P. 1


# OAR Box 1818 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 55 ) ll-D-2 7 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:45PM

Sheet 55of 79

# f

JOH N ASHCROF T

tkiwmo r FREDERIC KA. BRl'NNE R

Dirrcio r STAT E O F MISSOIR

I 

## DEPARTMEN T O FNATURALRESOURCE S 

# ,9-97-2: /

]j:-Q>-mvr

Divisio n o f

Energ y IMvisio n o f Environmenta

l Qualit y Divisio n of

(ieolog y an

d UIK J Sunr y DiviMo n ii f Managemen

tService s Divisio n o f

Parts . Recreation . an d Histori cPreservatio n P. 2



## MEMORANDU M

DATE : TO : FROM : SUBJECT : Jun e 10 , 198 7 AGC NCv R0,E CT/0 W 

# m 

# ; > o m G$.hi "WAL 1 3



## . , : 

## JOCKET C . Ford , P.E. , Director , Divisio n -of-Environmental ! Qualit y Mr . Wi l Mr . Nibfr-tfTkkila , Staf f Director , Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Progra m Actua l Cos t o f Stag e I I Vapo r Recover yInstallation s

T o obtai n the mos t curren t informatio n o n th e actua l cos t o f Stag e I I Vapo r Recover

yinstallation , the staf f a s contacte d th e majo r oi l companie s locate d i n St . Louis , th e installatio n contractors , an d individua l station s whic h hav e complete d installatio n o f Stag e I I Vapo r Recover

yequipment . Thes e companie s include : Amoc o Oi l Company , Vicker s Petroleum , Mobi l Oil . Company , Shel l Oi l Company , Texac o Oi l Company , Superio r Equipmen t Company , Genera l Equipmen t Company , Neumaye r Equipmen t Company , Carde r Industries , Siemen s Petroleu

mProducts , an

d Simmon s Petroleum . Th e mos t significan t piec e o f informatio n w e obtaine d i s tha t th e majorit yo f thes e facilitie s hav e a t thi s time onl yprojecte d o r estimate d cost s rathe r than actua l costs . Thi s i s becaus e th e oi l companie s hav e use d th e requiremen t t o instal l Stag e I I equipmen t a s a n opportunit yt o concurrentl yinstal l ne w undergroun d storag e tank s i n anticipatio n o f new regulation s an d new electroni c dat a capturing equipment , i n additio n t o th e Stag e I I hardware . W e wer e tol d b ythe oi l companie s involve d tha t whe n thi s decisio n wa s made , request s fo r estimates , a s wel l a s actua l contracts , wer e designe d i n suc h a wa y tha t al l 3 o f thes e activitie s wer e projecte d a s on e singl e expenditur e rathe r than a s separat e tasks . A s a result , neithe r the oi l companie s no r th e contractor s wer e abl e t o provid e specifi c informatio n regarding th e actua l cost s o f th e installatio n o f onl y Stag e I I Vapo r Recover yequipment . Thi s situatio n applie d t o bot h case s i n whic h station s complete d installatio n o f Stag e I I a s wel l a s thos e tha t electe d t o instal l jus t the undergroun d portio n o f vapo r recover ysystem s a t thi s time wit h th e above-groun d portio n t o b e installe d a t a late r date . Th e exception s t o thi s situatio n appea r t o b e limite d t o th e station s whic h w e assiste d i n obtaining complet e Stag e I I Vapo r Recoverysystems , i n particular , th e Siemen s Petroleu m statio n liste d below .P. 3



### Du e t o thi s situation , I hav e include d i n thi s mem o thes e projecte d costs , eve n thoug

h I understan

d yo u hav e requeste d actua l cos t data . Th e bes t cos t informatio n w e ar e therefor e abl e t o provid e i s a s follows : Amoc o $1,25 0 pe r nozzl e

