p. 1



# OAR Box 1147 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 210)IV-E-8 4 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/20082:42:58PM

Sheet 210of 242P. 2

A/* 0Sr ir. 

# W \mtir 

### DE C 2 2 £3 8

MEMORANDU M ' i UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y A N N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5

, - •...*- ' D 

### ^o^^;;;-

_ .-yrPi'YnOV }0s 

## -af c ....-,...• oocKe T .'ini N OFFIC E O F

AI R AN D RADIATIO N

SUBJECT :

FROM : TO : THRU : Conversatio n wit hDr . Merrit t Birk yo f Regarding Onboard Safet yComment s NTS B

Glen n W . Passavant , Senio r Projec t Manag e Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h The Recor d 

# ^JLmtoiU^

Cheste r J . France , Chie f Standard s Developmen t and/S'up.jzfaft t Branc h Charle s L . Gray , Jr. , D i rect o i/^^/c^-^-//" ^ /'^- Emissio n Contro l Technolog yD-irvisio

n / »-' On Decembe r 13 , 198 8 I spok e wit hDr . Merrit t Birk yo f the Nationa l Transportatio n Safet yBoard (NTSB ) t o seek clarificatio n an

d mor e detai l on hi s comment s on our draf t revised safetyanalysis , "Summar yan d Analysi s o f Comment s Regarding th

e Potentia l Safet yImplication s o f Onboard Vapo r Recover ySystems, " an

d Battelle' s failur e mode s an d effect s analysi s (FMEA ) draf t repor t entitled , "Fue l SystemComparativ e Ris k Assessment. " Thes e comment s wer e conveye d t o EP Aa s par t o f a Novembe r 30 , 198 8 lette r t o EPAfro mCongressma n Dingell . The purpos e o f thi s mem o i s t o summariz e the keypoint s o f our conversation . The firs t topi c o f conversatio n wa s Dr . Birky' s overal l impression o f the onboard safet yissue . Dr . Birk yexplaine d tha t ther e wer e two point s t o hi s "bottom-line" . First , i t wa s hi s belie f tha t onboard system s coul d be mad e saf e give n sufficien t leadtim

e for demonstratio n an d testing . Second , h e though t tha t w e shoul d lowe r fue l volatilit ylevel s a s soo n a s possible . Th e nex t are a tha t w e discusse d wa s Dr . Birky' s impressio n tha t ou r draf t revise d safet yanalysi s "lacked objectivity. " Thi s impression wa s base d o n hi s reviewo f the fir e an d recal l dat a analysi s containe d in the draf t revise d safet yanalysis . I wante d t o discus s the particula r items i n th e revise d safet y analysi s whic hled himt o thi s conclusion , however , h e di d no t have a cop

yo f th

e repor t readil yavailable , an d consequentl y \-ic\s no t prepare d t o discus s th e specific s c f hi s comments .P. 3

-2

- Nevertheless , I mad e severa l point s t o Dr . Birk yabou t th e dat a use d an

d our analysi s o f it . First , th e dat a wa s supplie d t o u s byNHTS Aan d wa s characterize d bythe ma s th e bes t available . Second , th e dat a wa s use d b yNHTS At o suppor t thei r concern s regarding onboard/evaporativ e systemsafety , an d th e dat a wa s als o use d bycommenter s i n th e same way . Third , ou r us e o f thi s dat a wa s primaril yi n analysi s o f an d respons e t o th e safet ycomment s whic hwer e base d o n th e same data . I explaine d tha t th e revise d safet yrepor t clearl y explain s our reservation s abou t using th e dat a (se e page s 2-6 , 2-8 , an d 2-11) . However , bette r dat a wer e no t available , an d our conclusio n afte r analyzing th e dat a wa s no t tha t onboar d system s woul d improv e safety , bu t rathe r tha t i t wa s no t possibl e t o conclud e tha t evaporativ e contro l system s hav e degrade d safety . H e agree d t o furthe r discus s thi s poin t a t a late r dat e whe n h e ha d a chanc e t o retriev e a copyo f th e repor t agai n an

