Do 2011 boats with installed gasoline tanks have carbon canisters?

[pdqaltair]

That's what this regulation seems to state:

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:

See table 1.

[tommays]

That would be the least of there problems as they now have mandatory catalytic converters and EFI

And diesels are next on the list

[pdqaltair]

Actually, it says this:

---

What are the dates when diurnal controls need to be installed in boats?

For permanently installed fuel tanks on boats, EPA has adopted a phase-in that begins July 31, 2011. In the period from July 31, 2011 through July 31, 2012, 50 percent of the U.S. market boats produced by each company must meet the diurnal standard and beginning August 1, 2012, all marine fuel tanks and boats must meet the diurnal emission standard. (except as noted below for small businesses)

---

Elsewhere it states that these systems can be either carbon canisters or 1 psi pressure valves on the vent.

The reason I am curious, is that either system would be in conflict with the installation of a descant filter on the fill line, or at least would make such installation redundant. Though not designed for moisture exclusion, but approaches would have that effect and would tend to reduce e10 problems.

[tommays]

Its not that simple as i have not seen how the CG feels about it from a safety standpoint

The CG held up catalytic converters for a LONG TIME as the early units caused serious safety issues because the surface temp was MUCH to high

[pdqaltair]

Originally Posted by tommays

Its not that simple as i have not seen how the CG feels about it from a safety standpoint

Actually, evaporation emissions controls have the potential to enhance safety, reducing emissions during fueling operations. It could be (not easily) combined with vapor recovery filling. When I was a kid, learning to drive a car, you refueled in a cloud of vapors, since nothing was recovered. Much vapor recovery in refineries is practiced because of fire safety requirements as much as emission requirements (working in a cloud of vapor is just a bit scary).

Any system that controls tank breathing will reduce evaporative loss from the tank, reduce fuel oxidation, and tend to decrease carb problems. Sounds OK to me, if well thought out.

Certainly a system can be designed badly; some already are. The EPA has mentioned a few potential problems and is working with the AYBC to develop installation standards

So, not all gloom and doom.

---

But yes, there was discussion of safety in 06':
http://maats.nmma.org/government/env.../epa/rule2.asp

and ...
"What are the technical report’s general conclusions?

For each new standard, we conclude that the anticipated emission standards may be implemented without any incremental increase in risk of fire or burn to consumers. The testing and analysis further indicates that compliance with the anticipated emissions standards could somewhat reduce the risk to consumers using products in these subcategories.

We are also considering diurnal emissions standards for fuel tanks used on Marine SI vessels. For personal watercraft and portable outboard fuel tanks, this would likely involve the use of fuel tank venting that is already commonly used. For vessels with installed fuel tanks, this would likely involve the use of activated carbon canisters to capture vented fuel vapors. Such canisters have been used safely on automobiles for more than 30 years and a prototype fleet run by industry last summer on marine vessels revealed no safety concerns. Overall, there should be no increase in risk of fire or burn to consumers in applying advanced technology to reduce evaporative emissions from these marine engines and vessels. In fact, the reduction of permeation emissions is likely to decrease safety risks from fire in the under-floor areas on boats where the tanks and hoses are installed."

[pdqaltair]

The EPA has done some 3rd party testing, backed up by some solid theory, that suggests that a typical 30 gallon gas tank would lose about 1.5 - 3 gallons to evaporation, depending on the climate assumptions.

Comparison to the Wade Model
Temperature Profile Fuel Capacity [gallons] Measured [g/gallon/day] Wade Model [g/gallon/day] Corrected Wade [g/gallon/day]*
22 -36°C (72 -96°F) 17 1.50 2.30 1.79
22 -36°C (72 -96°F) 30 1.39 2.30 1.79
24 -33°C (74 -91°F) 30 1.13 1.33 1.04
22 -30°C (71 -86°F) 30 0.88 1.02 0.80
25 -31°C (77 -88°F) 30 0.66 0.88 0.69
26 -32°C (78 -90°F) 30 0.84 1.04 0.81
28 -31°C (82 -87°F) 30 0.47 0.43 0.34

(Note: the 3rd column is the experimental loss in g/gal/day.)

The carbon canisters would have a life expectancy of 5+ years, as they do for cars, so a canister would recover about $30-$60 worth of fuel during it's life span, in addition to any benefit from improved fuel quality.

[tommays]

I have never seen a boat yard with the vapor recovery systems on the fueling stations which is the big vapor loss point

The fuel vent is outside the boat on the rail so its not going to make it any more or less safe from a fume standpoint unless it sticks and pops something

AT best the tanks pressure test at 3 PSI with no vacuum test that i know of which is were the concern starts if the unit fails and vents at to much pressure

How big is this canister as that seems a LOT of fuel to absorb ?

[pdqaltair]

Originally Posted by tommays

How big is this canister as that seems a LOT of fuel to absorb ?

About 1 liter.

Like the canister in your car, it does not hold all that fuel at once; it captures a tiny bit ever day when the tank breaths out, and then returns it when it breaths in. The canister is sized to be able to last for a good number of years, like the one on your car. That few grams every day adds up to gallons, when taken over a year.

[tommays]

The vast majority of inboard gas boats have the fuel tank fill and vent lines all within the engine compartment SO

I am completely confused as to how you could even install and H2Out on a gasoline inboard as i see no evidence of it passing a burn test that ALL the other fuel system parts have to pass ?

[pdqaltair]

Originally Posted by tommays

The vast majority of inboard gas boats have the fuel tank fill and vent lines all within the engine compartment SO

I am completely confused as to how you could even install and H2Out on a gasoline inboard as i see no evidence of it passing a burn test that ALL the other fuel system parts have to pass ?

Apparently not difficult. All of these carbon canisters have passed and are used as OEM equipment. The Coast Guard was involved in the safety studies.

https://delphi.com/manufacturers/aut...rative/marine/
http://www.attwoodmarine.com/store/p.../installation/
BluSkies E-Commerce Web Site - Carbon Canisters

And some explanation of how they install.
PERKO Fuel Systems

Thus, it CAN be done safely; I'm sufficiently convinced and am comfortable with it for my own reasons (30 years in the refinery business). I'm certain you could research it. The question for us is "do the canisters materially improve fuel management, or do they only reduce emissions?" This is not a question that would have been very important to the EPA.

Regards H2OUT, although it may make some limited sense in diesel applications, it seems to me a carbon canister will better serve the function (carbon will absorb moisture, anything that provides expansion volume reduces fresh air breathing, carbon will catch fog and dew, the carbon units are larger, and they serve 2 purposes) for gasoline tanks.