Vicker s Petroleu

m$1,12 5 pe r nozzl e Mobi l Oi l Compan

y$1,50 0 pe r nozzl e Shel l Oi l Compan

y$1,56 2 pe r nozzl e Texac o Oi l Compan

y$2,10 0 - 2,60 0 pe r nozzl e Superio r Equipmen t Compan y$80 0 - 3,00 0 pe r nozzl e Genera l Equipmen t Compan y$1,20 0 pe r nozzl e Neumaye r Equipmen t Compan y$1,20 0 pe r nozzl e Carde r Industrie s $1,35 0 pe r nozzl e Siemen s Petroleu

m$877.2 7 pe r nozzl e Simmon s Petroleu

m (Pleas e refe r t o attache d memo o f 2/19/87 ) I have als o include d cos t projection s w e receive d i n Februaryfro m Siemen s Petroleu

mfo r station s theyowne d othe r than thei r statio n whic h installe d a complet e vapo r recover ysystem . Th e vapo r recover y system s a t thes e station s ar e currentl yi n variou s stage s o f constructio n an

d therefor e n o actua l cos t dat a fro mthemi s available . The staf f ha s requeste d fro meac h o f thes e owner s o r operator s o f gasolin e station s tha t theyprovid e actua l cos t dat a o n th e installatio n o f Stag e I I Vapo r Recover yequipmen t a s soo n a s i t i s available . However , i t appear s tha t i n thos e case s wher e additiona l wor k wa s contracte d along wit h vapo r recover yinstallatio n tha t w e wil l no t b e abl e t o accuratel yobtai n actua l cost s associate d strictl y wit h installatio n o f Stag e II , a t leas t no t withou t dedicating a majo r researc h effor t t o doing so . Th e companie s w e hav e contacte d indicate d tha t theyexpec t thi s same situatio n t o occu r i n othe r citie s tha t implemen t Stag e I I becaus e i t i s a cos t effectiv e approac h t o complianc e wit h ne wregulations . Thi s situatio n i s als o consisten t wit h experience s o f privat e contractor s suc h a s th e Radia n Corporatio n wh o hav e bee n hire d t o performStag e I I cos t analyses . Pleas e le t m e knowi f I can b e o f furthe r assistanc e i n thi s matter . NN/CL/j i Attachment s



### -2
-P. 4

. . JOH N ASHCROF T

( i i t\ ITT * i r FREDERIC KA . HRINNE R

DllTUi T STATE O F MISSOITII



## DEPARTMEN

T O FNATURA

LRESOURCE

S Divisio n u l Incrg i IMisio n n

i Hmiriinmcnu l (Jiul m Divisio n o l (•eulogy an

d Un d survey Divisio n o l Mjrugemrn tVmcc s Divisio n of

Cark.s . Reireatmn . and lliston cI'resers-jno n 

## MEMORANDU

M

DATE : Februar y 19 , 198 7 TO : Chuc k

Lam b FROM : Dave Litchfiel d SUBJECT : Stag e I I Vapo r RecoveryInstallatio n Cost s a t

Bellefontain e Amoc o
Th e Stag e I I Vapo r Recoveryinstallatio n cost s fo r Bellefontain e Amoc o canno t b e calculate d accuratel ybecaus e Stag e I I Vapo r Recoveryi s being installe d a s par t o f a mor e comprehensiv e projec t involvin g ne wdispenser s an d a canopy . Th e labo r involve d i n installing newpipin g ha s bee n include d i n th e tota l labo r cos t fo r thi s project . Th e additiona l cos t fo r Stag e I I Vapo r Recover ypiping i s $129 0 an d the cos t o f 2 4 retracto r assemblie s an d coaxia l hose s i s $3000 . Twelv e coaxia l hose s wer e supplie d a t n o charg e b y the Goodyea r Company . Th e cos t fo r twelv e nozzle s i s $2702.50 , wit h Emc o Wheato n supplying th e othe r twelv e nozzles . DL/j i- 

### STATIO N

St . Charle s Fin a 53 1 Boonslic k Roa d St . Charles , M O 6330 1
C & D Citg o 37 0 Merame c St . Rd . Valle yPark . M O 6308 8 27 0 Citg o 11 7 3 Da mRoa d St . Louis . M O 6313 8
Hous e Spring s Fin a . 468 5 Ol d Gravoi s Rd . Hwy . 3 0 Hous e Springs , M O 6305 1
U-Punv p # 4 110 0 E . Hwy . 10 0 Washington , M O 6309 0
U-Pum p # 6 1214 9 Bellefontain e St . Louis . M O 6313 8 Siemen s Pet . Prod . Inc . 90 5 S . Kirkwoo d Rd . Kirkwood , M O 6312 2

