-------
-23-
1983 Buick Skylark
1984 Chev. Celebrity
CO
O) "
I.
n ••-••
o»
0>
(0
Cft
O
CO
3
0»
O
05 -.»»?»•
Predicted (gm/gal)
Predicted (gm/gal)
1979 Dodge Truck W150
1979 Chev. 3/4 ton Pickup
co ••—
o>
V-
a
O) '•"•'
E
O) I 9M4
CO
3
(0
3
(A
(0
4)
a
Predicted (gm/gal)
Predicted (gm/gal)
FIGURES 19-22
RESIDUAL PLOTS BY VEHICLE
-------
-24-
The residual plots associated with the Escort and Reliant
both show a distinct pattern of underestimation of refueling
losses (positive residuals) at low predicted values, and
overestimation of higher predicted values. This would indicate
that the fitted model here, dominated by data from the
rear-filled 1983 Cutlass, may not be the most accurate for
other vehicles, particularly side-filled vehicles which have a
large vertical drop in the fill neck.
A further comparison can be made by fitting a multiple
linear regression model, based upon the same parameters as
discussed before, for the Cutlass test results and for the
Escort test results. These are the only two vehicles that have
large enough data bases to make reasonable parameter
estimates. The resulting fitted models are as follows:
Cutlass: Refueling Loss (gm/gal) =
-5.584 - 0.114[AT(°F)] + 0.0857[TD(°F)] + 0.520[RVP(psi)]
R2 = 0.856
Escort: Refueling Loss (gm/gal) =
-6.687 - 0.039[AT(°F)] + 0.081[TD(°F)] + 0.545[RVP(psi)]
R2 = 0.912
The resulting equation indicates that the primary differences
in refueling emission between these vehicles lies in the amount
of vapor shrinkage or vapor growth that occurs during the
refueling event. These processes would naturally be related to
vehicle configuration, so this result appears reasonable.
A few more insights can be gained from an examination of
the residual plots. Aside from the Celebrity whose residuals
are consistently negative, although not as extreme as those for
the LTD, the residuals for all vehicles generally fall within
+ 1 gm/gal. This includes the test results from the two light-
duty trucks which agree well with the prediction eguation, even
though it is based primarily upon automobile tests.
In summary, it is clear that differences do exist from
vehicle to vehicle. Nevertheless, an eguation based upon all
of the data, except the LTD tests for reasons as noted before,
appears to work well on average.
4. Prediction Eolation
a. Fitted Model
A primary goal of this study .has been to develop an
emission factor equation based upon the parameters that affect
refueling emissions. This has been achieved by fitting a
-------
-25-
multiple linear regression model with the data from seven of
the eight vehicles tested.*
The prediction equation developed for refueling emissions
from an uncontrolled vehicle is given as follows:
Refueling Loss (gin/gal) =
-5.909 - 0.0949[AT(°F>] + 0.0884[TD(°F)] + 0.485[RVP(psi)]
R2 = 0.786
MSE = 0.732
This equation will be used to estimate emission factors
under a range of conditions, and also will be compared with
results from other refueling emission studies. The range of
conditions over which actual tests were made is given below:
To = 66-68°F; RVP = 9.0-11.9 psi; AT = 0 to 10°F
To - 78-85°F; RVP = 9.0-12.6 psi; AT = -2 to 40F°
To = 88-95°F; RVP = 9.0-11.9 psi; AT = -12 to 32F°
1. Coefficients
Each of the parameters included in the regression model is
statistically significant at a confidence of 99.9 percent,
i.e., there is less than a 0.1 percent probability that any of
the three parameters has no effect upon refueling emissions.
The magnitude of the effects due to each parameter is given by
the associated coefficient in the regression equation. A 10F°
increase in AT will lower refueling emissions by nearly 1
gm/gal; a 10°F increase in TD will increase refueling
emissions nearly 1 gm/gal; and a 1 psi increase in RVP will
increase refueling emissions nearly 0.5 gm/gal.
There was some consideration as to whether a . linear model
is sufficient to explain the data over the range of conditions
where the regression equation is applicable. A look at the
residuals (actual gm/gal minus predicted gm/gal) can give an
indication as to whether the assumption of linearity is
appropriate. Figures 23-26 show the residuals plotted against
the predicted values and against each independent parameter.
The residual scatter in these plots appears random, and no
systematic trends are evident, which would indicate significant
nonlinearity. Also, several other forms of the regression were
considered in which interaction and nonlinear terms were
included. These are presented in Table 4, along with the
associated R2 . The R2 value is a measure of a model's
* Does not include testing on the LTD or the special tests
on the 1983 Cutlass (single blanket, etc.)
-------
-26-
Table 4
Alternative Formulations of Regression Model
Form of Model _ _ R2
Gm/Gal =
1) exp [ao+ai(TT)+a2(RVP)+a3(TD)(TT)+
ay(TD)(RVP)] .805
2) exp [a0+a.l(TT
a,(RVP)] . .823
3) a0-l-al(TD)+a2(T0)(TT) +
T|) .613
4) a0+ai(AT)+a2(AT2)+a,(TD)+
ay(RVP) .790
5) a0+al(AT)+a2(TD)+
a3(RVP) .786
-------
2.5000 +
2.0000
\.5000
1.0000
-1.0000 *
-t.5000 +
RESIDUAL VALUES vs. PREDICTED VALUES
Fitted Model AM Vehicles
I
to
-2.0000 *
3.7778
2.0000 .a.ma . Kt.M 5.5556 4
2.88B9 4.6667
PREDICTED (gm/gal)
* *
9.1111
8.2222 10.000
-------
2.5000
2.0000 *
RESIDUAL VALUES VS. TTANK-TOI8PKN8BD
1.5000
* *
«»* * * *
* *
*
1 .0000
*
* 2
\* .50000
i
+~r
g
M
«J
.00000
-.50000 +
-1.0000
« * » » *
* * * • *
2 * - * » *
*** * «• » » »
• • *
'* , «• * *
* « * * » 2 *
«* * *
*
* » • » * » *
* * 2 * •* *
» «« « • »
*»» « * * *
*** 2 * *
* * *
* *2 *
•*«2 *
»» *•
* *
* •
00
I
-1.5000 +
* *
-2.0000
-*-»•"
14 000 .00000 14.000 28.000
-7.0000 7.0000 21.000 35.000
42.000
49.000.
TTANK~TD i s FENS BD (°F)
-------
RESIDUAL VALUES vs. DISPENSED TEMPERATURE
2.5000 +
* *
2.0000 +
*
1.5000 * * , ,. .
*
* *
* * *
I.OOpO +
*****
*
+ * * * 2 * •
^"* »» » »
*rt , * . 2 •
0* 50000 * 22* ** 3 •
N ' * * *
*** . * *
. ««*«• »**2 ',
~ 2 • £
J ' * • I
S .00000 ^ • ** — ill - • -
J3 * 2 * * * . •
O * * ** * 2 *
*Tj <. * **•* •
M ',**••*•
g • • 3 * • • ' *
-.50000 * ^ • ',.*.'
* * * *
+ * * • * •
* *• • 3 •
• * * 2*
-1.0000 * * **
2 *
*
+
*
-1.5000 * ' * .
-2.0000 * j __+ + + +
60.000 * 6B.OOO 76.000 84.000 92.000
64.000 72.000 80.000 88.000, 96.000.
ID TEMPERATURE (°F)
-------
2.5000 +
RESIDUAL VALUES vs. FUEL VOLATILITY
2
2.0000
1.5000 +
+
1.0000 *
X-s t
l-»
(0
\ .50000 *
§
a
3 .00000 <
Q
l-»
09
-.bOOOO +
•f
-1.0000 *
*
-1.5000 *
•fr
-2.UOGU »
•
*
2
4
*
* . *
4 2
22
3 *
3
3
4
2
.4
2
•
2
5
3
3 •
•
*
*
2 •
5 •
2
*
»
2
3
3
*
3
4
4
4 •
2 «
4
5 •
2
4
5
2
5
5
*
3
2
5
2
3
2
2
l*
+ + Jt > — -*-—*-—+ *
8.5000
9.0000
9.5000 10.500 11.500
10.000 11.000 12.000
I
U)
o
I
12.500
13.000
REID VAPOR PRESSURE (psi)
-------
-31-
ability to. predict trends that are presented in the data.
These results show that the linear model is sufficient to model
the baseline refueling data, and its simpler form makes it
easier to interpret.
2. Variability
There is a large amount of variability in the results from
the refueling emission tests; values ranged from under 3.0
gin/gal to over 11.0 gm/gal. Nearly 80 percent of this
variation is explained by the three parameters: TD, AT,
and RVP, as indicated by the R2 value associated with the
regression model. However, a fair amount of variability
remains unexplained as shown by the mean squared error value of
0.557 gm/gal.
Much of the remaining variability is due to the
differences in vehicles as discussed before, but other factors
are also involved. Several parts of the test procedure are
subject to certain degrees of error, and can therefore lead to
test variability. The first of these involves the heating of
the fuel tank in the vehicle as mentioned before. What effect
the heating rate may have is unclear. The same can also be
stated for the dispensing rate of the fuel. The heating of the
dispensed fuel in the fuel cart also varies somewhat, and could
very possibly slightly affect the RVP of the fuel.
All of the above effects are generally negligible,
however, in comparison to the effects caused by even a small
fuel spill or spitback at the end of a refueling. Tests in
which spills estimated at over 1/2 of a cup occurred were
generally voided, except where no significant effect -was
noted. However, even a spill as small as 1 1/2 tablespoon
could generate a one gram per gallon increase in emissions if
it were to completely evaporate.* The concern over spills was
large enough to change the test procedure used in this program
to call for manual shutoff of the dispensed fuel. Also, the
effect is large enough to warrant being considered in
determining the total emission factor. This will be discussed
more in the sections dealing with the refueling emission factor.
b. Comparisons to Results from Other Studies
The prediction equation derived here can be: 1) used to
make comparisons with the results measured from other studies,
and 2) compared to prediction equations derived elsewhere. A
brief summary of the results from other studies, and how they
compare to those in this study, is given in Table 5. Overall
the results of this study are in good agreement with past work.
* Using 10 grams/tablespoon and assuming a 15 gallon refueling.
-------
-32-
Table 5
Summary of Results from Previous Studies
Year
1975
Study
Scott
T0(°F)
55-70
AT(°F) RVP(psi)
-30 to 30 8.8, 12.0
Comments &
to Current
Re I ati
Study
on
1975
Scott 80-85
(station)
-20 to 30 8.0-8.8
1975
CAPE9
30-90 -40 to 40 7-13
Laboratory
study;(lab)similar
effects seen
for RVP, To,
and AT;
resulting gm/gal
0-0.5 gm/gaI
I owe r
Field study of 4
Stage 11
Recovery Systems
on vehicles at a
service station
; some base!ine
testing done;
mean values from
baseline results
agree we 11 wi th
predictions from
this study.
