# OAR Box 1818

Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 4 ) ll-A-2 1 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:41 PM Sheet 4 of 79 P. 1P. 2



# f r 

# Fft f

WW 

# x-

• i ! V»*V i ,

• 

### • 1 I

e « * | j An Engineering Division Report ! ..*.- . . . *

*£ii ; 

## I J 

# i l

. 1 I . 

### AI RPOLLUTIO N FROM FILLIN G UNDERGROUN DGASOLIN E STORAG E TANK S

i 

# I

; 

### :'£X*

AI R POLLUTIO N CONTRO L DISTRIC TCOUNT YO F LO S ANGELE S Js^ i y . ~~"".•' 'P. 3 

# 3

AI RPOLLUTIO N FROM FILLIN G UNDERGROUN DGASOLIN E STORAG E TANK S

RALP H M . BUR L IN ' ALBER T P . FUDURIC H

DECEMBE R 196 2

S . SMIT H GRISWOL D A I R POLLUTIO N CONTRO L OFFICE R

ROBER T L . CHAS S ROBER T G . LUNCH E DIRECTO R O F ENGINEERIN G CHIE F ENGINEE R

AI RPOLLUTION

CONTRO L DISTRIC T - COUNT YO F LO S ANGELE S 43 4 SOUT H SA N PEDR O STREET , LO S ANGELE S 13 , CALIFORNI AP. 4

TABL E O F CONTENT S Pag e ACKNOWLEDGMENT S ii i LIS T O F FIGURE S vi i LIS T O F TABLE S i x I . INTRODUCTIO N 1 H . SUMMAR Y . 3 III . CONCLUSION S 1 1 IV . TES T PROGRA M DESIG N AND FACILITIE S 1 3 V . GASOLIN EVAPORLOSSE S 1 9

Fillin g Losse s Breathin g Losse s Smal l Bul k

Plan t Losse s Tan k Truc k Losse s VI . DAT A O N MARKETIN GFACILITIE S '3 1

Servic e Statio n Facilitie s Bul k Plan t Facilitie s Tan k Truc k Facilitie s VII . COS T ESTIMAT EO FVAPORRETUR N SYSTE M .. . 4 1

Servic e Statio n Cost s Bul k Plan t Cost s Tan k Truc k Cost s \T1I . EVALUATIO N O FNISHKIAN VALV E4 7

Descriptio n Operatio n Limitation s L^\ tI

A .£ * . T -C

* i \ E * I N V

> lAO * • • • O O O • • Q • O 6 • o o • o OO

-v -P. 5



### LIS T O FFIGURE S Pag e 1 . Gasolin e Marketin g Flo w Diagra mIllustratin g Dail y Losse s Unde r

Presen t Procedure s 4 2 . Gasolin e Marketin g Flo w Diagra mIllustratin g Dail y Losse s Unde r

Propose dVapo r

Retur n riUL-CUUIC O o«o0oooeaooooso«»ee « 0 

### 3 . Experimenta l Vapo r Retur nSyste mi nOperatio n Durin g Gasolin e Fillin g Operation s a t Templ e an d Gran dFacilit y 1 5 4 . Vapo r

Retur n Lin e Manifol dMounte do nTan k Truc k ±.\JJL X

CoLlll t•oo*oooo»oooo»*eoo« « i u 

### 5 . Dom e Cap s Modifie dfo r Returnin g Vapor s t o Tan k Truc k Compartment s 1 7 6 . Typica l Gasolin e Dumpin g Rate s fo r Splas hFil l an dSubmerge dFil l 22 7 . Typica l Undergroun dTan k Stati c Pressure s fo r Thre e Type s o

f Fillin g Condition s . 22 8 . Schemati c Diagra mo f th e Tw o Fillin g Technique s 9 . Breathin g o

f Undergroun dGasolin e Storag e Tank , Startin g withTan k

Full , an dEndin g withTan k Empt y . 2 6 10 . Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Distric t Vapo r Recover y Syste m fo r Servic e Statio nStorag e Tank s ......... . 4 3 11 . Explode dVie w o f Nishkia nInterloc k

Vapo r Retur n Valv e andDip Tub e ............... . 4 8 12 . Nishkia n Retur nValv e Mounte donFil l Pip e .... . 5 0 13 . Nishkia nVapo r

Retur n Valv e in Operatio nDurin g Test s 5 1

•vii

-

### LIS T O FTABLE S Pag e

I . Gasolin e Vapo r

Losse s i nLo s Angele s County Resultin g fro mFou r

Method s of

Fillin g Servic e Statio n Undergroun dStorag e Tank s 6 II . Cos t

Estimat e fo r

Modificatio no

f Existin g Market

in g Facilitie s t o Accommodat e aDisplacemen t Typ e Vapo r Recover y Syste mUtilizin g th e Nishkia nInter

loc k Vapo r Retur n Valv e 8 III . Cos t

Pe r To n o f Gasolin e Vapo r

Controlled , Usin g th e Nishkia n Interloc k

Valv e 1 2 IV . Averag e Compositio n of Gasolin e Vapor s Displace d fro mth e Undergroun dTan k Durin g Splas han dSub

merge dFillin g Conditions . 2 0 V . Gasolin e Vapo r

Losse s fo r

Differen t

Type s o f Under

groun dTan k

Fillin g Technique s 2 4 VI . Distributio no

f Servic e Statio nStorag e Capacitie s .. . 3 2 VII . Distributio n o

f Servic e Statio nMonthl y Sale s Volume . . 3 3 VIII . Distributio n o

f Servic e Statio nFil l Pip e Size s .... . 3 4 IX . Distributio n o

f Servic e Statio nDistance s fro mFil l Pip e t o Ven t

Pip e 3 5 X . Distributio n o

f Servic e Statio nVen t

Pip e Size s 3 6 XI . Distributio no

f Servic e Statio n Pump s 3 6 XII . Distributio n of

Servic e Station s b y Compan y 3 7 XIII . Bul

k Gasolin e Loadin g i nLo s Angele s County 3 8 XIV . Estimate dCost s o f Equippin g Consume r

Facilitie s withaGasolin e Vapo r

Recover y Syste m4 1

-ix -P. 7



### ACKNOWLEDGMENT S Thi s stud y coul dno t

hav e bee n complete dsuccessfull y withou t th e assistanc e an dcooperatio no f th e Shel l Oi l Compan y Bul k Loadin g Station , unde r th e directio no

f Mr . Michae l Davis , who generousl y outfitte don e o f thei r tan k truck s an dschedule dthei r deliverie s t o convenienc e ou r testin g crews ; an dals o o f th e Lo s Angele s County Mechanica l Depart

men t who mad e availabl e th e facilitie s of th e Templ e an dGran dStree t statio nwher e th e test s wer e conducted . Appreciatio n fo r

assistanc e i nthi s stud y i s als o extende dt o Mr . Josep hSterk , who supervise s th e Templ e an dGran dStree t facility ; t o Iva n S . Decker t

an dRober t

C . Murra y o

f th e APC D Refiner y Section ; t o Rober t

Neliga n o

f th e APC D Ga s Chromatograph y Section ; an dt o Rober t Goldstein , Rober t

Ramlo , Willia mOaks , Howar dLinnar dan d Willia mRoger s o

f th e APC D Sourc e Testin g Unit . Technica l editin g and graphi c art s assistanc e wer e provide db y JohnC . Moshe r o f th e APC D Evaluatio nUnit , unde r

supervisio nof

Raymon dG . Holmes .P. 8



### I . INTRODUCTION A s show n i nth e mos t

recen t tota l ai r pollutio nsurve y mad e by th e APCD (I), marketin g o f gasolin e i nLo s Angele s County i s respons ibl e fo r abou t 100 ton s pe r

da y o f hydrocarbo nemissions . Thi s amoun t is , t o b e sure , relativel y smal l whencompare dwithemission s fro m moto r vehicle s (approximatel y 125 0 ton s pe r day) , fo r

instance . How

ever , th e importanc e o f thi s quantit y wil l increas e a s other , large r source s ar e brough t

unde r control . A s earl y a s 195 0 (2) , servic e sta tion s wer e recognize da s contributin g alarg e portio no f th e over-al l marketin g emissions , an dthei r importanc e wa s underscored , i n1953 , i n th e "Beckma n Report " (3) , whic hrecommende dearl y attentio nt o thi s face t o f th e problem . Currentl y abou t

8 5 pe r cen t o f th e bul k loadin g facilitie s ar e con trolle dunde r

provision s o

f Rul e 6 1 whic hbecam e effectiv e Marc h8 , 1956 . Sinc e hydrocarbon s fro mautomobile s ar e no w i nth e proces s o f bein g controlle dunde r

th e jurisdictio n o

f th e Stat e o

f California , hydro

carbon s emitte dint o th e atmospher e fro mth e fillin g o f undergroun d tank s an dautomobil e tank s remai na s th e onl y sourc e o f gasolin e vapo r emission s no t

unde r som e typ e o

f regulation . A s earl y a s 1955 , astud y o f feasibilit y o

f control s fo r

thi s re - mainin g sourc e o

f emission s wa s initiated . I nconnectio nwiththi s study , aconcentri c hos e wa s develope dan dteste db y th e APCD . Th e desig n allowe dth e gasolin e t o flo w throug hth e insid e hose , whil e th e vapor s displace dfro mthe undergroun dtan k wer e t o b e returne dt o th e tan k truc k throug hth e annula r

hose . Th e syste minclude dsom e rathe r comple x valv e arrangement s an dprove dt o b e rathe r bulky an dheav y fo r th e truc k

operato r

t o handle . I n 1957 , anothe r

serie s o

f test s wa s initiate do

navapo r contro l syste msubmitte dby M . A . Nishkia nan dCompany . Thi s syste mcon siste do f avapo r retur n valv e s o constructe dtha t i t enable dgasolin e t o b e loade dthroug hth e cente r o f avalve , withth e gasolin e vapor s returnin g throug hasid e ar mdirectl y int o anactivate dcarbo ncannister . Thi s serie s o

f test s wa s discontinue dsoo nafte r it s initiatio nbecaus e o f th e fir e hazar dcreate db y overheatin g o f th e carbo ncannister .

- I -P. 9



### A somewhat

simila r interloc k

vapo r retur n valv e wa s submitte d in 196 1 by th e sam e company , a s a n anothe r approac ht o th e solutio n o f controllin g emission s fro mundergroun dtanks . In orde r to evaluat e thi s particula r

valve , andan

y simila r devic e whichmight

b e submitte d at afutur e time , th e genera l proble mo f losse s durin g variou s condi

tion s o f fillin g o f servic e statio n undergroun dtank s wa s made th e sub

jec t o f a n extensiv e study by th e APCD . Not studie dat

thi s tim e wer e vapo r losse s fro mth e fillin g o f automobil e tanks . Thi s repor t

present s dat acurrentl y availabl e fro mthi s study , a s wel l a s informatio n relatin g t o th e economi c aspect s o f th e contro l o

f emission s fro mthi s source . Include dar e estimate s o f vapo r losse s durin g fillin g bot

hwit handwithout

arecover y system , o

f undergroun d tank breathin g losses , o

f emission s occurrin g at

the small , a s yet

un controlle dbulk

loadin g plant s whil e refillin g th e tank trucks , an

do f th e cos t o f equippin g servic e stations , tank trucks , andsmal l bul

k plant s wit

hapostulate dvapo r

retur n system . Th e effectivenes s o f the interloc k vapo r retur n valve , submitte db y M . A . Nishkia. n andCom

pany , wa s als o evaluate da s a n integra l par t

o f th e postulate drecover y system , andth e result s formapar t o f thi s report .P.1 0



### n . SUMMAR

Y Th e tes t progra mwa s designe dan dcarrie dou t i ntw o phases : (1 ) astud y o

f curren t servic e statio nfillin g losses , an d(2 ) determina

tio n o f variation s i n thes e losse s usin g avapo r retur nsyste mincor

poratin g th e Nishkia n valve . Dat awer e obtaine dwithth e cooperatio n o f th e Shel l Oi l Co. , who furnishe datan k truc k t o b e modifie dan d use di n al l deliverie s durin g th e tes t series . Shel l premiu mgasolin e wa s use di nal l cases , bu t i t i s believe dthat , fo r

calculatin g tonnag e losses , i t

ca nb e considere da s representativ e o f al l gasolin e markete d i n Lo s Angele s County . Curren t emission s fro mth e fillin g o f undergroun dtank s at

serv ic e station s i n Lo s Angele s County ar e abou t 3 7 ton s pe r

day , assumin g tha t splas hloadin g i s bein g use da t al l locations . Variou s combination s o f equipmen t

an dtechnique s woul dprovid e contro l a s follow s (se e als o Tabl e I) : L. •••' 1 . Reductio n b y nearl y 4 0 pe r cent , t o 2 3 ton s pe r

day , merel y by convertin g t o submerge dfillin g techniques .
• '/, 2. Reductio n t o 3 ton s pe r day by returnin g th e vapor s t o th e tan k truck , bu t

retainin g th e norma l ven t lin e fro mth e under

groun dtan k

t o th e atmosphere .
•••• • *"' , 3 . Essentiall y complet e reductio n b y usin g submerge dfilling , returnin g th e vapor s t o th e tan k truck , an deliminatin g th e atmospheri c ven t

line . Inadditio nt o contro l o f servic e statio nemissions , require dauxil

iar y equipmen t

woul dprovid e contro l o f anothe r 5 ton s pe r

day now los t fro mtan k

truck s i ntransit , an dfro msmal l bul k loadin g plants . Flo w diagrams , illustratin g th e marketin g o f gasolin e fro mth e refiner y storag e t o th e consumer , fo r tw o type s o

f fillin g operation s ar e show n i n Figure s 1 an d2 . Thes e indicat e th e differenc e inliqui d an dvapo r

flo w betwee nth e commonl y use dsplas hfil l techniqu e an dth e suggeste dclose dvapo r

recover y system .

-3 -:S::.'.,. . P.1 1

Legend : Gasoline Flow . Vapo r Flow .

REFINER Y STORAGE 6,000,00 0 ga l 18,60 0 ton s

1 to n Vapo r los t i n transi t

35 . ton s LOO.000 ga l 12U0 ton s •1 2 ton s

18,59 6 ton s

RETAI LAN

D CONSUME

RACCOiJNT

S 19,79 5 ton s 123 6 ton s

• 3 7 ton s AUTOMOBIL

ETAN K 

# T • 2 ton s

# 2 ton s

• 2 ton s

19,75 8 ton s burne d a s fue l Figur e 1 . Gasolin e marketin g flo wdiagra mfromrefinerystorag e t o consume r illustratin g estimate d dail ylosse s t o th e atmospher e unde r presen t operating procedures . -4
-P.1 2

Legend : Gasolin e Flow _ Vapo r

Flow .

REFINER Y STORAG E 6,000,00 0 ga l 18,60 0 ton s
3 ton s •

3 1 ton s

2 2 ton s URG

E BJL K PLAN T 18,62 8 ton s

TAN K TRXK 18,61 9

ton s liOO.OO O ga l 12U 0 ton s

121 ? ton s

RETAI L AND CONSUME R ACCOUNT S 19,53 7 ten s • • 3 7 ton s AUTOMOBIL E TAN

K :2 ton s

ton s

ton s

ton s

19,80 0 ton s burne d a s fue l Figur e 2 . Gasolin e marketin g flo wdiagra mfromrefiner y storag e t o consume r illustratin g estimate d dail y losse s t o th e atmospher e unde r propose d vapo r retur n operating procedures .

-D -P.1 3



### Th e losse s fro mth e four combination s o

f method s o

f fillin g undergroun dtanks , a s summarize di n Tabl e I , ar e clearl y muchlower than th e emission s o

f 125 0 tons pe r

da y fro mmoto r

vehicl e operations , ando f th e 300 ton s pe r

da y fro morgani c solven t

usage .

TABL E I GASOLIN E VAPO R LOSSE S I NLO S ANGELE S COUNT Y RESULTIN G FRO M FOU R METHOD S O F FILLIN G SERVIC E STATIO N

UNDERGROUN D STORAG E TANK S

FILLIN G METHO D

Splas h a ^

a ) Submerge d ' Vapo r Retur n Ope n Syste m^ ) Vapor . Retur n Close d Syste mc ) Los s Weigh t Pe r Cen t o f Tota l Gasolin e 0.18 5 O.ll u

0.01 3

neg . GASOLIN E VAPO R

Ton s Pe r Day 3 7 2 3
3

neg . Recover y

(Base d o n splas h fillin g loss ) '.•/eigh t Pe r Cen t 0 

### 3 7
9 3
10 0 Ton s

Pe r Day 0 

### 1 U
sk
3 7

a ) Ventin g t o atnosphere . b ) Ope n systemventin g t o tan k trac k and atr.osphere . c ) Close d system s ventin g t o tan k trac k only .P.1 4



### A cos t estimat e fo r

th e conversio no

f existin g facilitie s t o accom modat e adisplacemen t

typ e vapo r

recover y syste mutilizin g th e Nishkia n Interloc k Valv e reveal s tha t

aninitia l capita l investmen t o f nearl y $26,000,00 0 woul db e needed . Base donth e 10-yea r projec t lif e com monl y assume dfo r

thi s typ e o

f equipment , thi s correspond s t o a nannua l ne t investmen t

cos t (separat e fro mmaintenance ) o f $3,708,000 , an d woul dnecessitat e apric e increas e o f 0.1 6 cent s fo r

eac hgallo no

f gaso lin e sol di n orde r

t o recove r

thi s annua l cost . Thes e dat aar e summar ize di n Tabl e II . Som e of th e attractiv e feature s o f avapo r retur nsyste mare : 1 . Ther e i s a1 5 t o 2 0 pe r cen t increas e indump rat e du e t o reduce dpressur e i nth e undergroun dtan k an dincrease d stati c head . 2 . Ther e i s an absenc e o f gasolin e odor s durin g th e fillin g operation . 3 . Vapo r

losse s ar e reduced . 4 . Th e undesirabl e an dhazardou s splas hfil l techniqu e i s eliminated . 5 . Th e utilizatio no

f atightl y sealed , leak-proo f connectio n t o th e undergroun dtan k minimize s th e possibilit y o f acci

denta l spill s durin g loading . 6 . Ther e i s aconcomitan t reductio ni n fir e hazard . However , man y problem s woul dhav e t o b e overcom e befor e th e us e o f avapo r retur nsyste mcoul dbecom e widespread . Th e mos t im

portan t o f thes e are : 1 . Th e variou s system s i nexistenc e woul dhav e t o b e standard

ize dthroughou t

th e entir e industry , especiall y a s t o equip

men t installe do ntrucks , s o tha t "fo r hire " carrier s coul d no t b e limite da s t o th e supplier . 2 . System s woul dhav e t o b e designe dt o mee t al l necessar y specification s suc ha s vacuu mlimitation s o f tan k truc k compartments .TABL E I I COS T ESTIMAT E FO R MODIFICATIO NO F EXISTIN

G MARKETING FACILITIE S T O ACCOMMODAT E ADISPLACEMEN T TYP E VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTE M UTILIZIN

G TH E NISHKIA

NINTERLOC K VAPO R RETUR NVALV E

O O FACILITY

Retai l Servic e Station s Consumo r Account s Smal l Bul k Plant s Larg e Bul k Plant s Tan k Truck s Tota l GASOLINE HANDLE D {% o f tota l volume ) 95 5 6 91 4 10 0 PRESEN