• 

### SIEMEN S

NOZZLE S 8

5

8

8

8

1 1

* 

### 8 PETROLEU

M

CAPITA L $ 5,380.6 7

4,003.0 6

5,546.0 1

5,025.8 2

5,369.7 1

7,275.4 0

5,695.8 0 LABO R

$ 4,880.0 0

3,820.0 0

4,640.0 0 (Permit-$250 )
4,220.0 0

3,660.0 0

6,300.0 0 (Permit-$325 )
2,066.3 5 (Permit-$309 ) TOTA L

$ 10,260.6 7

7,823.0 6

10.186.0 1

9,245.8 2

9,029.7 1

13.575.4 0

7,762.1 5 2/19/8 7

PE R NOZZL E $1,282.5 8

1,564.6 1

1,273.2 5

1,155.7 3

1,128.7 1

1,234.1 3

970.2 7

1- 

### STATIO N

Geye r Citg o 1112 0 Ben d Roa d Kirkwood , M O 6312 2
Wes t 5 0 80 2 W . Hwy . 5 0 Union , M O 6308 4
Eas t En d Fin a 190 1 E . 5t h Washington , M O 6309 0 1-4 4 Interstat e Rt . 2 , Bo x 54 8 Union , M O 6308 4 Vill a Ridg e Citg o Hwy . 1 0 Vill a Ridge , M O 6308 9 Pacifi c Citg o 170 8 W . Osag e Pacific , M O 6306 9
TOTAL S (Al l retrofi t balanc e NOZZLE S 4

8

6

8

9

8

9 9 system s J CAPITA L 3,091.0 4

5,794.7 0

3,697.7 5

5,638.8 1

6,058.0 0

5,462.3 4
$68,039.1 1 LABO R

1,560.0 0

800.0 0

1,500.0 0

4,000.0 0

4,500.0 0

2,500.0 0
$44,446.3 5 TOTA L

4,651.0 4

6,594.7 0

5,197.7 5

9,638.8 1

10,558.0 0

7,962.3 4
$112,485.4 6 PE RNOZZL E 1,162.7 6

824.3 4

866.2 9

1,204.8 5

1,173.1 1

995.2 9
$1,136.2 2

2P. 7



### MCELRO Y

&ASSOCIATE S 

## Apri l 16 , 198 7 Mr . WilliamBal l r Assistan t t o th e Presiden t fo r Legislativ e Affair s Th e Whit e Hous e Washington , D.C . 2050 0 Subject : Gasolin e Vehicl e Refuelin g Emission s

(Stag e I I control s vs . Onboar d canisters ) Dea r Will : I woul d lik e a

n opportunit yt o tal k wit h Wend yGram mabou t th e curren t debat e ove r ho wt o contro l th e hydrocarbon s tha t escap e int o th e ai r eac h time a drive r "fill s up " a t th e pump , hydrocarbon s tha t contribut e t o th e smo g proble man d thu s endange r publi c health . Woul d yo u hel p m e gai n tha t appointment ? T o mak e a long stor yshort , EP Aha s unti l th e en d o f th e yea r t o come u

p wit h workabl e measure s fo r ou r citie s t o emplo yi n complying wit h th e Federa l ozon e level s mandate d b ythe Clea n Ai r Ac t o f 1971 . Refuelin g vapor s accoun t fo r abou t tw o percen t o f th e hydrocarbo n emission s i n th e air . I n an effor t t o ge t tha t two percen t o f harmfu l emissions , EP Ai s tryin g t o decid e whethe r t o requir e al l servic e station s t o ad

