P. 1 

### OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart

Document

Number: 

### 218)IV-E-9 2 Docket Number: 

### A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:58 PM

Sheet 218 of 242P. 2

REFUELINGEMISSIO N

CONTROL S A BRIEFINGFO RTH E NATIONAL HIGHWA YTRAFFI C SAFET YADMINISTRATIO N APRI L 21 , 198 9 by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENC Y OFFIC E O F MOBIL E SOURCE SP. 3

OVERVIEW O F TH E BRIEFING • Rational e fo r control s • Onboar dcontro l descriptio n • Onboar dcontro l and vehicl e safet y

-2 -P. 4

RATIONAL E FO RCONTROLS • Ozon e formatio nan

dnonattainmen t • Why contro l refuelin g emissions ? • Why i s onboar dth e preferre d option ?

-3 -P. 5

OZON E FORMATION Ozon e i s a nodorless , highl y

reactiv e ga s vhic hi s mai n componen t o f smo g Ozon e i s a pulmonar y

irritan t tha t decrease s abilit y o f lung s t o functio nproperl y Ozon e i s forme di na comple xphotochemica l reactio n involvin g sunlight , oxide s o f nitroge n(NOx ) an d volatil e organi c compound s (VOC ) Th e chie f va y t o contro l ozon e i s t o reduc e VO C emission s Larg e variet y o f source s bu t mai none s ar e transportatio n an dindustria l processe s

-4 -P. 6

OZON E NONATTAINMEN T Ozon e i s th e mos t pervasiv e ai r pollutio nproblem facin g th e natio ntoda y

(se e Figur e 1 ) Preliminar y ozon e dat a fo r 198 8 indicate s 8 1 nonattainmen t area s affectin g mor e tha n10 0 millio npeopl e Man y area s ar e expecte d t o remai ni nnonattainmen t despit e man y year s o f Federal , State , an

d loca l contro l effort s Reduction s o f fro

m 1 0 percen t t o nearl y

7 0 percen t vil l b e neede dt o brin g al l area s int o complianc e (se e Figur e 2 )

-5 -P. 7

- 6 -Figur e 2

i i 

### APPROXIMAT E PERCEN T REDUCTIO N NECESSARY

FO R OZON E NAAQ S ATTAINMEN T

z o i o Q L U D C O o > 7 0

60 - 5 0 40 3 0 2 0 - 1 0 - ^ffl E

I I I I I I I I I I BBE E * % I I II I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 ^ % ~& r NUMBE R O F CITIE S • * " 8 0

0 0P. 9

WH YCONTRO L REFUELINGEMISSIONS ? • Provide s a 2 t o 3 percen t reductio ni nVO C emission s • Fe v remainin g VO C contro l strategie s ca nprovid e mor e reduction ; mos t ar e les s • Reduction s ca nb e achieve d cos t effectivel y vhe ncompare d t o othe r availabl e contro l alternative s • Reduce s exposur e t o toxi c vapor s durin g refuelin g - benzen e i s a knovnhuma ncarcinoge nan d gasolin e vapor s i n genera l ar e a toxi c concer n • Annua l cance r inciden t reductio nestimate s fo r controllin g refuelin g emission s ar e 4 t o 4 2 dependin g o nvhic h compound s i ngasolin e vapor s ar e considere d carcinogeni c

-8 -P.1 0

WH YEP A PROPOSE D ONBOAR D Onboar di s superio r o nground s o f genera l economi c efficiency : Onboar di s mor e cos t effectiv e tha nStag e I I - ne t saving s fo r onboard , $100 0 pe r to nfo r Stag e I I Long-term VO C reductio ni s greate r vit honboar ddu e t o highe r in-us e contro l efficienc y and lac k o f exemptions , Afte r ful l implementation , onboar d get s 8 9 percen t o f refuelin g emission s i nth e N A areas ; Stag e I I get s 48-6 6 percen t (assumin g Clea nAi r Ac t exemptio nlevels ) Onboar draise s feve r equit y

issue s tha nStag e II : Onboar dinvolve s a mor e equitabl e distributio no f cost s tha nStag e I I (everyon e pay s a littl e versu s some servic e station s payin g a lot ) and avoid s closur e o f margina l servic e station s Stag e I I vould hav e advers e effect s o nstation s jus t vithi nth e boundar y

o f non-attainmen t area s relativ e t o thei r uncontrolle d competitio n Stag e I I voul d hav e advers e effect s o ncontrolle d station s nea r th e exemptio ncut-of f leve l relativ e t o thei r uncontrolle dcounterpart s -9a -P.1 1