T GASOLINE VAPO R LOS S (tons/day ) 35 2 2 3 3 U 5 GASOLIN E VAPOR

RECLAIME D A T FACILIT Y < 0 (tons/day ) 13 d ) id ) 2 2i, d ) 2 U 2 INITIAL

CAPITA L INVESTMEN

T b ) (dollars ) 17,190,00 0 6,500,00 0 35,00 0 Non e 1,990,00 0 25,723,00 0 ANNUA L COS T O F INITIAL INVESTMENT ° ) (dollars ) 2,808,00 0 1,092,00 0 6,00 0 Non e 335,00 0 h, 321,000 ANNUA L RETUR NFRO M VAPOR S RECOV ERE D A T $i40/T0N (dollars ) 190,00 0 15,00 0 29,00 0 350,00 0 29,00 0 613,00 0 NE T

ANNUA L COS T (OR RETURN ) (dollars ) 2,698,00 0 1,077,00 0 23,00 0 (Return ) 350,00 0 (Return ) 306,00 0 3,708,00 0 NE T COS T (O R RBTURN)/QALL0 N GASOLIN E HANDLED (mils ) 1. 2 9. 2 0. 2 ( Return ) 0. 2 (Return ) 0. 1 1. 6

a ) Based o n Vapo r Recovor yo f I4. 2 pound s pe r 100 0 gallon s a t retai l an d consume r accounts , an d 7. 3 pound s pe r 100 0 gallon s a t bul k plant s ou t o f tota l o f 11. 5 pound s pe r 100 0 gallon s produced . b ) Capita l investmen t i s fo r displacemen t vapo r recover ysyste mwhic h include s Nishkia n inerloc k valve , vapo r retur n hos e and fitting s a s required . c ) Base d o n 10-yea r lif e o f project , 6, 6 rat e o f return , 2.5 ^ franchis e an d rea l estat e taxes , and sinking fun d facto r a t 8. 3 base d o n h%interes t fo r lif e o f project : Annua l Cos t - 6. 0 *2. 5 + 8. 3 x initla l caplta l C03 t 10 0 d ) Unde r propose d system , par t o f th e gasolin e i s reclaime d b ycondensatio n i n th e servic e statio n storag e tank , bu t th e majorit y i s reclaime d a t th e bul k plant .P.1 6

31-- - 

### 3 . System s woul dhav e t o b e designe dt o compl y withjurisdic

tiona l governmenta l safet y regulation s pertainin g t o fir e an d othe r hazards . 4 . Necessar y ai r

pollutio nlegislatio nwoul dhav e t o b e enacte d t o requir e tha t

suc haprogra mb e pu t int o effect . Thi s legis

latio nwoul dhav e t o specif y th e exten t

of coverag e o

f th e con tro l requirements . 5 . A partia l contro l progra mwoul db e impractica l unles s ther e wer e standardizatio nand/o r interchangeabilit y o

f al l equip

men t i npresen t

use . 6 . System s woul dhav e t o b e completel y vapor-tigh t t o preven t vapo r escap e a t

groun dlevel . Th e mor e prominen t sourc e o f leak s woul db e a t

th e hatc hcover s o nth e tan k truc k com partments . 7 . Th e equitie s involve di nrequirin g larg e expenditure s t o con tro l rathe r

smal l quantitie s o

f ai r contaminant s a t

an y on e sourc e woul dhav e t o b e carefull y weighed .

• 9 -P.1 7 1 •



### III . CONCLUSION S

By adoptio n o

f acomplet e vapo r

recover y system , a n estimate d 4 2 ton s pe r

da y o f hydrocarbo nvapor s (3 7 fro mservic e stations , 5 fro mtransfe r

sources ) coul db e prevente dfro menterin g th e atmos pher e i n Lo s Angele s County . T o achiev e this , th e entir e marketin g industr y woul dhav e t o par ticipate , wit hequipmen t change s an dfinancia l expenditure s require db y retai l an dconsume r

servic e statio naccounts , b y bul k plants , an dby tan k trucks . A n initia l capita l investmen t o f abou t $26,000,00 0 woul db e neces sary , amountin g t o ane t annua l cos t

o f ove r S3 , 700,000 , prorate dove r a10-yea r

period . Ove r

9 0 pe r cen t o f th e tota l capita l expenditur e woul db e mad e b y th e retai l an dconsume r accounts , wh

o woul drealiz e n o ne t retur non thei r

investment . Contraste dt o this , th e initia l capi

ta l investmen t

b y th e bul k

plant s an dtan k

truck s wouldamoun t

t o les s tha n 1 0 pe r

cen t o f th e total , withonl y th e bul k plant s showin g ane t retur n on thei r

investment . A s detaile di n Tabl e III , th e ne t annua l cos t

pe r to n fo r controllin g thes e vapor s woul db e extremel y high , withth e over-al l ne t annua l cos t t o th e entir e marketin g industr y mountin g t o som e S88,00 0 pe r to n o f gasolin e controlled . (In mor e familia r quantities , thi s woul db e abou t $27 5 pe r gallon. ) Whethe r th e expenditure s enumerate dwoul db e justifie dt o cor rec t thi s los s t o th e atmospher e i s adecisio nbeyon dth e scop e o f thi s report . However , a s othe r source s o

f hydrocarbo nlosse s com e in

creasingl y unde r

control , thi s sourc e wil l represen t agrowin g portio n o f th e tota l tha t

remain s uncontrolle dand , thus , coul dmeri t seriou s consideration . Th e Nishkia nvalve , itself , wa s foundt o operat e i n asatisfactor y manne r a s acomponen t

o f th e tota l vapo r

recover y syste mstudied ; i t i s not , however , acomplet e contro l syste mo f an db y itself . It s in

corporatio n int o an integrate dsyste mwoul dprovid e acomplet e measur e o f control , provide dth e expenditure s wer e judge djustifiable .

i l -P.1 8



### I t shoul db e emphasize dtha t th e abov e syste mi nn o wa y provide s contro l fo r

th e equivalen t

amoun t o f gasolin e vapor s emitte ddurin g th e fillin g o f automobil e tank s a t

th e servic e stations . Suc hcontro l woul d requir e developmen t

o f appropriat e equipmen t an dfurthe r

expenditure s b y th e servic e stations .

TABL E II I COS T PE R TO NO F GASOLIN E VAPO R CONTROLLED , USIN G TH E

NISHKIA NINTERLOC K VALV E

FACILITY

Retai l Servic e Station s Consume r Account s Larg e Bul k Plant s

Smal l Bul k Plant s

Tan k Truck s Entir e Marketin g Source s GASOLIN E HANDLE D (,% o f tota l volume ) 9 5 

### 5 9 U 6

10 0 PRESEN

T VAPO R LOS S (tons/da7 )
3 5 2 3

2 3 NE T ANNUAL COS T

(O R RETURN ) FO R CONTRO L a ) (dollars ) 2,698,00 0 1,077,00 0 (350,000 ) (Return ) (23,000 ) (Return ) 306,00 0 3,708,00 0 NE T ANNUAL COS T

(O R RETURN)/TON / DA Y O F VAPOR S CONTROLLE D (dollars ) 77,00 0 538,00 0 (b )
(12,000 ) (Return ) 112,00 0 88,00 0

a ) Base d o n 10-yea r amortizatio n o f initia l cost , an d calculate d b yformul a detaile d i n Tabl e II . b ) Ne t annua l retur n i s accrue d wit h n o additiona l vapo r control s fo r thi s facility .

-12
-P.1 9



### IV . TES T PROGRA

M DESIG N AN D FACILITIE S Th e testin g progra mwa s designe dan dcarrie dou t i ntw o phases . Phas e on e wa s conducte dt o obtai nbackgroun dinformatio nontan k breathin g an dfillin g losse s fro mexistin g facilitie s a s the y ar e presentl y equippe dwithou t

vapo r contro l equipmen t

o r othe r modifications . Phas e tw o wa s performe dt o obtai ncomparativ e informatio nonlosse s when usin g splas hfilling , sugmerge dfilling , an dfillin g utilizin g th e Nishkia n valv e an davapo r

retur nsystem . Durin g eac hphase , sample s wer e collecte dan dmeasurement s wer e mad e a s follows : 1 . Th e temperatur e o

f th e ga s an dliqui dphas e i nth e under

groun dtank , an dth e atmospheri c temperature , wer e simultaneousl y monitore dfo r aseven-da y period . 2 . Sample s fo r

determinatio no

f vapo r compositio nwer e col

lecte ddail y fro mth e vapo r phas e o f th e undergroun dtan k fo r aseven-da y perio dbetwee nfills . Thes e vapo r sample s wer e collecte da t

th e top , middle , an dbotto mo f th e vapo r phas e t o determin e whethe r stratificatio ni ncompositio n exists . 3 . Th e progra mfo r

eac ho f th e gasolin e dump s mad e durin g th e testin g progra mwa s a s follows : a . Th e gasolin e dump rat e an dth e tota l amoun t dumpe d wer e recorded . b . Th e flo w rat e an dth e tota l volum e o f gasolin e vapo r displace dwer e measured . c . Gasolin e vapo r

sample s wer e collecte dfro mth e under

groun dtank , th e tan k

truck , an dth e vapo r

ven t lin e both whenventin g t o th e atmospher e o r whenreturnin g th e vapor s t o th e tan k

truck .

-13

-P.2 0



### d . Th e ambien t

ai r temperatur e wa s recorded . e . Th e liqui dgasolin e temperature s wer e measure di n th e undergroun dtan k

an di nth e tan k

truc k bot ha t th e beginnin g an den do

f eac hdump . f . Sample s o

f th e gasolin e bein g dumpe dan dof th e gaso lin e i n th e undergroun dtank , bothbefor e an dafte r th e dump , wer e collected . g . Stati c pressure s wer e measure di nth e ven t line , th e undergroun dtank , an dth e tan k truc k durin g eac hdump . Th e test s wer e conducte da t th e Lo s Angele s County-owne dserv ic e statio nfacilitie s a t

Templ e an dGran dStreets . Thes e consis t o f tw o pump s fo r

deliverin g gasolin e t o County vehicle s an dasingl e under

groun dstorag e tan k

withon e atmospheri c ven t line . About midwa y throug hth e testin g progra mi t wa s discovere dtha t th e undergroun dtan k

a t thi s statio nwa s no t

th e standar dtyp e i ngenera l us e a t regula r servic e stations . Thi s tan k i s 4 3 fee t

i nlengt han d5 fee t in diameter , withacapacit y o f approximatel y 6 , 50 0 gallons , whil e standar dtank s o

f th e sam e capacit y ar e 1 7 fee t i nlengt han dS fee t

i n diameter . I t

i s possibl e tha t

th e dat ao nbreathin g losse s fo r thi s par ticula r tan k migh t no t b e wholl y representativ e o f dat afro mth e stand

ar dtank s becaus e o

f th e variou s factor s tha t affec t thes e losses . I t

i s believed , however , tha t th e difference s woul db e smal l an dwoul dno t substantiall y affec t

th e over-al l results . One truck , t o b e use dfo r al l o f th e gasolin e deliverie s t o th e Templ e an dGran dStree t station , wa s assigne dby th e Shel l Oi l Compan y fo r th e tes t series . Th e Distric t

purchase dmodifie dtan k truc k dom e cap s an dth e necessar y fittings , andShel l assemble dan dinstalle dthi s equipmen t

t o mak e u

p th e vapo r

retur nsystem . Th e complet e vapo r retur n syste mi s show ni noperatio ninFigur e 3 , whil e Figur e 4 pro vide s aclose-u p vie w o f th e vapo r

retur nmanifol da s mounte do nth e tan k truck . Eac hdom e ca p (se e Figur e 5) wa s equippe dwit htw o sprin g loade drelie f

valves . One wa s avacuu mrelie f valv e usuall y se t

fo r abou t 7 inche s wate r

column , an dth e othe r wa s apressur e relie f

valv e whic hwa s se t

t o ope na t

3 t o 5 psi g pressure . Th e vapo r retur nlin e wa s connecte dt o th e vacuu mrelie f valv e port ; th e relie f

valve , itself , wa s lef t intac t an di n operativ e condition. . A nadditiona l fittin g wa s in

stalle di n eac hdom e ca p fo r collectin g vapo r

sample s an dreadin g tan k pressures .

14 -O I

Figur e 3 . Experimenta l vapo r retur n syste mi n operatio n durin g gasolin e fillin g operation s a t Templ e and Gran d facility . Pressure s ar e bein g measure d i n th e tank truc k compart ments , an

d th e ga s flo wi s bein g determine d wit h a viscou s flo wmete r apparatus . 1 . Tan k vapo r manifol d 2 . Gasolin e fil l hos e 3 . Vapo r retur n hos e 4 . Viscou s flo wmete rI

Figur e i| . Vapo r retur n lin e manifol d mounte d o ntank truc k fo r testing .P.2 3



## r '• :••:•£-.•.• &.y3 "'•:&:

-'•• - . -;•'.«*'•. • • , . •>^ : . r-w V

•--•;••:.•'.• . •/ • • . . s-!/<Ay>+:y> ;;-.;.. '. • \* a *- , <' : •

•

fr ;••-.?'.•• .

Figur e 5 . Dome cap s modifie d fo r returning vapor s t o tan k truc k compartments .

1 . Vapo r outle t lin e 2 . Vapo r outle t fo r pressur e measurement s o r sampling .

17 'P.2 4 H



### A s par t o f th e connectio nbetwee nth e tan k truc k an dth e under

groun dtank , avalv e submitte db y Nishkia nan dCompan y wa s used . Thi s wa s an interloc k

arrangement , s o constructe da s t o enabl e gaso lin e t o b e loade dint o th e tan k throug hth e cente r

o f th e valve , wit

h vapor s bein g returne dt o th e tan k truc k throug hasid e arm . A mor e detaile ddescriptio n o

f th e syste mi s give n i nSectio nVIII o f thi s report . Fou r differen t

type s of undergroun dtan k

fill s wer e made . Thes e wer e th e splas ho r

to p fill , withth e vapor s normall y vente dt o th e at mospher e throug hth e ven t pipe ; th e submerge do r botto mfill , i nwhic h th e gasolin e wa s introduce dint o th e tan k throug hafil l tub e extendin g t o approximatel y si x inche s fro mth e botto mof th e tank , an dwithth e vapor s ventin g t o th e atmosphere ; asubmerge dfil l withavapo r retur n system , bu t

wit hth e undergroun dtan k ven t lin e opent o th e atmosphere ; an dth e sam e fil l withacompletel y close dvapo r retur nsystem . Th e latte r tw o type s o

f fills , utilizin g vapo r

retur nsystems , involve dth e us e o f th e Nishkia nvalve .

18

-P.2 5



### V . GASOLIN

EVAPO RLOSSE S Fillin g Losse s Fillin g losse s ar e dependen t upo ncertai n syste mo r equipmen t variable s suc ha s th e siz e an dlengt ho f th e ven t pipe , th e diamete r

o f th e fil l pipe , th e metho do f filling , an dth e tan k

configuration . Othe r condition s affectin g fillin g losse s ar e th e temperature , vapo r pressure , an dcompositio n of

th e gasoline . Fo r

thi s tes t series , th e onl y experi

menta l conditio n deliberatel y varie dwa s th e metho do f filling . When usin g ato p o r

splas hfill , th e gasolin e enter s th e to p o f th e fil l pip e an dthe n ha s afre e fal l t o th e liqui dsurfac e i nth e tank . Thi s fre e fallin g tend s t o brea k up th e liqui dstrea mint o droplets . A s thes e droplet s strik e th e liqui dsurface , the y carr y entraine dai r int o th e liqui dan da"boiling " actio nresult s a s thi s ai r escape s u

p throug hth e liqui dsurface . Th e ne t effec t o f thes e action s i s th e creatio no f addi

tiona l vapor s i nth e undergroun dtank . Whenth e tan k

i s botto mfille dusin g asubmerge dfil l pipe , th e gasolin e flow s t o th e botto mo f th e tan k throug hth e fil l pip e an denter s belo w th e surfac e o

f th e liquid . Thi s metho do f fillin g create s ver y littl e disturbanc e i n th e liqui dbat han dconsequentl y les s vapo r forma

tio n tha n splas hfilling , excep t durin g th e initia l stage s o f fillin g when th e liqui dleve l ma y b e belo w th e en do f th e fil l pipe . Th e fil l pip e usuall y extend s t o withi n si x inche s o f th e botto mo

f th e tank . Th e difference s betwee nth e concentration s o f vapor s whenusin g th e tw o fillin g method s ar e appreciable , a s ma y b e see nb y referrin g t o Tabl e IV . Average s o

f th e test s conducte dsho w tha t splas hfillin g resulte d i n avolumetri c increas e of vapor s of

mor e tha n1 5 pe r

cen t ove r tha t presen t whenusin g th e submerge dfillin g technique . (Difference s als o appea r i n th e compositio no

f th e vapor s associate dwithth e tw o methods , an dar e show n i n Tabl e IV . I t i s problematical , however , whethe r thes e difference s i n compositio n ar e significan t t o th e ai r

pollutio nproblem. ) A significan t

featur e o

f th e submerge dtyp e o

f fil l use di nconjunc

tio n withavapo r

retur nsyste mi s th e increas e i nfillin g rat e ove r tha t

-19

-P.2 6

TABL E I V AVERAG E COMPOSITIO NO F GASOLIN E VAPOR S DISPUCE D FRO M TH E UNDERGROUN D TAN K DURIN G SPLAS H AN D SUBMERGE D FILLIN G CONDITION S COMPONEN T
Ai r Hydrocarbon s Analysi s o f Hydrocarbon s Methan e Ethan e an d ethylen e Propan e an d acetylen e Propen e Isobutan e ri-Butan e 1-Butene , isobutylen e and methy l acetylen e trans-2-Buten e cis-2-Buten e Isopentan e n.-Pentane 1-Penten e 2-Methyl-l-buten e 2,2-Di-nethylbutan e an d trans-2-penten e cis-2-Penten e 2-Kethyl-2-buten e 2, 3-Dimethylbutane an d 2-methylpentan e 3-Methylpentan e an d cyclcpentan e Cyclopentan e n-Hexan e —A 2 , It-Dim e thylpentan e 3-Methylhexan e 2,3-Dimethylpentan e 3-Kethylhexan e 2,2,1(-Trim

e thylpentan e 2-Methyl-l-penten e trans-2-Kexen e cis-2-Hexen e ) cis-3-Hexen e Cyclopenten e Eenzen e Toluen e m- an d _o-Xylen e o.-Xylene Methylcyclopentan e Cyclohexan e —^ SPLAS H FIL L (volume %) 60. 8 39* 2 