d revie wth e material . I wen t o n t o as k Dr . Birk yabou t hi s statemen t tha t th e Battell e FME Adoe s no t addres s eithe r driveabilit yo r collision/rollove r issues . W e agree d tha t th e Battell e stud y di d no t conside r driveability , bu t tha t collision/rollove r wa s addresse d i n thei r analysis . Afte r som e discussion , Dr . Birk y agree d tha t th e Battell e stud yconceptuall yaddresse d collision/rollover , bu t fel t tha t i t shoul d b e considere d fro m a n experimenta l perspectiv e a s well . W e wen t o n t o discus s th e potentia l safet yimprovement s o f onboard vapo r recoverysystems . I t wa s Dr . Birky' s opinio n tha t wit hth e exceptio n o f th e vapo r containmen t safet y benefit , al l o f th e othe r potentia l improvement s cite d i n th e revise d safet ystud ycoul d b e mad e t o curren t system s wit h mino r modification s an d ar e no t inheren t t o onboar d controls . I explaine d tha t whil e thi s ma yb e true , manufacturer s ar e no t likel yt o mak e thos e change s absen t som e externa l motivatin g facto r suc ha s a

n onboar d requirement . Dr . Birk ywen t o n t o stat e tha t eve n an onboar d requiremen t coul d no t guarante e tha t manufacturer s woul d actuall yimplemen t onboar d design s whic h hav e th e safet yfeature s claime d i n th e revise d safet yreport . I explaine d tha t whil e i t wa s tru e tha t w e coul d no t forc e manufacturer s t o implemen t an yon e particula r desig n configuration , w e se e severa l reason s (sucha s cost , packaging , an d tes t procedur e requirements ) wh ymanufacturer s woul d choos e design approache s whic hwoul d includ e th e improve d safet y feature s discusse d i n th e revise d safet yreport .P. 4 

### -3

- Dr . Birkyconclude d th e discussio n o f thi s topi c b y stating th e onl ywa yh e see s t o pu t an end t o th e safet y concern s i s t o buil d an onboard-equippe d vehicl e tha t work s properly . However , h e als o state d tha t i t wa s no t necessaril y EPA' s rol e t o d o so . H e sai d tha t h e woul d b e satisfie d tha t onboar d systems , nee d no t b e unsaf e i f h e wer e presente d wit han onboard-equippe d vehicl e whic hperforme d th e refueling contro l functio n (i.e. , capture s th e refueling vapors ) withou t causing finabilit yo r driveabilit yproblems . I f thi s onboard-equippe d vehicl e als o successfull ypasse d an actua l collision/rollove r test , Dr . Birk

ysai d hi s presen t concern s woul d b e addressed , Dr . Birk

ystate d hi s vie wtha t onc e a properl yfunctioning onboard-equippe d vehicl e wa s developed , th e burde n regarding collisio n an

d rollove r concern s woul d tend t o li e wit hth e vehicl e manufacturers . Th e fina l issu e tha t I discusse d wit hDr . Birkyinvolve d a clarificatio n o f a matte r i n th e aforementione d lette r from Congressma n Dingell . Thi s lette r state d tha t NTS B ha d receive d a briefing o n th e Battell e repor t withou t NHTS Apersonne l bein g present , eve n thoughthe yaske d tha t NHTS Ab e included . Dr . Birk yindicate d tha t h e di d no t reques t tha t NHTS Apersonne l b e present . H e simpl ysuggeste d tha t h e woul d b e willin g t o "double-up " wit hanothe r grou p tha t wa s t o receiv e th e presentatio n fo r th e sak e o f efficiency , an d tha t th e interactio n wit hanothe r safet ygrou p migh t hav e bee n helpfu l froma technica l viewpoint .

cc * Docke t A-87-1 1 Docke t A-85-2 1

6622 W