P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 171 ) IV-C-138 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:00 AM Sheet 171 of 232UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y

> 4 , ,.<? WASHINGTON

. D.C

. 2046 0 

### JU N 

### 2 ! 1988 P. 2

TH E ADMINISTRATO R Honorabl e John D . Dingel l Chairman , Subcommitte e o n Oversigh t an

d Investigation s Committe e o n Energyan d Commerc e U.S . Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D C 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Chairman : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r Apri l 14 , 198 8 lette r t o EP A concernin g a variet yo f issue s relate d t o EPA' s onboar d refuelin g contro l proposal . You r firs t question s an d comment s concerne d EPA' s simplifie d onboar d hardwar e desig n an d th e briefing s w e recentl ygav e t o the Automobil e Importer s o f Americ a (AIA ) an d th e Moto r Vehicl e Manufacturer s Associatio n (MVMA ) o n thi s hardware . W e agre e wit hyo u tha t thes e briefing s serv e a usefu l purpose . W e als o fee l tha t refocusing th e safet ydebat e around specifi c desig n consideration s ha s stimulate d a constructiv e dialogu e o n th e safet yo f onboar d systems . Concernin g the involvemen t o f NHTS Ai n thes e briefings , a representativ e o f NHTS Awa s presen t a t th e MVM Ameetin g an

d w e hav e sinc e provide d NHTS Aa videotap e o f th e meetin g fo r revie w b yothe r personnel . O f course , yo u ar e awar e tha t w e gav e a separat e briefing o n thi s matte r t o NHTS Astaff . Th e onboar d systemdesigne d b yEPAi s intende d t o addres s th e safet yan

d complexit yissue s tha t wer e raise d i n th e publi c comments . Ou r primaryobjective , therefore , wa s t o develo p a systemtha t wa s no mor e comple xtha n curren t evaporativ e contro l system s an d utilize d a s manyproductio n component s a s possible . W e believ e w e hav e accomplishe d thes e objectives . Du e t o th e simpl e natur e o f th e change s mad e t o th e productio n f,ue

l system , we hav e n o plan s t o instal l thi s syste m o n a vehicl e fo r testing a t thi s time . Th e complet e fue l syste malong wit hal l onboar d hardwar e wa s benc hteste d i n th e Seale d Housin g fo r Evaporativ e Determinatio n (SHED ) a s i t woul d b e installe d o n a vehicle . Th e result s o f thi s testing ,P. 3

, ,>,• " •



### -2

- whic hwer e include d in th e briefings , sho wtha t ou r system me t th e propose d refueling emissio n standar d b ya substantia l margin . I n addition , w e hav e initiate d some follow-up benc h testing i n direc t respons e t o suggestion s raise d a t th e briefing s fo r MVMA , AIA , an d NHTSA . Thi s testin g wil l evaluat e th e effect s o f variou s fue l RVP s an d temperature s an

d differen t tan k angle s o n systemperformance . I n respons e t o you r concern s abou t th e availabilit yo f thi s syste mfo r publi c comment , th e primarypurpos e o f ou r briefing s wa s t o solici t comment s o n ou r recen t hardwar e desig n an d testin g frombot hautomotiv e an d safet yinterests . W e hav e als o had follow-u p contact s wit hsevera l manufacturer s concernin g ou r hardware , durin g whic hw e hav e solicite d feedback . However , t o dat e w e hav e receive d ver ylittl e direc t response . I t i s EPA' s inten t t o includ e documentatio n o n th e developmen t an

d testing o f thi s syste m i n th e onboar d safet y analysi s accompanyin g ou r reproposal . NHTS Awil l hav e th e opportunit yt o commen t o n tha t documentatio n bot hdurin g th e pre-publicatio n revie wproces s an d durin g th e commen t perio d followin g publicatio n o f th e reproposal . Al l othe r intereste d partie s wishin g t o expres s thei r view s o n ou r system wil l hav e a forma l opportunit yt o d o s o durin g th e commen t perio d o n th e reproposal . I n referenc e t o the issu e o f integrate d versu s non-integrate d onboar d systems , yo u expresse d concer n tha t EP A mayb e setting a desig n standar d rathe r tha n a performanc e standar d i n orde r t o forc e th e us e o f integrate d systems . Thi s i s no t ou r intent . W e clearl ycontemplat e a performanc e standard . However , i t shoul d be recognize d tha t ou r tes t procedur e wil l influenc e designs . I n recognitio n o f this , w e hav e attempte d t o explai n i n ou r briefing s tha t ther e ar e many reason s wh

yintegrate d system s hav e an advantag e froma performanc e perspective . Fo r example , integrate d system s shoul d b e les s costl yan d les s comple xtha n non-integrate d systems . Also , integrate d system s ar e desirabl e froma n environmenta l perspectiv e becaus e theyhav e th e potentia l t o contro l "excess " evaporativ e emission s whic har e produce d outsid e the , tes t condition s o f th e officia l Federa l Tes t Procedur e (FTP) , bu t whic hcontribut e t o ozon e formatio n unde r ambien t conditions . W e pla n t o structur e ou r tes t procedur e s o a s t o insur e th e realizatio n o f thi s control , wit ho r withou t integrate d systems . W e hav e consistentl yaske d fo r feedbac k o n howwe migh t modif yth e tes t procedur e t o provid e th e prope r contro l o f thes e emission s an d ar e presentl yplannin g a publi c worksho p fo r earl ythi s summe r t o discus s a numbe r o f topic s relate d t o thi s issue .P. 4

1 <• *



### -3

- I n respons e t o you r questio n a s t o whethe r th e integrate d system/liqui d sea l approac hi s workabl e fo r th e wid e variet yo f vehicle s an

d truck s covere d b yth e onboar d proposal , thi s i s a n issu e w e hav e specificall yaske d manufacturer s t o address . Base d upo n ou r experience , w e fee l th e concep t i s applicabl e t o mos t vehicles . Some , suc ha s certai n heavy-dut ytrucks , ma y presen t uniqu e challenges . However , thes e truck s represen t a verysmal l portio n o f th e flee t an d w e fee l tha t using anothe r fillnec k sea l approac ho n thes e vehicle s woul d b e possible , shoul d tha t be necessary . I n you r lette r yo u requeste d informatio n pertainin g t o EPA' s estimate s o f Stag e I I in-us e efficienc yan d commente d tha t Stag e I I effectivenes s i s greatl ydependen t o n th e leve l o f enforcement . EPA' s estimate s o f 6 2 percen t contro l efficienc yin area s o f minima l enforcemen t an d 8 6 percen t i n area s o f annua l enforcemen t wer e base d o n a n analysi s o f enforcemen t issue s (including misinstallation , imprope r maintenanc e an

d tamperin g data ) fromexistin g Stag e I I program s i n Washington , D C an d California , respectively . Thes e contro l efficiencies , combine d wit hth e Federall ymandate d 50,00 0 gallon/mont hexemptio n limi t fo r independent s an d a 10,00 0 gallon/mont hexemptio n limi t fo r non-independents , yield s a n averag e Stag e I I VO C reductio n efficienc yrang e o f 4 8 t o 6 6 percen t dependin g upo n th e leve l o f enforcemen t an d subsequen t maintenance . Becaus e enforcemen t i s suc ha larg e facto r i n Stag e I I efficiency , a rang e o f minima l t o annua l enforcemen t wa s use d i n ou r Stag e I I analysis , yieldin g a rang e o f cost s an d benefits . Th e ful l analysi s an d th e sensitivit yt o change s i n th e exemptio n level s ar e presente d i n th e draf t Regulator y Impac t Analyse s fo r ou r refuelin g NPRM . Yo u als o aske d whethe r EP Apresume d tha t states , lik e Ne w Yor k an

d Ne wJersey , whic har e committe d t o Stag e I I i n thei r SIP's , woul d no t conduc t effectiv e enforcemen t programs ; and whethe r theywere , i n fact , legall yrequire d t o effectivel y enforc e thei r programs . Th e Ac t require s tha t State s commi t themselve s t o implemen t an d enforc e th e measure s containe d i n thei r SIP.' s an

d provide s fo r certai n sanction s whe n the yfai l t o d o so . EPA , throughit s audi t system , attempt s t o asses s th e effectivenes s o f Stat e regulation s an d t o obtai n correctio n o f deficiencie s i n eithe r implementatio n o r enforcement . However , n o enforcemen t syste mi s flawles s an d fo r ou r analysi s w e hav e presume d tha t th e effectivenes s o f stat e program s woul d fal l i n the rang e represente d b yth e existin g Distric t o f Columbi a an

d Californi a program s an d hav e use d tha t rang e i n reachin g al l ou r results .P. 5