### lU. o Ii. 7 

### 3. 2 0. 7 3. 6 33. 6 

### 0. 7 0. 8 0. 6 17. 5 

### 5. ? 0. 3 0. ? 1. 0 OA 1. 8 2. 1 

### l. U 03} 0. 5

6. 1 SUBMERGE D

FIL L (volum e fi) 66. 1 33. 9 11. 3 

### 5. 1 3. 9 0. 6 3. 7 35. 8 -03$ 0. 9 0. 7 15. 8 7. 2 '0.1 ; 0. 5 1. 2 0. 6 1. 1 2. 3 1. 7 0.1 ; 0. 7



### 5. 6

•20
-P.2 7



### of th e splas htyp e o

f filling . Th e grap hi nFigur e 6 illustrate s th e differenc e betwee nth e dumpin g rate s fo r thes e tw o fil l conditions ; undergroun dtan k

stati c pressure s fo r

splas hfilling , an dfo r submerge d fillin g usin g bothtype s o f vapo r recovery , ar e show ni nFigur e 7 . Naturally , witheithe r

splas ho r

submerge dfilling , an y vapor s forme d i n th e tan k

spac e abov e th e liqui dleve l ar e compresse dan dforce dou t th e ven t pip e t o th e atmospher e a s th e gasolin e leve l i nth e tan k rises . When employin g avapo r retur n syste mi n conjunctio nwithfillin g th e undergroun dtank , th e vapo r spac e o f th e tan k i s connecte ddirectl y t o th e vapo r

spac e o f th e tan k truc k compartment s by mean s o f th e interloc k valv e an dth e necessar y hos e an dfittings . Fo r thi s study , th e vapor s wer e returne dt o th e truc k compartmen t

throug hth e vacuu m relie f valv e locate di nth e hatc hcover . Thus , instea do f displacemen t ai r bein g draw nint o th e tan k truc k compartmen t

fro mth e atmospher e a s i t normall y would , gasolin e vapor s wer e draw nint o th e compart ment s fro mth e undergroun dtank , thu s preventin g thes e vapor s fro m bein g release dt o th e atmosphere . Vapo r retur nfill s wer e mad e both withan dwithou t

th e undergroun dtan k

atmospher e ven t

lin e open . Fig

ur e 8 illustrate s th e mechanism s o f asplas hfil l an davapo r retur n submerge dfill . Thre e method s ma y b e use dfo r connectin g th e truc k

hos e t o th e tan k fil l pipe ; thes e ar e classifie da s loose , spee dcone , an dtigh t con nections . Wit

hth e loos e connectio nther e i s n o sea l betwee nth e truc K hos e an dth e fil l pipe . Th e spee dcon e connectio nconsist s o f acone shape drubbe r

gaske t whic hseal s o r

partiall y seal s th e annula r spac e betwee nth e hos e an dfil l pipe . Fo r th e tigh t

connection , aleak-proof , quick-connec t

couplin g i s use dbetwee n th e hos e an dth e fil l pipe . A vapo r retur nsyste mwoul drequir e atigh t connection , withstandardize d part s tha t

woul db e interchangeabl e fo r al l trucks , tanks , an dbul k plants . Th e spee dcon e connectio ni s now normall y use dfo r fillin g under

groun dtanks . Usuall y n^)_dip_tube i s present , s o splas hfillin g take s place . Wit

hthi s techniqu e (a s show ni nTabl e V whic hsummarize s th e vapo r losse s an dpotentia l recover y fo r th e differen t

fil l technique s tested) , gasolin e vapo r losse s amoun t

t o 11. 5 pound s fo r

eac h1000 gal

lon s o f gasolin e delivered . Us e o f th e submerge dfillin g procedur e woul dreduc e thi s los s b y approximatel y 3 7 pe r cent . Wit

havapo r re - tur n syste mi n whic hth e undergroun dtan k ven t lin e i s lef

t open , th e losse s ar e reduce db y 9 3 pe r cent . I f adisplacemen t

type , close dvapo r retur nsyste mi s employed , th e losse s ca nb e completel y eliminated . However , thes e recover y value s refe r onl y t o th e transfe r

o f th e gaso lin e fro mth e tan k

truc k t o th e undergroun dtan k an dca nonl y b e totall y realize di

f th e truc k

compartment s ar e adequatel y seale dandther e i s a vapo r recover y syste ma t

th e bul k loadin g terminal .

•21

-P.2 8

20 0 160

- • a u a > a O J C o H 12 0 -

6 0
8 Submerge d Fillin g

i 1 6 Splas h Fillin g

4 0 2 4 3 2 Elapse dTim

e FromStar t

o f Gasolin e Fil l (minutes ) Figur e 6 . Typica l gasolin e dumping rate s fo r splas hfil l an dsubmerge d fill . Splas hfillin g

Av g rat e 12 1 gp

m

® b 0 1 0 ) tt .." a -—- ~ —- - or —

• . . •• . \ i.... . "•*-. . / y^'- *

•:V . I Vapor recover y * \.• " Vapor Ope n syste m Av g rat e 15 0 gp

m 1 2 1 6 20 24 2 8 3 2 3 6 4 0 4 4 4 8 Elapse dTim

e FromStar t

o f Gasolin e Fil l (minutes ) Figur e 7 . Typica l undergroun dtan k stati c pressure s fo r

thre e type s o f fillin g conditions .
•22 -Curren t Technique ; Splas h Fillin g Vapor s Vente d t o Ai r Proposed Contro l Technique : Submerged Fillin

g Vapor s Returne d t o Truc k

• Vapor s T o Atmospher e

C O I 

# X Tr-r

°A>'°~ ) Vapo r ReturnManifol d

Gasolin e drain s bygravit yflo wfromth e tan k truc k compartment s through a meter . Th e gasolin e ha 3 a fre e fal l fromth e hos e nozzl e t o th e liqui d surfac e o f th e tank , causin g a boilin g actio n o f th e liquid . Ai r enter s th e compartment s through th e vacuu mrelie f valve s i n th e dom e cap s t o replac e th e gasoline . Vapor s fro

mth e underground tan k ar e los t t o th e atmosphere . Gasolin e drain s by gravit y

flo w fro m th e compartment s throug h th e mete r an d a fil l pipe extendin g belo

w th e liqui d surface , resultin g i n a minimu

magitatio n o f the liquid . Vapor s fro m th e undergroun

d tan k returnt o the tan k truc k through th e annula r spac e o f the inter loc k valv

e int o th

e manifol d an

d th e vacuu m relie f valve s i nth e dom e cap .
Figur e 8 . Schemati c diagra m o f th e tw o fillin g technique s use d i nthi s study .P.3 0

TABL EV GASOLIN EVAPO RLOSSE S FO RDIFFEREN

T TYPE S O FUNDERGROUN

D TAN K FILLIN GTECHNIQUE

S (Pe r eac h100 0 gallon s gasolin e delivered )

TYP E OF FIL L

Splas h Submerged Vapo r Return Open Syste

m Vapo r Return Close d Syste m VOLUME RATI O VAPO R FORME D TO GASOLIN

E DUMPE D

l. Ut o 1 1 t o 1 1. 1 t o 1 1 t o 1 Concentratio n I n Ga s Phas e (vo l %) 3 9 

# V 3 U

x3U GASOLIN E VAPO R

cu f t 7 3 U 6 5 0 Los s l b 11. 5 7. 3 0. 8 0 v t % 0.1 9 0.1 2 0.01 3 0 Recover

y (Based o n splas h fil l loss ) c u f t 0 2 7 6 8 7 3 l b 0 li. 2 10. 7 11. 5 v t %

0 3 7 9 3 10 0



### Breathin g Losse s I n thi s report , breathin g o f undergroun dtank s refer s t o th e inhal

in g o f ai r an dexhalin g o

f avapor-ai r

mixtur e throug hth e ven t pip e dur

in g norma l pumpin g operation . Thes e emission s ar e independen t o f vapo r emission s tha t

occu r durin g refillin g o

f th e undergroun dtank . Whenan automobil e i s fueled , gasolin e i s pumpe dfro mth e under

groun dtank , causin g ai r t o b e inhale dthroug hth e ven t pipe , th e volum e bein g approximatel y equa l t o th e volum e o f gasolin e withdrawn . Th e ai r the n become s saturated , mor e o r les s rapidly , withgasolin e vapors , an d thu s tend s t o occup y alarge r volume . Thi s i ntur ncause s th e vapor-ai r mixtur e t o exhaus t

fro mth e undergroun dtan k unti l apressur e equilib

riu mi s attained .

-24 -

### Theoretically , tw o cubi c fee t o f exces s vapor-ai r

mixtur e ar e exhale dfo r

ever y thre e cubi c fee t o f ai r inhale ddurin g pumpin g opera tions , amountin g t o alos s o f abou t 6 pound s of

gasolin e vapor s pe r

1000 gallon s pumped , o r

abou t 0. 1 pe r cen t b y weight . Thi s calculatio nas sume s th e incomin g ai r wil l becom e saturate dwithgasolin e vapor s t o a 4 0 volum e pe r

cen t level , an dtha t

th e resultin g mixtur e i s exhale di na relativel y shor t

time . Thi s i s no t

tru e i n practic e unde r

norma l serv ic e statio n operation , i n whic hgasolin e i s pumpe da t arat e o f approxi

matel y 1 0 gallon s pe r

minute . Unde r

thes e relativel y slo w pumpin g conditions , ai r

i s continuousl y inhale ddurin g acycle , an dbecome s partiall y saturate dbefor e th e pumpin g i s completed . Thi s result s i na smalle r volum e o

f ai r bein g inhale dtha nth e volum e o f gasolin e bein g withdrawn , an dconsequentl y les s volum e o f ai r bein g exhale dafte r

com pletio n o f th e pumpin g cycle . A t time s whe nth e undergroun dtan k i s full , exhalin g occur s im

mediatel y afte r

th e pumpin g period , an da t arathe r hig hflo w rate . When th e tan k

i s les s tha nhal f

full , th e exhalin g actio ni s slo w i nstart ing , an dha s aver y lo w flo w rate . Becaus e o f thes e variation s inflo w rate , an dth e intermitten t natur e o

f th e occurrence , i t

wa s impractical , i n thi s study , t o collec t representativ e vapo r

sample s fo r

analysis . Consequently , th e theoretica l valu e o f 4 0 pe r cen t gasolin e vapo r

i nth e exhale dmixtur e wa s applie dt o th e measure dvolum e t o obtai nth e esti

mate dbreathin g losses . Thes e emission s wer e calculate dt o b e abou t one-sixt ho

f th e theoretica l weight , o r les s tha n1 poun dpe r

1000 gal

lon s of gasolin e pumped . Factor s affectin g th e breathin g losse s ar e comple x an dinter

related , dependin g upo nth e servic e statio noperation , gasolin e pumpin g rate , frequenc y o

f pumping , rati o o

f liqui dsurfac e t o vapo r volume , diffusio nan dmixin g of ai r an dgasolin e vapors , vapo r pressur e an d temperatur e o

f th e gasoline , th e volum e an dconfiguratio no f th e tank , an dth e siz e an dlengt ho f th e ven t pipe . Becaus e o

f thes e man y vari

able s involved , muc hmor e dat afro manumbe r o f representativ e retai l station s woul db e necessar y befor e anaccurat e determinatio no f over all , Basin-wid e breathin g losse s coul db e made . Usin g th e dat aavail

able , th e estimat e fo r

th e County i s abou t

3 ton s pe r

day , an dthi s smal l amoun t coul db e practicall y eliminate db y th e installatio no f acombina

tio n pressure-vacuu mvalv e o nexistin g ven t line s fro mth e undergroun d tanks . Experimenta l result s o f th e breathin g los s stud y o nth e under

groun dtan k

a t th e Templ e an dGran dStree t facilit y durin g aregula r 6
- • day perio dbetwee nfill s ar e show ngraphicall y i nFigur e 9 .

•25 -^

f \ 

### \ v-26-

V .

l ' 900 -

80 0 - 70 0 - 60 0 -

- H £50 0 - o •H 3 400

- 30 0 - 20 0 - 10 0 - 0

Figur e Fina l volum e ^79 6 c u f t ^ y (596 0 gal )

X Fina l volum e / ^51 3 c u f t 

# / y Gasolin e pumpe dX

^'

^ 00^^Ai r

inhale dy / ^,*'''*"

Fina l volum e

Da y 1 ' ha y 2 ' Da y 3 ' Day 4 ' Day 5 ' Day 6 ' Day 7

9 . Breathin g o f

undergroun dgasolin e storag e tank , startin g a t tan k ful l conditio n (631 5 gallons ) an dendin g wit hth e tan k empt y (insufficien t fo r pumping) . Th e undergroun d tan k use di s th e facilit y a t Templ e an dGran dstreets . Dimension s ar e U3 fee t b y $ feet , wit happroximatel y 7 0 fee t o f 1 ^ inc hven t

line .

-P.3 3 ! • 

### Durin g th e cours e o f conductin g th e breathin g los s study , dat awa s obtaine drelativ e t o temperatur e variation s o f th e liqui dan dvapo r

phas e i n th e undergroun dtan k durin g a7-da y period . Durin g thi s sam e perio d th e vapo r

phas e wa s monitore ddail y t o determin e whethe r th e composi

tio n o f th e vapo r

phas e varie dwithtim e an dwithth e amoun t o f gasolin e i n th e tank , an dwhethe r th e compositio nvarie dfro mth e to p t o th e bot

to mof th e vapo r

phase . Th e analyse s indicate dn o apparen t chang e i n vapo r concentratio nwit hrespec t t o an y o f th e above-mentione dfactors . Th e vapo r

temperatur e wa s foun dt o var y abou t 2 Fdail y durin g th e perio dbetwee ndeliveries , generall y reachin g it s maximu mabou t 2:0 0 A.M . an dit s minimu mabou t 2:0 0 P.M . Th e vapo r

temperatur e i n th e undergroun dtan k

wa s usuall y 4 t o 6 Fhighe r tha nth e liqui dtemper ature . Durin g atwo-mont hperio d(March-Apri l 1962) , temperatur e dat atake ndurin g fiv e gasolin e deliverie s indicate dtha t th e temperatur e of th e gasolin e bein g delivere dincrease danaverag e o f 1 Fdurin g th e dump , an dtha t

th e temperatur e o

f th e gasolin e i nth e undergroun dtan k increase da naverag e o f 7 F . A t th e time s th e fiv e deliverie s wer e bein g made , th e ai r

temperatur e average d7 5 F , th e gasolin e temperatur e i n th e undergroun dtan k

befor e deliver y average d6 8 F , an dth e gasolin e temperatur e i n th e tan k truc k befor e dumpin g average d7 4 F . Th e vapor s i n th e undergroun dtan k wer e generall y 3 Flowe r an d th e tan k truc k vapor s wer e generall y 3 Fhighe r tha nth e daytim e ambien t atmospheri c temperature . Th e highe r temperature s o

f th e truc k

vapor s wer e cause db y exposur e o f th e tan k truc k t o th e sun' s rays . Th e gasolin e temperatur e i nth e undergroun dtan k di dno t var y appreciabl y betwee n deliveries , afje r aninitia l temperatur e dro p dur

in g th e firs t

da y afte r

th e delivery . Th e magnitud e o f thi s initia l adjustmen t

depend s upo nth e temperature s of th e delivere dgasoline , o f th e tan k gasoline , an do

f th e surroundin g environment . Smal l Bul

k Plan t Losse s Vapo r losse s fro msmal l bul k plant s ar e calculate dt o b e abou t 2 ton s pe r

day , base do n estimate s tha t the y handl e 6 pe r

cen t o f th e tota l consumptio n o

f gasolin e i nLo s Angele s County , o r approximatel y 400,00 0 gallon s pe r

day . Sinc e mos t

o f th e smal l bul k

plant s us e a submerge dfil l pip e fo r loadin g th e tan k

trucks , i t

i s furthe r

assume d tha t th e rat e o

f vapo r formatio ndurin g thi s loadin g shoul db e th e sam e a s tha t fro mfillin g a n undergroun dstorag e tank , usin g th e sam e tech

nique . A s previousl y show n(se e Tabl e V) thi s amount s t o 7. 3 pound s

-27 -P.3 4



### of vapo r fo r eac h1,00 0 gallon s o

f gasolin e handled . Thes e losse s woul d b e reduce dnearl y 100 pe r cent , i f th e bul k plant s wer e equippe dwitha simpl e displacemen t

typ e vapo r

recover y system , use di nconjunctio n wit hmodifie dtan k

trucks . Tan k Truc k Losse s N o determination s wer e made , i nthi s study , o f actua l losse s fro m tan k truck s whil e i ntransi t t o an dfro mth e bul k

plants . However , a previou s stud y of

on e truc k

indicate dtha t

th e amoun t

of losse s whic h occu r woul db e dependen t

o n th e distanc e betwee nth e servic e statio n an dbul k plant , th e ambien t

temperature , th e tightnes s o f th e dom e ca p closure , th e compositio no f th e gasoline , an dth e amoun t o f gasolin e remainin g i n th e compartmen t afte r adump . Th e compositio n of

thes e losse s i s somewha t speculative . Ga s sample s take n durin g thi s surve y fro man empt y truc k compartmen t

im

mediatel y afte r

agasolin e deliver y indicate dagasolin e vapo r concentra tio n of 3 t o 5 pe r

cen t b y volume . I

f th e compartmen t

wer e completel y emptie dan ddry , thi s vapo r concentratio n woul dno t chang e materiall y unti l th e compartmen t

wa s refille da t

th e bul k loadin g terminal . I n practic e however , complet e emptyin g o f th e truc k

compartmen t

doe s no t occur . Ther e i s alway s som e hang-u p o f liqui dgasolin e i nth e truc k compartment s afte r

adelivery . Thi s remainin g liqui dvolatilize s t o adegre e governe db y th e residua l volume , th e ambien t temperature , th e agitatio no f th e liquid , an dth e transi t

tim e betwee n th e servic e statio nan dth e bul k plant . Usuall y thes e condition s ar e suc htha t onl y partia l saturatio no f th e vapo r spac e b y gasolin e vapor s i s obtained . However , th e degre e o f saturatio n whic hdoe s occu r result s i non e of

tw o circumstances : eithe r ther e i s apressur e build-u p i nth e compartment , o r th e partiall y satur ate dvapo r

escape s t o th e atmosphere , dependin g o nth e tightnes s o f th e dom e caps . I f th e compartmen t

i s ga s tight , th e pressur e i s release dwhe nth e hatc hcover s ar e opene dfo r refilling , an dth e vapor s ar e los t t o th e at mosphere . Fo r

shor t trip s th e amoun t

o f vapor s emitte dwoul db e es sentiall y th e sam e i n eithe r case . I n case s wher e saturatio nwer e reached , th e los s woul db e greate r fro mcompartment s withloos e -fittin g lids , sinc e i t

woul db e acontinuin g process . I ntheory , assumin g th e compartment s wer e ga s tigh t an dsaturatio nwa s reached , 8 0 ton s pe r da y coul db e los t

i n deliver y an dretur nt o al l bul k plants . I nactua l

-28 -P.3 5



### hatc h ^TZSZ^tto T VariaU 

### ° n Wa s 

### ^ » the flt 

### o f t h Proof , wit hpressure s beSTM^.^*TM 6 

### , " wa 

### * 'oun dt o b e almost

- i OQ 

### u

•29 -P.3 6



### VI . DAT

A O N MARKETINGFACILITIE S Servic e Statio n Facilitie s Servic e statio ndat ause dfo r thi s stud y wa s extrapolate dfro ma fiel dsurve y conducte db y APC D personne l i n1958 . A listin g o f th e num be r o f servic e station s an dth e numbe r o f pump s i nLo s Angele s County , withabreakdow nb y municipalities , wa s receive di nacommunicatio n date dApri l 30 , 1958 , fro mth e Stat e o f California , Departmen t o f Agri

culture , Burea u o

f Weight s an dMeasures . Fro mthi s list , 12 2 wer e selecte dfo r

adetaile dfiel dsurve y b y combinin g th e municipalitie s int o areas , an ddeterminin g th e tota l numbe r o f station s i neac harea . Th e telephon e boo k

representin g eac hare awa s taken , an dever y fiftieth servic e station , a s liste dalphabeticall y in th e book , wa s selecte dfo r inspection . Distribution s o

f thes e 12

2 station s accordin g t o storag e tan k capac itie s an dmonthl y sale s volum e ar e show ni nTable s V I an dVII . I t

ma y als o b e note dtha t

th e averag e statio nsurveye dhad3 undergroun dtanks , withamedia n sale s volum e of 20,00 0 gallon s pe r

month . Inadditio n t o thes e retai l stations , ther e als o ar e approximatel y 10,00 0 consume r

accounts , dispensin g abou t 5 pe r cen t o f th e tota l gaso lin e volume . Facilitie s a t thes e consume r

account s usuall y consis t o f on e tan k an don e pump . Fro mreport s o

f th e taxabl e sale s issue dby th e Stat e Boar do f Equalization , an dfro mth e vehicl e registratio ndat afurnishe db y th e Stat e Departmen t

o f Moto r Vehicles , i t

i s estimate dthat , a s o f Januar y 1 , 1962 , nearl y 192,000,00 0 gallon s o f moto r gasolin e wer e use deac h monthi nLo s Angele s County . Subtractin g th e 5 pe r cen t dispense d throug hconsume r

account s show s tha t

182,000,00 0 gallon s pe r month ar e sol db y retai l stations . Usin g th e media nsale s volum e o f 20,00 0 gallon s pe r

mont hpe r

statio ndetermine dfro mth e earl y survey , an d th e 182,000,00 0 gallon s pe r monthtota l sol di nLo s Angele s County , a projecte destimat e o

f 910 0 retai l station s i s obtaine dfo r th e County fo r Januar y 1962 .