d specia l equipmen t t o captur e vapor s a t th e nozzl e (Stag e I I controls) , o r whethe r t o requir e al l ne wcar s b e equippe d wit h a n enlarge d activate d carbo n caniste r onboar d th e vehicl e (Onboar d controls) . Thi s on e pit s th e oi l industryagains t the aut o industry , EP A agains t OMB . EPArecentl ysen t OMB a draf t o f a Propose d Rulemakin g whic h woul d requir e th e installatio n o f Onboar d canisters . I understand tha t OMB i s oppose d t o th e caniste r o n th e ground s tha t i t cos t to o muc h fo r the margina l benefi t t o b e derived . M yclient , Nort h America n Carbo n o f Columbus , Ohio , agree s wit h OMB . Pleas e understand tha t Nort h America n Carbon , a majo r supplie r o f activate d carbo n t o th e aut o industry , stand s t o gai n significantl y fro ma decisio n t o adop t th e Onboar d solution , bu t theyar e oppose d t o th e Onboar d approach . Thei r motiv e i s simple : theywan t t o mak e sur e th e Federa l Govern
men t arrive s a t th e bes t solutio n t o th e problem . Base d on thei r analysis , th e Onboar d approac h woul d b e (1 ) mor e costly , (2 ) les s efficient , (3 ) energ yintensive , (4 ) woul d requir e unacceptabl e lea d tim e t o implement , an

d (5 ) th e technologyha s no t bee n full ydevelope d an d tested .P. 8



## pag e 2 Woul d yo u forwar d th e attache d analysi s fro m Nort h America n Carbo n t o Wend

yGram m wit h a reques t tha t I b e give n 5 minute s o f he r tim e t o discus s th e matte r an d receiv e he r reaction . Thank yo u fo r an

yhel p yo u ar e abl e t o giv e m e o n thi s matter . Will , w e misse d yo u a t th e specia l Washingto n meetin g o f th e Gridiro n Secre t Societ yhel d o n th e Sequoia , bu t al l member s under

stoo d tha t th e vagarie s o f you r schedul e preclude d you r participation . W e wer e please d tha t Senato r Nunn an d Congressme n Ray , Hatcher , Rowland an

d Thoma s coul d joi n us . I a mconfiden t tha t Congressma n Hatche r an

d Bil l Alvere z wil l acqui t themselve s wel l a t th e Saturdaymeetin g i n Athens . ^Sincerely ,
Roland McElro yP. 9



# noRT H RmERico n cflRBo n inc . COLUMBU S OHI O 43213 - 158 0
CONTRO L O F GASOLIN E VEHICL E REFUELINGEMISSION S

Introductio n Gasolin e vapor s - hydrocarbon s - ar e displace dint o th e atmospher e fro

m a vehicle tan k whe nliqui dgasolin e i s adde ddurin g refueling . Thes e hydrocarbon s (HC) , a s wel l a s othe r H C emissions , contribut e t o urba n ai r pollutio na s on e o f the majo r classe s o f precursor s t o photochemica l smog . Th e severit y o f photochemica l smo g i s measure dan dlegall y

define d b y the concentratio no f ozon e i nthe ambien t air . A s directe db y the Clea nAi r Act , the Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y (EPA ) i n197 1 establishe d a Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standar d(NAAQS ) fo r ozon e (I nadditio nt o severa l othe r "criteria " pollutants) . Thos e area s o f the countr y whic hd o no t mee t the NAAQ S fo r ozone ar e de signate d"Non-Attainmen t Areas " fo r ozone . Th e Clea nAi r Ac t currentl y require s tha t al l state s compl y wit hthe ozon e NAAQ S o no r prio r t o Decembe r 31 , 1987 . Th e nationa l contro l strategy fo r improvemen t i nozon e ai r qualit y i s base d o nthe reductio no f H C emissions . Sinc e a numbe r o f area s currentl y excee dthe ozon e NAAQS , ther e i s a nee di nsom e area s t o see k more stringen t contro l o f H C emissions . Thus , althoug hvehicle refuelin g emission s represen t les s tha n5 percen t o f the H C "emissio ninventory " o f mos t cities , ther e i s motivatio nt o brin g thi s sourc e unde r control . Th e five principa l source s o f gasolin e vapo r emission s ar e summarize d below : 1 . Vapo r displacemen t fro m gasolin e carg o truck s durin g loadin g a t terminal s andbulk plants . 2 . Vapo r displacemen t durin g th e fillin g o f servic e statio nstorag e tank s b

