p.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

212)IV-E-86 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:58 PM Sheet 212 of 242 
P.2 

> * 0 STAm^ 

§ A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

X^kWmirJ AN N ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

% , rt<? 

<m PHtf* 

JAN I 7 1989 •

v

-

vX;\' WoTF-C^ 0 ,

 OFFICE OF 

,,l QnN^'£ N'

A

 ,'

 AI R AN D RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

VAP 

r ,->r.v\£f 

SUBJECT: Visit to Ford Motor Company 

FROM: John Polasek, Mechanical Engineer r 

Standards Development and Support Branch .' 

i., 

TO: Public Docket A-87-11 

THRU: John F. Anderson, Senior Project Manager 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

In a telephone conversation, Mr. Walter Kreucher of Ford 

Motor Company indicated that Ford's buildup of EPA's simplified 

refueling system as applied to the Ford Taurus fuel tank was 

not operational at flow rates above 7 gpm. He mentioned that 

fuel could not be dispensed at 10 gpm with either 9.0 RVP fuel 

or 11.5 RVP fuel. Premature shutoffs were observed for 

dispensing rates over 7 gpm. Mr. Kreucher asked for our 

assistance in order to make Ford's refueling control systems 

operational with 11.5 RVP fuel dispensed at 10 gpm. We agreed 

to visit the Ford test site on January 4, 

major components of our system, such as 

spitback valve, a vapor vent valve and 

addition, since Ford did not have sufficient 

analyzing data while tests were being conducted, we brought 

own analyzing equipment including a strip chart recorder 

analog pressure transducers. An attendance list is attached. 

1989, bringing the 

the restrictor, a 

our canister, 

test equipment 

In 

for 

our 

and 

•Based upon initial discussions with Ford personnel, it 

appeared that premature shutoffs were observed with high 

pressures in the fillerneck" but low pressures in the tank. 

This indicated a problem in the fillneck either with the 

restricting collar or the antispitback ball valve. Upon 

examination it appeared that the spitback valve was 

significantly constricted. Ford had used a rubber hose to 

house the spitback valve at the end of the fillerpipe. The 

hose pinched the plastic fingers, causing the ball to partially 

close the valve hole. In addition, Ford's restrictor collar 

had a larger lip as compared to our restrictor. 
P.3 

? 

Presuming the problem to be the spitback valve and perhaps 

the restrictor, we decided to test the system without either 

one. After seeing that the system in this configuration filled 

at 10 gpm, we attached our spitback valve to the end of the 

fillerpipe. Testing at 10 gpm with 9.0 RVP fuel, the system 

worked properly and no premature shutoffs were observed. 

Finally, we put our restrictor collar in the fillerpipe and the 

system filled properly at 10 gpm with 9.0 RVP fuel and 11.2 RVP 

fuel. Pressure traces of the system performance were 

photocopied and left with Mr. Kreucher. 

Based upon the results of these tests, it appears that 

Ford's spitback valve was causing a restriction at high 

flowrates. We suggested that Ford purchase a new spitback 

valve and attach it in such a way that the fingers will not 

restrict the movement of the ball. By replacing the spitback 

valve, Ford should have a refueling control system operational 

in the 4-10 gpm range with either 9 RVP fuel or 11.5 RVP fuel. 

Attachment 

6704W 
P.4 

Names 

Lee Jones 

John Anderson 

Michael Murphy 

John Polasek 

Dewain Belote 

W.M. Kreucher 

Doug Gerdes 

Pat Merfeld 

Pat Moir 

Company 

EPA 

EPA 

EPA 

EPA 

Ford 

Ford 

Ford 

Ford 

Fuel 

Ford 

Fill 

Phone # 

313-668-4200 

313-668-4496 

313-668-4200 

313-668-4200 

313-322-5670 

313-845-8247 

313-322-0363 

313-390-1318 

313-845-7481