. 

These data indicate that some pieces of equipment in the legacy base of installed gasoline 

dispensing equipment may be adversely affected by exposure to fuel with higher ethanol 

content. During this testing program, a number of leakages and other noncompliant 

results were noted on new and used equipment harvested from the field. Leakages are 

largely attributed to effects of exposure on the gasket and seal materials. The only 

exceptions were cases in which a polymeric component of a breakaway coupling was 

degraded and the damage resulted in a consequential leakage. 
13 

Gaskets 

Exposure to gasoline/ethanol blends may cause gasket and seal materials to swell4 or 

otherwise be affected. Although mild swelling may produce the short-term effect of a 

tighter seal, it is indicative of a material response to exposure that may have long-term 

consequences for seal performance. Previous studies6

 identified volume swelling as one 

of the most critical measurements when considering tolerances for elastomeric seal 

housing design; swelling of elastomers greater than 20% have reportedly caused several 

problems, including overfill of the seal housing groove, seal extrusion damage, extremely 

high stresses in the seal and in the housing, occasional fracture of metal components, and 

progressive degradation of elastomers. Studies7 have also established that elastomers 

demonstrate increased permeability of gasoline/ethanol blends with increasing ethanol 

content. Permeation may in turn lead to extraction of organic compounds from exposed 

nonmetals. In the case of fillers and other compounds that are introduced into the gasket 

or seal for a specific performance attribute, such extraction may fundamentally alter the 

material and the corresponding performance of the formed part. 

Depending on the configuration, fuel dispensers may contain 20 to 60 (or more) gaskets 

and seals. Many equipment manufacturers use a variety of gasket materials in their 

ongoing production of specific pieces of equipment, with potential variations in sourcing 

over time and different manufacturing locations. The field population of a specific piece 

of equipment designed for use with gasoline and E10 may incorporate a variety of gasket 

materials. In the past, these materials were generally selected based on their compatibility 

with gasoline and E10. The materials may demonstrate varying compatibility with higher 

ethanol fuel blends.

Metallic Parts 

In this study, there was no noted effect on metallic parts of equipment. The lack of 

galvanic interaction or other significant corrosion is consistent with the relatively lower 

ethanol content of E15 fuel serving as the subject of this study and corresponding lower 

electrical conductivity, compared to higher ethanol fuel blends such as E85. 

Used Equipment 

Used equipment has already been subjected to a useful life, which reflects its unique 

conditions of use and maintenance. Use conditions may vary widely with respect to 

temperature, fuels the equipment dispensed, duration of use, conditions of practical use, 

and similar environmental conditions. Maintenance conditions such as adherence to 

applicable schedules and field modification of the equipment also may vary widely. 

Based on these practical issues, the response of used equipment to the prescribed test 

conditions may be inherently variable. Some used equipment demonstrated noncompliant 

results in this test program. However, various pieces of used subassemblies completed the 

testing with fully compliant results. In all cases, if legacy dispensers were to be exposed 

to fuel blends with higher ethanol content, effective supervision, maintenance, and 

inspection regimes will be important to effectively monitor the equipment’s response to 

the different conditions of use and proactively minimize the occurrence of hazards.

Breakaways 

The breakaway coupling samples demonstrated varying performance in the test program. 

Three of the nine samples tested, and two of the five new samples, yielded compliant 
14 

results. All three non-reconnectable samples yielded compliant results. Two cases of 

noncompliant results were for reconnectable breakaways, in which the poppet was 

dislodged during endurance and caused containment loss; a more appropriate poppet 

material would be expected to produce better practical results. Only one of the four used 

samples produced compliant results. Two noncompliances were noted for the pull test 

force on used samples. Two instances of seat leakage were noted on one new and one 

used sample; more appropriate sealing methods for the seat would be expected to produce 

better practical results in these cases.

Flow Limiter 

The flow limiter sample yielded fully compliant results. 

Hoses 

Hoses and hose assemblies, both new and used, fared well overall. Twelve of the 15 

samples, and eight of the nine new samples, complied with all tests that were performed. 

Thirteen of the 14 samples yielded results on the hoses that were compliant. Of the three 

samples that produced noncompliant results, two leaked at the fitting ferrule, and one 

used sample yielded noncompliant results in the ozone test. In the cases involving leaks 

at the ferrule, a more appropriate sealing method would be expected to produce better 

practical results.

Meter/Manifold/Valve Assemblies 

The meter/manifold/valve assemblies demonstrated noncompliant results in the six 

dispensers tested. In five cases, the meter cover seal leaked; in the sixth, the electric valve 

lost its ability to shut off the flow of fuel. These data indicate that gasket and seal 

materials used in these applications may be particularly affected by exposure to fuel 

blends with greater ethanol content. The seal materials used in this part of the hydraulic 

tree may require careful consideration if fuel blends with higher ethanol content are used. 