### -4

- Yo u als o requeste d detail s concernin g EPA' s contrac t t o performa fue l system s comparativ e ris k assessment . A s discusse d i n ou r Apri l 5 , 198 8 letter , the comparativ e ris k assessmen t w e ar e having performe d i s a failur e mode s an d effect s analysi s (FMEA ) o f curren t fuel/evaporativ e system s and severa l possibl e onboar d systems . Thi s effor t wil l identif y an d attemp t t o quantif yth e allege d "unquantifiabl e risk " associate d wit honboar d system s an d compar e i t t o curren t risk s i n fuel/evaporativ e systems . Thi s wor k wa s initiate d following discussion s wit hNHTS Aan d othe r safet yorganization s (including th e Nationa l Transportatio n Safet yBoar d (NTSB ) an d th e Insuranc e Institut e fo r Highwa ySafet y(IIHS) ) wh o fel t tha t i t woul d b e usefu l i n addressin g remainin g question s an d uncertaintie s concernin g onboar d safety . Th e scop e o f wor k (SOW ) fo r thi s tas k wa s submitte d t o NHTS Afo r revie wan d wa s revise d in respons e t o thei r suggestions . Th e revise d SOWwa s the n sen t t o NTSB , IIHS , th e Cente r fo r Aut o Safet y(CAS ) an d th e Offic e o f Moto r Carrie r Safet y(OMCS ) fo r comment . Acop y o f th e SO Wi s enclose d fo r you r information . Thi s sam e informatio n ha s previousl ybee n place d i n th e publi c docket . A s fa r a s th e selectio n o f a contracto r i s concerned , w e consulte d wit hNHTSA , IIHS , CA S an d other s t o obtai n suggestion s fo r suitabl e contractors . Th e detail s hav e jus t recentl ybee n worke d out , an d afte r a thoroug han d carefu l evaluatio n o f th e availability , expertis e an d impartialit yo f severa l contractors , Battell e Columbu s Divisio n wa s selected . Wor k i s no wunderway . I n you r lette r yo u requeste d tha t w e commen t o n tw o studies , on e performe d b yIC F Technologyfo r th e America n Petroleu

mInstitut e an

d on e b

yCAS , entitle d "Fue l Volatilit y an d Publi c Safety. " Th e IC F stud ysubmitte d wit hth e AP I comment s i n earl yFebruar yi s a brie f conceptua l FME Awhic h compare s th e safet yo f a "typical " curren t evaporativ e syste m t o tha t o f two differen t onboar d systems , on e o f whic hwa s include d i n ou r onboar d proposa l an d th e othe r bein g a ne w "passive " syste msuggeste d b yAPI . I n general , th e IC F stud y provide d som e helpfu l information . However , i t i s limite d i n scop e an

d merel yconceptua l i n nature . Th e result s o f th e analysi s ar e a qualitativ e rathe r tha n a quantitativ e compariso n o f onboar d an d evaporativ e systems . Nevertheless , th e IC F stud

yi s usefu l an

d w e wil l carefull yconside r it s finding s i n ou r safet yreanalysis , along wit hal l othe r safet y relate d comment s received . Th e CA S stud

yi s a revie wo f NHTSA' s recal l an d owne r complain t file s fo r bot hpas t an d curren t fue l systems . Th e finding s o f the stud ysho wtha t evaporativ e system s hav eP. 6



### -5

- resulte d i n veryfe wrecall s (2 1 ou t o f 427 6 tota l recall s - 0.5% ) o

r owne r complaint s (2 7 ou t o f 20,00 0 fue l syste m complaint s - 0.1%) . Thi s conclusio n i s generall yconsisten t wit hbot hNHTSA 1 s an d EPA' s finding s i n thi s area . CA S wen t o n t o asses s fue l volatilit yrelate d safet yproblem s i n it s study . W e ar e presentl yreviewin g thi s aspec t o f the study . W e hav e als o aske d NHTS Afo r it s detaile d comment s o n th e entir e stud

yan d w e wil l conside r th e CA S repor t an d NHTSA' s comment s o n i t i n ou r refuelin g an d volatilit ycontro l deliberations . Concernin g Mobil' s lette r t o NHTS Acriticizin g th e Genera l Motors ' vide o tap e o f a cras htes t o f an onboar d equippe d vehicle , ther e ar e a numbe r o f point s w e woul d lik e t o clarif y concernin g thi s testing . First , th e onboar d syste mi n questio n wa s i n fac t a Mobi l design . However , th e onboar d contro l hardwar e use d i n thi s testin g wa s fabricate d an d installe d i n th e vehicl e b

yFailur e Analysi s Associate s (FaAA ) wh o performe d thi s wor k fo r Genera l Motors . Whil e w e understand tha t the vehicle/syste m

constructe d an

d teste d earlie r b yMobi l di d i n fac t mee t th e propose d refuelin g emissio n standar d an d th e curren t exhaus t an d evaporativ e emissio n standards , w e d o no t kno wi f th e FaA

Avehicl e me t thes e standard s o r i f eithe r th e Mobi l o r FaA

Avehicl e me t an

yapplicabl e NHTS Astandards . A s far a s w e know , Mobi l di d no t expend an yeffor t towar d designin g thi s system t o mee t FMVS S 301 . Second , i t i s importan t t o not e tha t th e Mobi l systemwa s essentiall ya conceptua l demonstratio n an d wa s no t intende d t o b e a production-readydesign . Thus , i t containe d a numbe r o f component s whic hwoul d no t b e normall yuse d i n a productio n system , suc ha s a liquid/vapo r separato r mad e froma on e pin t ca n an d vapo r line s constructe d o f coppe r tubing . I t wa s precisel ythes e component s whic hwer e damage d i n th e cras h testing . Therefore , w e fee l tha t th e result s o f thi s testin g sa ylittl e abou t onboar d safet yfo r tru e productio n systems . I trus t tha t thi s informatio n ha s responde d t o al l o f th e concern s yo u raise d i n you r Apri l 14 , 198 8 letter . I loo k forwar d t o th e ful l resolutio n o f remaining refuelin g contro l issue s i n th e month s ahead . Sincerely ,

Le e M . Thoma s Enclosur e cc : Th e Honorabl e Dian e K . Steed , Administrato r Nationa l HighwayTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n Publi c Docke t A-87-1 1P. 7 

## jfi--,

ON E HUNDREDT H CONGRES S

JOH N 0 . OINGELL , MICHIGAN . CHAIRMA N RO N WYDEN , OREGO N DENNI S E. ECKART . OHI O JI M SLATTERY . KANSA S GERRYSIKORSKI . MINNESOT A RIC KBOUCHER . VIRGINI A JI M COOPER . TENNESSE E THOMA S ALUKEN . OHI O DOU G WALGREN , PENNSYLVANI A THOMA S J . BLILEY , JR. . VtRGINI A NORMA N F . LENT . NE WYOR K DA N COATS . INDIAN A MICHAE L 0. OXLEY . OHI O MICHAE L BILIRAKIS . FLORIO A DA N SCHAEFER . COLORAD O

MICHAE L F . BARRETT . JR . CHIE F COUNSEL/STAF F DIRECTO R ^-^y-Y k 

## tt.frftouse o

fItepresentattoes Subcommitteeo

nOotrsigt eani

llimestigatfon s of the Committeeo n£nerg gan dCommerc e I ,B C 2051 5 * •- •(•. ,
" ROO M 232 3 RAYBUR N HOUS E OFFIC E BUILDIN G PHON E (202 ) 225-444 1 