-31

-TA3L E V I DISTRIBUTIO NO F SERVIC E STATIO NSTORAG E TAN K CAPACITIE S a ) NOMINA L TAN K SIZ E (gallons ) 

### 28 0 50 0 750 — 100 0 150 0 200 0 250 0 300 0 350 0 

### Uoo o 5oo o 55o o 600 0 650 0 700 0 750 0 800 0 1000 0 Tota l NUMBE R O F TANK S 

### 2 U 7 1
- 7 3 

### 3 U 9 

### 6 1 2 

### 6 9 5 3 8 

### 1 2 3 

### 1 1 8 1 1 5 

### 38 2 PE R CEN T 

### 0. 5 12. 3 

### 0. 3 19. 1 

### 0. 8 12. 8 

### 1. 6 3. 1 1. 6 24. 8 9.9 

### 0. 3 6. 0 0. 3 0. 3 2. 1 0. 3 3. 9 100. 0 CUMULATIV E PE R CEN T 

### 0. 5 12. 8 13. 1 32. 2 33. 0 1*5. 8 U7. U 50. 5 52. 1 76. 9 86. 8 87. 1 93. 1 93. U 93. 7 95. 8 96. 1 100. 0

a ) Fro mfiel d surve yo f 12 2 stations .

•32
-P.3 8

TABL E VI I DISTRIBUTIO NO F SERVIC E STATIO NMONTHL Y SALE S VOLUM E a ) MONTHL Y SALE S (gallons ) <u00 0 1*000-71*9

9 7500-999 9 10,000-121*9 9 12,500-11*99 9 15,000-171*9 9 17,500-1999 9 20,000-21*99 9 25,000-2999 9 30,000-31*99 9 35,000-3999 9 1*0,000-1*999 9 50,000-71*99 9 > 7500 0 Tota l NUMBE RO F STATION S 3 1 1 8 1 2 8 1 1 8 1 9 1 1 1 2 

### 5 5 7 2 12 2 PE

RCEN T
2. 5 9. 0 6. 6 9. 8 6. 6 9. 0 6. 6 15. 6 9. 0 9. 8 U. l U. l 5. 7 1. 6 100. 0 .CUMULATIVE

PE RCEN

T 2. 5 

## n. 5 18. 1 27. 9 

### 3U. 5 1*3. 5 50. 1 65. 7 71* . 7 81*. 5 88. 6 92. 7 98.1 * 100. 0 TOTA

LSALE S (gallons ) 9,75 0 71,10 0 69,60 0 135,00 0 107,50 0 172,00 0 11*6,50 0 Ul7,00 0 289,00 0 370,50 0 223,00 0 213,00 0 U08,70 0 165,00 0 2,799,65 0 PE

RCEN T
0. 3 2. 5 2. 5 1*. 8 3. 8 6. 2 5. 2 ll*. 9 10. 3 13. 2 8. 0 7. 6 ll*. 6 

### SA 99A CUMULATIV E PE RCEN

T 0. 3 2. 8 

### 5. 3 10. 1 13. 9 20. 1 25. 3 U0. 2 50. 5 63. 7 71. 7 79. 3 93. 9 99. 9

a ) Fro mfiel d surve yo f 12 2 stations .

-33
-

### Base don th e averag e o f 3. 1 tank s pe r

retai l statio n determine d fro mth e fiel dsurvey , ther e ar e a n estimate d28,20 0 undergroun dtank s at th e retai l stations . These , plu s th e 10,00 0 tank s at consume r

ac count locations , giv e atota l o f 38,20 0 undergroun dstorag e tank s cur rentl y bein g use di n th e dispensin g o f gasolin e i n Lo s Angele s County . Shouldexistin g system s b e converte dt o avapo r retur n syste m incorporatin g auni t

suc ha s th e Nishkian valve , th e siz e o f th e existin g fil l pipe s wouldbecom e amajo r facto r for consideration . Th e distri

butio n o f fil l pip e siz e fo r

th e station s inspecte din th e fiel dsurve y i s shown i n Tabl e VIII . I t

ca n b e see n tha t

diameter s rang e fro m2 inche s t o 6 inches , wit

h1 9 pe r cen t bein g les s than 3 inches . Thi s latte r valu e i s th e minimu mdiamete r tha t can b e use dwit

hth e Nishkian valve , wit h anythin g smalle r

requirin g th e installatio n o f ane w fil l pipe , preferabl y o f 4-inc hsize .

TABL EVi n DISTRIBUTIO

N O FSERVIC ESTATIO NFILLPIPESIZE S a ) DIAMETE R (inches ) 

### 2 2i



### 3 

### 3 1 U 

## U i 6 Tota l NUM3ER O F PIPE S 

### 6 6 

### U 18 5 1 0 

### 9 5 1 1 36 2 PE R CEN T 18. 2 

### 1. 1 51. 1 

### 2. 8 26. 2 

### 0. 3 0. 3 100. 0

a ) Fro mfiel dsurve y a t

12 2 stations .

-34 -P.4 0



### Durin g th e servic e statio n survey , dat aals o wer e collecte do n th e distributio n accordin g t o ven t pip e size , distanc e o

f fill pip e t o vent pipe , numbe r

o f pump s pe r

station , andcompany . Thi s informatio ni s presente di n Table s I

X t o XI I respectively .

TABL E D C DISTRIBUTIO NO F SERVIC E STATIO NDISTANCE S FRO M FIL L PIP E T O VEN T PIP E a ) DISTANC E (feet ) 0- 9 10-1 9 20-2 9 30-3 9 

### U0-U 9 50-5 9 60-6 9 70-7 9 80-8 9 90-9 9 Tota l NUMBE R VEN T PIPE S 2 1 

### 99 7 3 8 3 2 7 

### 1 U 2 6 1 3 

### 5 1 36 2 PE RCEN T 

### 5. 8 27. 3 20. 2 22. 9 

### 7.U 3. 9 7. 2 

### 3. 6 l. U 0. 3 100. 0 CUMULATIV E PE RCEN T 

### 5. 8 33. 1 53. 3 76. 2 83. 6 87. 6 9U. 7 98. 3 99. 7 100. 0

a ) Fro mfiel d surve yo f 12 2 station s

•35
-P.4 1

TABL E X DISTRIBUTIO NO F SERVIC E STATION.VEN T PIP E SIZE S a ^ NOMINA L PIP ESIZ E 1 

## I f i f 2 2 * 3 Tota l NUMBE R VEN T PIPE S 3 0 11* 1 15 1 U 9 1 2 37 U "'" ' PE RCEN

T ' " ' ' 8. 0 37.7 ' UO. U 13. 1 0. 3 0. 5 100. 0 ' CUMULATIV E PEP . CEN

T 8. 0 U5. 7 86. 1 99. 2 99. 5 100. 0

a ) Fro mfiel d surve yo f 12 2 station s - 2 , • i -

TABL E X I

NUMBE RPUMPS PE RSTATIO N 2 3 U 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 l U 1 6 Tota l DISTRIBUTIO NO F. NUMBE R STATION S 1 2 2 7 3 6 U 26 1 7 3 2 1 3 12 2 SERVIC ESTATIO NPUMPS *' TOTA LNUMBE

R FJMP S 2 U 8 1 1U U 2 0 15 6 7 $6 2 7 2 U l U U 8 60 1 PE RCEN T O FSTATION S 9. 3 22. 2 29. 5 3. 3 21. 3 0. 8 5. 7 2. 5 1. 6 0. 8 2. 5 100. 0 a)Fro mfiel d surve yo f 12 2 stations .

-36
-TABL EXI I DISTRIBUTIO N O

FSERVICESTATIONS B Y COMPAN

Y a )
BRAND NAM E
Standar d Richfiel d Unio n Shel l Genera l Petroleu

m Texa s Signa l Wilshir e Hancoc k Tidewate r Independen t Tota l
a ) Fro mreplie s b y1 2

Bul k Plan t Facilitie s NUMBE R STATION S

"'l i staticn s 1 5

1 9 2 0 1 1 1 7 1 3 7 

### U 2 

### 5 l l 12 U t o r.ai l survey . PE R CEN T O F TOTAL 12. 1 15. 3 16. 2 8. 9 13. 7 10. 5 

### 5. 6 3. 2 1. 6 U. O 8. 9 100. 0



### Whenconsiderin g th e effectivenes s o f vapo r retur nsystem s on tan k trucks , th e bul k

loadin g facilitie s wher e th e tan k truck s ar e fille d mus t b e take n int o account . Rul e 61 , whic hcontrol s gasolin e loadin g int o tan k truck s an dtrailers , state s inpar t tha t "thi s rul e shal l no t appl y t o loadin g o

f gasolin e int o tan k

truck s an dtrailer s fro many load

in g facilit y fro mwhic hno t mor e tha n20,00 0 gallon s o f gasolin e ar e loade din an y on e day. " Thus , th e smalle r bul k plant s hav e n o vapo r recover y systems , an dan y truc k containin g vapor s fro mavapo r retur n dump syste mwoul dlos e al l thes e vapor s t o th e atmospher e whenbein g fille da t th e smalle r

facilities . Additiona l vapo r formatio nby volatiliza

tio n o f th e gasolin e durin g loading , i s minimize di nalmos t al l case s by us e o f adi p tub e fo r

th e fillin g of

th e tan k trucks .

•37 -P.4 3



### A s ca n b e see n fro m Tabl e XIII , al l bu t6 pe rcen to

f th e gasolin e i n Lo s Angele s Count

y i s loade d atth e refiner y o ra tth e larg e bulk terminals . Thi s leave s onl y 11,900,00 0 gallon s pe rmont h loade d a

t facilitie s no tcurrentl y provide d wit h mean s fo rcontrollin g th e vapors .

TABL EXII I BUL K GASOLIN ELOADIN

GI N LO S ANGELE

S COUNT Y a ) CLAS S Majo r Refiner y o r Bul k Termina l Independen t Refiner y Smal l Bul k Distributio n Plan t b ) Tota l NUMBE ROF INSTALLATION S 2 2 

### 5

7 1 

### 9 8 THROUGHPU T (gal/month ) 166,100,10 0 1U,000,00 0 11,900,00 0 192,000,00 0 %TOTA L (vo l %o f

total ) 

### 8 7 7 6 10 0

a ) Projecte d t o 196 2 tota l throughpu t o f 192,000,00 0 gallon s pe r mont h fro mearlie r data . Aircraf t fuelin g facilit ythroughpu t figure s wer e eliminate d fo r th e 196 2 projection . b ) Eac h facilit yhandle s les s tha n 20,00 0 gallon s pe r day .



### A t th e large r

bul k plants , wher e avapo r recover y syste mi s i n operation , th e onl y appreciabl e losse s woul doccu r whenth e hatc h cover s wer e opene dfo r filling . Thes e losse s woul db e equa l t o th e vol

um e chang e occurrin g whenth e pressur e buil t u p by volatilizatio no

f th e residua l gasolin e i nth e tan k truc k wa s suddenl y release dt o atmosphere , In mos t instances , th e hatc hcover s d o no t mak e aperfectl y effectiv e pressur e seal , s o by th e tim e th e truc k return s t o th e loadin g rac k th e pressur e i s almos t

atmospheric . Th e pressur e buildu p may , however ,

•38 -P.4 4



### var y fro matmospheri c t o approximatel y 3 pound s pe r squar e inch , a s determine db y th e settin g of th e sprin g loade drelie f valv e bqil t

int o th e dom e cover . Tan k Truc k Facilitie s Accordin g t o acompilatio nmad e i n1956 , ther e wer e a t tha t time , abou t 150 0 tan k

truck s bein g use dfo r

haulin g gasolin e i nLo s Angele s County (4) . Assumin g tha t th e numbe r

o f truck s ha s increase di npro portio n t o th e increas e i ngasolin e sales , a nestimat e o

f 1700 tan k

truck s wa s use di n makin g th e cos t estimate s discusse di nSectio nVII . I t wa s estimate dtha t

abou t 5 0 Der cen t o f th e haulin g vehicle s wer e semi-truck s with5 compartment s each , an dth e othe r 5 0 pe r cen t wer e trailer-truck s with6 compartment s each . Th e compartmen t capacitie s varie dfro m1200 t o 1300 gallons , an dth e majorit y o f th e truck s use da 3-inc hdiamete r

hos e a s adischarg e lin e fro mth e compartments . Haul

in g operation s o

f thi s typ e o

f vehicl e wer e usuall y o na naround-the-cloc k basis . Th e dom e ca p oneac hcompartmen t wa s usuall y equippe dwit htw o sprin g loade drelie f

valves . One wa s avacuu mrelie f valve , factory-se t t o ope n a t

apressur e differenc e o f 7 inche s o

f water . I npractice , how

ever , th e differentia l wa s somewha t lower . Th e secon dvalv e wa s a pressur e relie f

valve , normall y se t

t o ope na t

fro m3 t o 5 pound s pe r squar e inc hpressur e difference .

-39

-P.4 5



### VII . COS T ESTIMATE S FORVAPO RRETURN SYSTE

M Servic e Statio nCost s I n orde r t o obtai ncos t

appraisal s fo r

equippin g facilitie s witha vapo r recover y system , th e Nishkia n interloc k vapo r valv e wa s take n a s atypica l installation . Estimate s fo r equippin g newl y constructe dan d existin g facilitie s withthi s valv e wer e obtaine dfro mM . A . Nishkia n an dCompan y inalette r date dMarc h9 , 1961 , an dar e summarize di n Tabl e XIV .

TABL E XI V

ESTIMATE D COST S O F EQUIPPING CONSUME R FACILITIE S WIT H

AGASOLINE RECOVERY SYSTE M FACILIT Y

Ne wConstructio n Servic e Station : Fil l pip e diameter , 3 inche s o r greate r Fil l pip e diameter , les s tha n 3 inche s Consume r Account s a ' NUMBE R TANK S

N o estimat e

22,80 0 

### 5,Uo o 10,00 0 COST/TAN K (dollars ) 12 5

60 0 65 0 65 0 TOTA

L COS T ( dollars ) N o estimat e

13,680,00 0 3,510,00 0 6,500,00 0 $ 23,690,00 0

a ) Assume d al l t o b e les s tha n 150 0 gallon s capacity , wit h fil l pipe s les s tha n 3 inche s diameter .

-41
-P.4 6



### Th e estimate dcos t

o f convertin g atypica l retai l station , with3 tanks , t o avapo r

recover y syste mwoul drang e betwee n$180 0 an d$1950 , dependin g upo nth e siz e o f th e existin g fil l pipes . I nth e cas e o f station s wher e th e existin g fil l pipe s ar e 4 inche s i ndiamete r (interna l pip e size) , an di n soun dconditio nfo r cuttin g an drethreading , acos t o f $60 0 pe r

tan k i s estimated . Thi s include s performanc e o f al l operation s require dt o instal l th e tan k

fil l an dvapo r

remova l valve , th e tan k ven t vapo r chec k valve , an dth e tan k

fil l bo x withtraffi c cover . Th e tank s tha t

hav e fil l pipe s les s tha n3 inche s i ndiamete r woul d requir e th e installatio no f ane w 4-inc hfil l pip e t o accommodat e th e Nishkia n valve . Th e manufacturer s quot e anestimate dcos t o f $65 0 pe r tan k t o replac e anexistin g fil l pip e withon e o f arequire ddiameter , an d t o d o al l th e necessar y wor k describe dabove . Probabl y al l o f th e con sume r accoun t tanks , an dapproximatel y 1 9 pe r cen t o f th e retai l tanks , atota l o f 15 , 40 0 tanks , woul db e i nthi s category . Thre e alternative s ar e als o possibl e t o reduc e th e cos t t o th e serv ic e station , bu t

stil l provid e ameasur e o f vapo r control . Th e firs t

woul d b e t o instal l amodifie dvapo r contro l syste mwhic hwoul dno t requir e a vapo r retur nvalv e suc ha s th e Nishkia nunit . Fo r thi s installation , a submerge dfil l tub e an dth e existin g ven t pip e woul db e th e onl y require

ments . I t

woul db e necessar y t o excavat e i norde r t o mak e a

nunder

groun dconnectio n betwee nth e ven t lin e an dth e fil l bo x wher e th e vapo r retur n hos e connectio nwoul db e located . Installatio no f suc hasyste m woul db e dependen t

o n th e conditio no

f existin g pip e an dth e siz e o f fil l pipe s an dven t

lines . Th e averag e cos t probabl y woul db e abou t $50 0 pe r tank , plu s a n unknow namoun t t o equi p th e tan k

truck . A second , simpler , metho di s t o emplo y th e concentri c hos e ar rangemen t

develope db y th e APC

D i n1955 , an dillustrate di nFigur e 10 . Additiona l contro l equipmen t neede dwiththi s devic e consist s o f adi p tub e fo r submerge dfilling , an dafittin g o nth e fil l pip e t o accommodat e th e concentri c hose . Tota l cost s fo r thi s installatio nwoul daverag e abou t $20 0 pe r

tank , exclusiv e o

f th e expens e o

f equippin g th e tan k trucks , detaile di nalate r section . Th e thir dalternativ e woul db e t o utiliz e asubmerge dfil l only , wit hn o vapo r

retur n system . Usin g thi s method , vapo r losse s fro m fillin g operation s woul db e 3 7 pe r cen t les s tha nth e splas hfil l loss , a savin g o f abou t 1 gallo no

f gasolin e fo r

eac h1000 gallon s delivered . Althoug hthi s savin g i s smal l dollar-wise , i t woul daccru e t o th e statio n operator , sinc e th e materia l woul dno t volatiliz e an db e lost , bu t woul d remai n i nth e tan k

a s liquid . Th e savin g coul db e realize dwithou t th e

-42 -C O I

Figur e 10 . Ai r Pollut i o n Contro l Distric t vapo r recover ysystemf o r servic e stationstorag e tanks .