• Onboar dprovide s benefit s no t achievabl e by a limite d Stag e I I program : Onboar dprovide s automati c coverag e fo r margina l attainmen t area s andaddresse s regiona l ozon e an d ozon e precurso r transpor t concern s Onboar di s a nationvid e program tha t provide s importan t ozon e benefit s i nattainmen t area s and direc t healt hbenefit s throughou t th e countr y VO C emission s reduction s i nattainmen t area s hav e valu e * Agricultura l andecologica l impacts , material s damage , an deffect s o nvisibilit y Cance r ris k reduction s throughou t natio nhav e valu e * Estimate dincidence s fo r benzen e andga s vapo r reduce dfro m 13 1 t o 5 8 * Estimate dincidence s fo r benzen e and> C- 6 ga s vapo r fractio nreduce dfro

m 4 2 t o 1 7

-9b -P.1 2

Onboar deffectivenes s i s les s vulnerabl e t o acceptance , implementatio nandenforcemen t difficulties : Onboar dsystem s requir e n o maintenanc e and ca nb e enforce dvit hexistin g mechanisms . Stag e I I system s ar e effectiv e onl y

i f thei r maintenanc e i s insure d thr ua vigorou s governmen t enforcemen t presence , Thu s Stag e I I require s a long term resourc e intensiv e governmen t (Stat e andFederal ) commitmen t t o enforcemen t Onboar davoid s consume r involvemen t i nth e contro l process , Stag e I I i s politicall y unpopula r becaus e i t require s consume r involvemen t (compar e t o I/M ) Fo r non-attainmen t areas , Stag e I I vouldhav e t o b e implemente d thr uSI P proces s an d v e expec t significan t resistanc e a t th e Stat e level , Thi s vould requir e EP A

impositio no f sanction s and possibl e EP A promulgation , bot ho f vhic har e time consumin g and politicall y

unpopula r

-9c -P.1 3

ONBOAR D CONTRO L SYSTE M

DESCRIPTIO N • Fue l system s prio r t o evaporativ e emissio ncontrol s • Evaporativ e contro l system • Onboar d contro l system

-10 -FUE L SYSTEM S PRIO RT O CONTROL S (PRE-1972 )

Fue l system emissio nsources : fue l meterin g system (carburetor ) an

dfue l tan k (se e Figur e 3 ) Mai nsourc e o f fue l meterin g emission s i s carbureto r floa t bov l ven t - vente dt o engin e compartmen t or carbureto r inlet/ai r cleane r Fue l tank s ver e vente dt o th e atmospher e eithe r throug h th e fille r ca p or a ven t tub e vit ha noutle t unde r th e body o f th e ca r

-11-P.1 5

FUE:I _ Figur e 3

.YSTEM S F-RIO R T O COMTRO I BOW L VEN T CONFIGURATION S

TYPICA L TAN

K CONFIGURATIO N CA P •*

£ RUE R TUB

E

FUE L GAUG E (TAN KUNIT)

-12 -EVAPORATIV E CONTRO L SYSTE M

Control s require donFedera l vehicle s i n197 2 Contro l system

descriptio n(se e Figur e 4) : Prevent s vapor s fro

m bein g vente dt o th e atmospher e (fro m fue l meterin g syste

m an d fue l tank ) Route s vapor s t o a carbo ncaniste r Restore s capacit y

o f caniste r by

purgin g store d vapor s and burnin g them

i nth e engin e a s fue l

-13 -Figur e A Typica l Curren tEvaporative Syste m

PRESSURE/VACUU M , L RELIE F CA P i EXTERNA L VEN T LIN E
FLOAT/ROLLOVE R VALV E 3/8 " DIA . 8 ' LON G # .05 " DIA . LIMITING ORIFIC E