### W.

Th e Honorabl e Administrato r Environmenta l 40 1 M Street , Le e M . Thoma s

Protectio n Agenc y S.w . Washington , D.C . 2046 0 Th e Honorabl e Dian e K . Stee d Administrato r Nationa l Highwa yTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n Departmen t o f Transportatio n 40 0 Sevent hStreet , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Dea r Mr . Thoma s an d Ms . Steed : Sinc e writin g t o yo u o n Marc h3 proposa l o f the Environmenta l Prote c onboar d system , I understand tha t o u i n a briefin g b

yth e EPAstaf f o f th Safet yAdministratio n (NHTSA ) o f th i tha t briefin g wa s helpful . Clearly , abou t thi s safet yissu e an d ar e wor k commend them . 1 , 198 8 concernin g the staf f (jlt4 / u^'' tio n Agenc yfo r a simplifie d S^^j X r staf f participate d thi s wee k A e Nationa l Highwa yTraffi c s proposal . Th e observanc e o f bot hstaff s ar e concerne d in g diligentl yo n it . I I understand tha t thi s wee k EPAha s als o briefe d th e Automobil e Impor t Associatio n an d th e Moto r Vehicl e Manufacturer s Associatio n abou t the system . Tha t i s a step i n the righ t direction . I believe , however , tha t the briefing s wer e quit e late . The yshoul d hav e bee n initiate d long ago , rathe r tha n afte r inquirie s b

ythi s Subcommittee . I woul d appreciat e knowin g whethe r staf f o f bot hagencie s participated-L n the briefin g o f AI Aan d MVMA . I woul d als o lik e t o kno wmor e precisel yv/ha t test s hav e bee n mad e b yEPAo f the syste m beyond laborator ytests . Ha s i t bee n teste d i n an ycurren t yea r vehicle s wit hvariou s RVP fuels ? I s i t aki n t o a production-desig n system ? Pleas e explain . I understand tha t EPAdoe s no t pla n t o reope n the rulemakin g t o provid e an opportunit yfo r publi c commen t o n thi s system . Ther e i s some suggestio n tha t EPAwil l includ e i t i n the re-proposa l

1 I'I'M: I//P. 8

The•Honorabl e Le e M . Thoma s T^ e Honorabl e Dian e K . Stee d Pag e 2

afte r NHTS Acomment s o n the presen t rule . Sinc e thi s systemi s no t par t o f the presen t record , ho wwil l NHTS Acomment ? Whe n wil l NHTS Acomment ? Ho wwil l EPAobtai n publi c comment , includin g tha t o f th e manufacturers ? Durin g the NHTSA-EP Abriefing , EPAstaf f indicate d tha t EP A intende d thi s t o b e a n integrate d system . Th e staf f als o gav e a stron g indicatio n tha t the EPA' s vie wo f the combine d volatilit y and onboar d propose d rule s would , i n fact , requir e al l manufacturer s t o us e an integrate d systemonc e the rule s ar e finalized . Tha t seem s t o sugges t tha t EPAha s o r wil l writ e th e rule s i n suc ha wa ya s t o essentiall yestablis ha desig n standard , rathe r tha n a performanc e standard . Pleas e explai n the lega l basi s unde r th e Clea n Ai r Ac t fo r thi s approac han d pleas e explai n wh y suc han approac hi s neede d an d appropriate . I s i t workabl e fo r th e wid e variet yo f foreig n an d domesti c line s o f passenge r cars , multi-purpos e vehicles , ligh t dut ytrucks , an d heav ydut ytrucks ? Enclose d i s a ver yhelpfu l EPAlette r o f Apri l 5 , 198 8 which , amon g othe r things , show s tha t volatilit ycontrol s yiel d a significan t reductio n i n "H C emissions " bot hnationwid e an d i n th e severa l metropolita n nonattainmen t area s mentione d wher e stag e I I i s als o required . Clearly , thes e reduction s fa r excee d th e reduction s expecte d froman ykin d o f refueling controls . I t als o show s th e importanc e o f RVP control s fro ma publi c healt h standpoint , a s wel l a s a safet ystandpoint . A t th e same time , th e lette r provide s some ne wan d surprisin g number s abou t the efficienc yo f stag e I I an d onboar d controls . I d o no t recal l seeing thembefore . However , i n an Octobe r 23 , 198 7 lette r t o the Offic e o f TechnologyAssessmen t o n Sierr a Research' s draf t report , th e Deput yExecutiv e Office r o f th e Californi a Ai r Resource s Board , Mr . TomCackette , provide s a differen t perspectiv e abou t thi s efficienc yissue . H e said :

Asecond assumptio n i s tha t Stag e I I system s ar e 9 2 percen t efficient . A s noted , efficienc yo f thes e system s depend s o n the frequenc yo f maintenance , an d maintenanc e depend s o n th e frequenc yo f enforcemen t b yth e responsibl e agency . W e hav e foun d tha t semi-annua l inspection s yiel d 9 2 percen t efficiency , an d annua l inspection s resul t i n 8 6 percen t efficiency . EPAbelieve s a 6 2 percen t efficienc y result s fromn o enforcement . Ij i our vie wi t i s presumptuou s t o assum e wha t degre e o f enforcemen t a stat e wTl l choose . Certainl yno t al l state s wil l performsemi-annua l inspection s a s i s don e i n the Sout hAi r Basin , no r wil l al l state s ignor e enforcement . Thu s w e recommend tha t the effectivenes s o f Stag e I I be evaluate d fo r severa l differen t assume d efficiencies , rathe r than the poin t estimat e provide d b

ySierra . Dependin g o n whic hassumption s ar e chosen , eithe r contro l measur e can b e determine d t o be mor e effectiv e tha n the other . Thi s shoul d be illustrate d t o the reader . (Underlining supplied. )P. 9

Th e ,Honorabl e Le e M . Thoma s ,Th e Honorabl e Dian e K . Stee d

. Pci'ge ; 3

Ho wdi d EP Aconclud e an in-us e efficienc yo f les s tha n 50% ? Wha t i s the basi s fo r tha t number ? Doe s EPApresum e n o enforcemen t i n States , lik e Ne wYor k an d Ne wJersey , wher e th e cour t ha s declare d tha t Stag e I I i s an enforceabl e commitment ? Doe s the Stat e hav e a SI P obligatio n t o enforce ? Doe s EPAno t inten d t o audi t complianc e wit hth e enforceabl e commitment ? Whil e I d o no t favo r nationwid e stag e II , I als o d o no t wan t t o se e EPApossibl ymisleadin g the Subcommitte e o r th e publi c abou t thi s enforcemen t issu e a s par t o f thi s rulemaking . I n tha t same letter , EPAindicate s i t i s "preparing t o conduct , througha contractor , a 'Fuel s SystemComparabl e Ris k Assessment'. " Th e lette r indicate s tha t thi s i s bein g don e a t NHTSA' s suggestion . I note , however , a t thi s lat e dat e tha t the contracto r ha s no t bee n chose n an d the detail s o f the contrac t hav e no t bee n resolved . Pleas e explai n t o wha t exten t NHTS Aha s bee n a par t o f th e developmen t o f thi s contract , including the selectio n o f a reliabl e contractor . Also , I reques t tha t yo u bot hexplai n th e nee d for , an

d purpos e of , thi s contrac t an d assessment . I n thi s regard , enclose d ar e two document s tha t appea r relevant . One , date d February8 , 1988 , wa s prepare d b yIC F Technologyfo r th e America n Petroleu mInstitut e an

d th e other , date d Marc h24 , 1988 , entitle d "Fue l Volatilit yan d Publi c Safety " wa s prepare d b

ythe Cente r fo r Aut o Safety . Pleas e provid e you r view s o n both . Wha t doe s eac hsho wregarding th e safet yo f onboar d control s an

d the importanc e o f fue l volatilit ycontrols ? Th e Center' s repor t state s (p . ii ) tha t the "improve d onboar d system s unde r EPA' s propose d evaporativ e contro l rul e ar e onl y marginall ymor e comple xtha n presen t onboar d systems . Any increase d cras hsafet yris k fro monboar d system s woul d be a margina l increas e o f an alread yminima l safet yris k an d coul d easil yb e handle d b yimprove d technology. " M yexaminatio n o f th e bod yo f the repor t indicate s tha t i t i s mor e devote d t o the legitimat e volatilit yconcern s o f the Cente r an d provide s littl e suppor t fo r thes e onboar d conclusions . Moreover , I understoo d tha t NHTSA' s concern s wer e no t limite d solel yt o crash-relate d fires , bu t tha t NHTS Aals o i s concerne d abou t non-cras hfires . Further , th e Subcommitte e ha s consistentl ysaid , along wit hothers , tha t eve n a "margina l increase " i n safet yris k resulting froma Federa l rul e woul d b e inconsisten t wit hthe veryinten t an d purpos e o f the moto r vehicl e safet ylaw s administere d b yNHTSA , a s wel l a s th e purpos e o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . Th e Congressiona l objectiv e a s expresse d in.thes e law s i s t o improv e safety , no t ris k safet yeve n slightly . I reques t you r comments . Finally , I understand tha t on Marc h10 , 1988 , the Mobi l Corporatio n whic hoppose s stag e I I control s an d support s onboar d control s reportedl ywrot e a rathe r critica l lette r o f a vide o tap e o f a cras htes t o f a vehicl e equippe d (possibl yb yMobil ) wit han onboar d contro l system . Th e tes t apparentl ywa s performe d b y Failur e Analysi s Associates . I woul d appreciat e NHTS Aprovidin g aP.1 0