Nozzles 

The nozzle samples demonstrated varying performance in the test program. Four of the 

10 samples tested, and three of the six new samples, yielded compliant results or results 

that did not involve containment loss. Five of the six noncompliant results noted involved 

leakage, including seat leakage; more appropriate sealing methods would be expected to 

produce better practical results. Only one of the four used samples produced compliant 

results.

Shear Valves 

The three new shear valve samples demonstrated compliant results in all cases. 

Swivels 

The swivel samples demonstrated varying performance. Six of the nine samples tested 

yielded compliant results. Three of the four new samples were compliant; this may 

indicate that more recent designs are better suited to anticipate use with E15 fuel. Three 

of the five used samples produced compliant results. All three noncompliant results noted 

involved leakage that started during the operation test. More appropriate seal materials 

would be expected to produce better practical results. 
15 

Submersible Turbine Pumps 

The submersible turbine pump sample tested demonstrated compliant results for the longterm exposure and dielectric strength test. The hydrostatic strength test yielded 

inconclusive results because the required test pressure could not be applied based on the 

test sample configuration; however, no noncompliant results were noted. These data do 

not demonstrate an incompatibility of the test item with E15, and the Long-Term

Exposure test was successfully completed. 
16 

Conclusion

The overall results of the program were not conclusive insofar as no clear trends in the 

overall performance of all equipment could be established. 

Various pieces of new and used dispensing equipment demonstrated compliant results. 

Shear valve and flow limiter test items produced compliant results, the submersible 

turbine pump performed well, and hoses generally yielded compliant results. 

Some equipment with noncompliant results did not leak during the Long-Term Exposure 

test. These results may indicate that exposing some equipment to fuel blends with higher 

ethanol content may or may not produce an immediate or short-term response that would 

cause leakage. However, this equipment may still demonstrate reduced effective life and 

in time lead to a reduced level of safety as assessed in the subsequent performance 

testing. 

Some equipment, both new and used, demonstrated performance during and after the 

Long-Term Exposure test that indicated a reduced level of safety or performance, or both. 

These pieces of equipment demonstrated limited ability to safely accommodate exposure 

to fuels such as E15 with higher ethanol content. Responses of nonmetals to exposure—

notably gaskets and seals, but also polymeric parts—were involved with these 

noncompliances. Dispenser meter/manifold/valve assemblies in particular demonstrated 

largely noncompliant results; the seal materials used in this portion of the hydraulic tree 

may require careful consideration if fuel blends with higher ethanol content are used. 

Analysis of the extracted test fluids may provide additional insight into the chemical 

interactions of the test fluids, materials, and the corresponding degradation mechanisms; 

analysis results are available in Appendix A. Because of the specific nature and goals 

defined for this program, a finite number of test items were employed. Testing of other 

items to establish a larger sample size may provide additional insights. Further detailed 

analysis of the equipment that produced compliant results may establish best practices; 

conversely, further detailed analysis of the equipment that produced noncompliant results 

may further identification of root causes of equipment design that may lead to leakages or 

other potential risks. This work is ongoing and will be reported separately. 

 
17 

References 

1. U.S. Energy Information Administration Web site, Independent Statistics and 

Analysis, www.eia.doe.gov/ask/gasoline_faqs.asp#retail_gasoline_stations. 

2. IHS. SAE Publication J1681, Gasoline, Alcohol, and Diesel Fuel Surrogates for 

Materials Testing. http://engineers.ihs.com/document/abstract/ 

HYEYNAAAAAAAAAAA. 

3. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Outline of Investigation for Power-Operated 

Dispensing Devices for Gasoline and Gasoline/Ethanol Blends With Nominal 

Ethanol Concentrations up to 85 Percent (E0-E85), Subject 87A, Sixth Edition. 

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/outscope/outscope.asp?fn=0087a.html. 

4. Subject 87A was developed based on technical research and collaboration with a 

Technical Panel. The Technical Panel comprised material science, fuel, and 

standards experts representing organizations including U.S. National 

Laboratories, the renewable fuel trade, automotive manufacturers, fuel station 

operators, material manufacturers, and the fire service. Following the technical 

development process, Subject 87A was published in 2007. 

5. Stevens, R.D. “Fuel and Permeation Resistance of Fluoroelastomers to Ethanol 

Blends.” Presented at the Fall 170th Technical Meeting of the Rubber Division, 

American Chemical Society, Cincinnati, OH, October 10, 2006. 

www.dupontelastomers.com/literature/viton/06ACSMini-Stevens.pdf. 