1 4 GALLO N FUE L TAN K PURG E VALV E

1 LITE R CARBO N CANISTE R T O PURG E INDUCTIO N POINTP.1 8

ONBOAR D CONTRO L SYSTEM S Onboar dsystem s perform

th e same thre e basi c function s a s evaporativ e systems : Prevent s vapor s fro

m ventin g directl y

t o atmospher e durin g refuelin g Route s vapor s t o a carbo ncaniste r Restore s capacit y

o f caniste r by

purgin g store d vapor s andburnin g the

m i nth e engin e a s fue l A singl e integrate dsyste

m ca nb e use d t o contro l bot h evaporativ e andrefuelin g emission s (se e Figur e 5 ) Th e follovin g system

modification s ar e necessary : Additio no f a fillnec k sea l t o preven t vapor s fro m escapin g durin g refuelin g Large r vapo r line , rollove r valve , and caniste r t o handl e additiona l refuelin g emission s

-15 -Figur e 5 Onboar d Plu s Evaporative Syste m

PRESSURE/VACUU M RELIE F CA P N

O EXTERNA

L VENT LIN

E 

# I SHORTE R VAPORLIN

E 

### V 

# v \ MODIFIE D FLOAT/ROLLOVER VALV E 

## V ANTI - SPITBAC K VALV E # PURG E VALV E

T O PURG

E INDUCTIO N POINT ENLARGE

D CARBO N CANISTE

R FUEL TAN KONBOAR D CONTROL S AN D VEHICL E SAFET Y • Backgroun d • EPA' s respons e t o NPRM

safet y comment s • Onboar dvehicl e developmen t

-17 -P.2 1

BACKGROUN D Sectio n'202(a)(6 ) o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t require s EP A t o consul t vit hth e Secretar y

o f Transportatio nregardin g onboar d safet y Consultatio nproces s bega ni nSprin g o f 198 6 - concern s centere d o nleadtime and a potentia l fo r a nunquantifie d increas e i nris k EP A prepare dsafet y

stud y i nSprin g o f 1987 ; ke y conclusions : Onboar dcontrol s ar e extension s o f eva p control s Straightforvar dsolution s exis t t o problem s N o increas e i nris k nee d occu r Onboar dNPR M publishe d August , 198 7 - commenter s believe d onboar dvil l increas e fue l system

complexit y vhic hi ntur n increase s ris k

-18 -P.2 2

EPA' S RESPONS E T O NPR

M SAFET YCOMMENT S • Revieve dcurren t evaporativ e system design s and in-us e safet y • Performe da fue l system

comparativ e ris k analysi s (FMEA ) • Assesse dservic e statio nrefuelin g ris k an d incidence-o f siphoning-relate d gasolin e ingestion s - bot hvoul db e reduce dvit honboar drefuelin g control s • Develope da simplifie d onboar d contro l system

-19 -P.2 3

REVIEW O F CURREN T EVAPORATIV E SYSTE M

DESIGN S • Curren t vehicle s sho

w a vid e rang e i ndesig ncomplexit y (se e Figure s 6a-6d ) • Ove r time , system s hav e becom e mor e comple x(e.g. , additio no f fue l injection ) • Curren t evaporativ e system s incorporat e man y feature s characterize da s unsaf e fo r onboar d Valve s o nfillnec k Plasti c fillnec k part s Mor e tan k connection s Enlarge dvalv e orifice s • Unabl e t o detec t a relationshi p betvee nfue l system complexit y an d reduce dsafet y

amon g curren t productio n system s

-20-Figur e 6 a Rang e Rove r

KE Y T O DIAGRA

M 1 . Charcoa l cmbte r 2 . Ai r We t t o caniste r 3 . Purg e In e t o plenu m chambe r 4 . Connecto r hoses wH h restrictors 5 . Restricto r I n purg e Un e 6 . Fu d expansio n tan k 7 . Fu d vapou r pip e fro m manifol d 6 . Breathe r hos e wit h anti-surg e valv e 9 . Fu d tan k

flOer nec k 10 . Fffle r nec k

breathe r hos e 11 . Manifol d 12 . Fu d vapou r pipe s fro m fu d tan k ( 3 off ) 13 . Pressur

e rdie f valv

e an d hos e 14 . Fu d tan k 15 . Float/koOove r valv

e 16 . Gromme

t

-21 -Figur e 6 b For d Festiv a P.2 5

FUE L TAN K SEPARATO R

FUE L SUPPL Y VAPO R LIN E UN E S& ''"'