The , Ilonoribl e Th e Honorabl e P^g e 4 Le e M . Thoma s

Dian e K . Stee d

copyo f tha t lette r t o NHTS Aan d tha t NHTS Aan

d EPAadvis e th e Subcommitte e whethe r the vehicl e i n questio n me t al l applicabl e requirement s unde r th e propose d rule s a s wel l a s al l applicabl e emissio n an

d safet yrequirements . I a mno t sur e wh

yMobi l wrot e t o NHTS Aabou t thi s matter , bu t I reques t a copyo f NHTSA' s reply . A s I recal l fromou r hearin g las t October , NHTS Adi d examin e on e o r mor e oi l industryvehicle s (possibl yMobil's ) an d foun d tha t the adde d onboar d systempose d safet yrisks . I s tha t correct ? I s tha t relevan t t o th e Mobi l comments ? I reques t a repl yfrombot hagencie s withi n 3 0 day s afte r receip t o f thi s letter . Wit hbes t wishes .

D . DINGEL L Chairma n Subcommitte e o n Oversigh t an

d Investigation s Enclosure s cc : Th e Honorabl e Thoma s J . Bliley , Rankin g Minorit yMembe r Subcommitte e o n Oversigh t an d Investigation s Th e Honorabl e Charle s A . Bowsher , Comptrolle r Genera l Genera l Accountin g Offic e Ms . Eric a Jones , Genera l Counse l Nationa l HighwayTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n Th e Honorabl e Lawrenc e Jensen , Actin g Genera l Counse l Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Mr . Thoma s Hanna , Presiden t Moto r Vehicl e Manufacturer s Associatio n Mr . Georg e C . Nield , Presiden t Automobil e Importer s o f Americ a Mr . Charle s J . DiBona , Chie f Executiv e Office r America n .Petroleu

mInstitut e Mr . Clarenc e M . Ditlow , Presiden t Cente r fo r Aut o Safet y Mr . Bria n O'Neill , Presiden t Insuranc e Institut e fo r HighwaySafet y Mr . J . V . D'Ambris i Mobi l Researc han

d Developmen t Corporatio nP.1 1

Pallur aMada

aan d Bffact aanalysi s o f t±m CurrantBvsporatl* aand Propoaad Onboar d AutoatotlT * lafualln gVapo rBacowar

ySya t

A ftaport Prapara dfo r tha Aaarlca nPatrolau * Iattltut a

Prapara db y IC F Taehaolof y

Fabtutr y

8 , 198 8P.1 2

Introductio n IC F Technology

parforma da Failur e Noda a an dEffact a Analysis(FMEA ) o f th a daaig no f a typica l curran t automotive fue l syste m evaporative vapo r recover y

syste m andpropose ddesign s o f automotive refueling vapo r recovery system s designe dt o mee t the propose drequirement s o f the EPA o nrefuelin g emissions . A

FMEA i s a componen t leve l safet y analysi s techniqu e fo r systemati c review

andanalysi s o f mechanica l systems , suc ha a the vapo r recover y

systems . Th a primar y purpos e o f tha FMEA i s hazar didentification . Th a FMEA

wa s performe do nthe system s t o determin e the potentia l cause s o f failure s whic hcoul dleadt o fire s o r t o fir e exposur e o f tha evaporativ e andrefuelin g vapo r recover y systems . A

comparative examinatio no f the propoaa ddesign s t o thos e o f present-da y evaporativ e emissio ncontro l aystea s wa a performe dt o determin e th e relative differenc e i nthe likelihoo dand potentia l severit y

o f hazard s o f th

e differen t designs . Th e compariso nmad e o nthe relativ e differenc e i nhazerd a wa a baae do nengineerin g judgemen t an d fir e protectio nengineering . Mor e quantifie danalyse s wit hmor e extensiv e informatio ni s poaaible . Thre e design s o f refuelin g vapo r recovery system s war e analyzed , a s show n i nFigure s 1- 3 o f Appendi xB , includin g the J-eube(liqui dseal ) fillpip e design , tha flowin g liqui dsea l fillpip e daaign , andthe mechanica l sea l fillpip e design . Thea a systems , an dthe component s tha t compris e them , ar e daacriba di nmor e detai l i nthe System s Analyse dsection . Study Methodolog y Referrin g t o the FMEA dat a for

m include di nAppendi xA : Th e Coapoom& t Mumber/Ian a colum nliat s the componen t unde r stud y andit s associate dnumber(referre dt o o nth e system drawing s i nappendi xB) . Th a Functio n.colum

nlist s the norma l operatin g functio no f the syste m component . Tha . failure ) Mod e colum npreaent a a deviatio nfro m tha norma l operatin g conditio nwhic hcoul dlea dt o a fir e o r othe r system malfunctions . Th e Probabl e Caus a colum nlist s potentia l causa e fo r th a failur e mod e condition . Th e Potentia l Cooaaquanca a colum nlist s generalise dpotentia l consequence s a a a resul t o f the failur e mode . Fo r th e Probabilit y

o f Failur e Mod e Caus a andthe Severit y o f Coneoquanco e columns , a ratin g o f Same , Greate r o r Las s probabilit y o f occurrenc e o r consequenc e o f the failure , baae donengineerin g judgement , i sP.1 3

give ni norde r t o determin e th e relativ e differenc e i nth e hazard s o f th

e variou s designs . Th a ratin g i s base do na compariso no f the refueling systems t o tha baselin e evaporativ e system illustrate di nFigur e 1 . A rating o f "Same" , fo r example , Infer s tha t the likelihoo do f th e failur e and/o r the consequenc e o f tha even t are , i ngeneral , nearl y equivalent . Som

a failur e mode s fo r the refuelin g system s ma y hav e a greate r o r lesse r likelihoo do f occurrenc e o r consequenc e thanth a evaporativ e aystam , andthey ar e identified b y a •Greater " o r "Lass " designatio nrespectively . Th a FMEA

wa s limite dt o failur e mode s andconsequence s whic hcoul d produc e potentia l fir e andsafet y problems , anddoe a no t completel y include norma l operablllt y

problems . Sinc e tha FKEA

i a onl y

Intende dt o identif y an dsaalys e hazards , th e absolut e ris ko f eac ho f the failur e mode s o r o f tha overal l syste m i s no t calculated . A s applie dhere , the FMEA wa s mean t onl y

t o compar e hazard s betwee ncurren t andpropose dsystems , wher e hazard s ar e foundther e ar e opportunitie s t o lowe r thes e risk s throughengineerin g changes ; a complet e listin g o f suggeste dchange s t o reduc e ris ki s no t a par t o f thi s analysis . Srataa a Analyse d Th a system s analyze drepreeen t a typica l curren t automobil e evaporativ e emissio ncontro l system , showni nFigur e 1 , andtw o integrate d evaporativa/refuelin g emissio ncontro l systems , show ni nFigure s 2 and3 . The typica l evaporativ e eontro l syste m i s take na s the baselin e agains t whic han y change s i nth e probabilit y o f failur e o r th e severit y o f consequence s du e to tha differenc e i ndesig no f th e evaporativ e andrefuelin g systems i s assessed . Th a tw o lntegrste devaporativa/refuelin g contro l system s represen t concept s demonstrate do ncar s equippe dan dteste dby Mobi l Researc hand Developmen t Corporatio nandby Exxo nResearc handEngineerin g Company(1,2) . Th a majo r differenc e betwee nthe tw o systern

a i s i nth e approac htake nt o preven t rollove r leakage . A nozzle*actuate drollover/ven t valv e i s use don tha system