y gasolin e carg o trucks . 3 . Evaporativ e losse s fro m vehicle fue l systems . 4 . Vapo r displacemen t durin g the fillin g o f vehicl e fue l tank s a t servic e stations . 5 . "Breathin g Losses " fro m the servic e statio nstorag e tank associate dwit h th e fillin g o f vehicle fue l tanks . Th e firs t tw

o emissio nsource s ar e currentl y bein g controlle db y mean s o f "Stag e I " vapo r recover y systems . Stag e I system s recove r vapor s displace dfro

m th e receivin g tan k b y ventin g them

back int o the deliverin g tank . Th e thir dsourc e i s currentl y bein g controlle db y mean s o f activate d carbo nevaporativ e emissio ncontro l canister s o nvehicles .P.1 0 -2 -

Th e tw o remainin g source s ( 4 and5) , usuall y referre dt o a s "refuelin g emissions" , hav e ye t t o b e controlle do na nationwid e basis . Th e tw o method s whic hhav e bee npropose dfo r the contro l o f thes e source s ar e the subjec t o f thi s paper . Descriptio no f Refuelin g Emission s Whe ngasoline havin g a Rei dVapo r Pressur e o f 9 i s pumpe dfro m the servic e statio ntan k int o a vehicl e fue l tank , vapo r emission s occu r a t th e nozzle-fil l pip e interfac e whic hamoun t t o approximatel y 1 0 pound s pe r 1,00 0 gallon s delivered ; anda t the storag e tank.vent , whic hamoun t t o approximatel y

1 poundpe r 1,00 0 gallo ndispensed . Thi s latte r emissio ni s terme da "breathin g loss" . Thus , tota l refuelin g emission s amoun t t o approximatel y 1 1 pound s o f vapo r pe r 1,00 0 gallon s o f gasolin e delivered . Propose dMethod s fo r Contro l o f Refuelin g Emission s Two method s hav e bee npropose dfo r control . The firs t metho drequire s the installatio no f "Stag e II " vapo r recover y system s a t gasolin e servic e stations . Stag e I I system s operat e o nth e sam e principa l use di nStag e I systems , an dinvolv e the us e o f gasolin e dispensin g nozzle s whic hcollec t vapo r displace dfro m the vehicl e tan k an dretur nthem

t o the servic e statio nstorag e tank . Stag e I I system s als o contro l "breathin g loss " emission s sinc e th e retur n o f vapor s t o the storag e tan k eliminate s the ingestio no f ai r whic h otherwis e occur s whe ngasolin e i s pumpe dfro m the storag e tank . Stag e I I system s represen t a prove ntechnology . The y ar e currentl y installe do nnearl y al l gasolin e servic e station s i nth e metropolita n area s o f California . Test s o f thes e system s hav e show nthe m t o be operatin g a t mor e tha n9 0 percen t o f theoretica l efficiency . Th e secondmetho drequire s the installatio no f "Onboard " vapo r recover y system s o ngasoline powere dmoto r vehicles . Onboar dsystem s involv e the us e o f a sealin g devic e a t the vehicl e fil l pip e t o preven t the escap e o f displace dvapor s an dforc e the

m t o be vente dinstea dt o anenlarge d activate dcarbo ncaniste r o nboar dthe vehicle . Vapor s adsorbe db y th e carbo nwoul dbe subsequentl y purge dan

dburne di nthe engine . I t shoul db e note dtha t Onboar dsystem s d o no t contro l storag e tank "breathin g losses " sinc e th e vapor s whic har e displace dfro m the vehicl e fue l tank ar e no t returne dt o th e storag e tank . Whil e the technolog y o f Stag e I I system s ha s bee nprove ni nCalifornia, th e technolog y

o f Onboar dcontro l system s i s stil l i nth e developmen t stage . Althoug hsevera l prototyp e system s hav e provide deffectiv e contro l o f fil l pip e emissions , th e engineerin g problem s associate dwit htheP.1 1 -3 -

purgin g o f larg e quantitie s o f vapo r int o the Inductio nsystem o f a gasolin e engin e have ye t t o b e resolve dsatisfactorily . I t shoul db e note dtha t servic e durabilit y test s o f Onboar dsystem s hav e no t ye t bee nperformed . I t shoul dals o b e note dtha t n o Onboar dsyste m ha s ye t bee ndemonstrate d whic hprovide s a fail-saf e pressur e relie f mechanis m t o preven t