6. Ertekin, A.; Sridhar, N. 2009. “Performance of Elastomeric Materials in Gasoline 

- Ethanol Blends - A Review.” NACE Corrosion Conference 2009. 

www.dnvcolumbus.com/files/dsp_recent_publications_9_1_7.pdf. 

7. Aguilar, H.; Kander, R.G. 2000. “Fuel Permeation Study on Various Seal 

Materials.” SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-1099. http://papers.sae.org/2000-01-

1099. 
18 

Appendix A 

Fluid Analysis Summary for Dispensers 1 and 5

Oakridge National Laboratory

Mike Kass, Tim Theiss, Sam Lewis and John Storey

During the 15-week conditioning phase of UL Subject 87A, spent fluid samples were 

extracted from dispensers #1 and #5 for analysis by Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

(ORNL). Dispenser 1 was a new dispenser while Dispenser 5 has a similar design and 

was used for five years. The fuel dispensing history of Dispenser 5 is unknown. During 

the evaluation, the fluids within the dispensers were replaced once per week for 15 

weeks. A control fuel sample and tested samples from weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12 and 15 

were sent to ORNL for analysis. Photographs showing the fluid coloration with sample 

times are shown in Figures 1 and 2 for Dispensers 1 and 5, respectively. Both sets of 

fluids exhibited an amber coloration during the first week of experimentation, in contrast 

to the control fluid, which is clear. In general, the color becomes less pronounced and 

more clear as the test period progresses. The fluid in Dispenser 1 retains the amber color 

into week 12, while the fluid extracted from Dispenser 5 loses the amber coloration 

around week 8. The fuel sample for week 15 for Dispenser 1 is noteworthy in that it did 

not follow the observed trend and exhibited a clear coloration for week 15. Analysis 

revealed that this sample was chemically identical to control specimen (uncontaminated 

CE17a). The results may potentially be attributed to a sample handling error. 

The fluids were analyzed using a gas chromatography-mass spectrometer (GC-MS). GCMS is an established analytical technique for analysis of hydrocarbon compounds in 

fluid-based samples. Representative GC-MS spectra for fluids extracted from Dispenser 1 

and 5 are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. The spectra reveal key differences 

between the two samples. As shown in Figure 3, fluid extracted from Dispenser 1 (a new 

unit) showed clear identifiable peaks associated with phthalate and polymer compounds. 

In contrast, the spectra shown in Fig. 4 for the fluid pulled from the used Dispenser 5 was 

heavily contaminated with kerosene. The presence of high kerosene levels is a strong 

indicator that this dispenser unit had been used to dispense kerosene at some point in its 

operational lifetime. Unfortunately, because the kerosene concentration was so high, any 

phthalate or polymer compounds that may have been present in the fluid samples would 

be masked out by the kerosene. Therefore, we cannot state with any certainty whether 

dissolved phthalates or polymers were present in the fluid samples for Dispenser 5. 

The phthalates observed in the Dispenser 1 fluid samples are commonly added to 

dispenser hoses, and to a lesser extent in the o-rings and gaskets to increase flexibility 

and durability. Because phthalates are not covalently bonded to the polymer structure, 

they are highly susceptible to leaching and removal by fluids that are capable of 

penetrating into the polymer structure. The phthalate concentration as a function of week 

of exposure to CE17a test fluid is shown in Fig. 3 for Dispenser 1. Except for week 12, 

the phthalate level decreased with exposure indicating that the phthalate concentration in 

the diffusion region of the elastomer was decreasing with time. The results may 

potentially be attributed to a sample handling error. 
19 

On the other hand, the decrease in phthalate concentration with sampling time can be 

attributed to two compounding reasons. First, the level of available phthalates in the 

elastomer decreases with exposure time as the phthalates are leached away and, secondly, 

the diffusion distance for the fluid to permeate into the elastomer to reach and dissolve 

the phthalate compounds also increases, thereby reducing phthalate removal. Because the 

phthalates are added to polymers to impart flexibility and durability, their removal will 

result in a stiffer component that is susceptible to cracking when flexed. We cannot state 

without further investigation whether the phthalate removal was caused by a single 

component or interaction of the CE17a ingredients. However, results from the ORNL 

stir-tank materials study have shown that the volume swell (a measure of permeation) for 

polymers increased with the addition of the aggressive ethanol in most cases. 

The sample fluid from Dispenser 1 also contained high concentrations of polymer 

fragments indicative of fractured molecules of elastomers and rubber seals (see Fig. 4). 