i nFigur e 2 t o kee pthe refuelin g vapo r ven t lin e elose dexeep t durin g refualiag ; whil e a float/rollove r valv e i a uae donth e system i nFigur e I Cha t close s th a vapo r lin e onl y i nth e even t o f tankoverfil l o r rollover . Tha t nacassar y

functiona l component s o f eac hsyste a ar e illustrate d schematicall y

i nth e figures . Othe r component s coul dconceivabl y b e use di n suc hsystaae , bu t tha component s show nhav e bee ndemonstrate dt o b e sufficien t fo r a practica l an deffectiv e systea . Eac ho f tha component s i s describe d briefl y below . 1 . Praaaura; /*fii7''sfl til 1< t f ffig * Th e pressure/vacuu m relie f ca pi s use d o nmos t curren t evaporativ e system s t o reliev e an y exeeaslv e pressur e o r vacuum

conditio ni nth e tan kcause db y any failur e o f th a tan kt o equilibrat e *lt hatmospheri c pressur e throughth e canister . Th e ca pwoul db e use dfo r th e same purpos e o nintegrate dP.1 4

evaporativa/refuelin g systems , a s show ni nFigur e 2 , bu t a p/ v type ca pwoul dno t b e neede donthe syste a i nFigur e 3 sinc e thi s syste a maintain s th

a tanka t atmospheri c pressur e throughthe float/rollove r valv e wit hnonrestrictin g orifices . •ua l Fillola a an dSaa l - O nthe curren t evaporative system , refuelin g vapor s ar e vente dfro m the ope nfillpipe . Thes e vapor s ofte nar e route dfro m the tankt o tha topportio no f the fillpip e throughexterna l tubing , a s show ni nFigur e 1 . O nthe refueling system , tankvapor s ar e vente dthroughthe canister , a a describe d later , anda aea l i s provide dt o preven t ventin g throughthe fillpipe . Thre e type s o f seal s hav e bee ndemonstrate dby tha America n Petroleu m Institut e (API) . Th e J-tube sea l (als o demonstrate dby EPA ) ha s a ban t section , a s show nby 2 A i nFigur e 2 , whic hbecome s fille dwit hliqui dto bloc kescap e o f vapors . Liqui dflowing i nthe standar dfillpip e ha s als o bee nshow nt o b e a ver y

effective sea l wha na nalternativ e ven t pat ho f lo w bac kpressur e i s provided . Thi s sea l i s th e "flowing liquid " eea l show na a 2 B i a Figur e 3 . Th a thir dtyp e o f aea l i s a mechanica l sea l designate d2 C i nthi s analysis . On e typ e o f mechanica l sea l i s a rubbe r ring aounte di n tha fillpip e s o tha t the nozzl e spou t mus t b e inserte dthroughit . Th e rin g fl utightl y betwee nthe nozzl e spou t andtha fillpip e wall . Th e mechanica l sea l i a regarde da s les s practica l tha nth e j.tub e o r flowin g liqui dseal s becaus e i t require s a pressur e relie f aachanla a t o protec t agains t overpreasurin g tha tanki nthe even t o f a nozzl e shut*of f failure . ZMtii.AaftMf dlallawr/Ven t vkl v - Thi s valv e show

naounte don the fillpip e i nFigur e 2 i s designe dt o provid e positiv e closur e o f the tankvapo r ven t lin e a t al l time s excep t durin g refueling . I t i s designe ds o that.insertio no f the nozzl e open s th a vapo r flo w pat hfro a tha tankt o the caniste r withou t admitting tankvapo r t o the fillpipe . Th a valv e i s kep t close da t al l othe r time s t o preven t fue l leakag e throughth e refuelin g vapo r Un a i nthe even t o f a rollove r accident . Tan kventin g durin g norma l operation s i s aaistaina dthroughthe rollove r devic e o f the curren t evaporativ e system (componen t 4 i nFigure s 1 and2 ) whic hi s daacrlbe dbelow . Thi a tan kven t i s no t satisfactory fo r refuelin g vapor s becaus e i t i s no t designe dfo r lo w bac kpressur e a t the vapo r flo w rat e generate ddurin g refueling . Th e nozzle-actuate dvalv e i s illustrate da s bein g mounte dexterna l t o the fillpipe . I t coul dals o b e designe dt o b e enclose dwithi n tha fillpip e t o provid e additiona l protectio nagains t collisio n damage . The nthe vapo r line betwee nthe tan kandtha valv e coul d ala o b e enclose di nthe fillpipe , eliminatin g an y hazar dassociate d wit hthi s externa l line e nthe curren t evaporativ e contro l system .P.1 5

4 •

A furthe r alternativ e t o the nozzle-actuate dvalve onth e fillpip e i a a valv e locate da t the tank . Suc ha valv e coul db e operate db y a solenoi dwhic hcoul db e actuate db y ca premova l o r nozzl e insertion . Th e nozzle-actuate dvalv e ha s a vapor-liqui dseparato r associate d wit hI t t o protec t the caniste r fro m carry-ove r o f entraine dliqui d durin g refueling . Thi s separato r i s simpl y a nexpansio nvolume a t a hig hpoin t i nthe vapo r lin e t o allo w liqui ddroplet s t o settl e an d flo w bac kt o the tank . I t ca nb e mounte dwit hthe valv e a t the fillpipe , o r a t th e tank . 4 . lollafw r Pric e • Curren t evaporativ e system s ar e equippe dwit h device s t o preven t fue l leakag e fro a th e vapo r lin e t o the caniste r i nthe even t o f a rollove r accident , a a require dby federa l moto r vehicl e safet y

standards . Example s o f curren t rollove r device s ar e chee kvalve s actuate dby flotatio no r by

gravit y a a the vehicl e i s rolle dover , anti-siphonin g "bow tie " arrangement s o f th e vapo r line tubing , flow-reatrietin g orifices , o r combination s o f these . Thes e device s woul db e retaine di nconjunctio nwit hth e nozzl e actuate d rollover/ven t valv e describe dabove . Th e chee kvalv e approac hca nb e adapte dfo r us e i nrefuelin g contro l systems , a a show

nby tha float/rollove r devic e i nFigur e 3 . Vapo r passage s i nth e devic e woul db e enlarge dt o provid e lo w bac k pressur e a t th e vapo r flo w race s encountere ddurin g refueling . Th e tan kwoul db e vente dfreel y throughthi s devic e bot hduring refuelin g an di nnorma l vehicl e operation ; consequently , tha tank woul dremai na t atmospheri c pressur e a t al l times . Us e o f thi s tank-mounte drollove r devic e woul dals o eliminat e th e externa l ven t lin e o nth e fillpip e show ni nFigure s 1 and2 . Thi s rollove r devic e ala o woul dhav e sufficien t expansio nvolume t o serv e a s a vapor-liqui dseparato r t o preven t carry-ove r o f entraine d liquid . A

suitabl e peekin g materia l coul db e use dt o improve separatio nefficiency . Th e devic e woul db e mounte da t th e tank . 5 . Irf^^Tl g QgiFlo a • Many curren t evaporativ e system s contai na flow limitin g orific e i nth e vapo r lin e fro m the tan kt o tha canister . Thi s orific e help s t o contro l leakag e i na rollove r acciden t and sonatina s take s th e plac e o f tha chec kvalv e describe dabove . Thi s orific e ala o help s t o reduc e vapo r loadin g o f th e caniste r by allowin g som

a prassurizatio no f th e tank . Th e limitin g orific e ca n b e retaine di na refuelin g contro l syste a a s show ni nFigur e 2 , bu t i t I s no t use di nth e system o f Figur e 3 . Eliminatin g th e orific e eliminate s any

prassurizatio no f tha tank ; consequently , i t eliminate s an

y vapo r releas e throug htha preasure/vacuu m relie f cap o r an y vapo r releas e o nremovin g th e cap . ^ mmmmm ^^ mMl

• Bot hcurren t evaporativ e system s andrefuelin g system s hav e a vapo r lin e fro m the tankt o tha caniste r (possibl y by wa y o f a noszle-ectuate dvalv e o nthe fillpipe) . O nevaporativ e systems thi s lin e i s typicall y one-quarte r inc htubing , bu t o nrefuelin gP.1 6

system s thi s line mus t b e larg e enought o accommodat e the vapo r flo w rat a durin g refueling (abou t 1 0 gal/min. ) wit hminima l bac k pressure . Th e bac kpressure , henc e the require dline size , i s dependen t o nthe line length . Fo r fron t aounte dcanisters , five eighth s o r three-quarte r inc htubin g ha s bee nused , bu t fo r a rea r mounte dcaniste r clos e t o the tank , one-quarte r inc htubing ha s performe dwell .