- the rupturin g o f the vehicl e fue l tank ,

- th e floodin g o f the activate dcarbo ncanister ,

- the sprayin g o f gasolin e ont o the pum poperato r i nthe even t o f failur e o f the nozzl e shut-of f device . Efficiencie s o f Stag e I I andOnboar dSystem s A s state dearlier , tota l refuelin g emission s amoun t t o approximatel y 1 1 pound s o f vapo r pe r 1,00 0 gallon s o f gasolin e dispensed . Th e tabl e below summarize s the recover y efficiencies , an dthe quantitie s o f vapo r recovere d an dlos t pe r 1,00 0 gallon s o f fue l dispense dfo r the two systems .

Recover y

Efficiency , Z Pound s o f Vapor/1,00 0 gallon s Fil l Pip e Breathin g Tota l Recovere dLos t 

### Stag e I I Onboar d 9 5

9 5 9 0

0 94. 5

86. 4 10. 4

9. 5 0. 6

1. 5 Whil e the highe r efficienc y o f th e Stag e I I system shoul dno t b e ignored , th e rea l significanc e o f thes e figure s i s tha t vapo r weigh t losse s fro m th e Onboar dsystem

ar e 2 1/ 2 time s greate r tha nthos e o f the Stag e I I system .
Lea dTim

e t o Implemen t Contro l I f Stag e I I control s woul db e installe di nthe remainin g state s a t th e sam e rat e a t whic hthey wer e installe di nCalifornia, 8 0 percen t o f re fuelin g emission s coul dbe controlle dwithi ntw o year s and9 2 percen t coul dbe controlle dwithi nthre e year s afte r th e adoptio no f th

e regulatio n b y th e EPA . I nth e cas e o f Onboar dcontrols , however , previou s experienc e wit hvehicl e emissio ncontro l system s ha s show ntha t four year s ar e require dt o prov e the feasibilit y

o f a contro l system concept , andt o design , develop , certif y an dproduc e the emissio ncontro l system . T o thi s design-buil dlea dtim e o f fou r year s fo r Onboar dcontro l mus t b e adde dth e tim

e require dfo r EPA t o propos e an

dfinaliz e rules ; an d t o consul t wit hthe Departmen t o f Transportatio nan dfo r tha t departmen t t o issu e it s finding s wit hrespec t t o the safet y aspect s o f Onboar dcontrol . Thi s revie w

proces s i s likel y t o requir e on e year , whic hmean s tha t five year s woul db e require dt o begi nt o instal l Onboar dcontrols .PJ2
_ -4 -

Assumin g a vehicl e lif e o f te nyears , 5 0 percen t o f vehicle s I nservic e woul dbe equippe dwit hOnboar dsystem s five year s afte r the star t o f thei r productio nandtheoreticall y contro l 43. 2 percen t o f refuelin g emissions . The theoretica l contro l limi t o f 86. 4 percen t woul db e realize dfive year s later . Thus , fro

m th e tim

e o f decisio nt o procee dwit ha nOnboar dapproach , te n year s woul db e require dt o obtai na contro l leve l o f 43. 2 percent ; an d fiftee nyear s woul db e require dt o achiev e the theoretica l maximu m contro l leve l o f 86. 4 percent .
Cos t o f Refuelin g Emission s Contro l Cos t comparison s o f Stag e I I an dOnboar dcontro l system s ar e base dupo n the actua l cos t o f Stag e I I control s i nCalifornia ; an dthe estimate d cos t o f Onboar dcontrol , sinc e ther e ar e n o productio nOnboar dsystem s i nexistence . Anestimate d516,00 0 ton s pe r yea r o f refuelin g emission s remai nt o be controlled . (2 ) Th e followin g tabl e summarize s the annua l cost s o f recovery , th e quantit y o f emission s controlled , an dthe recover y

cos t pe r poundo f vapo r fo r th e tw o contro l systems , afte r complet e implementation . Complet e imple mentatio ni s assume dt o requir e thre e year s fo r Stag e I I an dfiftee nyear s fo r Onboar dcontrol . Stag e I I control s ar e assume dt o b e installe da t al l gasolin e servic e station s dispensin g more tha n2,00 0 gallon s pe r month .