### installatio n an dus e of avapo r retur nvalve , an dthu s th e initia l cos t woul db e low . Th e onl y expenditur e require dwoul db e th e purchas e an d installatio no

f asubmerge dfil l tub e i nth e existin g fil l pipe , an dwoul d amoun t t o abou t $5 0 pe r tank . Bul k Plan t Cost s A s previousl y stated , ther e ar e 7 1 smal l bul k distributio nplant s i n th e County , whic hhandl e 6 pe r cen t o f th e tota l gasolin e used . Thes e woul drequir e som e modification s t o enabl e the mt o recove r th e vapor s fro mth e tan k

truck s b y providing , fo r instance , asimpl e syste mo f col

lectin g th e displace dvapor s i n th e storag e tan k fro mwhic hth e liqui d gasolin e i s bein g withdrawn . Modification s inthi s cas e woul dconsis t o f som e simpl e pip e work an dadequat e connecto r fitting s t o accommodat e avapo r retur nhos e fro mth e manifol dsyste mwhic hwoul db e installe d i n th e tan k

trucks . Th e estimate dcos t

o f outfittin g eac hsmal l bul k plan t i s $500 . Thi s estimat e i s base do nth e assumptio ntha t eac hsm?l l plan t

ha s anaverag e o f 2 tank s dispensin g gasoline , an dtha t 200 fee t o f 2-inc hpip e installe d withth e necessar y fitting s woul db e require dfo r eac hplant . Thu s atota l o f $35 , 50 0 woul db e neede dt o equi p al l 7 1 o f th e smal l bul k

plant s with displacemen t

vapo r recover y systems . A s mentione dbefore , al l o f th e large r

bulk loadin g facilitie s no w hav e vapo r

contro l system s o

f on e typ e o r

another . Thes e system s ade

quatel y tak e car e o

f th e vapor s returne e t o th e bul k plan t inth e tan k trucks , an dn o additiona l expenditure s ar e necessary . Tan k Truc k Cost s A t th e tim e o

f th e earlie r

studie s mad e by th e APCD i nconnectio n withth e concentri c hos e system , a n estimat e o

f S35 0 pe r

truc k plu s S15 0 pe r compartmen t

wa s give n fo r

equippin g atan k

truc k withtha t particula r

system . Th e recover y syste munde r stud y employ s separat e gasolin e fil l an dvapo r

retur n hoses , rathe r

tha nasingl e concentri c hose . However , becaus e curren t cos t estimate s coul dno t

b e obtaine d fo r thi s study , th e value s fo r th e singl e concentri c hos e wer e used . Thi s assumptio n wa s justifie donth e basi s o f th e fac t th:.t , althoug hcon structio n cost s ar e currentl y highe r tha na t th e tim e o

f tha t study , th e separat e vapo r

retur nhos e use di nth e presen t devic e woul db e les s costl y tha nth e earlie r

comple x concentri c hose . Thus , th e resultin g

•44 -P.4 9



### ne t cos t probabl y woul db e approximatel y th e same . Withthes e assumptions , th e cos t o f equippin g th e 1700 tan k truck s (th e numbe r

estimate di nth e previou s section ) fo r th e recover y o

f vapor s usin g aseparat e vapo r

retur nhos e syste mwoul dbe : 85 0 semi-truck s with5 compartment s eac h$ 935,00 0 85 0 traile r

truck s with6 compartment s eac h$1,062 , 500 $1,997,50 0 Thi s separat e hos e equipmen t fo r th e truck s woul dconsis t o f avapo r retur nhose , amanifol dsyste man dth e necessar y fittings , plu s labor .

-45 -P.5 0



### Vni . EVALUATION O FNISHKIA N VALVE Descriptio n Th e interloc k

valv e use di n th e test s wa s supplie dby M . A . Nishkia n an dCompany , 375 5 Lon g Beac hBoulevard , Lon g Beach , Cali

fornia . Th e intende dusag e o f thi s valv e i s a s apermanen t installatio n o n th e fil l pipe s of

undergroun dgasolin e storag e tank s a t servic e sta tions . I t woul dprovid e amean s whereb y th e gasolin e vapor s displace d fro mth e undergroun dtan k durin g th e refillin g operatio ncoul db e re - turne dt o th e tan k

truc k t o fil l th e spac e vacate db y th e liqui dgasoline . I t shoul db e note da t

th e outse t

tha t th e valv e itsel f

i s onl y on e par t o f an over-al l vapo r

recover y system . Th e entir e syste mwoul dconsis t o f th e valve , o r

som e othe r

tight-fi t connectio nt o th e undergroun dtank , avapo r retur nhos e betwee nth e tan k an dth e tan k

truck , an dvalve s an d pipin g t o eac hgasolin e compartmen t o f th e tan k truck . A s submitted , th e Nishkia nvalv e assembl y consiste do f th e valv e body an dasubmerge dfil l tube , a s illustrate di nFigur e 11 . Th e 4-inc h couplin g withth e attache d1/4-inc hstati c pressur e prob e wa s fabricate d b y Distric t

testin g personne l fo r

us e i nth e curren t

tes t program . Thi s wa s use da s aconnectin g lin k betwee nth e valv e an dth e fil l pipe , an d als o a s amean s fo r

obtainin g th e stati c pressur e i nth e undergroun dtan k durin g fillin g operations . Th e mai nfeature s o f th e valv e ar e across ar mconnectin g tub e throug hwhic hth e gasolin e vapor s pas s fro mth e undergroun dtan k

t o th e vapo r

retur nline , an da ninterloc k arrangemen t tha t prevent s th e flo w o

f gasolin e t o th e undergroun dtan k unles s th e vapo r retur n hos e i s connecte dt o th e valve . No t include da s anintegra l par t o f th e valve , bu t

intende dfo r

us e withth e 4-inc hfil l pip e o f th e tes t facilities , wa s a3-inc hdi p tub e o r submerge dfil l pipe . A di p tub e o f 2-1/ 2 inche s coul db e use dwithou t restrictin g th e flo w of

gasolin e o r

vapor s unduly , bu t

anythin g smalle r tha n thi s woul db e unsuitable . Thus , th e valv e coul db e adapte dfo r us e on tank s witha3-inc hfil l pipe , but , a s previousl y mentioned , tank s whos e fil l pipe s ar e smalle r tha n thi s woul drequir e furthe r modification .

-47 -P.5 1



### km 

# m? 

# mmm (ikBH*- *

i-M &'£& T:^i 

# 3:

%A 

### lirji >-•«&;" < 

### :M*Z (•J- Y Afftft& i 

## mi

W3mmK-i$^&A*^

.;-^% . L*-\ 3 K^p^^"^-".V** ? z'3*--*\.'p-i.i ^'•rK-i-f :\-.. cn ^;.-.'!:'••;: •,*^^;'' ' -••?•'•' • •J. v :-.•" •:C/i - ' • 

### ll^ ; ^^'...- i . x

.>•'• < * •

' #-v . " ! ' - -- .

• ^ : ••••'$••> ? -•*'' " - - I ; .i.* ' M*-V,'v- tJ !."''fiW5*r ; *i»& f ' * -*-Jv i . V : 

### ^AA^A i.M'i-3&%. y

### m.<A. " ;\>&~X^': 

### -'$XA?33k3-. • v • . ••.:---'y : $r*-- , : -^ ' • ^i^^S^.^f e 'fc? , ' j-. .



### . >•. - ft -m. -9-y•* • ;\3 : 

### '-i&3!-^iAm,-; A*


# i3y%y u 

# m3jm~rj^i

P * ' V - J -"?* " ••! • ••'••• • *.'*":> « : ? J -.tV/ . • -•*•- - " > 3 ' : -'0'^-.^
. :?? i 

## mmA%k;z>m 

# I

T 3 c c d 

# I

• p a < D Q ) c a f tXI (

D Q. O. <& > Q C

O o . . ^* 1 0 ) + > C Qi •H > > J* O fc. O cf l 

## 2 3 0 ) o •* > o c c § ^
• H O t o 5 • H O 

# u JZ ( 0 •H O

T 3 <D 73 O

• H C

M

•48 -P.5 2



### Installatio no

f th e valv e o na

nundergroun dtan k

i s show ni nFigur e 12 , whil e Figur e 1 3 illustrate s th e valv e i nus e durin g a nactua l fillin g operation . Th e 4-inc hpip e assembl y locate dt o th e lef t of th e gasolin e fil l hos e an dbetwee nth e valv e bod y an dvapo r retur nhos e i s aviscou s flowmete r

assembl y fo r

measurin g th e vapo r

flo w rat e durin g th e testin g operations . Operatio n A s state dabove , th e mai n functio no f th e Nishkia nvalv e i s t o pro vid e amean s whereb y th e vapor s fro mth e undergroun dtank s ca nb e transferre dt o th e tan k

truc k durin g fillin g operation s fo r th e undergroun d tanks . Thes e vapor s woul dthe nb e returne dt o acollectio nsyste ma t a bul k plant , thereb y providin g anover-al l pla nfo r control . I norde r

t o tes t th e efficienc y o

f th e valv e a s par t

of thi s procedure , i t

wa s necessar y t o conduc t

aserie s o

f test s wit han dwithou t

i t a s acomponen t

o f th e fill

in g equipment . Dat aobtaine dfro mthes e tests , alon g withdat aalread y . availabl e i n th e District' s files , wer e the nuse dt o mak e thi s evaluation . I nth e functio n fo r

whic hth e valv e wa s designed , performanc e wa s quit e satisfactory . N o majo r obstacle s o r

difficultie s wer e encountere d whic hwoul dmak e th e fillin g syste mimpractica l fro manoperationa l viewpoint . Th e test s did , however , disclos e tw o problems , no t relate d t o th e Nishkia n valv e itself , whic hshoul db e remedie di nth e desig no f acomplet e vapo r

recover y system : (1 ) vacuu mbuild-u p i nth e tan k truc k compartments , an d(2 ) difficult y i ndrainin g gasolin e fro mth e deliver y hos e afte r

th e flo w ha s stopped . N o specification s wer e obtainabl e fo r th e maximu mallowabl e vacuu mi nth e tan k

truc k compartments . Value s observe di nth e curren t test s reache damaximu mo f 4 inche s wate r

colum ndurin g norma l deliv

ery , withanincreas e t o amaximu mo f 1 0 inche s wate r

colum nwithth e vapo r retur nsyste mi n operation . Sinc e th e tank s o f th e tan k truck s collaps e rathe r

easily , thi s vacuu mi s acritica l factor , an dlimit s shoul db e accuratel y measured . Maximu mallowabl e vacuu mspecifica

tion s coul dthe n b e made , an dth e siz e o f hose , valves , an dfitting s o f th e vapo r

recover y syste mcoul db e designe ds o a s t o preven t an y pos sibl e tan k

collapse . I non e test , when usin g submerge dfillin g withope nven t conditions , som e difficult y wa s encountere di ndrainin g al l th e gasolin e fro mth e fil l hos e afte r

th e flo w ha dstopped . Thi s resulte dfro mth e developmen t o f apressur e differentia l betwee nth e undergroun dtan k an dth e truc k

•49

-&&& »

Figur e 12 . Nishkia n retur n valv e mounte d o n fil l pipe .

1 . Valv e bod y 2 . Aluminumtubin g fo r actuatin g mechanica l interloc k syste m 3 . Gasolin e filling hos e U . Quick-connec t couplin g fo r hos e t o valv e 5 « Bottomsectio n o f viscou s flo wmete r an d vapo r retur n system 6 . Manomete r use d i n studyt o measur e pressur e i n undergroun d tank durin g fillin g

-50
-P.5 4

0 1 • P ra p t s c 3 T J C O • H P 

### 2 O a o



### .5 a ) t> H rt 

### E
f n U o a c rt w • H 3

H (1 ) c

u ( 0 o X ! a > C-& D 

## E 3

- p a > a ) *- . c 

### n 3 o o a c o n > tt > o f\-3 -

( 4 O J P a > 

### > r ! 

### d g JZ o co n • H - H 2 5 > CN J

-51 -

### compartmen t sufficien t

t o hol dth e liqui di nth e hose . Inthi s particula r instance , th e truc k

drive r "cracked " (partiall y opened , the nclose d again ) th e quick-connec t couplin g a t

th e connectio nbetwee nth e fil l hos e an dth e mete r

t o allo w ai r

t o enter . I ngeneral , thi s conditio ncoul d probabl y b e correcte db y th e us e o f asmal l ai r

bleeder , o r

vacuu m breake r valve , nea r

th e truc k

meter . Thi s woul dpermi t ai r t o ente r th e hos e t o equaliz e th e pressur e an dthereb y allo w th e hos e t o drai n completely . Limitation s Fro mth e result s o

f th e curren t

investigation , i t

woul dsee mtha t th e onl y limitation s t o th e us e o f th e Nishkia nvalv e a s .par t o f avapo r retur n syste mwoul db e thos e o f installation . Sinc e i t

i s intende dt o b e par t o f th e permanen t

equipmen t

fo r th e fillin g o

f th e undergroun dtanks , th e valv e shoul db e installe ds o tha t i t woul dno t

projec t abov e groun d an dthu s restric t

vehicl e movemen t

i nth e servic e statio narea . Fo r ne w constructio n thi s woul db e eas y t o do , bu t i nexistin g station s mos t o f th e tank s ar e no t

a t asufficien t

dept ht o permi t

thi s manne r

o f instal

lation . Therefore , i t

woul db e necessar y eithe r t o deepe nth e locatio nof th e tank s (obviousl y requirin g excavatio nan dincreasin g th e cos t esti

mate s previousl y mentioned) , o r t o redesig nth e valv e t o ashorte r size . A thir dalternativ e woul db e t o attac hth e valv e t o th e syste monl y durin g th e fillin g operations . However , thi s woul db e a ninconvenienc e t o th e statio n personnel , an dcoul dwel l resul t i ndisregar do

f th e devic e durin g th e fillin g operation . ~—- Incorporatio n o

f th e valv e a s par t

o f th e tan k truc k equipmen t

in

stea do f th e statio nfacilitie s woul db e possible , bu t al l connection s woul d hav e t o b e standardize dthroughou t th e County . Thi s procedure , too , woul db e les s convenient , an dcoul dals o lea dt o disregar do f th e us e o

f th e equipment . I f avapo r retur nsystem , incorporatin g th e Nishkia nvalve , wer e pu t int o effect , i t

woul dnecessitat e th e enactio no f additiona l ai r

pollu

tio n legislation . Thi s coul dpossibl y consis t o f a namendmen t

t o Rul e 6 1 deletin g th e minimu msiz e claus e fo r th e loadin g facilities , thereb y ex tendin g th e coverag e t o smal l bul k plant s an dal l servic e stations . Wit h th e valv e installe da s recommende di t woul db e apermanen t

par t o f th e servic e statio n equipment . A s such , enforcemen t o f it s us e shoul dno t b e difficult , an donl y a n inspectio n o

f th e initia l installatio nshoul db e required .

•52 -P.5 6

i



### IX . REFERENCE S

1 . Lo s Angele s County Ai r Pollutio nContro l District . "Tota l Ai r Pollutio n Emitte dan dPrevente dinLo s Angele s County. " (Lo s Angeles : Lo s Angele s County Ai r Pollutio nContro l District , Januar y 1962. ) 2 . Lo s Angele s County Ai r Pollutio nContro l District . Secon dTech

nica l an dAdministrativ e Repor t onAi r Pollutio nContro l i n Lo s Angele s Countv . 1950-1951 . (Lo s Angeles : Lo s Angele s County Ai r Pollutio n Contro l District , Q95 2 ?]. ) 3 . Beckman , Arnol d0. ; Haagen-Smit , A . J. ; Kaplan , Joseph ; Brantley , L . Reed ; Poole , Joh n W . Repor t o f Specia l Committe e onAi r Pollu

tion . (Repor t

mad e t o Governo r

Goodwi nJ . Knight' s Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Conference , Decembe r 5 , 1953. ) 4 . Wester nOi l an dGa s Association . Cos t Survey . (

A Repor t Pre

pare db y th e Marketin g Subcommitte e o f th e Ai r Pollutio nContro l Committee H (Lo s Angeles : Wester nOi l an dGa s Association , Augus t 1956. )

•53 -P.5 7 *y° su % 

# flSTtt Ji~B-o!

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR
. MICHIGA N 4810 5 

### JU LI 3 I98T OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N

MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT :
FROM : TO : Inclusio n o f Benzen e Gasolin e Marketing Docket ,

A-84-0 7 int o Onboar d Docket , A-87-1 1 Richar d S . Wilcox , Environmenta l Scienti s Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h Onboar d Docket , A-87-1 1
The Benzen e Gasolin e Marketing Docket , No . ^84-07 , i s being incorporate d b yreferenc e int o th e Onboard Docket , No . A-87-11 . The Benzen e Gasolin e Marketing Docke t contain s considerabl e backgroun d informatio n an d relevan t dat a concerning th

e onboar d vapo r recover yrequirement , in additio n t o reference s fo r the onboard draf t regulator ysuppor t documents . Fo r thes e reasons , it s inclusio n i s appropriate .P.5 8 

## A)- J 7-/ / 71- B 

### -oo .

^ 6 0 S U>. <r _ . * * 

# iS E % PRO*'- ' ^ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y A N N ARBOR
. MICHIGA N 4810 5
OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N 

## DE C I 7 198 6
MEMORANDU M SUBJECT : FROM : TO : THRU : Refuelin g Configuratio n Criteri a

Rober t J . Johnson , Environmenta l Protectio n Spec . Standard s Developmen t and Suppor t Branc h Th e Publi c Recor d Glen n W . passavant , Projec t Manage r • • Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h