- Canister s fille dwit hactivate dcarbo nar e use di n curren t evaporativ e system s t o captur e fue l vapor s vente dfro m th e tank . Simila r canister s woul db e use do nrefuelin g contro l systems , bu t they

wil l requir e approximatel y thre e time s greate r vapo r adsorptio ncapacit y

t o handl e expecte drefuelin g vapo r loadings . Canister s ar e vente dt o the atmosphere ; they exhal e ai r tha t i s fre e fro m fue l vapo r durin g adsorptio neycle s endinhal e ai r durin g desorptio no r purg e cycles . Becaus e o f the capacit y require dfo r refuelin g vapora , refuelin g canister s hav e a large r capacit y availabl e fo r evaporativ e emissions , andar e les s likel y t o become saturate dandt o allow vapo r t o breakthroug hunde r extreme operatin g conditions . Thi s i s becaus e tha refuelin g vapo r capacit y i s use dfo r onl y

a smal l portio no f tha canister' a dut y cycle . Th e refuelin g vapo r l a purge d quickl y durin g drivin g afte r refueling , thu s tha t capacit y become s availabl e fo r evaporativ e emissions unti l the nex t refueling . Refuelin g canister s ca nb e place di nforwar dlocation s o na vehicle a s curren t evaporativ e contro l canister s generall y are . Thes e ar e locate dunde r the hoo do r i nfron t wheel-wel l areas . Refuelin g contro l canister s ca nala o be locate di nthe rea r o f the vehicl e nea r the tank . Rear-mounte dcanister s offe r potentia l advantage s i n tha t shorter , smalle r diamete r vapo r line s ca nb e use dt o connec t the m t o the tank . Furthermore , any accidenta l discharge o f fue l vapo r fro

m the caniste r ven t o r fro m a disconnecte do r broke nvapo r lin e wil l occu r wel l awa y fro m any potentia l ignitio nsource s unde r the hood.

• Th e purg e lin e connects the caniata r t o the Intak e syste a o f th a engin e andprovlde e a vacuu m t o draw

purg e ai r through tha canister . Thi s i s generall y one-quarte r inc htubing . Thi s tubin g l a commo nt o bot hevaporativ e andrefuelin g contro l systems . 9 . a» f centra l vel v . Thi s valv e control a the flow o f deaorbe dvapo r fro m the caniste r t o the engine . I t open s endelose s a s appropriat e t o ainialz e disturbance s t o engin e performanc e andexhaus t emissions . Th e valv e i a actuate dby engin e vacuu

m o r by th e engine's electroni c contro l systea . Th e valv e ma y ala o contai na flow contro l orifice . 10 . Pure * T«-*"fi*rtfl

nfBia t - Thi s i s the poin t a t whic hpurge dvapo r enter s the intak e systea . I t i s usuall y a fittin g o ntha intak e manifol d(or carburetor ) t o whic hthe purg e lin e i s attached .P.1 7

Diacusaloo s an dConclusion s Th e FMEA

show s tha t mos t o f the component s o f the system s hav e the sam e probabilit y

o f failur e andthe sam e severit y

o f consequenc e i nthe integrate d evaporative/refeulin g system s a s i nthe curren t evaporativ e system . Wher e difference s occu r betwee nevaporativ e andrefeulln g systems , ther e ar e design option s availabl e t o eliminat e an y incrementa l hazard . Fo r example , refueling system a requir e a fillpip e vapo r saal , bu t tha flowin g liqui dsea l i s an unmodifie dcurren t fillpip e wit hno differen t probabilit y o r consequenc e o f failure . Th e nozzle•actuate drollover/ven t valv e i s uniqu e t o refueling systems , bu t i t coul db e incorporate dinsid e a fillpip e s o tha t i t present s n o differen t hazar dfro a a curren t fillpipe , o r i t coul db e aounte do nthe tank an dactuate dremotel y by nozzl e insertion . Bot ho f thes e alternative s woul d ala o eliminat e the vapo r line tha t run s outsid e th e fillpip e o nmany curren t systems . Th e tank-mounte dfloat/rollove r devic e i nFigur e 3 woul dno t onl y eliminat e the vapo r lin e a t th e fillpipe , bu t I t woul dala o eliminat e tank praasurizatlo nby

eliminatin g th e limitin g orific e foundi nmany curren t evaporativ e systems . Thi s devic e woul dals o eliminat e an y hazar dassociate d wit hthe curren t pressure/vacuu m relie f cap . An y hazar dassociate dwit hsaturatio no r breakthroug ho f the carbo n caniste r i s simila r fo r refuelin g andcurren t evaporativ e systems . Th e quantit y

o f vapo r breakin g throughi s potentiall y greate r wit hthe large r refuelin g canister , bu t the frequenc y o f breakthroug hi s likel y t o b e les s becaus e o f the canister' s large r capacity . I nan y caae , any

potentia l fir e hazar daasociata dwit hbreekthroug hca nb e reduce dby locatin g the canlsts r i n th e rea r o f th e vehicl e away fro a potentia l underhoo dignitio nsources . Likewise , any

potentia l fir e hazar dassociate dwit ha broke no r disconnecte d vapo r lin e betwee nthe tan kan dcaniste r wil l b e minimize dwit ha rea r mounte d canister . I nconclusion , th e FMEA show s tha t ther e ar e desig nalternative s availabl e t o mitigat e an y incrementa l hazar dprojecte dfo r specifi c refueling contro l system s in- compariso nwit hcurren t evaporativ e system s an deve nt o reduc e potentia l hazard s i nthe curren t evaporativ e systea .P.1 8



### la * 7 -

(1 ) Koahl , ? . J. , s c al , "Vehicl e Onboar dContro l o f Refuelin g Eaission s - Syste m Demonstratio no na 198 5 Vehicle" , SAE Technica l Pape r Serie s #861551 , October , 1986 . (2 ) "Onboar dContro l o f Refuelin g Emissions" , a Repor t t o the API , Exxon Researc handEngineerin g Company , Linden , Ne w Jersey , January , 1986 . (3 ) Stateaea t o f Dian e X . Steed , Adminlatrator . Nationa l Highway Traffi c Safet y Administratio nBefor e th e Subcommitte e o nOversigh t and Investigations , Hous e Committe e o nEnergy andCommerce , Octobe r 2 , 1987 . (4 ) Statemen t o f Bria nO'Neill , Insuranc e Institut e fo r Highway Safety , Befor e the Hous e Subcommitte e o nHealt handEnvironmen t Hearin g o nth a Glea nAi r Ac t Amendment s o f 1987 , Septembe r 28 , 1987 . (5 ) "Safet y

Implication s o f Onboar dRefuelin g Vapo r Recover y Syatems" , June , 1987 , Offic e o f Mobil e Sources , Offic e o f Ai r andRadiation , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency .P.1 9



### APPENDI XA FAILUR E MODE S AMDEFFECT * AHA1TSI SP.2 0



# I i I 

# I 

# I ! 

# A 

# ii



# I 1

1 

# I

1 

# ili i 

# nil i ! i 

# H i 111 *

3



# i I i

! 

# iii !

mum* 

# jJi l

« • M • » V 8 » 3 

# i ! il l 3 I d i



# i t i !

3 » 

# i i ii i

8 8 8 

# ii i Jr l

• • N« >

• ax 

# ii i a 88 8 I - 

# JJ i j{ I

• « « Ca n



## j*2 1 • 

# I I 

# till 

# n

n

a h i 

# i l I g 

# i ! ! i

« 8 8S 8 

# 11 1 1 1 = 

# ' I

J 

# i j J J



# J J

•* * 4 

### 3 ! * 

# I 3 

# i l j V 

# i « »

- i 8 M *

$ 

# "I s 

# 31 M

* i 

# iili | 2 

# i i 

# i

Mi l 

# fa ill 1 

# ill !

ft 8 

# I W s i 

# •il l I n s His 1 

# i Ii

- * 

# I 

# i i I1 

# l l

IP.2 1



# I [ I 

# I mm 

# I

N * 

# I i



# I I I! * it s 

# m 

# i n i 

# iii ; 

# i , 

# nil 

# i i

A • • u•



# I

i J 2



# I 

# ! i i i

it 

# J 

# 1111,1 1 1 8 S 

# ! i

J 1 

# 1

» • H

M *• * a t 

# ih l

a t 

## J 1 

# f! i ! 

# i

M M 

# 1

188 1 

# i 

# i 3



# 3 1 

# i n

3 

# 1 ! 

# il l

JJ J



# I ! Ii i
i l 

# M 

# 'il l ill ! j

i

5

! , 

# i

i 3 

# I 

# II " II 1

O ! 