Performed in
SCOTT mini-shed
on vehicle
tanks; no tests
of positive
ATs at higher
T0s; can only
compare with
current study at
around AT=OF°;
agreement is
good in this
range.
-------
-33-
Table 5 (cont'd)
Summary of Results from Previous Studies
Comments & Relation
Study T0(°F) AT(°F) RVP(psi) to Current
1975 SRI 68-85 -30 to 45 6.9-8.6(10.6) Tests at a
station on a
vehicle fuel
tank;
comprehensive
tests looking at
many independent
variables that
affect refuel ing
emissions; good
general agreement
with current
study; slightly
low at low ATs
and higher at
high ATs.
1976 ER&E 10-100 -20 to 10 7-13 Fuel tank tested
in control led
environment;
vapors collected
in Tedlar bag;
yields results
1-1.5 gm/gal
lower at 0° AT,
nearly equal at
10° AT.
1976 Union 75-85 -20 to 30 8.8-9.0 Tested random
vehicles at a
refuel ing
station; 29 used
for base Iine
results;
estimates 1
gm/ga I I ower at
0° AT,
approximately
equal at AT 10°
-------
-34-
Table 5 (cont'd)
Summary of Results from Previous Studies
Year
1978
Study T0(°F) AT(°F)
ER&E 85 -1
RVP(psi)
9.1
Comments &
to Current
Re I at
Study
on
Looking at
efficiency of an
onboard control
system on 3
vehicles.
Baseline
est imates .7-1.6
gm/gal lower
than predicted
by current study.
1978
Mob i I
82-85
8.2-12.0 Tests
single
on a
veh i cIe.
Good agreement
with predictions
from current
study.
-------
-35-
In order to estimate the results from other studies using
the prediction equation, information is required on the test
conditions: fuel RVP, tank temperature, and dispensed fuel
temperature. Also the refueling losses need to be reported in
total grams per gallon of refill, or in a form that can be
readily converted to this form. Only a few of the previous
studies met all of these criteria.
In their tests involving Stage II vapor recovery vapor
balance systems at a retail gasoline station, Scott
Environmental arrived at estimates for uncontrolled
emissions.[6] Their study involved two phases of testing: the
first on thirty control vehicles at a service station and the
second on random vehicles. For each phase, two series of
vehicles were tested. Average RVP and dispensed temperature
are only provided for the two series in the second phase of
testing. These two series yielded baseline emissions of 5.505
and 5.593 gm/gal. The average for the other factors are also
given for these two series; RVP = 8.0286 and 8.6440, dispensed
temperature = 81.265 and 81.0196 °F, and tank temperature =
81.867 and 82.0796 respectively. Using these conditions and
the regression equation derived in this report, estimates of
5.109 and 5.352 gm/gal are obtained. These are slightly lower
than obtained by Scott, but still well within the range of
uncertainty in the data.[6]
In a study done by the Mobil Research and Development
Corporation in 1978 a series of refueling emission tests were
run on a 1978 Pontiac Sunbird. During these tests the vehicle
was equipped with an onboard control system, so the total HC
emissions given is the sum of the HC collected in the canister
and the refueling emissions measured in the SHED. These tests
were performed in a SHED, in the same general manner as the
test in this study, with the only exception being that the
vehicle was preconditioned by driving and not just heating of
the fuel tank.[13]
The Sunbird was tested at the following conditions:
dispensed temperature = 82-85°F, AT = OF0, and RVP ranging
from 8.2 to 12.01bs. The resulting losses, along with the
estimates from .this study are given below. The equation
derived in this report is not strictly applicable at RVP levels
under 9.0, but the estimates are given here regardless. Mean
estimates from this study are generally on the high end of the
ranges given by Mobil, but also note the variability in their
test results.
-------
-36-
RVP . tt Tests Total HC (qm/gal) This Study*
8.2-8.5 8 3.72-6.82 5.52
8.6-9.0 10 4.2-5.60 5.74
10.3-10.6 3 5.9-7.1 6.54
11.2-11.4 3 5.5-7.0 6,95
11.8-12.0 3 7.0-7.2 7.24
The Stanford Research Institute study involved tests on a
26-gallon General Motors and a 26-gallon Ford fuel tank used in
1973-4 vehicles, at a service station. The results from the
tests on the GM tank at a fill rate of 5.3 gallons per minute
and a fill of 20 gallons are given below along with this
study's estimates at the given conditions.[9] These tests
represent those most similar to this study's testing. Where
the conditions fall within the ranges for which the EPA
equation is applicable, the agreement is good, generally within
.50 gm/gal. Only when the equation is extrapolated far beyond
'its applicable range is there a significant disagreement with
the SRI results, illustrating the dangers of such extrapolation.
AT To. RVP
-17 79.5 8.5
0 80 8.5
1 80 8.5
2 78 8.5
27 76 8.5
35 79 8.5
41.5 79.5 8.5
43 77 8.5
Exxon Research and Engineering performed a series of tests
on 3 vehicles in 1978, in order to determine the efficiency of
an onboard control system.[13] The vehicles tested were: a
1978 Caprice, a 1978 Pinto, and a 1978 Chevette, and the test
conditions were: AT = -1F°, TD = 85° F, and RVP = 9.1
psi. The resulting averages for each vehicle, along with
predicted values from this study are given below.
GM/GAL
Vehicle ER&E[13] This Study
Caprice 4.9 6.1
Pinto 4.5 • 6.1
Chevette 5.4 6.1
GM/GAL
SRI[2]
5.13
5.03
4.82
4.52
3.07
2.09
1.26
1.42
This Study
6.85
5.28
5.19
4.92
2.37
1.88
1.30
0.94
Difference
1.72
.25
.37
.40
-.70
-.21
.04
-.48
Using 83.5°F and mid-range of RVP interval.
-------
-37-
In this case, the results from this study appear to
significantly overestimate the Exxon results, especially for
the Pinto. The testing on these vehicles was performed with a
prototype refueling canister on each vehicle, and the tests
were part of a larger test sequence including measurements of
evaporative and exhaust emissions. These differences and
consideration of the fact that a comparison is being made
between individual vehicles and one case and a population
average in the other case can explain some of the discrepency
in the results. Also, these vehicles are older and of a
different fuel tank design than those tested here.
Four prediction equations that consider factors other than
AT have been found in the relevant literature. One of these
has a correlation coefficient, r, of only 0.25 associated with
it, so it has not been included in the analysis here. [4] The
remaining equations, and associated parameter regions where
they are applicable are given below.
CAPE9(EPA)[3]
gm/gal = exp[-0.091703 + 0.0011521(RVP)(TD) - 0.0012605(TT)
+ 0.054094(RVP) + 0.00010725(TD)(TT)]
R2 = 0.945
RVP = 7 psi
RVP = 10 psi
RVP = 13 psi
SE - 5.6%
TD = 50 to 90 °F
TD = 40 to 80
TD = 30 to 70
op
op
TT = 50 to 90 °F
TT = 40 to 80 °F
TT = 30 to 70 °F
Exxon Research and Engineering Co.[l]
gm/gal = exp [-1.23 + 0.0185(TD) + 0.00170(TT) + 0.118(RVP>]
R2 = 0.951 SE = 12.4%
RVP = 7 to 13 psi
To = 10 to 100 °F
TT = 30 to 90 °F
AT > -20 °F
Union Oil[2].
gm/gal = -15.178+0.1503(TD)+0.002523(TD)(TT)-0.0000002099(T0)2(TT)2
R2 = 0.5740 SE = 0.3873 gm/gal
RVP = 8.8 to 9.0 psi
TD = 75 to 85 °F
TT = 70 to 115 °F
The equations determined in the CAPE-9, Exxon and Union
studies are based upon 140, 43, and 29 tests, respectively.[1,
2,3] The testing done in the CAPE-9 and Exxon studies was
-------
-38-
performed on a vehicle tank in a laboratory setting.[1,3]
Union performed its testing on vehicles refueling at a retail
gasoline station.[2]
As is readily apparent, the form of these three equations
differ among themselves, and from the equation derived in this
study. This makes a direct comparison of the results somewhat
difficult. Figure 27, however, shows plots of refueling losses
versus for each equation and the Stanford results, at a
dispensed temperature of 79°F and an RVP of 8.5 psi. An RVP of
8.5 psi is slightly out of the applicable ranges for the Union
results and those derived here, but the figure is still useful
for comparison. Figure 28 shows a further comparison of this
study's results to earlier work by EPA as cited in the Scott
study.[6] This is shown in a separate figure as the conditions
are slightly different from those show for the other studies.
Figures 27 and 28 show very good general agreement between
the results from the CAPE 9, Stanford, the earlier work by EPA,
and this study, over their applicable ranges of AT. The
studies by Union and Exxon yield somewhat lower estimates of
refueling losses at negative values of AT, but their results
are not radically different. All in all, considering the
differences in testing apparatus and procedures, the results
from the ,various studies tend to confirm each other and the
results derived here.
Considering the results from these studies, it appears
that the prediction equation derived in this report generally
provides reasonably accurate estimates of refueling emissions
based upon the given parameters within its applicable parameter
ranges. Therefore, there should be no problem in using it to
determine average emission factors and to determine control
system designs and efficiencies.
IV. Calculation of Nationwide Emission Factors
A. Introduction
Analysis of the baseline test data has yielded an equation
that can -be used to calculate emission factors representative
of various AT, TD, and RVP conditions within the
approximate limits of the values for the original test
parameters (see section III C 4). Given this ability to
determine emission rates for different conditions, it then
becomes necessary to determine the most representative
conditions in order to calculate a refueling emission factor
that will accurately reflect national uncontrolled in-use
emissions levels. Because the conditions that determine
-------
COMPARISON of EPA RESULTS to OTHER STUDIES
I
en
co
I
•r,
i/,-
o
.n
6.0 -
5.0 -
4:0 -
3,0 -
RVP = 8.5 psi DISP.TEMP. = 79 F
2
.0 -
1 .0 -
0.0
-40.00
-20.00
-o— EPA84 +---SRI
0.00 20.00
AT (DEGREES F)
• — o— CAPE 9
-A ER&E
40.00
x— UNION
FIGURE 27
-------
COMPARISON of EPA RESULTS to SCOTT STUDY
ta
w
(/)
o
7.0
6.0 -1
5.0 H
4.0 -I
3.0 -I
2.0
1.0-1
RVP = 8,8 psi DISP,TEMP=85 F
0.0
30.00
-10.00
10.00
EPA84
AT (DEGREES F) ilJirhlTAI
.^4---SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL
o
I
30.00
FIGURE 28
-------
-41-
emission rates (basically temperature and volatility of the
fuel) vary from region to region and from season to season
within a given region, it will be necessary to identify
regional and seasonal temperatures and fuel characteristics and
then to apply the appropriate averaging to determine national
emission factors. It is also important to examine seasonal
emission factors to ensure that summer and winter emissions are
not significantly different from the annual average value.
