p. 1



### OAR Box 

### 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart

Document

Number: 

### 208 ) IV-E-8 2 Docket Number: 

### A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/20082:42:58PM

Sheet 208of 242f —=—-J*r

-

» V P. 2 Pl~&' l l &-£-%>

Updat e o nEPA' s Analysi s o f Onboar d Safet y

,

Novembe r 198 8 System Safet y an d Securit y Sectio n Battell e Columbu s an d U,S , EP A Offic e o f Hobil e Source sP. 3

Overview 1 , Introductio nUSEP A 2 , Failur e Bode s an

d Effect s Analysi s Battell e 3 , Service ' Statio nRefuelin g Ris k Assessmen t Battell e

., Summary o f EP A Safet y Stud y U S EP A 5 , Summary o f NHTS A Comment s o nSafet y

Stud y U S EP A 6 , For dan d G M Comment s o nSimpl e USEP A Onboar dSyste m an d EP A Respons eP. 4

Vehicl e Fue l System

Comparativ e Ris k Assessment : Failur e Mode s an

d Effect s Analysi s

Summar y o f Analysi s an

d Initia l Finding s

Battelle-Columbu sP. 5

Servic e Statio nRefuelin g Ris k Assessmen t

Battelle-Columbu sP. 6

Summar y o f EP A Safet y StudyP. 7

Assessin g th e Safet y

Issu e Principa l safet y

concer ni s tha t increase d complexit y lead s t o an"unquantifiable " increas e i nris k Revise dsafet y

stud y addresse s thi s concernthre e ways : Show s tha t complexit y

doe s no t hav e t o increas e ris k Demonstrate s tha t onboar ddesign s ca nb e simpl e Present s som e o f th e safet y

benefit s o f onboar d control s Revise dsafet y

stud y conclude s tha t onboar d system s nee d no t degrad e vehicl e safet yP. 8

Addressin g Complexit y

an dRis k Evaporativ e system

safet y use da s a baseline : N o discernibl e effec t o f evaporativ e system s o n moto r vehicl e fir e rate s Minima l problem s resultin g i nsafet y recalls , manufacture r servic e bulletins , o r owne r complaint s (se e Tabl e 1 ) N o report s o f death s o

r seriou s injurie s Evaporativ e system

safety/complexity : Wid e variet y o f complexit y

i ncurren t evaporativ e system s Man y o f th e "complex " feature s propose dfo r onboar d contro l system s wer e foundt o already exis t in-us e o nnumerou s fuel/evaporativ e system design s (e.g. , multipl e vapo r lines , fillnec k mounte dvalves , plasti c components , an

dliquid/vapo r separato r tanks ) Non e o f th e availabl e informatio nsuggeste dan y on e desig nwa s eithe r mor e or les s saf e tha nanothe r Fo r th e vehicl e system s mos t lik e onboar dsystem s w e foundn o relationshi pbetwee ncomplexit y andris kP. 9

Tabl e 1 Evaporativ e System-Relate d Recalls , Servic e Bulletins , an

d Owne r Complaint s Tota l Eva p Relate d Safet y Recall s (Sinc e 1970 ) 420 0 2 0 (0.5% ) Manufacture r Servic e Bulletin s 8800 0 <12 0 (O.tt ) (Sinc e 1970 ) Owne r Complaint s (Sinc e 1977 ) 21000 0 <10 0 (0.05% )P.1 0

Developmen t o f a Simpl e Onboar d System Design s suggeste db y

manufacturer s mor e comple xtha nthos e anticipate db y

th e Agenc y EP A ha s alway s anticipate d onboar dcontro l wouldrequir e relativel y simpl e design s an

d undertoo k a developmen t program t o desig na simpl e system an d addres s manufacturers ' concern s ove r complexit y Tw o desig nconstraint s established : Simpl e syste m shoul d incorporat e th e fewes t feature s possibl e u perfor

m th e necessar y

function s Simpl e syste m shoul d b e base d o ncurren t productio n hardwar e EP A successfull y

buil t and teste d anonboar d system n o mor e comple xtha nth e original ' evaporativ e system Onboar dsystem s nee d no t b e a s comple xa s suggeste d by th e manufacturer sP.1 1

Ne t Safet y Impac t o f Onboar d Desig nimprovements : Lowe r fue l tan k pressure s - reduce s fue l spurtin g Contro l o f non-FT P evaporativ e emission s Simplifie ddesignfeature s - n o nee d t o increas e complexit y Servic e statio nsafety : Refuelin g vapor s currentl y

vente d t o a potentiall y hazardou s locatio nwil l instea d b e route d t o a charcoa l caniste r Decrease dfue l spillag e du e t o tes t procedur e requirement s Onboar dsystem s shoul dhav e n o negativ e effec t onvehicl e safet y - opportunitie s t o improv e safet yP.1 2