# I !



# i I 3 

# ii i !

8 8 8 I~ J = - 

### » - r 5 8 8 

# JJ J )$ } JJ J i 

### 8 8 8 J - 

# < « i 

# i

ii i 

# HI

« • N # » 

## a-| - 

# {t| l li t J 

# 0 I * 9 8 3 

# 1 i til l ji i

# I I I 

# I . 2 

# i i



# I

il l 

# 4

ill: 

# i 

# il l 4 > 

# i r 

# I i 2! j

•J S 

# I I

i i 2 

# i 

# i IS8 |

o < • a» i • -

5 

## assists : 

# JJ J 

# J

— m — +

a t at 

## -I.II-.s l 

# •IfiJU Jit!'' 1 

# lllflit l 

# ii.i l 

# 111 !

a i M « •8 

# I

!



# ' 3 

# I f

l a * 

# jji o *

IM I ]s!h l JJ J 

# J

>>Nfl « 

# Pi' l

» -aWte to



### I-- 1 

# II 1 

# ! 

# 111 1 1 

# I 8 !



# i 

# 1 !

1 3

* » a a ' M 5 J S 

# J 

# » i 

# l i

•> « 

# U

• a « 

# i * 8 8 

# ] j

U U 4 a > 

# !J ! |l; l 

# J i iii ! i ! 

# I l l 1,3 - 

# li b t j 2 i 

# i 

# l! I

• 

# 1 j 

# JJ J 

# J i



# u

a i «i m • 

# i 3 8

M 

# 4

3 

# i &3S 

# !!i!ij a 

# iP.2 3



# I

! 

# I 

# I • * • • 

# i i



# I I 

# { ! h i il l 

# i

sll s 

# i 

# III I I t 

# il l i t 

# Ii 

# I I i ]

i I 3



# I 

# I i i 

# JJJ U

I 

# , ] . 1*1 1 & 

# iti! l

i 

# 11 ' liln l

2 

# i j 

# ii i 

# i

\ 

# I 1 M I 3 ! 

# h iai l 

# P

! 

# m il l

s 

# i i 

# 1 1 1 

# i i l 

# a

. iP.2 4

V i0Sr <f c 

## A 1 SlSf e § UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y % .< ? WASHINGTON

. D.C

. 2046 0 

### AP R 

# 5 se e

TH E ADMINISTRATO R

Honorabl e John D . Dingel l Chairma n Subcommitte e o n Oversigh t an d Investigation s Committe e o n Energyan d Commerc e U.S . Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D C 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Chairman : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r Januar y20 , 198 8 lette r concernin g th e onboar d vapo r recoveryan d gasolin e volatilit y contro l propose d rulemakings . I n you r lette r yo u aske d wha t th e expecte d reduction s woul d b e fromonboar d control s b yth e yea r 199 5 and 200 0 i n eac ho f th e ozon e nonattainmen t area s wher e Stag e I I control s hav e bee n o r ar e bein g installed , o r wher e a stat e ha s committe d i n it s Stat e Implementatio n Pla n (SIP ) t o requir e suc hcontrols , assuming , a t a minimum , a differen t leadtim e tha n no wpropose d b yEPA . Yo u als o requeste d th e expecte d nationwid e an d Stag e I I nonattainmen t are a benefit s fromvolatilit ycontrols . I n addition , yo u expresse d som e concern s regardin g contrac t wor k EP Ai s plannin g i n regar d t o th e safet yo f onboar d systems . A s a poin t o f reference , th e area s whic hcurrentl yhav e Stag e I I installe d or whic har e committe d t o i t ar e California , Ne wYor k Cit yMetropolita n are a (Ne wYor k countie s only) , Ne w Jersey , St . Loui s (Missour i countie s only ) an d Washingto n DC . EP Aha s exclude d Californi a i n it s emissio n projections , s o onl yth e fou r remainin g area s wil l b e discusse d i n thi s letter . Wit hregar d t o you r firs t question , EP Aha s no t complete d it s investigatio n o f th e effect s tha t varie d amount s o f leadtim e - .f.o

r onboar d control s wil l hav e o n emission s inventories . Th e amoun t o f th e inventoryreductio n i n 199 5 an d 200 0 wil l depend o n bot hth e yea r i n whic ha fina l rul e i s promulgate d an

d th e amoun t o f leadtim e give n t o manufacturers . W e inten

d t o perfor msuc hdetaile d studie s a s w e continu e ou r analyse s o f th e leadtim e issue . Thes e studie s wil l be abl e t o incorporat e th e result s o f ou r leadtim e analysi s plu s othe r analyse s o f issue s relating t o th e timing and efficienc yo f controls .P.2 5



### - 2 -

Base d o n ou r curren t analysi s w e ar e abl e t o estimat e th e incrementa l refuelin g emission s whic hwoul d b e capture d b y onboar d system s i n area s wit hStag e I I control s (due t o th e highe r in-us e efficienc yo f onboar d systems) . EP Aestimate s th e overal l in-us e efficienc yo f onboar d system s t o b e 8 3 percen t versu s an overal l in-us e efficienc yo f 4 8 t o 6 6 percen t fo r Stag e I I equipmen t (depending upo n th e leve l o f enforcement) . Therefore , onboar d technologywoul d contro l a n additiona l 1 7 t o 3 5 percen t o f uncontrolle d refuelin g emission s i n area s wher e Stag e I I i s being implemente d onc e onboar d i s full yimplemente d an d incorporate d i n th e vehicl e fleet . Regardin g . you r second question , Tabl e 1 contain s th e effect s o f th e propose d volatilit ycontrol s o n H C emissio n inventorie s fo r Stag e I I nonattainmen t area s a s wel l a s th e entir e nation . Th e inventorie s presente d assum e onboar d control s ar e implemente d beginnin g i n 199 0 and Stag e I I i s i n plac e onl yi n Washington , DC . (I f neithe r onboar d no r Stag e I I control s wer e assumed , th e inventorie s woul d be slightl yhighe r bu t the percen t reduction s du e t o volatilit ycontrol s woul d b e essentiall yth e same. ) Volatilit ycontrol s yiel d an 8. 1 t o 8. 6 percen t reductio n i n th e tota l nationwid e H C emission s inventory , compare d t o a n 8. 1 t o 9. 7 percen t reductio n i n eac h o f th e Stag e I I areas . I t shoul d b e note d tha t fo r th e fou r Stag e I I area s presented , EPA' s area s d o no t precisel ymatc h th e area s wher e Stag e I I i s being implemented . Fo r example , EPA' s analysi s fo r St . Loui s include s severa l surroundin g countie s i n Illinoi s wher e Stag e I I i s no t required . Thi s differenc e shoul d no t affec t th e percentag e reductio n calculations , however. " Finally , yo u had severa l concern s regarding a n EP Atas k orde r t o conduc t onboar d safet yrelate d wor k throug ha contractor . EP Ai s preparin g t o conduct , througha contractor , a "Fue l Syste mComparativ e Ris k Assessment" . I n brief , th e contrac t wil l b e a comparativ e ris k assessmen t o f vehicl e fuel/vapo r contro l systems . I t i s intende d t o asses s an d compar e th e potentia l risk s fromth e additio n o f onboar d control s t o thos e risk s whic hma yhav e arise n a s a resul t o f othe r recen t change s i n fue l systems . Thes e represen t some o f th e area s tha t th e Nationa l Highwa y Traffi c -SafetyAdministratio n ha s suggeste d woul d b e appropriat e fo r EP At o investigat e i n addressin g th e concern s abou t onboar d safety . Afailur e mode s an d effect s analysi s wil l b e conducte d fo r nin e slightl ydifferen t fue l system s configurations , including thre e fue l system s wit honboar d contro l approache s incorporated . Eac hfue l syste mwil l b e assesse d i n term s o f thre e phase s wit hpotentia l fo r safet y problem s (design , manufacture , an d service ) an

d unde r differen t acciden t scenarios .P.2 6

- 3 -

A t thi s tim

e w e hav e no t decide d wh o wil l be performin g thi s work . A s soo n a s th e contractua l detail s hav e bee n resolved , w

e wil l provid e yo u wit hfurthe r information . Thank yo u fo r you r continue d interes t i n the onboar d vapo r recoveryan

d gasolin e volatilit ycontro l propose d rulemakings . P Sincerely , C^\A

_ 

## .IJ^AVH^^- ^ Le e M . Thoma s200 0 Tabl e 1

Nationwid e an

d Stag e I I Are a H C Emission s Inventories^

- (100 0 tons/year )