There are two basic uses of a refueling emission factor:
(1) to calculate air quality effects and (2) to determine
health risk due to exposure to the pollutant in question. The
air quality effect of VOC from refueling emissions consists of
the role these emissions play in ozone formation. Ozone
formation tends to be a seasonal phenomenon, with most NAAQS
violations occurring during the spring and summer months, i.e,
May through September. The emission factor used in air quality
calculations should therefore appropriately reflect the
conditions that are found during the ozone season.
In addition to their role as ozone precursors, refueling
emissions may also have environmental health effects. Benzene,
a known human carcinogen, is present in small amounts in
gasoline. In addition, recent studies have indicated that other
species of VOC contained in refueling emissions are possible
carcinogens.[15] Although the effect on humans is not fully
known, refueling emissions may pose a health risk to service
station employees, self-service gasoline customers, and persons
residing near service stations. Because such exposure risk
represents a year-round problem, the emission factor used in
determining health " risk should represent average annual
conditions, although if there are significant seasonal
variations the additional risk posed by these variations would
have to be evaluated.
The remainder of this report will begin with a discussion
of the total emission factor, which includes both spillage and
displacement losses. An appropriate spillage emission factor
will be selected. The process for developing the displacement
emission factor will then be described in detail, including the
methodology used, sources of data, selection of- seasonal
scenarios for air quality and environmental health effects,
determination of representative temperature and fuel volatility
parameters and emission factors for these scenarios. The
question of seasonal differences in the emission factor will
also be addressed. Finally, a representative national emission
factor for refueling will be presented.
-------
-42-
B. Description of Refueling Emission Factors
There are two types of refueling losses that comprise a
total refueling emission factor. These are spillage of liquid
gasoline during the course of the refueling operation and
displacement losses, or the vapor that is forced out the
fillpipe during refueling. Displacement losses occur during
every refueling operation, while spillage or "spitback" is a
more infrequent occurrence.
1. Spillage Losses
A varying portion of the total refueling loss results from
the spillage of liquid gasoline during the refueling process.
The amount of such spillage can vary from a few drops on the
side of the car or pavement as the fueling nozzle is withdrawn
from the fillpipe to a cup or more spurting out on the ground
as a result of "spitback" due to poor fillneck design or a
malfunctioning fuel nozzle. Probably the majority of spills
are less extreme, coming about as a result of motorists or
service station attendants attempting to "top off" the vehicle
tank by restarting the nozzle after automatic shutoff has
occurred. Such spills are normally not large, on the order of
a tablespoon or so. A spill of one tablespoon leaves a 9 to 10
inch diameter circular spot on the service station pavement and
results in emissions of about 10 grams. Thus on a 10 gallon
fill, the spillage would equal about one gram per gallon of
fuel dispensed. Larger spills such as those accompanying
spitbacks or nozzle malfunctions can lead to significantly
higher emissions. A one-half cup spill for the same 10 gallon
fill leads to emissions of about 8 grams per gallon. Thus,
overall, spills are of concern.
Of course not every fillup, or even every attempt at
"topping off" results in a fuel spill and different amounts of
fuel are spilled each time. Unfortunately very few data are
available regarding either the quantity or the estimated
frequency of fuel spills, and there is considerable variance in
the existing estimates. EPA's emission factor document (AP-42)
presents a value of about 0.30 grams per gallon based on a
comprehensive study conducted by Scott Research Laboratories in
the early 1970's.[16] However, an in-depth review of this
study reveals the authors belief that the- spillage rate
estimates should be viewed as minimum values, rather than
averages, due to the presence of observers, the technique used
to estimate spill amounts, and the fact that the stations
studied were primarily full serve rather than self serve.[17]
However, another EPA contractor report cited an estimate of
1.36 grams per gallon, and a ,1980 Calfornia study conducted by
-------
-43-
the South . Coast Air Quality Management District provided
information which indicated an average spillage rate of about
0.80 grams per gallon for uncontrolled nozzles.[18,19]. It
should be noted that the latter study included the brief period
of fuel shortages in 1979, which may have encouraged an
abnormal amount of "topping off" of fuel tanks and hence
slightly higher than normal spillage. The wide variation in
the available data on spillage rates (more than a factor of
four among the three studies) is of some concern. While there
appears to be good reason for the variation, the data is
inadequate to allow determination of a revised emission
factor. In the absence of more definitive information on this
topic, the .30 grams/gallon rate contained in AP-42 seems to
represent the best available estimate of the spillage emission
factor, so this value will be used in this analysis. The
remainder of the discussion will focus on the displacement
emission factor, but it should be noted that the emission
factor for spillage must be added to the displacement emission
factor in order to arrive at a total refueling emission factor.
2. Displacement Losses
As discussed earlier, there are three primary factors and
several secondary factors that determine the displacement
emission rate for refueling operations. The primary factors
are (1) the dispensed temperature (TD) of the gasoline (2)
the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of the gasoline and (3) AT, or
the difference between the temperature of the residual gasoline
in the vehicle tank (TT) and the dispensed temperature of the
gasoline used to refill the tank (ie. TT-TD). To develop
emission factors for refueling operations, it will be necessary
to look at these parameters on a seasonal and national basis.
The most significant of the secondary factors are fuel tank
configuration differences, the effects of which have been
described in sections II and III above, and differences between
the RVP of the dispensed fuel and the residual fuel in the
tank, due to weathering of the tank fuel.
C. Calculation of Displacement Emission Factors
This section will derive nationwide average values for the
three major determinants, AT, TD, and RVP, from which the
uncontrolled displacement emission factors for several
scenarios will then be calculated.
l. Methodology
Overall, the methodology used in this process is to weight
the available regional temperature and RVP data by regional
highway fuel consumption to determine average national values
-------
-44--
for the appropriate time periods for each scenario to be
evaluated. These average values can then be used with the
multiple linear regression equation developed earlier to
calculate representative emission factors. The available data
indicate that there is a considerable amount of regional and
seasonal variation in the the temperature and RVP parameters,
making such a weighting process necessary. Also, the fuel
consumption pattern is far from uniform throughout the U. S.
and the available data are not all aggregated at the same
levels. Fuel consumption and RVP data are available on a
monthly state-by-state basis while AT and T0 data are
available only on a monthly regional basis. The methodology
used to aggregate and weight these parameters will be discussed
following a brief description of the sources of the fuel
temperature, RVP and fuel consumption data that were used.
2. Sources of Data
a. Fuel Temperature
Dispensed temperature and AT data used for calculating
emission factors are available from a 1975 gasoline temperature
survey conducted for the American Petroleum Institute (API) by
the Radian Corporation. [20] The year 1975 is considered to be
a representative year in terms of temperature, since the
average annual ambient temperature was within one degree of the
30 year mean. The study surveyed 56 U.S. gasoline stations
located in 22 cities; these were grouped into six geographic
regions. The six regions and the locations for the stations
surveyed are shown in Figure 29, and the monthly AT and TD
values from the survey are shown in Appendix B.
Not all of the stations reported data for all months of
the year, resulting in a few gaps in the data. The most
serious of these gaps occurred in the Pacific Northwest (region
6 in Figure 29) where AT data were reported only for the
month of May. Since the Pacific Northwest accounts for only
about 3.5 percent of the gasoline consumed for highway use in
the U.S., it was concluded that this region could be omitted
from the analysis without seriously affecting the accuracy of
the results. Alaska and Hawaii were also omitted from the
study, since no AT or TD data were available from these
states. Other minor gaps of a month or so in AT and TD
data, primarily in the North Central U.S. and the Far West
(regions 4 & 5), were filled by points interpolated from the
existing data.
-------
Survey sample stations
cn
I
29
-------
-46-
b. Nationwide Fuel Consumption
Nationwide fuel consumption (gasoline) by state was taken
from the 1983 version of the DOT/FHwA publication entitled
Highway Statistics - Table MF-26. This table contains
estimates of monthly gasoline consumption for each state and
the District of Columbia. Table MF-26 is shown in Appendix B.
To allow for further calculations, the monthly state fuel
consumption figures were summed for each region thus providing
monthly regional fuel consumption values.
c. RVP
The RVP data were taken from 1983 ASTM maximum
specifications for the U.S.[21] The maximum specifications
were used rather than current actual levels on the assumption
that recent increases in RVP would continue and that by 1989
in-use RVP levels would be essentially at the maximum values
specified by ASTM. This is already the case in some areas of
the country. The RVP values for each state and month are also
shown in Appendix B.
To get the RVP data on the same level of aggregation as
the temperature data, the state RVP data was divided into the
same regions as the temperature data and then consumption
weighted to get weighted RVP for each region in each month.
3. Air Quality and Health Effects Scenarios
To facilitate assessment of seasonal variation in the
emission rates, five seasonal air guality and health effects
scenarios were established and AT, TD, and RVP values were
calculated for each. The first scenario is simply the annual
average value for the nation or region. Two additional
six-month scenarios were chosen to represent warm weather
versus cold weather conditions. "Winter" is comprised of the
months October through March, while "Summer" consists of the
months April through September. Two additional scenarios were
chosen to represent the months in which most ozone violations
occur. These include a "Five Month" scenario (May through
September), and a "Two Month" scenario for the two peak ozone
violation months (July and August).
4. Consumption Weighting Calculation
In order to calculate national average AT, TD, and RVP
values for the five scenarios mentioned above, monthly regional
-------
-47-
data were consumption-weighted by the regional fuel consumption
values for the months in question. As explained earlier,
monthly state RVP and fuel consumption values were aggregated
on the same monthly regional basis as the TD and AT data.
The generalized equation for calculating consumption weighted
values for each scenario is as follows:
n
I (ATR,M)(FCR.M)
AT= R,M=1 :____^_
FCr o t a 1
Where R = region number from Figure 29
M = month number (of the seasonal scenario, not
necessarily of the calendar year)
n = number of months and number of regions evaluated in
a given scenario
ATR.W = temperature differential (AT) for region R
during month M
FCR,H = fuel consumption for region R during month M
FCrotai = total national fuel consumption (less region
6, Alaska and Hawaii).
The key parameter shown in the equation above is AT. The
consumption weighted values for the other two key parameters
for any given scenario can be determined by substituting the
appropriate monthly TD and RVP values in the equation above.
This can be done for each of the scenarios mentioned above to
get the appropriate values of the key parameters for use in the
refueling emission equation.
The results of these weighting calculations are shown in
Table 6. Regional and national average AT, TD and RVP
information is presented for five scenarios: annual average,
summer, winter, five month ozone season and two month peak
ozone season. Regional fuel consumption values used in the the
weighting calculations and percentages of total fuel
consumption for each region are also shown for comparison
purposes. As explained above, Region 6 (Pacific Northwest) has
been omitted, as have Alaska and Hawaii. As would be expected,
TD, RVP and -AT values vary both seasonally and from region
to region for any given season. Reasons for this variability
are discussed below.