FUE L VAPO R STORAG E CANISTE R FUE L

F1LTB 1 FUE L RETUR N LIN E ROLLOVE R

VEN T VALV E

-22 -P.2 6 FUELTAN K REMOVA L AN D INST ; Figur e 6 c Chrysle r Conques t 14-7 9 N140A- - Pra-ramova l Operatio n • Release o f Residua l Pressur e fro m Fue l Hig h Pressur

e Hos e (Refe rt o P . 14-38. ) Drainin g Fue l Post-installatio n Operatio n • Replenishmen t o

f Fue ! 1. 0 N m 0.7ftlbs .

25-3 0 N m

18-2 2 f t lbs . 1 3 ^••nova l step s 15-2 0 N m 11-18ftH» . 1 . Hig h floo rsid e pane l 2 . Fue l pipe cove r 3 . Fue l pump'connecto rconnectio n 4 . Fue l tan k

ca p 5 . Drai n plu g 6 . Fue l gaug e uni t connecto rconnectio n 7 . Fue l hig h pressur e hos e connectio n 8 . Retur n hos e 9. Vapo rhos e 10 . Fue l fille rhos e 11 . Fue l fille rnec k 12 . Fue l tan k 13 . Electrica l fue l pum p 14 . -Separato rtan k 15 . Fue l gaug e uni t 16 . Pip e assembl y 17 . In-tan k

fue l filte r NOTE (1 ) Revers

e th e remova l procedure s t o reinstall . (2 ) »* . Refe rt o "Servic

e Points o f Installation" . -23 -P.2 7 14*76 FUE L TAN K REMOVA L AN D I Prt-ramova l Operatio n • Drainin g o f theruej . Figur e 6 d Mitsubish i Manter o

Post-installatio n Oparatlo n • Supplyin g o f th e Fuel . |

25-3 0 N m 18-2 2 ftlbt . 15-2 0 N m 11-1 4 ft.ld s OlWf M Remova l step s

1 . Drai n plu g 2 . Fue l fille rca p 3 * Fue l fille rhos e protecto r 4 . Vapo rhos e 5 . Chec k valv e 6 . Overfil l limite r(Two-wa y valve l 7 . Clam p assembl y 8 . Fue l fille rhos e 9 . Breathe rhos e 10 . Packin g 11 . Fue l fille rnec k 12 . Mai n hos e ••-« • 13 . Retur n hos e » « » « 4 Fue l gaug e uni t connecto rconnectio n 5 . Fue l tan k

assembl y mountin g nut s 6 F- d e l tan k 7 Pip e assembl y 5 Seoarato rtank s 3 Fue l tan k

protecto r •.OT E . , ' • Revers

e th e remova l procedure s t o reinstal l _ 2 ) » « Refe rt o Servic e Points o

f Installatio n -£* —P.2 8

FUE L SYSTE M COMPARATIV E RIS KANALYSI S NHTSA ; NTSB , an

dother s suggeste dtha t EP A

perform a fue l syste m comparativ e ris k assessmen t (FMEA ) EP A contracte d wit hBattelle 1 s transportatio nsafet y grou p t o perform analysi s I nSeptembe r 1988 , Battell e complete d anindependen t stud y o f ris k o f vehicl e fir e fo r te ndifferen t vehicl e fue l syste m design s (include dbot hstoc k and variou s onboar d desig nconfigurations ) Battell e ha s briefe d NHTSA , NTSB , MVMA , AIA , and other s Ke y conclusions : Ris k o f fire s ar e remot e i nal l case s Leve l o f ris k i s no t greatl y

differen t amon g case s Onboar dsystem s hav e relativel y

les s overal l ris k tha nstoc k system s

-25 -SIMPL E ONBOAR D CONTRO L SYSTE M DEVELOPMEN T Goa l wa s a nintegrate dsyste