Annua l Emission s Controlle dRecover y Cos t Cos t Tons/Yea r Percen t Pe r Pound Stag e I I $407,000,00 0 473,00 0 91. 7 $.4 3 Onboar d516,000,00 0 384,00 0 74. 4 .6 7 The annua l cos t o f Stag e I I control , th e cos t pe r poundo f vapo r controlled , an dth e cos t pe r gallo no f gasolin e dispense dfo r servic e station s o f differen t size s ar e summarize di nthe tabl e below . Statio nSize , Gallons/mont h 14,00 0 30,00 0 55,00 0 100,00 0 250,00 0 Annua l Cos t $1,10 0 2,10 0 2,25 0 3,20 0 1,80 0 Cos t pe r Pound

o f Vapo r $.6 2 

### .5 6 .3 3 .2 6 .0 6 Cos t Pe r Gallo n

Dispense d $.00 6 .00 6 .00 3 .00 3 .00 1 Th e weighte daverage cos t o f Stag e I I contro l amount s t o $.4 3 pe r poun d o f vapo r and$.00 4 pe r gallo no f gasolin e dispensed .P.1 3 -5 -

Energy Requirement s o f the Two System s Th e Stag e I I Balanc e System doe s no t requir e energ y t o operate . Th e negativ e pressur e create di nthe storag e tan k b y withdrawa l o f liqui d gasolin e andth e positive pressur e create di nth e vehicl e tan k b y the Introductio no f tha t gasolin e produce s a pressure differentia l sufficien t t o caus e th e displace dvapo r t o flo w back int o th e storag e tank . r O nthe othe r hand , the energy requiremen t associate dwit hOnboar dControl s i s significant . Fo r example , tw o o f th

e uni t operation s o f the activate d carbo nmanufacturin g proces s requir e the consumptio no f approximatel y 16,00 0 BT Ufrom

fue l oi l o r natura l ga s pe r poun do f activate dcarbo n produced . Th e additiona l requiremen t fo r carbo nfo r Onboar dControl , assumin g system s designe dfo r gasolin e havin g a Rei dVapo r Pressure o f 9 , i s estimate d t o b e approximatel y 2 0 millio npound s pe r year . Eve nassumin g al l othe r factor s t o b e equal , th e wisdo m o f a choic e whic h require s the unnecessar y consumptio no f a wastin g energ y resource s i s questionable . Regulator y

Statu s Sectio n17 2 o f the Clea nAi r Ac t a s amende di n197 7 specifie s tha t eac h stat e shal l prepare a Stat e Implementatio nPla n(SIP ) fo r eac ho f it s ozon e non-attainmen t area s whic hshal l provid e fo r th e attainmen t o f th e ozon e NAAQ S "a s expeditiousl y a s practicabl e bu t no t late r tha nDecembe r 31 , 1987" . I nthe nin e year s whic hhav e passe dsinc e the passag e o f the amende dact , EPA ha s bee nunable t o decid e whic ho f th e tw o vehicl e refuelin g contro l system s shoul db e employed . Absen t a decisio nb y EPA , andi nvie w o f the possibilit y tha t EP A

migh t decid e t o emplo y

th e Onboar dapproac han dthu s obviate th e nee dfo r loca l controls , mos t state s wit hnon-attainmen t area s hav e delaye dimplementatio n o f Stat e I I controls . Conclusio n Stag e I I Contro l i s a simpl e andstraightforwar dsolutio ni nal l o f it s aspects : conceptual , design , manufacture , installation , operatio nan d maintenance . I t consist s essentiall y o f a dispensin g nozzl e modifie d t o provid e a vapo r sea l a t the nozzle-vehicl e fue l tan k interface ; an d a secondhose t o retur nthe displace dvapo r t o th e undergroun dstorag e tank . The Vt hGeneratio nStag e I I System s installe di nCaliforni a hav e prove nt o b e reliable , simpl e t o operate , an dinexpensiv e t o maintain . B y contrast , Onboar dContro l i s a t leas t a s comple xa s Stag e I I i s simple , Implementatio no f Onboar dContro l woul drequir e th e followin g majo r pro cedura l step s t o b e taken , eac hhavin g it s ow nse t o f comple xdesig nP.1 4 -6 -