As can be seen from the table, dispensed fuel temperatures
vary seasonally and from region to region. This is due largely
to climatic factors such as ambient temperature and the amount
of solar radiation. Other relevant variables include the
volume and depth of the underground service station tanks,
layout of the fuel piping, composition of the surface over the
tanks and associated piping (e.g. concrete, asphalt, grass) and
-------
-48-
Table 6
Weighted Temperature and RVP Parameters
REGION:
SCENARIO:
Average Annual
Fuel Consumpt.
(gal x 106)
% Total
RVP (PSI)
A T (°F)
TD (°F)
Summer (Apr-Oct)
Fuel Consumpt.
(gal x 106)
% Total
RVP (PSI)
AT (°F)
TD (°F)
Winter (Oct-Mar)
Fuel Consumpt.
(gal x 106)
% Total
RVP (PSI)
A T (°F)
TD (°F)
Nat'l Avg.
96,050.4
100.0
12.6
+4.4
68.9
51,846.3
100.0
11.5
+8.8
76.2
44,204.4
100.0
13.9
-0.8
60.3
1
N.East
41,658.5
43.4
13.3
+5.7
62.3
22,815.1
44.0
12.2
+10.7
70.7
18,843.5
42.6
14.6
-0.3
52.0
2
S.East
20,381.2
21.2
12.4
+4.0
81.8
10,689.0
20.6
11.4
+6.8
86.7
9,692.1
21.9
13.4
+0.9
76.4
3
S.West
11,977.6
12.5
11.4
+3.7
70.5
6,232.4
12.0
10.1
+7.6
78.6
5,745.3
13.0
12.8
-0.4
61.8
4
N.Cent.
10,225.6
10.6
12.6
+5.5
66.2
5,690.2
11.0
11.2
+11.7
74.3
4,535.5
10.3
14.3
-2.4
56:1
5
Far W.
11,807.6
12.3
11.7
+0.1
70.5
6,419.7
12.4
10.5
+3.9
77.2
5,388.0
12.2
13.3
-4.4
62.4
-------
-49-
Scenario
Ozone - 5 Mo.
Fuel Consumpt.
(gal x 106)
% Total
RVP (PSI)
A T (°P)
TD(°F)
Ozone - 2 Mo.
Fuel Consumpt.
(gal x 106)
% Total
RVP (PSI)
A T (°F)
TD (°F)
NatT Avg.
(May-Sept)
43,995.8
100.0
11.3
49.4
78.8
(Jul-Aug)
18,664.7
100.0
10.9
49.9
82.7
1
N.fest
19,459.4
44.2
12.0
4-11.5
. 73.8
8,326.2
44.6
11.5
4-12.5
78.0
2
S.East
8,956.0
20.4
11.2
4-7.5
88.0
3,760.0
20.1
10.9
4Q.2
90.5
3
S.West
5,244.4
11.9
9.9
4-7.1
80.8
2,147.7
11.5
9.8
4-7.0
83.5
4
N.Cent.
4,869.8
11,1
10.9
4-12.1
79.0
2,103.0
11.3
10.5
4-13.3
86.5
5
Far W.
5,466.2
12.4
10.3
+5.1
79.0
2,327.8
12.5
10.0
4-3.2
83.0
-------
-50-
protection .from solar radiation for the tank system. Although
there is a strong correlation between ambient temperature
(TA) and dispensed temperature, variation exists due to these
other factors. In general, the Radian study for API shows the
average dispensed temperature parallels the average ambient
temperature curve, with a positive offset (i.e., TD is always
higher than TA). The amount of the offset varies seasonally
and regionally, undoubtedly due to climatic differences.
The RVP values shown in the table are ASTM maximum
recommended values. Figure 30 shows the average seasonal and
regional variation in these ASTM RVP values and the resulting
national averages for winter and summer. The regions by which
these data are aggregated are those shown in Figure 29. ASTM
assigns each state a "volatility class" and specifies maximum
recommended monthly RVP limits based on the climatic and
topographic factors. The five volatility classes are
designated A, B, C, D, and E, corresponding to maximum RVP
limits of 9, 10, 11.5, 13.5, and 15 psi, respectively. In
addition, a number of states have formally adopted RVP limits
similar to the ASTM recommended levels.[22] Particularly
noteworthy is California, where RVP is limited to 9 psi during
the months of the highest ozone concentrations in order to
decrease VOC emissions.
In-use RVP is essentially determined by the gasoline
refiners, subject to state laws and voluntary compliance with
the ASTM recommended limits. RVP varies seasonally as well as
regionally, based primarily on how the climate and topography
of an area affect vehicle operation. For example, RVP is
higher in the winter to assist in cold starting but decreases
in summer to avoid vehicle driveability problems such as vapor
lock. RVP values are generally higher for the northeastern
U.S. than the southeastern U.S. In general, for any given
season or area, RVP is higher as ambient temperature for any
given month decreases. The overall trend in in-use RVP has
been toward higher and higher values in recent years, due to
changes in vehicle design and gasoline refining practices,
leading to the conclusion that by 1990 the in-use values will
approximate the ASTM maximum limits.
The final factor, AT, also varies seasonally, with
positive values being more predominant in the summer and
negative values more prevalent in winter. Although there is a
certain amount of regional variation, the seasonal values are
very similar for all areas of the country.
There is also a certain amount of diurnal variation that
affects AT values, which explains the presence of some
-------
SEASONAL RVP VALUES
ASTM MAXIMUM SPECIFICATIONS
Q.
I
CL
AVG ANN
I R1 E33 R2
I NAT. AVG,
SUMMER
SEASONAL SCENARIOS
R3 SS
Figure 3 o
-------
-52-
negative values in the summer and positive values in the
winter. , TD is more stable than TT due to the insulating
effect of the ground in which the service station storage tanks
are buried. Since vehicle tank temperatures follow ambient
temperatures more closely, the likelihood is strong that TT
will be lower for those vehicles fueled in the morning,
resulting in negative, or at least less positive, AT
values. Conversely, diurnal heating would likely result in
higher TT values in the afternoon, resulting in positive
ATs. The distance a car is driven before refueling also
affects TT (TT increases with distance driven, up to a
point) which in turn affects AT. Since these diurnal
effects are recurring and ongoing, one would expect the
differences between summer and winter ATs to be caused by
climatic and not diurnal variations.
5. Emission Rates
Given the weighted regional and national average TD,
AT and RVP values in Table 6 for each of the five scenarios
under consideration, we are now prepared to calculate the
emission rates for each of the scenarios and to assess how the
variation in the key parameters affects emission rates. These
emission rates for the different scenarios are calculated quite
simply by substituting the TD, AT and RVP values of Table 6
into the multiple linear regression relationship developed
earlier (given below) and solving for the emission rate (ER).
ER = -5.909 - 0.0949AT + 0.0884 TD + 0.485 RVP
The results of these calculations for each of the five
scenarios are shown in Table 7. This emission rate data can be
compared regionally within each scenario and between the
various scenarios on a seasonal basis for each region and
nationally.
Turning first to the regional evaluation within each
scenario, several points should be noted. First, overall, the
regional values for each scenario are relatively uniform given
the variation seen in the key parameters of Table 6. All
values fall within + 10 percent of the national average for.
that scenario, with the exception of the southeastern U.S
(Region 2).- In each of the five scenarios the emission rate
expected in the Southeast exceeds the national average for that
scenario by between 16 and 19 percent. The higher emission
rates in the southeastern US apparently occur because of the 10
to 16F° higher dispensed temperatures encountered there, as
compared to the national average. Simply by using the
coefficient for TD in the emission rate equation, it can be
-------
-53-
Table 7
Displacement Emission Factors I/
REGION:
SCENARIO;
Average Annual
Summer (Apr-Sep)
Winter (Oct-Mar)
Nat'l Avg.
5.9
5.6
6.2
iep) 5.6
.ug) 5.7
1
N.East
5.5
5.2
5.8
5.3
5.4
2
S.East
7.0
6.6
7.2
6.6
6.6
3
S.West
5.5
5.2
5.8
5.4
5.6
4
N.Cent.
5.5
5.0
6.2
5.2
5.6
5
Far W.
6.0
5.6
6.5
5.6
6.0
- Displacement losses only - a spillage factor must be added to derive a total
refueling emission factor.
-------
-54-
determined that the 10 to 16F° difference in TD results in an
increase, of 0.9 to 1.4 g/gal in the emission for the various
scenarios. This easily accounts for the significantly higher
emission rate in the this region.
Climatological differences offer the most likely
explanation for the higher dispensed temperatures in the
Southeast. As explained earlier, the average TD value
generally follows the trend of the annual average ambient
temperature curve for any given region, but there is always a
positive offset (i.e., the TD value is greater than the
average ambient temperature), probably because of solar heat
gain and the thermal storage effect of the ground, which in
turn are modified by the other factors noted above in section
C-4. The magnitude of the offset varies during the course of
the year for most regions, particularly where the ground may be
frozen during the winter months. In such areas TD may
approach the ambient temperature in the Spring, when the
ambient temperature rises relatively guickly while the soil
temperature increases more gradually. The offset for the
Southeast, on the other hand, is relatively constant throughout
the year, likely because over most of the area the ground never
freezes and because of greater solar gains and higher ambient
temperatures, particularly during the Winter months.
Second, comparing the seasonal (summer and winter)
emission rates to the average annual rates for each region, all
the emission rates are within +10 percent of the average annual
value except for the North Central U.S. In this case the
seasonal variation is on the order of 12-13 percent, due to
slightly greater seasonal variation in the absolute values of
the key parameters. This relatively small seasonal variation
in the emission factors is likely due to the existence of
offsetting factors in the conditions that determine both Winter
and Summer emission rates. In the Winter months, RVP's are
high and AT values tend to be more negative than during the
Summer. Both of these trends would tend to increase emissions,
but they are offset by lower dispensed temperatures, which tend
to decrease emissions. Conversely, during the Summer dispensed
temperatures are higher, which would increase emissions, but
the higher temperatures are offset by lower RVP's and positive
AT values, both of which tend to decrease emissions.
Third, comparing the two ozone scenarios to the average
annual scenario, the emission rates for all five regions and
the national average do not vary by more than 10 percent. In
this case the average annual values for each region exceed the
ozone scenario values in a range of 0 to about 6 percent. So
overall there is good agreement between the average annual
-------
-55-
emission rates and the emission rates expected in the ozone
prone months. This is true for all regions and on a national
level.
6. Effects of Fuel Weathering
In addition to the three primary factors discussed above,
fuel weathering also affects refueling emission rates. Fuel
tank weathering results in a difference in RVP between the
dispensed fuel and the residual fuel in the vehicle tank, with
fuel in the tank losing volatility due to the evaporation of
lighter ends in the gasoline. The very limited amount of
baseline testing that was done with lower RVP fuel in the
vehicle tank indicates that an increase in emissions, on the
order of a gram per gallon, resulted from an RVP difference of
approximately 1.9 psi between the tank and the dispensed fuel
(see Section III.C.). This general phenomenon was also
observed in the SRI study.[2] Unfortunately, neither the EPA
nor the SRI data are adequate to fully characterize the effect
of the RVP difference, although they do show the direction and
give a rough idea of the magnitude of the change.