Summar y o f NHTS A Comment s o n EP A Safet y StudyP.1 3

Backgroun d Sectio n20 2 (a)(6 ) o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t require s tha t EP A consul t wit hDO T regardin g th e safet y implication s o f onboar dcontro l systems . Consultatio nproces s ha s bee nunderwa y fo r abou t 2 years . Numerou s meetings , discussion s hel d and analysis/commen t shared . Durin g thes e previou s consultations , NHTS A expresse d concer ntha t onboar d system s wil l add complexit y an d increas e th e opportunit y

fo r cras han d non-cras hfires . A s par t o f thi s consultatio nprocess , draf t EP A safet y stud y wa s submitte d t o NHTS A

fo r commen t i nearl y

Augus t wit hcomment s receive dbac k i nlat e October . Durin g thi s time perio dITS A

briefe d by G M and For do n thei r experienc e wit hth e simpl e onboar d system , andNHTS A als o evaluate da vehicl e equippe d wit ha prototyp e onboar d syste m develope db y API .P.1 4

Summar y o f Ke y NHTS A Comment s Al l safet y concern s no t ye t satisfactoril y addressed . Furthe r engineerin g demonstratio nand/o r testin g neede dt o assur e onboar dcontrol s wil l no t resul t i na safet y problem . Urge dEP A

t o continu e t o monito r system developmen t andaddres s manufacture r concerns . Agree dtha t ther e hav e bee nfew

problem s wit hevaporativ e syste m safet y an dtha t simpl e onboar dsystem s an

dcurren t evaporativ e system s ar e physicall y an dstructurall y similar . Howeve r concer nexpresse dove r "functiona l complexity " o f fue l system s wit honboar dcontrol s versu s onl y evaporativ e controls , especiall y

safet y effect s i nth e area s o f finability , an

ddriveability . Thes e concern s now overshadow thei r complexit y

concerns . NHTS A emphasize dtha t sufficien t leadtime i s critica l t o minimiz e risks .C D

•-« : ex
. c o |_J - C O C D C D r-t - r - t »-< : C D » C D C D C D 3 r— •• C O C O sr §
c-l - :=s * C " ~ C D

_ C D e *
" ^ ex . ex . >_. - r- t c r : C D C O <*> . C D ! = : C D

r - t c o »—• - C O L Q t r C D S c o C D c» >
C O C O

c o «= : •mi C D C D C D CX
.

C D C D C D t= » 3 C D
C D i — • C O C D

• X 3

C O C D r-1 - t r C D t=t C D

»- » t-r Q . C O
c o C D ex .

C O < : C D
C D <-t -

r - t C D C D g ^ C D rr . 1 ^ c o *Z

*
ci > g ,

*~- - • < C D (rm> CDur, ^ t=m C D C D r- t CZ.

O

I-" ^rZl

tr-l' C D C D C D C D C D c u I— ' C 3 £ 3 C l " g > C D »-* " £ T C D C D o C D jri . :=

3 r- S r-t - I-J - c u C D tmZS

c-l - I •-* • <-i - *= : C D t r c o x=i C D C D C O r - t C D i-CD
. r - t <x >

C D C D

i - Q C D

c o

<-t - C D c-l - t r s= ! C D »—• - <-t - r-c D t r o c-l - C D f D 5 3 3 i—. - <- r c o »-*
- c o fx » I_J - •— • C D X=S r- t C O H . C O IZ3 C O

C D C D r - t x=y C T p j C D r- s f H C D C D
»c D r - t C D C D r—• - C O C D C O C D

C O

r - 3 O D C O

i—• - C D C D

c-1 - •-< :

r - t C D C D - C D 3 C O

C O C D
C D £3 C D * C D C O i- S C X
. O J

C O *-& X=r c o c o C D c o o c o

•-< : O - l—• - C O

rt 3 f ^ K-*- l ' O t 3 C D C D C O fa 3 r- t & C D »-< :

•—• - C D c-t - CX
.

C D fE L C D C l " * ^ C O t r
_ „ C D C D ° " CD -

^ c o C D «-» - *T ^

^ « > C ^ C D , . 3 C D »—" " C « ^ S J= *

—f—> . c-t "

»—• - i—.-«- Q c-r - g »- t C D 5 H

-= 3 <~T - HH C O C D ex . P > C D £ 3 c o \z-, C D C D c o C o C O C X t=-- »_. - C D