The longer hydrocarbon chain lengths of the elastomer molecules are too large to be 

detected using GC-MS; however, fractured elements of the elastomer, such as hexanoic 

acid (shown in Fig. 4), were detected. The ester and ether molecular groups can be 

cleaved from the extended hydrocarbon structure through a hydrolysis reaction involving 

an acid acting as catalyst. Because the hydrolysis reaction requires an acid catalyst to 

cleave the polymer into the resulting hexanoic acid fragments, the acetic and sulfuric acid 

components of the test fluid are likely responsible for polymer fragmentation and 

subsequent detection. The resulting fragments are themselves acids and serve to 

propagate the hydrolysis reaction. Polymer fractionation and dissolution would 

eventually lead to structural damage and a weakening of gaskets or o-rings. Prolonged 

exposure would result in gap formation between the gasket and sealed sections leading to 

fluid leakage.

ORNL concludes that polymer degradation was caused primarily by the acid constituents 

of the aggressive ethanol. There was some discussion as to whether the 60o

C operating 

temperature was responsible for the noted polymer degradation, but the observed polymer 

hydrolysis fractionation cannot be attributed to temperature alone. Thermal-based 

reactions would result in increased crosslinking and not cleavage of the hydrocarbons 

chains. Additionally, thermal oxidation of the hydrocarbons would result in the formation 

of CO, CO2, H2O, and partially oxidized hydrocarbons (soot). However, the temperatures 

needed to promote thermal oxidation of the elastomers would be expected to exceed 60oC 

and no partially oxidized hydrocarbons of either the fuel or the polymers were detected. 

Because the kerosene contamination in the Dispenser 5 fluid samples was so high, we 

were unable to identify any peaks associated with phthalate compounds or polymer 

fractions. Therefore, we had to rely on the Dispenser 1 fluid samples to assess potential 

interactions between the test fuel and dispenser materials (especially elastomers). The 

fluid samples contained large levels of phthalates and fractionated polymers (hexanoic 

acid, etc.). The presence of phthalates indicates that the fluids were able to penetrate into 

the elastomer structure and remove the phthalate compounds which were added to 

improve flexibility. As a result the elastomers can be expected to have reduced durability. 
20 

The presence of hexanoic acid is a strong indication that the weak acids present in the test 

fuels were able to hydrolyze and break down the molecular structure of the gasket and 

seal materials. Either of these two effects will degrade the physical properties of the 

elastomers used in the gaskets, o-rings, seals, etc. and would eventually lead to leakage. 

Figure. 1. Photograph showing the weekly change in appearance of fluid extracted from 

Unit 1.

Figure 2. Photograph showing the weekly change in appearance of fluid extracted from 

Unit 5.

Control Week

1

Week

2

Week

3

Week

4

Week

8

Week

12

Week

15

Week

16
21 

Figure. 3. Phthalate concentration as a function of sample time for fluid samples extracted 

from Dispenser 1.

Figure 4. GC-MS graph showing an acid fragment formed by the cleavage of a long chain 

hydrocarbon elastomer. The ester and ether groups of the hexanoic acid are shown as 

sites where hydrolysis occurs.

Ester group Ether group
22 

Appendix B 

NREL/PIX 13531
F1146-E(10/2008) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

November 2010

2. REPORT TYPE

Subcontractor report

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Dispensing Equipment Testing With Mid-Level Ethanol/Gasoline 

Test Fluid

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08GO28308

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Kenneth Boyce, J. Thomas Chapin

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/SR-7A20-49187

5e. TASK NUMBER

FC089480

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. 

333 Pfingsten Road

Northbrook, Illinois 60062

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

JGC-0-99152-01

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

NREL/SR-7A20-49187

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

NREL Technical Monitor: Kristi Moriarty

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) Nonpetroleum-Based Fuel Task addresses the hurdles to 

commercialization of biomass-derived fuels and fuel blends. One such hurdle is the unknown compatibility of new fuels with 

current infrastructure, such as the equipment used at service stations to dispense fuel into automobiles. The U.S. Department of 

Energy’s (DOE) Vehicle Technology Program and the Biomass Program have engaged in a joint project to evaluate the potential 

for blending ethanol into gasoline at levels higher than nominal 10 volume percent. This project was established to help DOE and 

NREL better understand any potentially adverse impacts caused by a lack of knowledge about the compatibility of the dispensing 

equipment with ethanol blends higher than what the equipment was designed to dispense. This report provides data about the 

impact of introducing a gasoline with a higher volumetric ethanol content into service station dispensing equipment from a safety 

and a performance perspective. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

ethanol; e15; service station; infrastructure; fuel; dispensing equipment

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
23 

NREL Technical Monitor: Kristi Moriarty

Prepared under Subcontract JGC-0-99152-01

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Subcontract Report

NREL/SR-7A20-49187

November 2010

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308