In order to be able to include the effect of tank fuel
weathering in the emission rate calculation, one would also
need to know the average amount of in-use weathering that
occurs between refuelings, in addition to the effect of the
resultant difference in RVP values on the refueling emission
rate. This includes both the different vehicle and fuel
effects. Since neither of these variables can be determined
with any certainty at this time, the effect of tank weathering
has not been included in the emission factor calculation.
Although refueling emissions may thus be somewhat understated,
this effect may be partially offset by the method of RVP
determination for the calculation. Use of the ASTM maximum RVP
limits represents EPA's best judgment of future RVP levels.
However, if in-use RVP levels should be lower than these
maximum values, the resulting decrease in the emission factor
would tend to be at least partially offset by an increase in
refueling emissions due to fuel weathering.
D. Conclusions
At the beginning of this investigation it was felt that it
might be necessary to develop both a seasonal emission factor
for air quality calculations and -an average annual emission
factor for health exposure risk calculations. However, the
relative uniformity of the seasonal emission factors indicates
that the average annual values can be used for both purposes
without introducing any significant error into the air quality
-------
-56-
.1
calculations. If only air quality calculations were involved,
it might be more appropriate to use only a summer emission
factor, although by so doing two important "by-products" of the
air quality calculation, the emissions inventory calculation
and the calculated lifetime emissions reduction per vehicle,
would both be understated. An annual average would be more
appropriate for these latter two purposes as well as for health
exposure risk calculations.
On the other hand, use of an average annual emission rate
for air guality determinations may theoretically overstate the
air quality benefits somewhat. The difference between the
summer and average annual emission factors is relatively small
(less than 5 percent), however, and any differences in air
quality calculations, i.e. SMSAs brought into compliance or
percent change in air quality, would likely disappear in the
roundoff of the EKMA model. Thus in practical terms, it would
likely be very difficult to see any differences in the air
quality outputs resulting from the use of the average annual
values, whereas there are real advantages to its use in terms
of emissions inventory, lifetime emissions and cost-
effectiveness calculations.
Finally, it does not appear that there will be a need for
seasonal emission factors for health effects purpose as a
result of changes in the amount of benzene and other
potentially hazardous species in the total VOC emitted. Such
emissions are a function of the percentage of the hazardous
pollutant present in liquid gasoline and the same temperature
considerations that affect the basic VOC emission rate. In
order to have significant seasonal variation in the emissions
of these hazardous species, then, either the seasonal
percentage of these species in the liquid gasoline would have
to vary significantly or, since such emissions are normally
expressed as a percentage of total VOC emissions, winter and
summer VOC emission factors would have to differ significantly
from the annual average. As stated above, the latter condition
is not the case. Correspondingly, the 1983/84 NIPER gasoline
surveys show no significant difference between the winter and
summer benzene percentages in liquid gasoline. For these
surveys average summer and winter benzene fractions in the
liquid gasoline averaged about 1.3 percent.[23,24] Similar
data are not available for other potentially hazardous species,
but there is no reason to believe that the liquid fraction of
these species varies regionally or seasonally. Therefore it is
reasonable to conclude that seasonal differences in the
emission factors will not necessitate separate emission factors
for either health effects or air quality purposes.
-------
-57-
For these reasons, it was decided to use the average
annual displacement value of 5.9 grams per gallon for all
calculations. Adding 0.3 grams per gallon for spillage results
in a national average refueling emission factor of 6.2 grams
per gallon.
-------
Appendix A
BASELINE TEST RESULTS
-------
1983 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
Dispensed Temperature = 82°F 3 RVPs
Test
845638
845639
845637
845632
845636
845631
845628
845630
850113
850114
850115
850117
851354
851355
845950
845951
845945
845947
850057
850104
845943
845944
845946
850105
850106
845941
845942
845948
845642
845641
845627
845294
845625
RVP
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
T(8F)
1.5
0.
10.8
8.1
22.0
18.5
36.7
37.0
12.0
7.7
12.3
11.9
2.3
1.5
-1.1
-.8
11.0
10.0
10.0
11.1
17.0
21.7
20.5
17.2
18.0
34.0
39.5
38.8
-2.0
7.5
8.2
16.6
19.0
Disp.
Temp('F)
80.5
82.0
82.0
83.9
81.0
83.5
82.3
82.0
80.5
83.3
80.0
79.8
81.7
81.5
81.0
83.0
81.0
83.2
82.0
80.8
85.0
80.8
83.0
83.8
81.8
86.0
82.0
81.2
82.5
84.0
84.0
• 84.0
81.0'
Losses
(gm/gal)
5.209
5.456
5.021
5.308
4.407
4.632
3.115
2.918
4.934
4.934
4.331
5.126
5.060
5.133
7.831
8.074
6.490
6.133
6.395
5.947
4.842
4.432
5.743
5.327
5.007
3.830
3.500
3.514
8.938
7.366
6.892
6.290
6.081
Liq.
TernpCF)
82.0
82.0
92.8
92.0
103.0
102.0
119.0
119.0
92.5
91.0
92.3
91.7
84.0
83.0
79.9
82.2
92.0
93.2
92.0
91.9
102.0
102.5
103.5
101.0
99.8
120.0
121.5
120.0
80.5
91.5
92.2
100.6
100.0
Vap.
Temp(°F)
83.0
83.0
93.9
92.5
102.0
100.5
116.0
117.0
92.3
93.0
93.4
90.5
82.5
82.5
82.5
83.0
92.3
92.5
93.0
93.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.5
98.5
118.3
118.0
118.5
83.0
92.5
92.5
102.0
101.0
Disp. Losses
Gals (gins)
14.8
14.7
14.6
14.6
15.0
15.5
14.8
14.6
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.0
15.0
14.8
14.8
14.7
15.0
15.2
15.0
14.6
14.8
14.8
15.0
14.9
15.3
14.6
14.8
14.5
14.5
14.8
14.5
14.9
77.1
80.2
73.3
77.5
66.1
71.8
46.1
42.6
74.5
74.5
65.4
77.4
75.9
77.0
115.9
119.5
95.4
92.0
97.2
89.2
70.7
65.6
85.0
79.9
74.6
58.6
51.1
52.0
129.6
106.8
102.0
91.2
90.6
Disp.
Time
(min.)
2.52
2.53
2.58
2.67
2.63
2.70
3.00
2.58
1.97
1.98
1.98
2.02
1.98
1.97
3.30
3.42
3.25
3.33
1.98
2.00
3.35
3.13
3.33
2.05
1.97
3.50
3.27
3.23
3.62
3.58
3.83
3.68
3.38
Heat
Time
(min.)
28.00
24.00
52.00
50.00
36.00
37.00
74.00
67.00
42.00
32.00
30.00
48.00
28.00
32.00
24.00
24.00
60.00
46.00
46.00
45.00
35.00
40.00
37.00
39.00
39.00
68.00
61.00
72.00
25.00
48.00
60.00
39.00
41.00
Dispensed Temperature = 92°F 3 RVPs
845289
845290
845280
845292
850110
850111
850112
851356
851357
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
-11.0
8.3
29.0
27.8
1.5 .
1.5
2.2
15.2
8.4
91.0
92.0
91.0
91.2
90.5
90.5
90.0
88.0
92.0
6.952
6.324
4.257
4.097
6.470
6.831
5.887
4.700
6.060
80.0
100.3
120.0
119.0
92.0
92.0
92.2
103.2
100.4
81.8
101.0
119.0
116.0
92.5
93.5
94.2
100.0
97.0
14.5
14.2
14.8
14.5
14.9
15.4
15.1
15.0
15.1
100.8
89.8
63.0
59.4
96.4
105.2
88.9
70.5
91.5
2.88
2.95
2.78
2.82
2.05
2.07
2.00
2.00
2.05
26.00
38.00
67.00
67.00
34.00
34.00
36.00
44.00
32.00
-------
845931 11.9 -1°-5
845932 11.9 -10.3
845935 11.9 2.0
845937 11.9 1-0
850054 11.9 2.5
850053 11.9 -1.0
845938 11.9 9.5
845939 11.9 10.1
845933 11.9 22.1
845936 11.9 30.6
850055 11.9 25.9
850056 11.9 28.8
845956
845957
845954
845955
845953
845107
845276
845102
845103
845109
845105
845106
845275
845286
845287
845961
845959
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
-11.0
-10.0
1.8
2.0
11.8
-10.8
-11.0
2.0
-1.0
-3.2
7.1
8.0
27.5
10.5
-3.5
-6.0
-3.9
92.0
91.3
90.0
91.0
90.5
93.0
92.0
91.8
92.0
90.9
93.0
91.2
91.0
90.0
90.2
90.0
90.8
90.8
90.0
90.0
92.7
93.2
91.6
91.5
92.5
92.5
92.0
92.0
91.6
10.250 81.5 81.5
11.431 81.0 83.0
8.307 92.0 91.5
7.270 92.0 93.0
10.060 93.0 90.8
9.765 92.0 92.0
8.066 101.5 102.5
7.815 101.9 103.0
4.921 114.1 109.9
3.311 121.5 119.0
4.066 118.9 117.8
4.821 120.0 117.2
8.597
8.128
6.966
7.240
6.479
Single
6.353
6.651
5.980
6.153
6.554
5.027
5.060
3.453
Road
4.815
6.060
7.985
6.514
Dispensed Fuel IOTP =
850904
850913
850885
850887
850901
850902
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
0.0
3.1
3.2
3.0
4.7
4.0
92.0
90.8
Large
90.8
91.0
89.0
89.0
9.566
8.731
80.0
80.0
92.0
92.0
102.6
82.3
83.0
93.0
92.3
102.0
15.2 155.8
15.3 174.9
15.0 124.6
15.2 110.5
14.9 149.9
15.3 149.4
15.2 122.6
15.1 118.0
15.1 74.3
14.8 49.0
15.2 61.8
15.1 72.8
14.9
14.9
14.8
15.0
14.6
128.1
121.1
103.1
108.6
94.6
4.52
4.53
3.98
3.77
3.08
3.28
4.22
4.22
4.05
3.60
2.55
2.32
3.48
3.43
3.33
3.42
3.33
32.00
24.00
46.00
53.00
40.00
42.00
40.00
39.00
67.00
65.00
49.00
58.00
21.00
24.00
48.00
48.00
35.00
Blanket Data
80.0
79.0
92.0
91.7
90.0
98.7
99.5
120.0
Prep Data
103.0
88.5
86.0
87.7
11.9 TanK
92.0
93.9
78.0
76.0
86.5
86.0
84.0
95.6
96.4
114.0
105.9
90.0
87.5
88.7
Fuel KVP
88.0
90.3
15.0
14.6
15.0
15.0
14.8
15.0
14.9
15.0
14.6
13.4
13.5
14.2
= 10.0
14.5
14.5
95.3
97.1
89.7
92.3
97.0
75.4
75.4
51.8
70.3
81.2
107.8
92.5
138.7
126.6.