# A /sv Cheste r J . France , rh i pff ^y//3S

t Standard s Developmen t a^n d Slipppf^ t Branc h 

### ,s? v ^ .yi Thoma s M . Bali , Chie f -<^_ ^ . V / / A>n. Certificatio n 3ranc h /^~ Th e refuelin g proposa l provide s criteri a t o b e use d determinin g refuelin g certificatio n purpose s §86.090-2 4 o f th e Family/contro l syste m manufacturer' s produc t simila r basi c desig n fo r system s fo r containe d i n regulations . t o divid e a vehicle s wit h familie s an d contro l Thes e criteri a ar e propose d refuelin g criteri a ar e use d lin e int o grouping s o f and deterioratio n characteristic s fo e purpose s o f emissio n contro l durabilit ydemonstration . Withi n eac h family/syste mcombination , th e norma l certificatio n practic e i s t o the n selec t emissio n dat a vehicle s fo r complianc e testing . Thes e emissio n dat a vehicle s ar e selecte d base d o n configuratio n criteri a whic h identif yth e v/orst-cas e emitter s i n tha t family/syste mcombination . Officia l configuratio n criteri a fo r selectin g emissio n dat a vehicle s wil l ultimatel yb e develope d usin g th e norma l Advisor yCircula r process . However , durin g th e cours e o f th e analysi s use d t o develo p th e propose d refuelin g family/syste m determinants , criteri a wer e als o identifie d tha t coul d b e use d t o selec t emissio n . dat a vehicle s withi n a give n family/syste m combination . Thes e ar e attache d t o infor mcommenter s abou t EPA' s preliminar yidea s regardin g refuelin g configuratio n criteri a an d als o t o provid e additiona l informatio n t o complet e th e contex t withi n whic h family/syste m

criteria . commenter s ca n evaluat e th e propose dP.5 9

Possibl e Refuelin g Configuratio n Criteri a Refuelin g configuratio n criteri a woul d b e use d t o selec t emissio n dat a tes t vehicle s withi n a give n refueling family / contro l system

combination . Applicatio n o f the deterioratio n facto r calculate d fo r th e family/systemcombinatio n t o th e emissio n dat a tes t result s determine s whethe r th e family/syste m combinatio n i s i n complianc e wit h th e standard , s o emissio n dat a vehicle s normall yrepresen t th e highes t emitter s withi n tha t combination . Possibl e configuratio n criteri a fo r refueling emissio n dat a vehicl e selectio n ar e liste d below : 1 . Fue l system

typ e an

d retur n lin e usag e determine s th e amoun t o f fue l recirculate d t o th e vehicl e tank , whic h i n tur n affect s th e temperatur e o f th e tan k fue l an

d ha s a direc t effec t o n refueling emissions . Al l fuel-injecte d vehicle s hav e retur n line s tha t recirculat e unuse d fue l t o th e tank . Som e carburete d vehicle s als o hav e line s tha t nominall yretur n gasolin e vapo r t o th e tan k t o preven t vapo r lock . Thes e vapo r retur n line s mayals o retur n some liqui d fue l t o th e tank , althoug h no t a s muc h a s woul d b e returne d i n a fuel-injecte d system . Fue l returne d t o th e tan k i s heate d b

yth e compressio n associate d wit h th e pumping proces s a s wel l a s b yexposur e t o engin e compartmen t hea t and , i n some cases , exhaus t syste m heat . Thi s heate d fue l i n tur n warm s th e residua l fue l i n th e vehicl e tank . Sinc e refueling emission s var yinversel ywit h th e differenc e betwee n tan k fue l temperatur e an d dispense d fue l temperatur e (know

n a s AT) , warmin g cause d b yreturne d fue l affect s th e quantit yo f refueling emission s generated . I n general , warme r tank fue l result s i n decrease d refuelin g emission s fo r a give n dispense d fue l temperature . Th e amoun t o f returne d fue l varie s wit h th e typ e o f fue l metering , and a hierarch yo f fue l volume s ca n b e established . High pressur e fue l injecte d system s normall yretur n mor e fue l t o th e tan k tha n d o lowpressur e systems . Fue l injecte d vehicle s normall yretur n mor e fue l tha n d o carburete d system s wit h retur n lines . Thus , give n identica l refueling contro l system s (i.e. , tank size , caniste r size , etc.) , a carburete d vehicl e withou t a retur n lin e coul d b e expecte d t o exhibi t th e highes t refueling emissions , whil e a high-pressur e fue l injecte d versio n coul d b e expecte d t o exhibi t th e lowes t emissions . 2 . Fue l tank size , configuratio n an d materia l als o ca n b e use d t o selec t a n emissio n dat a vehicl e withi n a give n family/syste mcombination , sinc e fo r vehicle s wit h identica l contro l systems , th e vehicl e wit h th e larges t tan k siz e woul d obviousl yrepresen t th e worst-cas e configuration . Tank configuration , i.e. , shape , fillpip e configuratio n and interna l baffling , ha s als o bee n show n t o affec t refuelin g emissions . Baffling ca n brea k u p th e natura l liqui d an d vapo r flo w pattern s insid e th e tan k an d th e shap e o f th e tank an d fill

-P.6 0

- 2
- pip e configuratio n ca n affec t th e amoun t o f fue l splashin g (an d drople t entrainment ) during a refueling operation . Tank materia l affect s hea t transfe r and , consequently , hea t dissipatio n during vehicl e operation . Al l o f thes e factor s coul d therefor e hav e an effec t o n th e amoun t o f refuelin g emissions , an

d shoul d b e considere d a s configuratio n criteria . 3 . Caniste r locatio n can affec t adsorptio n an d desorptio n o f refueling vapor s du e t o th e variatio n i n operating temperature s associate d wit h differen t locations . Although mos t i f no t al l evaporativ e canister s ar e locate d i n th e engin e compartment , larg e refueling canister s maypos e some packaging problem s whic h coul d resul t i n thei r bein g locate d unde r th e bod

yo r i n som

e othe r location . Locatio n awayfrom engin e compartmen t hea t produce s differen t caniste r adsorptio n an d desorptio n characteristics . Th e effec t o f hea t o n caniste r operatio n i s t o promot e desorptio n an d t o inhibi t adsorption , s o tha t identica l canister s coul d hav e differen t loading an d purging characteristics , dependin g o n wher e the ywer e located . Engineering judgmen t woul d b e require d t o selec t a worst-cas e vehicl e fo r emissio n dat a testing . 4 . Caniste r housin g materia l coul d affec t hea t transfe r an d consequentl ycaniste r operatin g temperatures . Test s hav e show n tha t canister s underg o a rapi d interna l temperatur e ris e during a refueling operation , whic h migh t varysomewha t depending o n th e hea t dissipate d throug h th e caniste r body . Differen t bod

ymaterial s woul d hav e differen t rate s o f hea t dissipation , whic h coul d affec t loading an d purgin g characteristics . Fo r example , a bod ywit h a hig h rat e o f hea t transfe r coul d ru

n coole r tha n on e wit h a lowe r rat e o f hea t transfer , allowing th e charcoa l t o adsor b a large r quantit yo f vapo r tha n woul d b e adsorbe d a t a highe r operatin g temperature . Caniste r bod ymateria l shoul d therefor e als o b e a configuratio n criterion .P.6 1



## ' A
. \ 

# ft-v-a JT-Q-A

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

WASHINGTON , D. C 2046 0

MEMORANDUM 

### JU N 

### I 2 198 7 OFFIC E O F GENERA L COUNSE L SUBJECT : FROM : THRU : Respons e t o Clai mtha t EP A i s Legall y Require d t o Impoi? e Stag e I I Gasolin e Control s i n Al l Ozon e Nonattainmen t Area s Ralp hJ . Collel i Jr.fv. v . Richar dB . Ossias , Attorney s A i r an dRadiatio n Qivisio h(LE-132A ) 

### rJU 

### fr

T O : Ala n W

. Ecker t Associat e GeneraT-'Cduhse l Ai r an dRadiatio n Divisio n (LE-132A ) Docke t No . A-87-1 1

:#3f^ Background i

Thi s memorandu

mevaluate s certai n lega l argument s mad e t o EP AbyMultinationa l Busines s Services , Inc . ("MBS" ) i n respons e t o EPA' s draf t stud yentitle d "Evaluatio n o f Regula
toryStrategie s fo r Gasolin e Marketing" . Se e 4 9 Fed . Reg . 3170 6 (Augus t 8 , 1984) . I n essence , tha t stud y(an d EPA' s curren t decisionmakin g effor t regardin g gasolin e marketing ) concern s whethe r contro l o f gasolin e vapor s release d durin g moto r vehicl e refuelin g i s appropriat e and , i f so , whethe r contro l a t th e pump s ("Stag e II " controls ) o r o n th e vehicle s ("onboar

d controls" ) ar e desirable . Th e hydrocarbo n compound s i n gasolin e vapo r contribut e t o ozon e formatio n i n th e atmosphere , whil e benzen e an

d othe r constitutent s o f th e vapor s pos e risk s o f cancer . Unde r Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , th e Administrato r o f EP Ai s directe d t o determin e the^ " feasibilit y an d desirability " o f requirin g onboar d control s whic h woul d avoi d th e necessit yfo r Stag e I I controls . \J Tha t provisio n als o direct s th e Administrator , whe n makirt g tha t determination ,

4F/ ; ;^:!^M^^^# ^ &^jytA& 1 / EPAinitiall ycomplie d wit h thi s directio n i n 198 1 whe n i t decided , a t tha t time , no t t o requir e onboar d control i 4 6 Fed . Reg . 21628-2162 9 (Apri l 13 , 1981) .P.6 2

-2
- t o compar e th e cost s an d effectivenes s o f onboar d t o thos e o f Stag e II , takin g int o accoun t suc h othe r factor s a s fue l economy , administrativ e burdens , and.equitabl e distributio n o f costs . I f th e Administrato r determine s tha t onboar d control s ar e "feasibl e an d desirable, " the n h e mus t requir e suc h control s byregulation . MB S argues , however , tha t th e Administrato r ha s n o choic e bu t t o requir e Stag e I I control s byregulatio n no wfo r al l nonattainmen t areas.and , thus , a s a practica l matter , n o discretio n t o reguir e onboar d control s a s a n alternative . Thi s claim , i n brief , i s base d o n th e assumptio n tha t Stag e I I control s ar e require d bysectio n 17 2 o f th e Ac t to-b e include d a s a "reasonabl yavailabl e contro l measure " (RACM ) i n th e ozon e SIP s fo r al l nonattainmen t area s grante d extension s o f th e targe t dat e fo r attainmen t unti l Decembe r 31 , 1987 . 2 / W e d o no t agre e wit h thi s argument . I n particular , w e d o no t believ e tha t EP Ai s require d t o designat e Stag e I I a s RACM . Rather , w e believ e tha t Congres s intende d EP At o mak e a careful , reasone d decision , o n th e merits , a s t o whethe r onboar d o r Stag e I I control s shoul d b e imposed . Discussio n Sectio n 172(b)(2 ) o f th e Ac t require s tha t al l nonattainmen t are a SIP s provid e fo r implementatio n o f al l "reasonabl yavailabl e contro l measure s a s expeditiousl ya s practicable " t o ensur e attainmen t o f eac h primar yNAAQ S by Decembe r 31 , 1982 , or , i n th e cas e o f th e ozon e an d C O standard s i n certai n areas , byDecembe r 31 , 1987 . Nothin g i n th e statut e o r EP Aimplementin g regulation s expressl ydefine s th e ter m"reasonabl yavailabl e contro l measure " fo r purpose s o f sectio n 172 . Thus , EP Aha s substantia l discretio n t o determin e whethe r an

d unde r wha t circumstance s an yparticula r contro l technolog

yshoul d b e considere d "reasonabl yavailable. " 3_ / 

### I

' i 2_l I f thi s clai mwer e correct , i t coul d alte r EPA' s analysi s o f th e relativ e cost s an d cost-effectivenes s o f Stag e I I an d onboar d controls'^inc e additiona l investment s i n Stag e I I equipment , an

d captur e o f some refueliftg emissions * byStag e I I controls , woul d hav e begu n i n man ynonattainmen t area s befor e onboar d control s coul d b e implemented . A t present , Stag e I I ha s bee n (or i s being ) installe d onl yi n Washington , D.C. , certai n area s i n California , an d th e St . Louis , Missouri , A area . '"* 3/ Sectio n 108(f ) o f th e Ac t require s EP A t o publish , fro

m • AA& tim e t o time , informatio n o n method s t o contro l variou s source s o f transportation

- o r mobil e source-relatedpollutants , (footnot e continued ),£,6 3

-3
- Cf . Chevro n U.S.A . , Inc . v . NRDC , .46 7 U.S . 83 7 (1984) . However , MB S argues , i n part, ' tha t Stag e I I no wmus t b e considere d RAC M becaus e Congres s implicitl yassume d Stag e I I wa s RAC M i n 197 7 whe n enacting sectio n 17 2 an d variou s vapo r recoveryprovision s i n th e Act . Specifically , MB S suggest s tha t sectio n 202(a)(5 ) (authorizing EPAt o prescrib e vehicl e fil l pip e standard s t o ensur e effectiv e connectio n betwee n fil l pipe s an

d an yStag e I I vapo r controls)
- an d section s 32 3 an d 32 5 (providing certai n exemption s fro man yfedera l Stag e I I requirement s an

d determinin g whic h person s mus t bea r Stag e I I costs ) impl ysuc h a Congressiona l presumption . W e d o no t agre e tha t thes e statutoryprovision s indicat e tha t Congres s intende d EPAt o declar e Stag e I I t o b e RAC M i n al l nonattainmen t areas . First , th e statutoryprovision s i n questio n cora

e int o playonl yjL f EP Afirs t require s Stag e I I b y regulation , an

d thos e provision s clearl yd o no t requir e EPA t o tak e tha t step . 4 / Second , th e argumen t tha t Stag e I I mus t b e considere d RACM i s inconsisten t wit h the clea r purpos e o f sectio n 202(a)(6) , whic h wa s als o e.dde d t o the Ac t i n 1977 . A s state d earlier , sectio n 202(a)(6 ) require s EPAt o conside r th e feasibilit yan d desirabilit yo f onboar d control s "whic h woul d avoi d th e necessit yof " Stag e I I vapo r controls . Th e statutorylanguag e (an d th e legislativ e histor yo f tha t section ) clearl yindicate s tha t Congres s intende d EPAt o conside r onboar d a s a t leas t a partia l alternativ e 5 / t o Footnot e 3 / Continue d including vapo r emission s fro mfueling tranfers . 4 2 U.S.C . 7408(f)(1)(A)(ii) . EP Adi d publis h suc h informatio n o n Stag e I I emissio n control s i n 1978 . "Hydrocarbo n Contro l Strategie s fo r Gasolin e Marketing, " EPA-450/3-78-017 , Apri l 1978) . However , neithe r sectio n 108(f ) no r EPA' s informatio n documen t state s tha t Stag e I I control s mus t b e considere d RAC M i n al l nonattainmen t areas . O f course , an yStat e ma yconclud e o n it s ow

n initiativ e tha t Stag e I I i s a n appropriat e measur e fo r attainmen t o f th e ozon e standar d an d incorporat e suc h a requiremen t i n a SIP . I n fact , a s discusse d earlie r in thi s notice , severa l state s hav e incorporate d suc h provision s an d a t leas t two othe r state s hav e committe d t o d o SJ* » 4 / Sectio n 202(a)(5 ) is v explicitly , an d section s 32 3 an

d 32 5 ar e inherently , contingen t o n EFA ' firs t deciding whethe r t o requir e Stag e I I b yregulation . "Thus , although Congres s i n 197 7 ma yhav e ^though t i t likel ytha t EP Awoul d requir e Stag e II , i t als o anticipate d tha t EPAmigh t no t d o s o and , a s discusse d later , clearl yintende d EPAt o conside r onboar d a s a

n alternativ e t o imposing Stag e II . 5 / Th e legislativ e histor yo f sectio n 202(a)(6 ) indicate s tha t Congres s intende d EP At o conside r onboar

d controls , a s a mean s t

o a t leas t minimize , i f no t completel y eliminate ,

irim-iamH^UiP.6 4

- -4
- Stag e II , largel ybecaus e o f Congress ' concern s abou t th e costs , cost-effectivenes s an d equit yo f Stag e I I controls . See , e_^g . , H.R . Rep . No . 95-294 , 95t h Cong. , 1s t Sess . 2 4 Tcriteri a fo r evaluating onboard) , 299-30 0 (concerning cost s an d fairnes s o f Stag e II . controls) . I n fact , sectio n 202(a)(6 ) specificall yrequire s EPAt o compar e Stag e I I an d onboar d wit h respec t to thos e factors . Moreover , b yauthorizin g EP

A t o impos e onboar d control s onl yi f th e Administrato r foun d the m"desirable" , Congres s certainl yintende d EPAt o hav e broa d discretio n i n choosing betwee n onboar d an d Stag e II . Thus , EP Ai s entitle d t o conside r al l relevan t factor s i n decidin g whethe r onboar d i s a desirabl e alternativ e t o Stag e II , including issue s (e.g. , cance r risk s du e t o vapors ) tha t ar e no t necessaril yrelate d t o whethe r Stag e I I i s RAC M fo r ozon e attainmen t purposes . 6_ / Thi s broad mandat e coul d not-b e effectivel ycarried , ou t if , a s MB S ha s suggested , EP Awer e require d t o declar e Stag e I I t o b e RACM . I f Stag e I I wer e no wrequire d t o b e incorporate d i n th e SI P o f ever

yozon e nonattainmen t are a prio r t o Decembe r 31 , 1987 , an

d implemente d expeditiousl yunde r sectio n 172 , onboar d (whic h canno t achiev e it s ful l potentia l fo r emissio n reduc
tio n a s soo n a s Stag e I I could ) coul d not , a s a practica l matter , "avoi d the necessity " o f Stag e II . Moreover , onboar d migh t no t b e a viable , cost-effectiv e alternativ e i n suc h a | case , give n th e resource s tha t woul d hav e alread ybee n investe d i n Stag e II . Thus , MBS ' argument , i n effect , woul d rende r sectio n 202(a)(6 ) a nullity . Sinc e ever ystatut e shoul d b e interprete d wheneve r possibl e t o giv e ful l effec t t o al l it s provisions , an

d no t t o rende r an yprovisio n superfluous , Norfol k & Wester n Ry . Co . v . Unite d States , 76 8 F.2 d 37 3 (D.C . Cir . 1985) , w e d o no t believ e tha t Congres s woul d hav e intende d suc h a result . Thus , w e conclud e tha t th e Clea n Ai r Ac t doe s no t compe l EPAt o requir e Stag e I I a s RAC M in al l nonattainmen t areas . Ou r conclusio n i s no t change d b ythe fac t tha t sectio n 17 2 set s Decembe r 31 , 198 7 a s the targe t dat e fo r ozon e attain

ment . I t doe s no t follo wfro mthe existenc e o f tha t dat e tha t EP Ai s preclude d fro mthoroughl yconsiderin g Stag e I I an d onboar d unde r sectio n 202(a)(6 ) an d choosing th e mor e "desirable " technology . Nothing i n sectio n 202(a)(6) , o r an y 6_ / A s state d above , i n 198 1 no t t o requir e

se e n . 1 supra , EP Apublishe d a decisio n onboar d control* . However , tha t earlie r decisio n doe s no t diminis h EPA' s authorit yt o reevaluat e thi s issu e unde r the criteri a an d purpose s o f sectio n 202(a)(6 ) 

# d
i n ligh t o f change d an d America n Airlines , Inc . (en banc) , cert , denie d t o reexamin e an

d adjus t o f experience) . curren t circumstances . See , e . g. , v . CAB , 35 9 F.2 d 624 , 633~TD.C . Cir. ) 38 5 U.S . 84 3 (1966 ) (agenc yoblige d prio r regulatorydecision s i n ligh t 

### &3-

•:<£

. ...••i::.^,.xi.„c;-;. . .•.-,.._.,•• . -L^ ^ • ••••:'i^>,-'.-.. l - : i-'«-feiJWgP.6 5