" 3 C O *- < n i - c-1 - c o C O

c o r— t

i C D H 3

r - 3 C O c-2

C D C O C D C D X=3

C D C X -

r - l C D , _ . O C D C D t 3 3 t 3 C D r— - ^ - - C OP.1 6

GM/For dComment s o nSimpl e Onboar dSystem

andEP A Respons eP.1 7

Backgroun d Possibl e onboar dsystem

design s submitte dby

manufacturer s a s par t o f comment s o nth e NPRM wer e mor e comple xtha n envisione da s necessar y

by EPA . I nresponse , EP A

develope dandteste da simplifie donboar d approac hwhic hintegrate drefuelin g an devaporativ e control s int o on e system . EP A presente dth e result s o f thi s concep t developmen t projec t t o th e industr y

las t April , an

dencourage dth e industr y t o evaluat e thi s approac hfo r us e o nthei r vehicle s i nlie uo f som

e o f th e mor e comple xdesign s thei r comment s suggested . Bot hG M andFor dundertoo k project s t o evaluat e thes e concept s andbriefe dEP A

andother s o nthei r experience . Followin g th e presentation s t o EP A by G M an dFord , EP A entere dint o further . testin g t o evaluat e th e concern s raise dby thes e manufacturers .P.1 8

G M Evaluatio no f EP A

Concep t G M Positio n 0 G M buil t andevaluate dit s versiono f th e EP A system . Installe di t o n2 G

M A-body vehicles . 0 G M foun dtha t th e simpl e onboar d system provide dth e contro l neede dt o mee t th e propose d refuelin g emissio n standard . 0 Thi s system

performe dpoorl y

fo r G M Fil l qualit y wa s poo r Liqui dcarr y ove r t o caniste r Los s o f contro l fo r partia l fill s Hig hrunnin g los s generationrat e
0 G M conclude dtha t thi s system

wa s unsaf e and unacceptabl e a s a productio nsystem .P.1 9

EP A Respons e
0 G M briefe dEP A onit s result s o nSeptembe r 16 . 0 Despit e ou r prio r requests , G M presente dinadequat e detai l t o full y understan dit s system . 0 GM' s system

appear s t o b e significantl y

differen t fro

m ours . EP A system ha s ver y hig hqualit y fil l - bette r tha n stock . EP A valve s hav e bee nslos hteste dan dd o no t allow liqui dcarryover . Valv e use db y G M ha dno t bee n designe dfo r rollove r (an

dslosh ) protection . I n an y event , stoc k liquid-vapp r separator s ar e available . Ou r syste m work s wel l fo r partia l fills .P.2 0

EP A Respons e continue d
0 G M ha s neve r explaine dwhy

it s system doesn' t wor k an

d EPA' s does . 0 G M ha s decline dt o provid e it s hardwar e t o EP A fo r evaluation . 0 Increase d vapo r generatio nrat e i s no t a significan t issue . Compare dt o stock , emission s fo r unpressurize dtan k wer e abou t double di nG

M tests . T o suppres s vapor s a s i t did , GM ha dt o significantl y increas e pressur e ove r stoc k tank . W e thin k thi s approac hwoul d rais e substantia l safet y questions . Modelin g b y For dshow s that , wit h9 RV P fuel , vapo r generatio nwit hunpressurize d tan k i s onl y 9* 0 greate r thanstock . Assumin g volatilit y

control , w e thin k vapor s ca nb e controlle d withou t hig hpressur e tanks .P.2 1

For d Evaluatio no f EP A

Concep t For d Positio n
0 For d als o buil t it s ow

nversio no f th e EP A

concep t and evaluate d i t o na Tauru s an

d o nF-25 0 light-dut y

truck . 0 For d found tha t th e simpl e onboar d system provide d th e contro l neede d t o mee t th e propose d refuelin g emissio n standard , bu t a t lowe r flo

w rates . 0 Ford' s system

performe d poorly . Fil l qualit y wa s unacceptabl e Vehicl e woul d no t fil l a t hig hdispensin g rate s Liqui d carryove r int o ven t lines . Inadequat e rollove r protection . 0 For d conclude d tha t th e EP A approac hwa s unsaf e an

d no t readil y adaptabl e t o productio nvehicle sP.2 2

EP A Respons e
0 For dbriefe d EP A

o nSep t 26 , 1988 . 0 I nresponse , EP A

undertoo k it s ow

nevaluation . 0 B y mid-Octobe r w e ha da full y

functionin g Tauru s fue l tan k system . Use dsom e hardwar e a s fo r G

M work . Excellen t fil l qualit y

an demission s contro l ove r wid e rang e o f tes t conditions . EP A valve s hav e beenslos hteste d and d o no t allo w liqui dcarryover . Valv e use dby

For d ha d no t bee n designe dfo r rollove r (an

d slosh ) protection . I n an y event , stoc k liquid-vapo r separator s ar e available . Ven t valv e wa s rollove r teste di nbot ha specia l testin g and o na fue l tan k - easil y me t same specification s a s curren t stoc k valve s (vide o tap e available )
0 For dha s bee nr.abl e t o explai nwhy it s system doesn' t wor k an dEPA' s ::es , 0 For dha s decline d t o provid e it s hardwar e t o EP A for evaluation .