m n o mor e comple xtha na stoc k vehicl e evaporativ e syste

m (se e Figure s 4 an

d 5 ) Firs t syste m o nG M A-body (Oldsmobil e Cutlass ) fue l system Secon d syste m o nFor dTauru s fue l system Fille d well , controlle demissions , and eliminate d fue l spitbac k unde r wid e rang e o f tes t condition s G M andFor dbuil t simila r hardware , claime d numerou s problem s wit hfillabilit y

an d emission s contro l EP A followed-u pwit hFor d an

d solve d it s problems ; G

M decline danEP A

evaluatio n AP I als o produce d anonboar dcar , whic hha d significan t fil l an ddriveabilit y

problem s NHTS A staf f indicate d lac k o f a successfu l onboard-equippe dvehicl e wa s a ke y obstacl e t o resolvin g th e safet y issu e - fil l performanc e and driveabilit y wer e ke y issue s

-26 -ONBOAR D VEHICL E DEVELOPMEN T • Vehicl e selectio n • Designgoal s • Contro l system

descriptio n • Tes t result s

-27 -P.3 1

WH YA FOR D TAURUS ? • Same fue l system

For dmodifie d - For d claime d EP A desig n woul dno t wor k o na vehicl e • Productio npurg e flo

w rat e coul d handl e onboar d purg e requirement s • Productio nvehicl e ha s excellen t fil l performanc e

-28 -P.3 2

DESIGN GOAL S • Adap t simplifie d refuelin g hardwar e t o a productionvehicl e • Mee t propose demissio nstandar d overal l ful l rang e o f possibl e fil l rate s (H O gal/min ) • Retai nor excee d stoc k ca r fil l performanc e unde r eve n extreme condition s - hig hfil l rates , hig hvolatility , and hig hfue l temp s • Minimiz e spitback s a t fil l rate s u p t o 1 5 gal/mi n • Avoi ddriveability/performanc e impact s

-29 -CONTRO L SYSTE M DESCRIPTION ' Desig ni s derive dfro

m EPA' s "liqui dseal " concep t Productio npurg e rat e and schedul e wer e retaine d Fue l syste m modifications : Adde danti-spitbac k valv e Modifie dfil l inle t tub e insid e tan k Remove dexterna l vapo r ven t lin e fro m tank/fil l nec k Adde drollover/ven t valv e (.4 " ven t orifice ) Upgrade dexistin g tan k ven t valv e wit ha large r productio nversio n Enlarge dcaniste r fro

m 1,0 1 t o 3.5 1 Move dcaniste r t o rea r o f ca r fro

m engin e compartmen t Increase ddiamete r an

dshortene dvapo r ven t lin e Tota l syste m layou t show ni nFigur e 7

-30 -FOR D FILLE R PIP E 5/ 8 M I.D . HOS E VAPO R VEN T VALV E

CANISTE R FOR D FUE L TAN K SPITBAC K VALV E

FIGUR E 7 : ONBOAR D REFUELIN G SYSTE M A S O N TH E FOR D VEHICL E -31 -P.3 5 TES T RESULT S Refuelin g emission s ar e significantl y below th e propose d standar d(0, 1 g/gal ) fro

m 3 t o 1 0 gal/mi n N o effect s o nexhaus t emission s o r driveabilit y Laborator y fillabilit y comparison s (sho

w video) : Performe da t extreme condition s (1 5 RVP , 1 5 gal/min , an d hig hfue l temp ) N o spitbac k fro

m onboar dca r Fue l spra y and spitbac k occurre do nstoc k ca r Othe r lat e mode l car s wer e unfillabl e or ha d significan t spitbac k Servic e statio nfillabilit y

comparison s (sho

w video) : Tes t condition s include d hig hRV P winte r fuel s (14-1 5 RVP ) an

d fil l rate s u p t o 1 2 gal/mi n Onboar d an d stoc k ca r ha d excellen t fil l performanc e Bot hvehicle s substantiall y

superio r t o othe r productio nvehicle s

-32 -. •

* ; .

SUMMARY • Contro l o f refuelin g emission s i s a nimportan t ozon e contro l strateg y • Onboar dha s man y

advantage s ove r Stag e I I • EP A believe s onboar dca nb e implemente dsafel y assumin g sufficien t leadtime

-33 -