2.85
2.83
2.93
2.97
2.93
2.93
2.80
2.87
2.60
3.15
3.22
2.27
2.25
36.00
42.00
96.00
178.00
74.00
212.00
173.00
306.00
182.00
172.00
185.00
159.00
16.00
19.00
Vapor -Liquid Temperature Differences
8.220
8.140
8.947
9.093
94.0
94.0
93.7
93.0
86.8
87.0
104.0
102.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
123.3
122.1
134.2
136.4
2.07
2.10
2.10
2.07
16.00
16.00
36.00
34.00
-------
1984 Ford Escort
Dispensed Temperature = 80°F 2 RVPs
851161
851162
851163
851165
851164
851166
851213
851214
850304
850012
850014
850311
850314
850312
850313
850013
850303
850011
850310
850309
850307
850308
851160
851167
851168
851169
851211
846446
846447
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
11.9
11.9
3.7
4.0
9.3
12.5
21.2
22.5
10.5
20.5
1.5
12.0
12.7
2.7
11.8
11.1
13.4
3.7
3.7
13.3
4.5
12.0
22.0
23.0
20.2
8.9
4.5
4.8
6.0
2.0
.7
80.0
79.0
80.7
81.0
80.3
78.5
81.0
80.5
4.456
4.308
4.269
4.574
4.221
3.159
4.673
4.346
83.7
83.0
90.0
93.5
101.5
101.0
91.5
101.0
81.2 6.091 82.7
80.0 5.750 92.0
80.3 5.606 93.0
80.0 5.595 82.7
81.2 5.694 93.0
81.0 5.654 92.1
79.1 5.455 92.5
80.0 6.255 83.7
80.0 5.991 83.7
79.6 5.890 92.9
78.5 6.279 83.0
80.5 6.077 92.5
80.5 5.390 102.5
80.0 5.202 103.0
80.0 5.567 100.2
Dispensed Temperature
85.0
89.5
89.7
89.0
92.5
92.3
4.740
5.221
5.115
4.875
7.903
7.228
93.9
94.0
94.5
95.0
94.5
93.0
83.0
83.0
91.9
92.5
101.8
102.5
91.7
101.0
84.0
94.0
94.0
82.3
92.7
92.2
91.8
83.9
84.0
93.0
83.7
95.0
103.0
105.0
102.0
= 908F 2 RVPs
94.5
93.2
91.0
96.0
98.2
98.0
10.3
10.4
10.4
10.8
10.4
10.7
10.4
10.4
11.0
10.8
10.9
11.1
11.1
10.7
11.2
11.0
11.6
10.9
10.4
10.4
10.5
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
11.3
11.4
45.9
44.8
44.4
49.4
43.9
33.8
48.6
45.2
67.0
62.1
61.1
62.1
63.2
60.5
61.1
68.8
69.5
64.2
65.3
63.2
56.6
54.1
57.9
49.3
54.3
53.2
50.7
89.3
82.4
4.46
1.37
1.37
1.43
1.43
1.42
1.37
1.35
1.47
1.42
1.43
1.45
1.45
1.40
1.47
1.43
1.45
1.45
1.38
1.43
1.43
1.40
1.38
1.40
1.42
1.38
1.38
1.63
1.63
17.00
16.00
28.00
32.00
40.00
44.00
28.00
42.00
25.00
57.00
56.00
32.00
50.00
52.00
58.00
24.00
25.00
50.00
28.00
45.00
40.00
38.00
42.00
32.00
30.00
32.00
30.00
26.00
21.00
Dispensed Temperature = 66°F
850305
850306
11.9
11.9
7.5
5.0
66.5
'67.5
5.029
5.286
74.0
72.5
73.9
72.0
10.5
10.5
52.8
55.5
1.35
1.37
6.00
5.00
-------
1983 Plymouth Reliant
851151
851150
851152
851153
851154
851155
845486
845487
845492
845493
851157
851156
851159
851246
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
9.0
9.0
11.9
11.9
9.0
9.0
11.9
11.9
2.S
1.7
10.0
19.3
14.1
18.0
1.5
-1.5
3.0
1.3
4.3
4.0
5.5
5.6
80.0
81.8
81.0
80.0
79.9
81.0
90.5
91.5
89.0
91.0
68.0
69.0
68.0
68.3
6.265
6.640
6.439
4.969
5.316
6.109
5.577
5.677
6.839
7.036
3.763
3.939
5.299
5.323
82.5
83.5
91.0
99.3
94.0
99.0
92.0
90.0
92.0
92.3
72.3
73.0
73.5
73.9
84.3
84.0
89.0
97.5
94.0
99.7
86.5
87.0
88.3
89.5
73.2
72.0
77.5
78.0
9.8
10.0
9.8
9.6
9.5
10.1
10.4
9.9
11.2
11.2
9.7
9.8
9.7
9.9
61.4
66 A
63.1
47.7
50.5
61.7
58.0
56.2
76.6
78.8
36.5
38.6
51.4
52.7
1.32
1.32
1.30
1.28
1.48
1.37
1.92
1.87
3.12
3.17
1.30
1.32
1.28
1.30
16.00
16.00
32.00
44.00
32.00
38.00
38.00
38.00
42.00
43.00
6.00
4.00
12.00
14.00
1983 Buicfc SKylarfc
846410
846413
846454
846453
846412
846452
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
2.7
13.0
-.9
-2.0
.5
.5
90.5
85.0
94.3
93.5
92.0
92.0
7.925
6.471
7.540
7.353
7.365
7.708
93.2
98.0
93.4
91.5
92.5
92.5
92.2
91.0
91.9
90.0.
90.6
94.3
13.4
13.6
13.7
13.6
13.7
12.0
106.2
88.0
103.3
100.0
100.9
92.5
3.75
2.32
2.15
2.05
2.05
1.80
28.00
28.00
26.00
23.00
20.00
19.00
1984 Chevrolet Celebrity
850205
850209
850208
850207
850206
850204
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
12.7
10.7
13.2
.7
-.5
2.6
80.0
81.0
78.8
91.8
92.5
89.4
4.632
4.596
4.706
6.333
6.876
6.080
92.7
91.7
92.0
92.5
92.0
92.0
92.2
92.0
92.1
96.0
94.5
94.0
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.8
13.7
13.8
63.0
62.5
64.0
87.4
94.2
83.9
1.78
1.78
1.85
1.95
1.95
1.93
44.00
38.00
40.00
58.00
38.00
36.00
1983 LOT Crown Victoria
850400
850401
850402
850404
850405
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.2
11.8
11.0
1.0
1.8 .
80.8
79.2
80.5
90.8
90.0
7.448
7.200
7.558
11.166
10.500
92.0
91.0
91.5
91.8
91.8
95.0
94.0
94.2
95.4
94.2
15.4
14.5
15.4
15.7
15.6
114.7
104.4
116.4
175.3
163.8
2.02
1.90
2.05
2.30
2.25
58.00
51.00
42.00
34.00
36.00
1979 Chevrolet 3/4 Ton PicJcup
850689
850690
850691
850686
850688
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
14.5
13.2
10.3
-.1
2.6
81.7
82.3
82.3
91.3
89.7
6.048
5.813
5.795
7.916
7.964
96.2
95.5
92.6
91.7
92.3
92.0
93.0
93.5
93.2
93.5
16.6
16.6
.16.6
16.7
16.6
100.4
96.5
96.2
132.2
132.2
2.33
2.27
2.30
2.43
2.58
32.00
28.00
28.00
38.00
32.00
-------
850990 11.9
850991 11.9
850987 11.9
850988 11.9
1979 Dodge Truck W150
12.5.
12.0
2.1
.2
• 80.0
80.0
91.7
91.8
6.593
6.456
8.984
8.950
92.5
92.0
93.8
92.0
94.0
92.7
95.0
91.8
18.2
18.0
18.3
18.0
120.0
116.2
164.4
161.1
2.47
2.38
3.30
2.78
46.00
42.00
30.00
40.00
-------
Appendix B
Fuel Consumption Weighting Data
-------
HIGHWAY USE OF 8A80LINE BY NONTH8 - 1883
C04WUI* rot TM CAUMM MM
MOM M M*l«*I* «f NDTM-f Ml i
'IWOMMM •» «AllM*l
TMII NT-M
MWNMt 1*14
•TATS
AlAIANA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
AkKAKSAS
CAiiFoiaiA
COIOHAOO
COIMCCTieUT
OELAWAII
oist. or coi.
FIOIIOA
CIOICIA
NAUAII
IDAHO
ULIMI*
IMIAM
IOWA
KANSAS
KIRTUCKT
IOUISIAM
MAIM
NAMIAND
NASSACNMtm
MICHICM
NUaiSOTA
NISSIMIMI
HISSOUII
NMTAM
UIIAIKA
MVAPA
MM NAMTMIM
MW JIHSSV
MW WtllCO
MM TOK
>0*TH CAMM.IIA
MWTN MKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OMCOH
mMS«lVMIA
•NODI lit AW
SOUTH CAtOlIM
SOUTH MKOTA
TSMlMtt
TIKAt
HTAH
WflMMT
•IIICIIIIA
WAKHIMTM
WMT VIMIIIA
WISCOMU
moMiwt
TOTAL
FUCK ITA£I
TA» *ATt
o*
MCtNMI SI
II* CUTS
Tl»
•ALLO*)
U
II
II
s.s
1
It
14
II
14. 1
I.T
7.1
i.»
14. •
II
II. 1
It
1*
I*
1*
It.*
II
It
I*
»
II
It.l
It
14
II
It
It
U
•.I
It
It
15
u
u
u
i*
u. »
it
•
».»§
-
•
MWAIT
IIT.Ttl
ll.TII
llt.ttt
•l.tft
744, Til
1*7,117
•4. ft*
IT.MT
II. Ml
Ml. Ill
M*.4M
IS. II*
14. »4?
M4.«M
111. Itl
M.141
•4.1(1
tl«.i(0
1(4.111
M.I4*
llt.tIT
llt.(l(
tM.tU
111,4*1
TI.I1T
!4«.T*t
»l.(S*
41, (Tt
tt.ut
M.ltt
It*. tit
«»,»••
»l».t(»
MI. Ml
M.m
M>,»I4
I14.M?
Tt.tt*
t?t.*4»
M.4IS
t«.(44
K.TM
IM.t«4
til.***
41. M4
14. m
1 »•,!»»