an dothe r problems . 1 . I t woul db e necessar y fo r EPA

t o
a . Establis hPerformanc e Specification s fo r the systems ; I.e. , th e allowabl e emissio nrat e pe r uni t volum e o f fue l dispense dwhe n th e vehicle i s teste dunde r specifie dtes t conditions . b . Develo pa consensu s Standar dTes t Metho dfo r Refuelin g Emission s base dupo nrea l lif e condition s suc ha s drivin g time s an dusag e rate s whic har e significantl y les s tha naverage andthu s les s likel y t o achiev e adequat e purg e o f fue l vapo r fro m the carbon . c . Establis hthe Desig nCondition s fo r the systems , condition s whic h woul dencompas s no t onl y the know

npresent , bu t als o the unknow n future . Suc hcondition s includ e suc hfactor s a s fue l volatilit y (Rei dVapo r Pressure ) an dfue l composition , bot ho f whic hhav e change dsignificantl y i nthe recen t pas t andca nb e expecte dt o continu e t o d o s o i nthe future . I t shoul dbe understoo dtha t the thre e regulator y step s describe dabov e ar e no t independen t o f eac hother ; e.g. , a chang e i na desig nconditio n i s likel y

t o affec t the performanc e result . 2 . Th e automobil e manufacture r mus t design , tes t an dbuil dno t jus t on e system , bu t a s many system s a s ther e ar e combination s o f fue l induction , engin e an

dfue l tan k components . 3 . Finally , i t woul db e necessar y fo r EPA

t o establis hthe organizatio n an dothe r mean s t o inspec t multitude s o f in-us e vehicle s t o assur e conformance t o the Performanc e Specificatio ni nrea l lif e situation s a s wel l a s o nthe manufacturer' s tes t stand . Th e problem s experience dwit htestin g th e existin g Evaporativ e Emissio n Contro l System s o f in-us e vehicle s woul dundoubtedl y b e severa l order s o f magnitud e greate r wit ha muc hlarge r Onboar dSystem . I t shoul dbe emphasize dtha t th e performanc e o f a Stag e I I Syste m i s no t affecte db

y an y o f the abov e mentionne d factor s whic hadversel y affec t the performanc e o f a nOnboar dSystem . Th e Onboar dconcep t ha s bee ncompared , appropriatel y

we believe , t o aninventio no f the renowne dRub e Goldberg , whic hconsiste do f a roo m ful l o f a mechanica l apparatu s whose sol e functio n wa s t o pou r coffe e fro m a po t int o a cup . Aside fro

m th e foregoin g considerations , i t doe s no t seem sensibl e o r logica l t o appl y

a universa l solution , suc ha s Onboar dcontrols , t o wha t i s essentiall y

a localize dproblem . Stag e I I control , o nthe othe r hand , i s a prove nsolutio nfo r thos e area s o f th e countr y

whic hhav e th

e problem .P.1 5 

### -7 -

Author' s Not e Thi s pape r wa s prepare db y Nort hAmerica nCarbon , Inc. , a supplie r o f activate dcarbo nt o the automotiv e industry . Althoug ha decisio nb y EP A t o employ

Onboar dcontro l woul dincreas e th e siz e o f th

e automotiv e carbo nmarke t b y approximatel y

thre e time s an

d seemingl y

benefi t the company , w e ar e oppose dt o the us e o f thi s contro l system . We believ e tha t Onboar dcontrol s constitut e aninherentl y ba dsolutio n t o th e problem

whic hwil l ultimatel y be ba dfo r everyone . Revise d Apri l 22 , 198 7

(1 ) "Evaluatio no f Ai r Pollutio nRegulator y Strategie s fo r Gasoline Marketin g Industry" , EPA-450/3-84-012a , Jul y 1984 . (2 ) "Refuelin g Emission s Control-Onboar dVs . Servic e Statio nControls" ; March , 1984 ; b

y Sierr a Research , Sacremento , California .