-FINAL-
PHASE 2 RFG PERFORMANCE SUBCOMMITTEE
MEETING SUMMARY - AUGUST 16, 1994
Introduction
The second meeting of the Performance Subcommittee was aimed at
further defining test fuel specifications, refining the test
protocol, selecting test fleets, and procurement of test fuels.
Draft Test Protocol
Jim Guthrie of the Air Resources Board (ARB) discussed the
comments received on the test protocol and described the changes
that were made since the first meeting. Based on comments
received from subcommittee members, staff proposes to test
wintertime Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (RFG) against wintertime
base fuel and summertime Phase 2 RFG against summertime base
fuel. Staff is proposing to extend the summertime test period
into July and to reduce the number of smog checks, one at the
beginning of the test program, one before the transition to
summer fuel, and one before the end of the test. As written in
the protocol, the ARB plans to take fuel samples of the test and
control fuel throughout the program. If a leak or seep is found,
the vehicle is to be repaired immediately. Comments regarding
the training of inspectors for consistency were also
incorporated. The committee agreed that inspectors, who are ASE
certified, will be trained to perform visual inspections only.
In the case of multiple drivers per vehicle, each driver will be
required to fill out a survey form. Finally, ARB staff requested
new comments on the test protocol so that the comments could be
incorporated by the next meeting since we are attempting to
finalize the protocol at the next subcommittee meeting.
The committee discussed the advantages and disadvantages of
reporting performance data daily or weekly. Daily reporting has
more detailed driveability information which can be compared to
ambient temperature. Some committee members suggested reporting
data at each fueling since less frequent data collection would
more accurately capture performance characteristics that are
important to the driver. Many members agreed that some changes
will have to be made; however, what changes should be made have
not been agreed upon.
Tim Sprik of Shell Oil presented a slide showing that a minimum
number of observations is necessary to reasonably avoid false
conclusions. If the subcommittee tries to test many fuels or
divide the test fleet into independent groups, the test program
could indicate problems with Phase 2 RFG when no problem actually
exists. To obtain statistically significant data with the
resources available, the number of test fuels has to be limited.
Fuel Specifications
Fuel properties were, again, discussed in attempt to narrow the
type of fuel to be tested. The discussion revolved around the
oxygenate selection and the aromatic hydrocarbon level. But, the
committee could not agree on the fuel specifications and number
of fuels to be used in the test program. The committee expects
to resolve these issues at the next meeting.
ARB staff incorporated changes to the fuel specifications based
on comments received at the previous meeting and created a new
table of the fuel specifications for winter and summer tests.
Staff also proposed to use MTBE in Northern California for summer
and winter. In Southern California, staff proposed to use MTBE
in the summer and ETOH in the winter. However, the committee
discussed whether or not ethanol should be tested in this
program. From the discussion, it appears that ethanol may be
used in the future; however, it will probably not be the primary
oxygenate used. Blending ethanol and MTBE is an option for
testing the combined effects of both oxygenates. However,
including ethanol in the test fuel could present problems due to
"house keeping" problems (gum build-up, moisture, and unclean
storage or distribution equipment) that could be falsely
attributed to Phase 2 RFG and not the ethanol. The committee did
not reach a consensus on the type of oxygenate to use; therefore,
the ARB staff will contact refiners that will be complying with
the federal oxygenate program in the South Coast Air Basin to
determine the likely extent that ethanol will be used. The staff
will also contact automobile manufacturers for their insights on
aromatic hydrocarbon levels and on which oxygenate to test.
When comments on the fuel properties were requested, Mike
Kulakowski of Texaco expressed concern that the 19 percent
aromatic level proposed for test fuel was not severe enough, he
preferred 14 percent to 15 percent. One of Texaco's affiliates
produced gasoline at an aromatic hydrocarbon level at less than
10 percent (some of it was below 5 percent aromatics), which
caused about 30 failures of O-rings and swivel joints in retail
dispensing equipment. Similar problems have not occurred at that
refinery after the refinery set a minimum aromatic specification
of 10 percent. Texaco is interested in testing the lower limits
of the aromatic hydrocarbon levels. The possibility of creating
a separate test group in Central California to test low aromatic
fuels was discussed, and is being investigated by Texaco and the
ARB for the next meeting.
The subcommittee discussed two possible methods of obtaining test
fuels. The first approach is to purchase the test fuel and have
it shipped. The second is to create the test fuel by obtaining
blendstocks from California refineries and blending them in a
California facility. These are ideas that will be explored by
staff for the next meeting so that a method can be chosen.
Size and Make-up of Fleet
John Courtis discussed the current ARB proposal based on comments
from subcommittee members. ARB staff suggests 1,000 test fleet
vehicles and 1,000 control vehicles to be tested; 500 vehicles
are to be tested in Northern California and 500 in Southern
California. In Southern California, staff proposes that all of
the test vehicles be from employee fleets. ARB staff has already
spoken with several companies in Southern California about an
employee fleet. For the fleet In Northern California, staff
proposes that 200 vehicles be from centrally operated fleets and
the remaining 300 vehicles be from employee fleets.
Resources are the main limitation in creating Northern California
employee fleets, but there are other constraints that may limit
the size or type of test fleet. The limitations we have
encountered are the number of volunteers for an employee fleet,
the availability of a central fueling facility, and the ability
to manage the logistics of fueling vehicles. Staff is proposing
that a majority of the test fleet be privately owned vehicles to
avoid a more narrow age range biasing from centrally maintained
private fleets. ARB staff is still seeking suggestions from
subcommittee members of companies that are willing to be part of
the test program and have the available fueling facilities.
Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment
Jack Kitowski made a brief presentation on the status of the off-
road test program, which is preceding the on-road program in many
aspects. Most of the off-road fleets have been selected, and
some testing has already begun. For the tests that are currently
in progress, the equipment manufacturers are using their own data
collection forms that have a high level of detail. From these
data the subcommittee will be able to choose the data to be
analyzed. The Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association
is doing durability tests on some equipment, and the University
of California, Davis will be testing various farm and lawn and
garden equipment relatively soon. The ARB and EPA are sponsoring
two test programs in which the engines can be taken apart and
inspected, if necessary. The test fuel being used is Phase 2
certification gasoline with MTBE as the oxygenate, and the
equipment tested is approximately 7 years old before being
retired.
Like the on-road vehicle test program, fuel properties are the
main concern for the off-road test program. Some ethanol fuels
are being tested, but they do not meet the Phase 2 certification
fuel specifications. Because off-road vehicles operate on small
amounts of fuel, several fuels can be tested.
CBG Program Advisory and Subcommittee Activities