- 5

- othe r statutoryprovision , require s tha t th e Administrato r bas e hi s decisio n o n whethe r t o requir e Stag e I I o r onboar d solel yo r primaril yo n whic h technolog yca n achiev e greate r progres s toward attainin g the'standar d byDecembe r 1987 . l_l No r doe s anything i n th e Ac t reguir e tha t h e ignor e o r sacrific e th e potentia l long-terr a benefit s fro

monboar d control s i n favo r o f th e somewha t greate r short-terra ozon e reduction s tha t Stag e I I potentiall ymigh t produce . 8_ / Thus , although EP Ashoul d conside r th e nee d fo r State s t o impos e additiona l measure s t o attai n th e ozon e standar d b yth e statutorydeadline , tha t i s onl yon e facto r i n th e determinatio n unde r sectio n 202(a)(6 ) a s t o waethe r onboar d i s th e mor e desirabl e contro l method . Th e nee d fo r long-ter mVO C reduction s an d othe r health-relate d concerns , i n additio n t o othe r relevan t economi c an d polic yconcerns , ma yals o b e considered . No r d o w e agre e wit h MBS ' argumen t tha t EPAmus t requir e Stag e I I a s RAC M because , purportedly , EP Aha s previousl y determine d tha t Stag e I I i s presumptivel ya reasonabl yavail

abl e measure . Althoug h some olde r EPAinformatio n an d SI P polic ydocument s sho wtha t Stag e I I wa s considere d tech
nologicall yfeasible , EPAha s neve r require d tha t a Stat e includ e Stag e I I a s RACM i n it s ozon e nonattainmen t SI P a s a conditio n fo r SI P approval , o r otherwis e define d Stag e I I t o b e RACM i n an

ySI P o r othe r rulemaking . Moreover , eve n i f thos e isolate d earlie r statement s wer e read a s indicating a n EPApresumptio n tha t Stag e I I wa s RACM , j) / thos e statement s

7 / Congres s certainl ywa s awar e o f bot h th e 198 2 an d 198 7 ozon e attainmen t date s whe n i t enacte d bot h section s 17 2 an d 202(a)(6 ) i n 1977 . Thus , i f Congres s ha d mean t eithe r dat e t o contro l th e Administrator' s decisio n unde r sectio n 202(a)(6) , i t presumabl ywoul d hav e sai d so . B ycontrast , Congres s explicitl yliste d severa l factor s (e.g. , cost , cos t effectiveness , equity , an d safety ) tha t th e Administrato r mus t conside r unde r sectio n 202(a)(6) . 8_ / O f course , eve n i f EPArequire d al l ozon e nonattainmen t area s t o impos e Stag e I I a s RACM , tha t i n itsel f woul d no t necessaril yensur e tha t al l (o r any ) o f th e Spate s woul d attai n th e standar d byDecembe r 31 , 1987 . v> - ^ 9_/ O f course , tha t purporte d presumptio n potentiall ycoul d b e rebutte d b

ya Stat e demonstratin g t o EPAtha t Stag e I I i s no t "reasonabl yavailable " i n a give n nonattainmen t area . (Fo r example , th e cos t an d cost-effectivenes s o f Stag e I I i n a particula r are a migh t b e considere d unreasonabl e i f EPA reguire s onboar d controls. )

• ••--'••••-»»-•' J•'

- 'ir t L• | • gjjj"^ • ••in^'i.-X'.a&Aiii^ii'-wv . . : .„, . .—a ;^j^,A3L,.' J .-*^.-j-^ iP.6 6

* " de
predat e th e curren t decisionmakin g process . Thus , i n ligh t o f al l o f th e informatio n o n vapo r recoveryno wavailabl e t o EPA , i t stil l woul d b e appropriat e for . EPAt o reevaluat e whethe r Stag e I I is , i n fact , no wreasonabl yavailable . See , e.g. , America n Truckin g Ass' n v. . Atcheson , Topeka , & Sant a F e Ry. , 38 7 U.S . 397 , 41 6 (1967 ) (agencie s ar e "neithe r require d no r suppose d t o regulat e th e presen t an d th e futur e withi n th e inflexibl e limit s o f yesterday") ; Internationa l Harveste r Co . v . Ruckelshaus , 47 8 F.2 d 615 , 63 2 (D.C . Cir . 1973) . Suc h a reevaluatio n i s especiall yappropriat e i n ligh t o f th e discretio n implicitl ygrante d t o EPAbysectio n 17 2 t o deter
min e wha t i s reasonabl yavailable , an d th e clea r directiv e o f sectio n 202(a)(6 ) t o conside r onboar d a s an alternativ e t o Stag e II . 10 / Thus , EPAremain s fre e t o conside r thi s issue , an d t o decid e whethe r Stag e I I i s RAC M fo r an yo r al l nonattain

men t areas , taking int o accoun t th e impac t tha t impositio n o f onboar d control s woul d hav e o n th e overal l reasonablenes s .o f Stag e II . 11 / Conclusio n Th e lega l argument s mad e by language , structure , o r legisla t Act . Moreover , th e clea r purpo s requir e EPAt o conside r onboar d alternativ e t o Stag e II . Tha t s discretio n t o th e Administrato r control s ar e "desirable. " I n l i EP Ai s no t require d a t thi s time t o b e RACM an

d tha t th e Adminis t requirin g onboar d controls . MB S ar e no t supporte d byth e ive histor yo f th e Clea n Ai r e o f sectio n 202(a)(6 ) i s t o control s a s a t leas t a partia l ectio n als o grant s broa d t o determin e i f onboar d gh t o f this , w e believ e tha t t o declar e Stag e I I control s rato r i s fre e t o conside r

10 / I n fact , th e argumen t tha t EPApreviousl ydetermine d Stag e I I t o b e RAC M depends , i n part , o n a 197 6 EPA guidanc e memorandu

mo f which , MB S claims , Congres s mayhav e bee n awar e whe n i t enacte d sectio n 202(a)(6) . However , sinc e Congres s clearl ydirecte d EPAt o conside r onboar d a s a n alternativ e t o Stag e II , despit e tha t prio r guidarTc e memorandum , i t follow s tha t EP Ai s no t preclude d b yan ypurporte d prio r RACM guidanc e fro

mdecidin g whethe r onboar d i s a desirabl e alternativ e t o Stag e II . . * 11 / Fo r example , EP Amight 1 conclud e tha t Stag e I I i s no t reasonabl e i n al l nonattainmen t areas , despit e it s short
ter mbenefits , give n it s relativel ylimite d abilit yt o brin g ozon e nonattainmen t area s int o attainmen t i n th e short-term an d tha t muc h o f th e investmen t i n Stag e I I equipmen t woul d b e waste d onc e onboar d become s full yeffective .

^•memdt. ;£«*? . *> ^

ir^'^.!$ijl£\ Illif n ff'hl'l ti* i >!!*• • • ' 1 'ii»ii*Mfc—

» m, itnr iM*i&im*timmit • r ::..;is^^/&v7* '

# /^7-/ r ar-s-o/ P.6 7



## JA N2 9 I98T MEMORANDU M U SUBJECT : Update d Compute r Output s fo r Stag e I I an d Onboar d

Analysi s FROM : Glen n Passavan t TO : Stev e Shedd Attache d i s th e revise d fue l consumptio n mode l outpu t whic h yo u requeste d i n orde r t o complet e th e updat e o f th e Stag e I I and onboar d analysis . Afte r you r updat e i s complete , w e reques t tha t yo u provid e u s revise d informatio n fo r bot h Stag e I I and onboar d refuelin g control s fo r inclusio n i n th e NPRM . Thi s not e outline s th e informatio n neede d fo r variou s contro l scenario s and als o provide s th e necessar yinpu t fo r th e compute r models . Desire d Outpu t fo r Variou s Contro l Scenario s Mor e specifically , we' d lik e t o obtai n th e averag e annua l VO C emissio n reduction , annualize d cost s (includin g enforcement) , and cos t effectivenes s value s fo r th e contro l scenario s indicate d below . Eac h o f th e followin g contro l scenario s shoul d b e evaluate d usin g bot h 11. 5 ps i (12. 6 ps i nationwid e annua l average ) and 9. 0 ps i (11. 3 ps i nationwid e annua l average ) RVP certificatio n an d summe r in-us e fuel s (Th e 9. 0 ps i number s reflec t 5 month s o f RV P control.) : 1 . Stag e I I - Nationwid e wit h exemption s a t 10,000/50,00 0 gallon s pe r month s (gpm) . 2 . Stag e I I - 6 1 non-attainmen t area s wit h exemption s a t 10,000/50,00 0 gpm . 3 . Stag e I I - 6 1 non-attainmen t area s wit h exemption s a t 2,00 0 gpm . 4 . Onboar d (49-state ) - nationwid e 5 . Onboar d (49-state ) - 6 1 non-attainmen t area s I n addition , fo r th e Preambl e we' d lik e t o hav e th e averag e tota l capita l cos t an d annualize d ne t cos t (annua l cos t and recover ycredit ) fo r servic e station s t o implemen t Stag e I I control s fo r th e 10,000/50,00 0 gp mexemptio n leve l and th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s fo r servic e station s betwee n 2,00 0 an d 10,00 0 gpm .P.6 8

Finally , we' d lik e th e informatio n necessar yt o d o th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s analysi s wit h respec t t o th e variou s benefit s o f Stag e I I an d onboar d refuelin g controls , a s wa s don e i n th e OM B briefing . T o pinpoin t this , w e nee d th e attainmen t area s emissio n reduction s and th e incidenc e reduction s (al l 3 categories ) fo r th e followin g scenarios : 1 ) nationwid e onboar d (49-state ) controls , an d 2 ) 6 1 non-attainmen t are a Stag e I I control s wit h exemption s a t 10,000/50,00 0 gpm . I t i s als o importan t t o not e tha t thes e ne wvalue s shoul d b e include d i n an yrevision s t o th e RI Aand tha t th e RV P contro l cas e result s shoul d b e include d i n th e RV P sensitivit y sectio n o f th e RIA . Also , pleas e not e tha t an yreferenc e t o onboar d control s i n th e RI Ashoul d reflec t refuelin g emission s contro l onl y(i.e. , onboar d incrementa l t o evap.) . Th e followin g sectio n wil l provid e th e necessar yinpu t neede d fo r th e Stag e I I and onboar d compute r model s t o obtai n ou r desire d output . Necessar yInpu t fo r Compute r Model s Tabl e 1 , attache d t o thi s note , contain s th e onboar d cost s fo r bot h 9. 0 ps i and 11. 5 ps i RV P certificatio n and summe r in-us e fuels . Th e firs t lin e o f eac h tabl e show s th e ful l onboar d cos t fo r a syste mcontrollin g bot h refuelin g and exces s evaporativ e emissions . Th e secon d lin e show s th e vehicle-base d exces s evaporativ e emissio n contro l cost s and th e fina l lin e give s th e ne t refuelin g contro l cost , o r onboar d incrementa l t o evaporativ e emissio n contro l cost , whic h shoul d b e use d i n thi s analysis . Fo r furthe r input , th e nationwid e annua l averag e RVP fo r 9. 0 ps i certificatio n an d summe r in-us e fuel s i s 11. 3 psi . Thi s nationwid e annua l averag e valu e consider s fue l volatilit y level s controlle d a t 9. 0 ps i fromMa ythroug h Septembe r an d a t AST M volatilit ylimit s fo r th e remainin g portio n of . th e year . Th e resultin g averag e annua l refuelin g emissio n facto r i s equa l t o 5.1 7 g/ga l fo r 9. 0 ps i certificatio n fuel . Th e nationwid e annua l averag e RV P and averag e annua l refuelin g emissio n facto r fo r 11. 5 ps i certificatio n and summe r in-us e fuel s wil l remai n th e sam e value s o f 12. 6 ps i an d 5.8 7 g/gal , respectively . I n addition , Tabl e 2 (attached ) contain s th e onboar d refuelin g recover ycredit s fo r bot h 9. 0 an d 11. 5 RV P certificatio n and summe r in-us e fuels . Th e 9. 0 RV P value s hav e bee n revise d du e t o th e chang e i n th e refuelin qemissio n facto r resultin g fro m

5-mont h volatilit ycontrol . Thi s conclude s th e necessar yinpu t neede d fo r th e Stag e I I an d onboar d compute r model s t o obtai n th e indicate d outpu t desired . W e woul d als o appreciat e copie s o f th e revise d compute r disk s reflectin g th e change s i n th e programs . I f yo u hav e an yfurthe r questions , fee l fre e t o contac t m e a t FT S 374-8408 . Thank s fo r you r continue d assistance .P.6 9

Mode l Yea r 199 0

199 5

2000 + Tabl e 1

9. 0 RV P Certificatio n Cos t Categor y Onboar d Ex c Eva p Ne t Onboar d Ex c Eva p Ne t Onboar d Ex c Eva p Ne t LD V

$19.2 0 $

- .9 0 18.3 0 $16.8 0 $

- .1 0 16.7 0 $15.4 0 $

- .1 0 $15.3 0 an d Summe r

LD T Singl e $21.1 0 $-1.1 0 20.0 0 $18.4 0 $

- .1 0 18.3 0 $16.9 0 $

- .1 0 $16.8 0 In-Us e Fue l

LD T Dua l $44.4 0 $-1.1 0 43.3 0 $40.5 0 $

- .1 0 40.4 0 $38.3 0 $

- .1 0 $38.2 0 s

HDG V

$32.2 0 $-2.3 5 29.8 5 $28.8 0 $

- .2 0 28.6 0 $28.4 0 $

- .2 0 $28.2 0 11. 5 RV P Certificatio n an d Summe r In-Us e Fuel s Mode l Yea r 199 0

199 5

2000 + Cos t

Categor y Onboar d Ex c Eva p Ne t Onboar d Ex c Eva p Ne t Onboar d Ex c Eva p Ne t LD V

$20.0 0 $-2.9 0 $17.1 0 $17.7 0 $-2.0 0 $15.7 0 $16.3 0 $-2.0 0 $14.3 0 LD T

Singl e $22.2 0 $-3.8 0 $18.4 0 $19.6 0 $-2.6 0 $17.0 0 $18.1 0 $-2.6 0 $15.5 0 LD T

Dua l $46.6 0 $-3.8 0 $42.8 0 $42.7 0 $-2.6 0 $40.1 0 $40.5 0 $-2.6 0 $37.9 0 _ HDG V

$34.3 0 $-4.2 0 $30.1 0 $30.6 0 $-3.5 0 $27.1 0 $30.2 0 $-3.5 0

- $26.7 0P.7 0
Tabl e 2 Onboar d Refuelin g Recover yCredit s 9. 0 RV P Certificatio n an d Summe r In-Us e Fuel s ( 5 months ) Mode l yea r LD V 199 0 5. 3 199 5 4. 9 200 0 4. 4 201 0 4. 0 ( x 10" bgallon s LD T Singl e 6. 8 6. 6 6. 1 5. 4 pe r mile )

LD T Dua l 2. 9 2. 8 2. 6 2. 3 11. 5 RV P Certificatio n and Summe r In Mode l year . LD V 199 0 6. 6 199 5 6. 0 200 0 5. 5 201 0 5. 0 ( x IO" * gallon s LD T Singl e 8. 6 8. 3 7. 6 6. 9 pe r mile )

LD T Dua l 4. 4 4. 2 3. 9 3. 6 HDG V

1 8 1 7 1 7 1 5 -Us e Fuel s HDG V 2 1 2 0 1 9 1 8P.7 1

i " £%\ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y | ^V|^ Z J ? AN N ARBOR
. MICHIGA N 4810 5 

# 3£~fcoS

JU L I 7 I98 7 OFFIC E O F AI R AN O RADIATIO N MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Analysi s o f M& D Effect s on Refueling Emission s FROM : TO : Rober t B . Hawkins , Mechanica l Engineering Technicia n

Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h %UST tf%%*d&»a_ Th e Recor d THRU : Glen

n W . Passavant , sr . Projec t Manage r SMSAOHcJ /^i*«^»*>7 Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h Cheste r J . France , chie f Standard s Developmen t an d Support/ / Introductio n Attache d ar e th

e result s o f the calculation s use d t o estimat e the potentia l malmaintenanc e an d defect s (M&D ) effect s for onboar d contro l o f refueling emissions . The informatio n used in thi s analysi s wa s take n fro mEPA' s emissio n factor s dat a bas e fo r evaporativ e emission s o f 16 3 fue l injecte d vehicles . The individua l dat a presente d her e ar e onl yfo r thos e vehicle s whic h migh t b e considere d problemvehicle s unde r the onboard scenario . Even thoug h 16 3 F I vehicle s wer e teste d onl y15 8 tota l vehicle s wer e used here . Five o f th e problem vehicle s had problem s whic h woul d affec t evaporativ e bu t no t refueling emission s (i.e . ga s ca p leaks , ai r cleane r problems) . Rathe r tha n includ e thes e vehicle s a s problem fre e fo r refueling purpose s an d using the averag e problemfre e vehicl e emissio n rate , the ywer e simpl ydroppe d fro mthe dat a set . Problemvehicle s in thi s analysi s J-^-. J non-tampere d vehicle s whos e emissio n contro l ar e define d a s device s ar e no t on visua l
result s are - fro

musing a t 9. 0 RV

P fuel . Th e a* . ~* . v. ^ e ^~~^^... vehicle s wa s approximatel y fo r problem-fre e vehicle s th e averag e mileag e wa s o f th e volatilit yNPR

M RIA . Emissio n 9. 0 RV P fue l on vehicle s certifie d averag e mileag e o f al l problem 60,00 0 miles ; abou t 35,000 .P.7 2

Explanatio n o f Table s an d Overvie wo f Exhibit s & Method s Tabl e 1 show s four type s o f problemvehicle s group s an d relate d information . Th e informatio n pertain s t o vehicl e problems , vehicle s numbers , tes t fue l RVP , ho t soak , diurnal , an d averag e combine d emissions , an d individua l vehicl e mileages . Tabl e 2 give s th e overal l result s o f test s fo r th e flee t o f car s use d fo r compariso n an d analysis . Thi s tabl e give s th e summaryinformatio n o n th e 15 8 fuel-injecte d cars . Tabl e 3 show s emissio n result s o n thre e vehicle s whic h wer e considere d proble m vehicle s i n th e emission s facto r progra mbu t passe d th e standar d whe n teste d o n 9 RVP fuel . Thes e vehicle s wer e no t considere d t o b e proble mvehicle s i n thi s analysis , bu t woul d b e i n a n analysi s wher e 11. 5 RV P tes t fue l wa s use d suc h a s i n Tabl e 6-B- l i n th e volatilit yNPR M RIA . Exhibit s I an

d I I showth e two method s tha t wer e use d t o calculat e th e effect s o f M& D o n onboar d efficiency . Th e firs t metho d (Exhibi t I ) show s ho wth e M& D effect s relate d t o onboar d control s woul d increas e flee t averag e controlle d refueling emissions . Th e analysi s i s don e wit h an d withou t th e saturate d caniste r proble mvehicles , sinc e th e liquid/vapo r separato r i n th e onboar d systemcoul d eliminat e th e saturate d caniste r problem , i f th e problemwer e du e t o liqui d i n th e canister . Depending o n whethe r 9 o r 1 1 vehicle s wer e used , th e onboar d efficienc yi n us e decrease s betwee n 0. 7 an d 0. 9 percent . Exhibi t I I calculate s th e effec t o f M& D o n refueling emissio n contro l b yestimatin g th e los s o f efficienc yrelativ e t o uncontrolle d evaporativ e emission s fo r a F I vehicl e (21g ) fo r th e proble mvehicle s an d the n flee t weightin g th e effect . Thi s metho d i s als o show n fo r 9 an

d 1 1 vehicle s fo r th e reaso n discusse d above . Usin g thi s approch , M& D woul d increas e refueling emission s betwee n 2. 1 an d 2. 4 percent . I n conclusio n th e attache d sheet s giv e a detaile d an d systemati c analysi s o f th e effect s o f M& D o n onboar d refueling controls , an

d sho wtha t usin g eithe r approac h th e impac t i s small . Attachment sP.7 3

Tabl e 1 Vehicle/Emissio n Dat a

Avg . Combine d Vehicl e Averag e Proble m Ve h ft RV P H S p_ I Diurna l & Ho t Soa k Mileag e Mileag e Purg e Syste m