IM.lt>
41. M(
IM.4M
IT.tft
• .NT .Ml
t.S4
flMMM
lt».M(
•K.ttt
ItT.Mt
••.IT*
T!T,«4S
tl.TM
M.tTI
It.tTt
11.114
1T4.*!1
Mt.*l*
tt.ltt
M.Mt
IT4.M4
Mt.tM
M.tM
(I.MI
•T.M*
IM.ttt
M.MT
IM,»4t
Ut.Ttt
tM,M4
U4.tM
M.4N
!4*.tT(
M.Mt
44. »M
ti.tr*
M.Mt
tta.iM
ta.Mt
ttl.MI
110. TM
It.UT
M*,tl(
114.114
TT.tll
ITt.ttt
It. 1(1
IM.MI
U.TI4
l»T,t4«
•M.M*
M.Mt
tt.ITt
IOT.MI
IHT.tM
4*.*M
IIT.TIt
K.I4J
(.(M.TII
t.Ti
NUtCN
Ut.MI
It.ltt
114,114
•t.tT4
t 10. 1*1
US. II*
•T.Ttt
tl.TtT
It .Ml
4tl ,MT
Ml,(l(
M.M*
11. Ml
141. ttl
1*1. ttt
ltt.lt!
M.TM
III. let
IT4.4W
IT.tIT
141, 4IT
ITt.TM
(41.144
141. Sit
M.M1
iM.tai
t».m
• 14. tit
it. (it
M.tM
IT*. 11*
M.44I
It*, Ml
III.M4
H.M4
UI.I4I
IU.M1
M,t4l
IM.tTT
M.Mt
II*. 141
M.MI
IT*. Ml
•M.MI
tl.4tl
IT. (41
1*1. tl*
IM.MT
tl.M!
IM.M4
M.IIT
T. Ml. 4*1
!.*>
MIK
I4«.»7I
11,11*
II*. Ut
tl.IM
Ml. Ml
III.***
1*1. 4M
M.MT
11.14*
4U.W
Ml. 1*4
14, M4
11.11*
IM.lll
Ml. Ml
IM.M*
M.4K
114.4*1
ITt.lll
•1T.IJ*
1*1.4*1
ITI.IU
174.1**
IM.MI
M.Mt
IM.tlt
IT.tll
U.1I4
M.M4
IT, lit
1(1.1*7
17.171
1*7.147
141. TIS
M.MI
Ml. IS*
ltl.lt*
M.MI
lll.lt*
M.MI
117. II*
14,114
1*4.7*7
(TT.(I(
M.m
it, M*
Ml ,1*1
III. Ill
((,(14
141, TI4
It. 11*
1. 1(1.474
•.IT
NAT
I**.***
II. Ml
II*. II*
It*. 17*
114.IM
III. Ml
111,71*
IT. 141
14. Ml
4*1. ttt
1 tl.TM
14. IX
IT. Ill
411.117
' tlt.tlt
114. Ml
1*1. Til
•I1I.T44
114. ttl
41,111
III. Ttl
111.141
III. Ill
II*. tl*
104. Ill
S14.II1
M.TI4
(t.Mt
41.11*
14.MT
MI.4IT
71. Tl*
471.111
141. Ml
M.MI
4*1. Ml
1*1.171
101. Ill
111.414
M.MI
IM.MI
tf.tll
lll.lt*
T«l.*l*
14.111
M.MI
117.1*1
III. 41*
It.***
ITI.ITT
11.11*
•.Mt.M*
*.ll
MM
II*. IIS
It. Ttl
II*. tit
M.4M
Ml. Ill
114. TM
III. Ill
St.TT*
14,111
Ml, III
III. tit
14.111
It.ttt
MI.ITt
III, III
IM.MI
111. Ml
III. til
IT1.ITI
M.SM
1(4. IM
ItT.ltl
llt.tM
III. 144
111. Ml
tt*.*lt
I I.MI
IT, III
41. Til
tl.M*
"IM.47I
Tl.M*
411.111
14T.1I1
It. IT)
1*1,114
lit. (It
IM.4T*
171. Ill
M.ltt
lit. IT*
ll.ttt
IM.tlt
TM.1M
(!.*!•
II. (14
111.7*7
1*7.11*
TI.*T*
1*1. IM
It. Ill
• .•M.Mt
*.M
,. . ii,.!!" IS!11 1* OM OF A SIKHS INT-SI TMCWCH NT-MI «IVIM A* AJULTIIS Of NOTOI-FML
JSSliSr1!?1;^-^!.*^,***" °" «»««• '«">" »T*W NOTC«-Hlll TA« ACIKIIS. II THIS! TMIM
S^iSTSLJ! iSlX!i! Xl!" "*»••«. u MMI TO HAKI TM MTA umrom AM CONFLIU. ISTIFMTI* «f
KSXJJSS'.SPf JSS.41" "»•* >• *M> «**«» •' TIM TIMIAl NISHUAT AMIJHSTIATION. TM
U*SiII5".5*ilS!SS?L!lf!!11 '• "*•* «•«*•««• '•«• TM MMJHSTM »ATA UCOMK u IAILI NT-I.
• - ~«. TO AMIOIINATI ACTUAL HSt. TW NMTM.T •ISTIItHTIMI MM IfTINATM S» TM FltltAl
ML*
llt.M*
1.14*
Itl.tTl
III.M4
l.ttl.tll
111, Ml
llt.M*
tl.lt*
II.1T1
411, Ml
Itl.tTt
IT.tIT
41.111
' 411. Itl
147,1*1
I1T.IT4
llt.lt*
IM.I1T
III. 411
M.M*
1*1.11*
ttl, til
MI.7M
ITI.tTT
IM.tlt
I4I.IM
M.MI
Tt.ttt
47. !!»
M.Mt
IM.MI
4*. MI
Mt.Ml
1*1,141
It. Ttl
411.117
17*. Ml
III. 117
414.114
14.71*
IM.4M
M.IM
111.11*
TIT. 171
M.IM
14.114
Itl. 11*
IM.I44
Tl.M*
IM.tTT
M.4I1
t.MI.ITI
».*T
AMMT
171.171
ll.tl*
III.1T1
lit.***
i.MT.in
llt.TM
114. M*
11.7*7
11.141
41*. TM
IM.tT*
M.tM
44. Itl
417.71*
I4I.ITI
141.14*
II*. Ml
I4*.*7»
114 .Ml
M.tM
IM.MI
117. Itl
IM.IM
IM.MI
IM.M*
144. M*
11,111
11.11*
4T.I4I
44.1*7
MI.M7
M.M*
•M.ITT
llt.TM
M.Mt
4I4.MI
ITI.14T
III. Ml
III.Mt
M.M4
141, »TI
M.IM
III. 114
III. Ill
•1.141
M.TM
. (M.IM
III. t 14
Tt.MI
IM.tt*
M.MI
• .IM.M*
*.W
MrTINM*
Itl. It*
lt.lt*
IM.tTT
M.tTI
tit .IT*
111,41*
III. ttt
IT. Ml
14, MT
171.411
111,411
tt.MI
M.MT
ttt. Itl
IM.Mt
lll.tl*
111.441
111. Ml
IM.1T*
M.TM
III. Ill
Itl. Ml
114, IM
ItT.III
M.4M
Mt.lll
M.IM
•1.174
41. IM
M.TM
MI.IM
Tl.M!
471.111
IM.MI
11. IM
111 .Ml
I44.TM
1*1.71*
Mt.Ml
M.tM
llt.M*
tt.MI
IM.Mt
Mt.M*
M.MT
It. Ill
II 1.141
IM.MI
17. IT*
174. IM
M.Mt
• .IM.MI
•.M
OCTMtl
141.111
1.41*
III. Ml
IT. 114
111,471
111,141
IM.MI
14.111
I4.(4(
4*1. 114
lit. lit
tl.IM
11. Ml
III. 114
1M.IIT
111.7*1
IM.tlt
141.4*1
177.144
4*. 4(1
II1.M4
111. 411
lit. Ill
III.Mt
11.411
III .114
11.111
ll.Mt
M.MI
I4.1M
Ml.tM
M.M*
4T1.I7I
141.11*
11.4*4
Mt.lll
IM.Mt
17.141
Ml. 171
11.41*
II*. 411
11.171
1*7.14!
•11.141
IT.tIT
1I.IIT
114.1*1
111,171
(I.II4
IM.M4
II. Ill
• .M1.IM
• .M
MWNMI
141. ttl
M.IM
II1.4IT
M.lll
•M.IM
IM.IM
M.IM
11,111
11.17*
411,111
111,111
14. IM
11.144
Ml. Ttt
It*. 11*
IM.IM
14.lt*
I1T.I4*
ITI.I4I
.M.M*
14*. IM
1*7,111
Mt.lll
144.111
M.IM
IM.MI
ll.Mt
M.M*
M.M*
M.Mt
ITI.lt*
M.M*
411. Ill
111.1*1
II .Ml
141.411
141.171
M.M4
Itl. ITT
M.M*
II*. tit
11,11*
III.Mt
Ml.tM
41, TIT
14. Tt*
ItT.Ilt
141. »TI
•4.7*1
IM.IM
It. 141
l.Mt^M
l.M
MCMMk
IM.Mt
ll.Mt
II*. M*
(1.1*4
141. Ill
M.IM
ll.tl*
14.111
11.117
441. Ill
141. Ml
14.17*
M.lll
ttl. Ml
114. Ttl
M.11T-
•I.MI
IM.MI
Itl.MI
M.MI
14*. 4M
17*. Ml
ttt.M*
Ut.MI
II. Ml
lit. 411
14.1*1
U.AI7
14.111
M.M*
ITI.M*
M.M*
IM.Mt
114,114
ll.Mt
141, M4
IM.IM
•I ,»•»
Mt.tM
tl.M*
II*. Ill
II. 41*
171.711
IM.Mt
•l.M*
It.ltt
III.MT
141.41*
M.IM
14*. IK
l*.tl*
7.IM.1TI
t.M
TOTAl
l.llt.44t
IM.Mt
l.tll.MI
I.Mt.MI
II.II4.KT
I.IM.I4I
1. ITT. Ml
MI.IM
IM.Mt
4.IM.II*
t, 141. 11*
IM.IM
411. Ml
4. Ml. TIT
I.MI. Ill
1. 114. MI
I.II4.IM
1.1(4. (IT
t, MI.IM
Mt.tM
l.M*. 144
t.MT.ITT
I.MI. II*
I.MI. 47*
1. II*. Til
1.414. Ill
411. »l*
IM.M4
414, IM
t*4.*44
•.lit. IT*
III. 114
*.III.*M
I.TM.IM
IM.MI
4,411,111
1. IT*. 441
l.l*l.*74
4, lit. 411
Ml. lit
I.4M.TT4
lit. 4*1
t.ttt.TTI
1. III. 147
III. Itl
111.114
1.471. 414
1. 117. 141
771.411
I.MT.tlt
tM.MT
M.M*. II*
IM.M
CHAHCI
FION
llll
MLIMI
1
t
tt.MT
-ll.Mt
M.MI
'•.111
114.171
-M.II4
11.140
M.TM
-T*l
1*7. 117
M.TII
TM
II. Ill
III. IT*
44.171
14, (11
• II. IT*
11.147
K.TIT
.•II
• .•41
M.lll
-11.411
•T.Mt
It, III
M.lll
11.417
-t.MI
7*1
11.141
til. Til
IM
-17.7*4
M.TII
-I. Itl
M.MI
-11.171
-TO*
II. Ill
-1.4*7
11,111
-7,111
-11.411
141.111
1.114
l.lll
11,1*1
M.MT
-14.141
11.174
-14.111
1. IM.Mt
-
ri«-
CIIT
1.1
-t.i
t.i
i.(
t.T
-1.1
I.I
1.7
-9.4
1.
1.
0.
I.
I.
1.1
I.T
l.t
1.7
*.*
1.4
1.1
I.I
-I.I
t.«
I.I
1.4
1.1
-I.I
t.t
I.I
I.I
*.l
-I.I
I.I
-1.*
*.*
•l.t
-1.1
1.*
-I.*
l.t
-1.1
-l.«
1.1
1.0
*.*
t'.t
-1.1
1.1
-4.4
l.t
-
HIMMAT AMUIimATIO* HIM WMt MT». TM tlTtltt 111 TAMI W-M Will MOT MMI WITH THOtt
1* TAW.I NT-IMA. TAIlt NT-M MOM MIIIIUAT «M »M.* Mill TMII NT-ltCA MrilCT* MAM CAllMt
•r «A*oiiM urotnt *» WMXIMII timitirroM TO TM ITATI TAIIM ACIKUS IACH MOTN. •~<-'"'
tl ttt TM IATII M OT MMMM 1, ltd M* FM IATI CHAWII WWIM THI «tM HI TMll
MT-ltTT. ITATU -WTH VAtlAlll IATH Ml AltO INMiril* III TMII NT-HIT.
-------
Listing of STATEDATA-RV at 07:49:43 on JUL 23. 1985 for CC1d=SN81
Page
$
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31'
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
ST
AH
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
OL
FL
GA
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
KV
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
NB
NC
NO
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NV
OH
OK
OR
PA
HI
SC
SO
TN
TX
UT
VA
VT
Ml
WN
WV
MY
HA
JAN
15.0
13.5
1S.O
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13. 5
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
11.5
FEB
15.0
13.5
13.5
13. 5
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
1S.O
15.0
13.5
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
11 .5
MAR
15.0
13.5
13.5
11 .5
13.5
13.5
15.0
13.5
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
13.5
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
11.5
11.5
15.0
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
13.5
11 .5
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
1 1 .5
APR
15.0
11.5
11.5
10.0
11.5
11.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
11.5
11.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
11.5
13.5
11.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
11.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
10.0
11.5
13.5
13.5
11.5
13.5
13.5
13. 5
13.5
13.5
13.5
11.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
11.5
MAY
15.0
11 .5
11 .5
10.0
11 .5
11.5
13.5
11.5
13.5
11.5
11 .5
11 .5
11.5
11 .5
13.5
11.5
11 .5
1 1 .5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
10.0
10.0
13.5
13.5
11 .5
13.5
13.5
13.5
.5
.5
.5
0.0
.5
.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
11.5
11.5
JUN
13.5
11 .5
11 .5
9.0
10.0
10.0
11 .5
11.5
11 .5
11.5
11 .5
11 .5
10.0
11 .5
11 .5
10.0
1 1 .5
11 .5
1 1 .5
11 .5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
10.0
10.0
1 1 .5
11 .5
1 1 .5
1 1 .5
9.0
10.0
1 1.5
11 .5
10.0
1 1 .5
11.5
11 .5
11.5
10.0
11.5
10.0
10.0
1 1 .5
1 1 .5
11.5
11 .5
11.5
10.0
11 .5
JUL
13.5
11 .5
10.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
11 .5
1.1.5
11 .5
11.5
11.5
1 1 .5
10.0
11.5
11 .5
10.0
11 .5
1 1 .5
11 .5
1 1 .5
11.5
11.5
11.5
10.0
11.5
10.0
10.0
11 .5
10.0
11 .5
11 .5
9.0
10.0
11.5
11.5
10.0
10.0
11 .5
1 1 .5
11.5
10.0
11.5
10.0
10.0
11.5
1 1 .5
11 .5
11 .5
11.5
10.0
11 .5
AUG
13.5
10.0
10.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
11.5
11.5
11 .5
11.5
10.0
11.5
10.0
11 .5
11 .5
10.0
1 1 .5
10.0
1 1.5
11 .5
11.5
11.5
11.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
11 .5
11.5
9.0
10.0
11.5
11.5
10.0
10.0
11 .5
11.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
10.0
11.5,
SEP
15.0
11.5
11.5
9.0
10.0
10.0
11.5
11.5
11 .5
11.5
1 1 .5
11 .5
10.0
11 .5
11 .5
10.0
11 .5
11 .5
13.5
1 1 .5
13.5
13.5
11.5
11 .5
11.5
11.5
10.0
11.5
11 .5
13.5
13.5
10.0
10.0
13.5
11.5
10.0
1 1 .5
13.5
13.5
11.5
10.0
11 .5
10.0
10.0
11.5
13.5
11 .5
11.5
11.5
10.0
1 1 .5
OCT
15.0
11.5
13.5
10.0
11.5
11.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
11.5
11.5
13.5
1 1.5
13.5
13.5
11.5
13.5
1 1 .5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
11 .5
13.5
11.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
11.5
10.0
13.5
13.5
11.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
11.5
13.5
11.5
11.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
1 1 .5
11 .5
NOV
15.0
13.5
13.5
11.5
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
13.5
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
11.5
15.0
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
1 1 .5
DEC
15.0
13.5
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
11.5
-------
Listing of OELTATMO at 07:49:15 on JUL 23. 198S for CC1d=SN81 Page
OCT< NOV DEC
3.4 0.2 -5.4
2.4 -7.8 -3.5
2.7 -4.B -1.9
2.1 -3.4 6.1
5-FW -3.7 -3.2 -4.0 -2.9 11.9 3.7 0.0 6.3 3.9 1.1 -11.3 -5.9
1
2
3
4
5
REGN
1-NE
2-SE
3-SW
4-NC
JAN
-10.3
1.9
3.4
0.2
FEB
0.2
5.4
-8.2
-9.0
MAR
8.2
7.4
5.4
-11 .3
APR
6.3
3.4
10.3
9.3
MAV
14.5
7.4
11.6
7.6
JUN
15.6
6.1
10.0
19.3
JUL
15.9
3.5
4.9
15.5
AUG
9.1
13.0
9.1
11 .2
SEP
1 .7
7.4
-.8
6.3
-------
Listing of TOISPMO at 07:49:30 on JUL 23. 1985 for CC1d=SN81 Page
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
REGN
1-NE
2-SE
3-SW
4-NC
5-FW
6-NW
JAN
43
69
54
50
54
999
FEB
45
74
57
51
57
48
MAR
48
73
61
41
62
49
APR
S3
80
67
47
67
S3
MAV
66
84
76
63
72
59
JUN
74
87
82
74
77
63
JUL
78
90
83
88
83
999
AUG
78
91
84
85
83
73
SEP
72
88
79
83
79
71
OCT
66
85
76
75
74
60
NOV
59
83
67
63
67.
49
DEC
46
73
54
52
58
42
-------
-58-
References
1. "An Experimental Study of Vehicle Refueling
Emissions," Albert M. Hochhauser and Raymond J. Campion, SAE
Paper No. 760307, Feb. 1976.
2. "Testing of a Vapor Balance Service Station Vapor
Control System by the California ARB Test Procedure — BREA
June 1976," Technical Memorandum from M.J. Dougherty to Mr.
Cloyd P. Reeg, Research Department, Union Oil Company of
California, August 19, 1976.
3. "Expansion of Investigation of Passenger Car
Refueling Losses," EPA-460/3-76-006 U.S. EPA, OAWM, OMSAPC,
ECTD, September 1975.
4. "Healy Phase II Vapor Recovery System Certification
Report," Scott Environmental Technology, June 1982.
5. "A Service Station Test of a Vapor Balance System
for the Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions," A.M.
Hochhauser and L.S. Bernstein, Exxon Research and Engineering
Company, July 1, 1976.
6. "Evaluation of Test Procedures for Measuring Vehicle
Refueling Emissions," API Publication No. 4276, July 8, 1976.
7* "Service Station Vapor Recovery: Vapor Balance
System Performance Diamond Bar, California, March 5-12, 1974,"
Atlantic Richfield Company, Products Division, Research and
Engineering, April 8, 1974.
8. "Vapor Recovery Nozzle Development and Field
Testing," B.E. Weidenaar, H.J. Grimes, and R.G. Jewell, SAE
Paper No. 741038, October 1974.
/ '
9. "A Study of Variables that Effect the Amount of
Vapor Emitted During the Refueling of Automobiles," API Report
CEA-21, May 16, .1975.
10. "Vapor Control Efficiency of Simple Displacement
Systems at Two Service Stations," Technical Memorandum from
M.J. Dougherty, Research Department, Union Oil Company of
California, September 22, 1975.
11. "Air Pollution Emission Test: Emissions from
Gasoline Marketing Operations at Exxon Retail Station, Hayward,
California," U.S. EPA, OAWM, OAQPS, EMB, April 1975.
-------
-59-
12. "Air Pollution Emission Test: Emissions from
Gasoline Marketing Operations at Standard Oil of California
Retail Station, Davis, California," U.S. EPA, OAWM, OAQPS, EMB,
May 1975.
13. "On-Board Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions:
Demonstration of Feasibility," API Publication No. 4306,
October 1978.
14. "Vapor Control Concepts," M.W. Lieferman, in
"Vehicle Refueling Emissions Seminar," API Publication No.
4222, December 1973.
15. "A Chronic Inhalation Study With Unleaded Gasoline
Vapor," Journal of the American College of Toxicology, American
Petroleum Institute, 1984.
16. "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,"
(AP-42), U. S. EPA, OAWM, OAQPS, 1977.
17. "Investigation of Passenger Car Refueling Losses,"
APTD-1453, Scott Research Labs for EPA and CRC, September, 1972.
18. "Utility of Reactivity Criteria in Organic Emission
Control Strategies for Los Angeles," Final Report, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-1735, December, 1975.
19. "Phase II Vapor Recovery Evaluation Program," South
Coast Air Quality Management District, c.1980.
20. "Summary and Analysis of Data From Gasoline
Temperature Survey Conducted at Service Stations by API" (API
Publication No. 4278), Radian Corporation, 1976.
21. "Standard D439-83," Annual Book of_ ASTM Standards,
Part 23, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1983.
22. "Digest of State Inspection Laws - Petroleum
Products," Fourth Edition, API Publication 926, 1985.
23. "Motor" Gasolines, Winter 1983-84" (NIPER-135 PPS
84/3), U.S. DOE, National Institute for Petroleum and Energy
Research (NIPER), June, 1984.
24. "Motor Gasolines, Summer 1984" (NIPER-138 PPS 85/1),
U.S. DOE, NIPER, February, 1985.
-------