600 6 9. 0 2.3 2 2.8 5 28,97 0 601 1 9. 0 1.1 9 2.8 4 22,41 0 601 8 9. 0 8.1 6 6.3 1 7.8 9 36,58 0 Purg e Hos e Disable d 602 1 9. 0 13.4 8 2.6 5 16.1 3 85,76 0 Plugge d Duty/Filte r 508 2 9. 0 10.4 7 1.0 0 47,00 0

513 5 9. 0 0.8 6 3.0 4 60,87 0 522 4 9. 0 2.8 9 11.5 1 10.5 0 97,81 0 526 4 9. 0 0.1 3 12.0 8 60,35 0 Caniste r Damage d 442 7 9. 0 1.6 7 0.9 8 2.6 5 90,99 0 58,97 1 To t o f 9 Vehicle s 530,74 0 Saturate d Caniste r 417 1 9. 0 2.1 4 3.3 8 5619 0

527 7 9. 0 1.1 0 10.2 4 8.4 3 5983 0 58,79 6 To t o f 1 1 Vehicle s 646,76 0P.7 4

Tabl e 2 Summar yo f Vehicl e Evap . Emissio n Dat a

Problem-Fre e Proble m

Vehicle s (Inc l sa t can ) Vehicle s wit h Diurna l Problem s 14 7 9 1 1 Vehicle s

wit h Ho t Soa k Problem s 14 7 9 1 1 Ve r

del e (grams/test ) Averag e Diurna l 1.1 7 4.8 1 5.1 7 Emission s

Ho t Soa k 0.6 8 4.5 7 4.0 4 Vehicl e

(Diurna l Ho t Soak ) Combine d Av g 1.8 5 9.3 8 9.2 1 Averag e Emission s 15 8 15 8 1.4 5 .8 7 2.3 2 o f al l Vehicles *

Eve n thoug h 16 3 F I vehicle s wer e teste d onl y15 8 tota l vehicle s wer e use d here . Fiv e o f th e proble mvehicle s ha d problem s whic h woul d affec t evaporativ e bu t no t refuelin g emission s (i.e. , ga s ca p leaks , ai r cleane r problems) .P.7 5

Tabl e 3 "ProblemVehicles " Whic h Passe d Evap Standar d Usin g 9. 0 RVP Fuel * CategoryVe h # RVP H S D I Tota l Mileag e Plugge d Dirty/Filte r 508 0 9. 0 0.3 4 0.4 3 0.7 7 55 0 513 2 9. 0 0.5 0 1.3 4 1.8 4 920 0 600 7 9. 0 1.0 7 0.8 9 1.9 6 2592 0

Counte d a s problemfre e i n thi s analysis .P.7 6 Exhibi t I M& D Effect s o n Onboar d Efficienc yBase d o n Increase s i n Controlle d Emissio n Rate s 3(7.89)+1(16.13)+4(10.5)+1(2.65)+3(1.52)+144(1.8 ) = 2.23 g 15 6 2•23 g al l (proble

man d problemfre e vehicl e emissions ) 1.79 g problem-fre e vehicl e emission s =24.4 % increas e ove r problem-fre e vehicl e emission s Refuelin g Emission s 5.9g/gal(1-0.97)=0.17 7 g/ga l afte r Contro l (refueling problem-fre e emissio n rate ) (.177g/gal)(1.244)=.220g/ga l (refueling emissio n rat e wit h problem vehicles ) Efficiency : l-(.220) = .963=96.3 %

(5.9 ) Thu s efficienc ychange s t o 96.3 % fro m 97 %P.7 7 Exhibi t I . Continue d (Include s Saturate d Caniste r Vehicles ) 3(7.89)+l(16.13)+4(10.5)+l(2.65)+2(8.43)+3(1.52)+144(1.8) = 2.31 g 15 8 2,31 g al l (probleman d problem-fre e vehicl e emissions ) 1.79 g problem-fre e vehicl e emission s =29.0 % increas e ove r problem-fre e vehicl e emission s Refueling Emission s 5.9g/ga l (1-0.97)=o.I77g/ga l (refueling afte r Contro l problem-fre e emissio n rate ) (.I77g/gal)(1.29)=.228g/ga l refueling emissio n rat e wit h problem s Efficiency : l-(.228) = .961=96.1 %

(5.9 ) Th e efficienc ychange s t o 96.1 % fro m97 %P.7 8

Exhibi t I I M& D Effect s o n Onboar d Efficienc yBase d o n Los s o f Syste mContro l Efficienc y (Withou t Saturate d Caniste r Vehicle )

(7•89-1.8)(3)+(16.4-1.8)(!)+(10.05-1.8)(4)+(2.65-1.8)(1)=.359=35.9 % Ef f Los s 2 1 .35 9 ( 9 ) = 2.1 % flee t averag e efficienc ylos s 15 6

(Wit h Saturate d Caniste r Vehicle ) (7.89-1.8)(3)+(16.13-1.8)(1)+(10.50-1.8)(4)+(2.65-1.8)(l)+(8.43-1.8)(2)=.352=35.21 b Ef f Los s 2 1

. 35 2 {_1_1 ) = 2.4 % flee t averag e efficienc ylos s (158 )

# AT'PrQie P.7 9 

# A 'Af- 'I 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 Jul y 31 , 198 7

MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : FROM : TO : MVM

AComment s o

n Gasolin e Vapo r Ris k Assessmen t Charle s L . Gray , Jr. , Directo r Ay/^^y^1 y Emissio n Contro l Technolog yDivrVio n / / ' Willia mFarland , Directo r Carcinoge n Assessmen t Grou p (R D 689 ) Attache d i s a recen t lette r fro m the Moto r Vehicl e Manufacturer s Associatio n discussing th e gasolin e vapo r issu e an d recen t work b

yth e Chemica l Industr

yInstitut e o f Toxicolog y o n th e effec t o f hydrocarbon s on kidney s o f mal e rats . Thi s issu e ha

d bee n raise d earlie r in the CA G an d HE I reports . I a mreguesting tha t CA G revie wthe MVM Alette r an

d reference s an

d le t m

e kno wi f an ychange s ar e neede d t o th e mos t recen t CA

G repor t release d las t April . Also , I woul d appreciat e an ycomment s on whethe r an ynewinformatio n her e affect s the EP A rulemaking package . Attachmen t cc : Richar d D . Wilso n (A R 455 ) Jame s B . Weigol d (M D 11 ) Steve n C . Nesno w(M D 68 )2

A\ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y YSSE^J
. AN N ARBOR
. MICHIGA N 4810 5

'" * PWjt * OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N



### JU L 3 1 198 7 Dr . Fred W . Bowditc h Vic e Presiden t Technica l Affair s Divisio n Moto r Vehicl e Manufacturer s Associatio n 30 0 NewCente r Building Detroit , M I 4820 2 Dear Dr . Bowditch : Your lette r o f Jul y6t h t o Administrato r Thoma s ha s bee n referre d t o me for appropriat e actio n an d reply . Thi s lette r discusse s the cel l proliferatio n occurring in the kidneyo f mal e rat s following exposur e t o hig h level s o f certai n gasolin e hydrocarbons . Yo u cit e severa l paper s publishe d thi s yea r on th e recen t work o f the Chemica l industr yInstitut e o f Toxicolog y giving newinformatio n on thi s phenomenon . Yo u als o stat e tha t you fee l thi s evidenc e mean s tha t EP Ashoul d reasses s • th e potentia l huma n ris k fro mthe refueling process . Th e Administrato r a s wel l a s staf f in the Offic e o f Researc h an

d Developmen t (ORD ) an d th e Offic e o f Ai r an d Radiatio n ha

d bee n awar e o f thi s phenomeno n fro m the ORD an

d Healt h Effect s Institut e reports . in fact , th e mos t recen t ORD repor t title d "Evaluatio n o f the carcinogenicit yo f Unleade d Gasoline " release d las t Apri l ha s undergon e extensiv e revie wan d discusse s thi s phenomeno n in detail . I agre e wit h your assessmen t tha t ther e i s som e uncertaint y regarding the potentia l carcinogenicit yo f gasolin e vapor s an d expec t thi s t o be one issu e raise d in comment s on EPA' s recen t on-boar d proposal . Following receip t o f comment s on thi s issue , EP Awil l reanalyz e thi s issue . Toward s tha t end , I a m forwarding your lette r t o personne l i n OR D reguesting an

y comment s the

yhav e on ho wth e informatio n in the recen t ORD repor t shoul d b e altere d base d on thes e newpapers . Also , I a mP.8 1

-2
- forwarding a cop

yo f your lette r an d thi s respons e fo r inclusio n in EP APubli c Docke t A-87-1 1 concerning on-boar d vapo r recovery . Sincerel yyours , 

# €yy. Lc V Charle s L . Gray , Directo r Emissio n Contro l Technolog yDivisio n
cc : Richar d D . Wilso n Willia mH . Farlan

d Steve n C . Nesno wP.8 2

MOTO RVEHICLEMANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATIO N

o f th e Unite dStates . Inc . 30 0 NE W CENTE RBUILDIN G • DETROIT . MICHIGAN 4820 2 • AREA 313-872-431 1 TLXNO . 100977 0 AUTOMAKER S DE T DONALD E . PETERSEN . Chairman THOMA S H . HANNA , President and Chief Executive Officer Jul y6 , 198 7

Mr . Le e M . Thomas , Administrato r Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Offic e o f th e Administrato r 40 1 M Street , S W Washington , D.C . 2046 0 Dea r Mr . Thomas : Th e Moto r Vehicl e Manufacturer s Associatio n o f th e Unite d States , Inc . (MVMA ) i s concerne d tha t th e Agenc yha s no t take n int o accoun t importan t informatio n o n th e pendin g regulatio n o f refuelin g gasolin e vapors . A s th e Agenc ynear s it s fina l decisio n o n thi s matter , consideratio n shoul d b e give n t o th e mos t recen t scientifi c dat a o n gasolin e and ra t kidne ycancer . Thes e dat a indicat e tha t ther e i s n o significan t healt h proble m t o human s durin g th e refuelin g process . Th e mos t recen t experimenta l informatio n fromth e Chemica l Industr yInstitut e o f Toxicolog yindicate s tha t tumor s i n mal e ra t kidney s ar e relate d t o a regenerativ e proces s (cel l proliferation ) whic h occur s followin g exposur e t o a specifi c protei n unigu e t o mal e rats . Thi s protei n i s forme d i n mal e rat s i n respons e t o inhale d hydrocarbon s fromgasoline . Th e result s o f thes e experimenta l studie s wer e recentl y presente d a t tw o nationa l scientifi c meeting s (1,2) . Thes e dat a hav e shown that : 1 ) Th e ra t kidne ycel l proliferatio n i s induce d onl ybyhig h concentration s o f th e inhaled , wholly-vaporize d gasoline . Th e cel l proliferatio n increase s wit h th e concentratio n o f inhale d wholly-vaporize d gasolin e and a t hig h level s correlate s wel l wit h th e numbe r o f rat s wit h rena l tumors . 2 ) Th e cel l proliferatio n inductio n i s causall yconnecte d wit h th e presenc e o f hig h concentration s o f specifi c hydrocarbon s (trimethylpentan e and simila r isoparaffini c compounds ) i n th e gasoline .

MEMBERS: AMERICAN

MOTORS

CORPORATION

• CHRYSLER CORPORATION • FORD MOTOR COMPANY • GENERAL

MOTORS

CORPORATION HONDA OF

AMERICA MFC. INC. • M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORPORATION

• NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION

CORP. PACCAR Inc • VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA. INC. • VOLVO NORTH AMERICA CORPORATIONP.8 3

Mr . Le e M . Thoma s -2
- Jul y6 , 198 7
3 ) Th e cel l proliferatio n an d increase d DN

Asynthesi s cause d b ythes e compound s occur s in mal e bu t no t femal e rat s an d i s du e t o accumulatio n o f a specifi c protei n produced-onl y b ymal e rat s (i.e. , an d no t i n man) . Th e accumulatio n o f protei n lead s t o cel l deat h an d a subseguen t cel l proliferation . Thi s newinformatio n strongl ysupport s a reassessmen t o f the potentia l huma n ris k fro mthe refueling process . Th e ne wdat a reaffirme d previou s observation s tha t unleade d gasolin e i s a non-genotoxi c materia l an d tha t the tumo r productio n observe d i n long-ter

manima l experiment s wa s cause d b ya chroni c regenerativ e process . I t shoul d als o b e mentione d tha t in additio n t o hig h concentration s o f unleade d gasolin e o r trimethylpentane , severa l othe r chemica l compound s ar e capabl e o f producing hydrocarbo n nephropath

yan d rena l cance r in mal e rats . Fo r example , d-limonen e occur s in variou s etherea l oils , particularl yin oil s o f lemon , orange , caraway , dill , an d bergamo t an

d ha s bee n fo r man yyear s a significan t componen t o f norma l human diet . Chroni c administratio n o f d-limonen e produce s th e sam e mal e ra t specifi c nephropath

yobserve d in animal s dose d wit h unleade d gasoline . Th e mos t recen t studie s conclud e tha t " a laboratoryra t i s a uniguel ysensitiv e an d inappropriat e mode l fo r assessing the potentia l human ris k o f d-limonen e becaus e eve n the lowes t use d dose...produce d chroni c nephropathy " (3) . Sinc e simila r mal e ra t nephropath ywa s a prereguisit e fo r th e rena l tumor s observe d afte r long-ter mexposure s t o unleade d gasolin e vapors , th e us e o f the sam e anima l model s seem s t o b e eguall yinappropriat e fo r assessing the potentia l impac t o f refueling vapor s o n human health . Th e dat a fro mthe long-ter

m exposur e o f laboratoryrat s t o wholl yvaporize d unleade d gasolin e should , therefore , no t b e used in the assessmen t o f the publi c healt h ris k fro

mthe refueling process . W e believ e tha t thi s informatio n demonstrate s tha t refueling vapo r doe s no t pos e an ysignifican t healt h ris k t o humans . W e urg e yo u t o conside r thi s in deciding on th e nee d fo r control s o n retai l gasolin e marketing . Mor e detaile d informatio n an d reference s ar e availabl e on al l o f the scientifi c result s mentione d above . Pleas e fee l fre e t o have EP Ascientist s contac t me o r Richar d T . Pau l o f MVM Astaf f fo r furthe r information . Thank yo u fo r you r consideratio n i n thi s matter .

Fred W . Bowditc h Vic e Presiden t Technica l Affair s Divisio n /tl wP.8 4

REFERENCE S 1 . Swenberg , J.A. : "Specie s an d Se x Differenc e in Rena l Carcinogenicity : Th e Relevanc e o f Specifi c Protein s an d Increase d Cel l Turnover" , Presente d i n th e Symposiu

m o n Biochemica l mechanis mo f Sopccie s Difference s i n Targe t Orga n Carcinogenicity , the 26t h Societ yo f Toxicolog yAnnua l Meeting , Washington , D.C. , Februar y23-27 , 1987 . 2 . Charboneau , M . Short , B.G. , Lock , E.A . an d Swenberg , J.S. : "Unleade d Gasoline-Induce d Protei n Drople t Nephropathy : Relevanc e o f a Mal e Ra t Specifi c Syndrome Humans" , Presente d a t the 198 7 Annua l Meeting o f the Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Association , Ne wYork , N.Y. , Jun e 21-26 , 1987 . 3 . Ridder , e t al , 1987 , Web b an d Aldeu , 1987 .P.8 5

i A\

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y \^l4r j AN N AR BOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5 

### OC TI 4196 6 OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N Mr . Ralph Hitchcoc k / Director , Offic e o f Vehicl e Safet yStandard s ' Nationa l Highwa

yTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n (NRM-10 ) 40 0 7th Street , SW Washington , DC 2059 0 ( ^-ICC-o^Lf^ Dea r Mr . Hitchcock : A s promise d in ou

r pas t discussions , enclose d i s a cop yo f our technica l analysi s o f onboar d vapo r recoverysystems . A s par t o f ou

r continuing coordinatio n o n the safet yo f onboar d systems , I woul d appreciat e you r revie wo f thi s analysi s an d welcome an

ycomment s o r suggestion s yo u ma yhave . Specifi c discussion s o f the safet yissue s can b e foun d i n par t 5 o f the . onboar d contro l technolog ysection . i n the nea r futur e w e wil l b e sending yo u the draf t preambl e languag e on th e safet yissues

an d the consultatio n proces s prescribe d in the Clean Ai r Act , an d we wil l be seeking your concurrenc e on tha t language . i f yo u have an

yguestions , pleas e fee l fre e t o contac t Cheste r Franc e o f m

ystaf f a t 374-8338 .

Sincerel yyours ,



### yy -..^ . y y /—:?'-/yy.s^. Charle s L . Gray , Jr . Directo r Emissio n Contro l Technolog yDivisio n Enclosur ei

d \ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5 

### 2 2198 6 OFFIC E O F

. . T„ . A W AN O RADIATIO N Mr . KennethL . Pier so n Director , Offic e o f Moto r Cartrie r Standard s (HMC-1 ) Departmen t o f Transportatio n Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Dea r Mr . Pierson : Thi s lette r i s in follow-u p t o you r re'Cen t phon e conversatio n wit h Pau l Lain g o f m ystaf f regarding fue l system safet ystandard s fo r heavy-dut ygasolin e fuele d vehicles . A s yo u ar e nowaware , EP Ai s presentl yevaluating the feasibilit y an d safet yimplication s o f controlling refueling emission s using a

n onboar d vapo r recover ysystem . To date , ou r safet y analysi s ha s focuse d primaril yon th e overal l cras h safet y implication s o f onboar d control s a s evaluate d b yFedera l Moto r Vehicl e Safet yStandard 30 1 tests . However , throug h recen t correspondenc e fro m Ralp h Hitchcoc k o f NHTSA' s Offic e o f Vehicl e Safet yStandards , w e wer e informe d tha t your offic e ha s responsibilit yfo r regulation s on the safet ytesting o f fue l * system s fo r vehicle s ove r 10,00 0 lbs . GVWR . W e woul d greatl y appreciat e your cooperatio n in helping u s addres s an yonboar d safet yissue s specificall yrelate d t o thes e heavie r vehicles . Along wit h thi s letter , we ar e sending yo u some genera l background informatio n on onboar d refueling contro l system s an d th e mos t recen t draf t o f our safet yanalysis . Although mos t o f th e curren t safet yanalysi s deal s wit h issue s relate d specificall yt o light-dut yvehicle s an d trucks , we believ e th e same genera l safet yconcern s wil l appl yt o heavy-dut yvehicle s a s well . Th e informatio n we requeste d fro myou r offic e o n heavy-dut ysafet ystandard s wil l be used t o revis e ou r curren t safet yanalysi s t o specificall yaddres s an yheavy-dut yvehicl e concerns . Shortl ythereafter , we woul d appreciat e your review o f our revise d safet yanalysis . I f yo u hav e an

yquestions , pleas e fee l fre e t o contac t Glen n Passavan t o f m

ystaf f a t 374-840 8 (FTS) . W e woul d b e happ yt o mee t wit h you in th e futur e t o discus s thes e issue s furthe r i f yo u believ e i t woul d be helpful . Than k yo u for you r tim e an d assistance . Sincerel yyours , / '



# y

• / Charle s L . Gray , Jr . Directo r Emissio n contro l Technolog y Divisio n Enclosur e