199 5 Are a

Nationwid e Ne wYor k Cit yMe t Ne wJersey- * Vineland-Mi11v i Atlanti c Cit y St . Louis 6 Washingto n DC ^ ro 4

li e No

Contro l o f RVP

1950 4 720. 0

12. 2 21. 6 207. 2 138. 0 EP AGasolin e

Volatilit y Proposal ^

1782 5 652. 7

11. 1 19. 5 188. 1 126. 4 Reductio n Du e

t o E B A Propo s

167 9 67. 3 l. l 2. 1 19. 1 11. 6 sal 3
(8.6 ) (9.3 ) (9.0 ) (9.7 ) (9.2 ) (8.4 )

Nationwid e Ne wYor k Cit yMetro 4 Ne wJersey ^ Vineland-Mi11vili e Atlanti c Cit y St . Louis 6 Washingto n DC' 7 1994 7 732. 2

12. 1 21. 8 213. 1 137. 8 1832 4

666. 8

11. 0 19. 8 194. 7 126. 7 162 3 (8.1 )

65. 4 (8.9 )

1. 1 (9.1 ) 2. 0 (9.2 ) 18. 4 (8.6 ) 11. 1 (8.1 )

1 . Th e nationwid e an d city-specifi c inventorie s liste d ar e take n fro m th e dat a use d t o suppor t th e gasolin e volatilit ycontro l propose d rulemaking . 2 . EPA

proposa l limit s summe r gasolin e volatilit yt o 10. 5 ps i i n 198 9 an d9. 0 ps i i n 199 2 i n AST M Clas s C area s an d proportiona l reduction s fromAST M limit s i n othe r AST M clas s areas . 3 . Number s i n parenthese s ar e percen t reductio n in H C inventoryfrom th e "N o Contro l o f RVP " case . 4 . EPA' s analysi s o f the Ne wYor k Cit yMetropolita n are a contain s part s o f Connecticu t an

d Ne wJersey . 5 . Th e remainin g part s o f Ne wJerse yar e include d in th e Ne wYor k Cit y Metr o area . 6 . EPA' s analysi s o f St . Loui s contain s severa l countie s i n Illinois . 7 . EPA' s analysi s o f Washingto n D C contain s part s o f Virgini a an d Maryland .P.2 8

CENTE R FO R AUT O SAFET Y STUDY & COMMENT S O N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENC Y RULEMAKING S O N GASOLIN E AN D ALCOHO L BLEND VOLATILIT Y

AN D REFUELING EMISSION S FROM GASOLIN E VEHICLE S

Washingto n D C Marc h24 , 198 8TABL E O F CONTENT S P.2 9

I . INTRODUCTION1 A . SAFET Y . ' 1 B . ENVIROMENTAL IMPAC T O F FUE L SPURTIN G AND OVERPRESSURIZATION2 C . ALCOHO L FUEL S 2 II . SAFET Y . 4 A . SAFET Y RECALL S 6 C . SAFET Y COMPLAINT S 1 2 1 . Fire s 1 2 2 . Fue l Volatility , Stalling an d Degradatio n .. . 1 5 a . Fue l Spurting 2 1 b . Fue l Overpressurizatio n 2 3 c . Vapo r Loc k an

d Fue l Foaming 2 5 d . Degradatio n o f Fue l SystemComponent s .. . 2 6 III . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T O F FUE L SPURTIN G AND OVERPRESSURIZATION2 8 IV . ALCOHO L FUEL S 3 0 A . SAFETY HAZARD S 3 1 B . STRINGENT ENFORCEMENT O F VOLATILITY STANDARD S .. . 3 4 V . NO FEDERAL PRE-EMPTIO NO F STAT E VOLATILITY STANDARD S . 3 7 APPENDI X A—Vehicl e Recal l Analysi s APPENDI X B ~ NHTS ADefec t Complain t Faul t Code s APPENDI X C —NHTS AComponen t SystemClassification s APPENDI X D —NHTS AEvaporativ e Emissio n SystemComplaint s APPENDI X E —CAS Analysi s o f Fue l Safet yComplaint s APPENDI X F —Fir e Incidenc e Versu s RVP Standar d APPENDI X G —Guid e t o Chrysle r Vapo r Loc k Kit s APPENDI X H —Genera l Motor s Vapo r Loc k & Volatilit yMemorand aP.3 0

SUMMARY AN D FINDING S Whe n th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA ) propose d gasolin e volatilit ystandard s an d vehicl e onboar d contro l system s t o reduc e evaporativ e hydrocarbo n emission s durin g refueling , majo r concer n wa s raise d abou t whethe r th e propose d evaporativ e contro l -systems woul d caus e mor e vehicl e fire s an d explosions . T o hel p resolv e thi s issue , th e Cente r fo r Aut o Safet yundertoo k a si xmont hstud

yo f al l 4,27 6 safet yrecall s o f 130. 8 millio n vehicl e sinc e 196 6 an d al l 146,00 0 vehicl e safet yreport s sinc e 197 7 i n th e Nationa l HighwayTraffi c Safet yAdministration' s compute r dat a bas e t o determin e th e relatio n betwee n vehicl e fires , gasolin e volatilit yan d evaporativ e emissio n contro l system s whic hhav e bee n o n vehicle s sinc e 1971 . Th e Center' s stud yfound : Recall s * Evaporativ e system s generate d onl ytw o post-cras hfir e recall s o f 11,91 1 ou t o f 130,800,00 0 vehicle s (0.01% ) i n 1 8 years . Neithe r o f thes e recall s wa s linke d wit han yfires , death s o r injuries . * Hig hgasolin e volatilit yan d exces s fue l syste m pressur e cause d 1 2 recall s o f 564,07 1 vehicle s tha t wer e linke d t o 7 1 fires , 2 5 injurie s an d 2 deaths . Thes e recall s occurre d sinc e 197 9 a s gasolin e volatilit ylevel s increased . Safet yComplaint s * O f th e 146,00 0 safet ycomplaint s sinc e 1977 , 20,00 0 ar e o n fue l system s bu t onl y2 7 (0.1% ) o f th e fue l syste mcomplaint s ar e o n evaporativ e emissio n contro l systems . * Ther e wer e 1,50 1 fire s i n th e 20,00 0 fue l systemcomplaints , bu t onl y6 involve d a n evaporativ e system . * Th e 20,00 0 fue l systemcomplaint s include d 1,55 1 report s o f fue l spurting , fue l pressurization , vapo r loc k an d fue l foaming associate d wit hhighe r gasolin e volatility . Th e vas t majorit y (84% ) occurre d during th e summer . * Fo r 1978-80 , NHTS Areceive d les s tha n 1 0 gasolin e volatilit y relate d complaint s pe r year ; thereafter , complaint s ros e steadil y a s volatilit yros e wit hove r 10 0 complaints/yea r fo r 198 3 on . * State s wit hlowe r ASTM volatilit ystandard s ha d fewe r fue l safet ycomplaints . Th e 2 6 state s wit ha n AST M summe r volatilit y standar d o f n o highe r than 10. 0 ps i RV P fo r a t leas t on e mont h ha d 48 % o f th e tota l vehicl e flee t bu t onl y34 % o f th e fue l safet yreports . Th e othe r 2 4 state s wit hASTM level s highe r tha n 10. 0 ps i durin g th e summe r wer e 80 % mor e likel yt o hav e fue l safet ycomplaints .P.3 1

* O f th e 1,50 1 fire s i n th e dat a base , 6 8 directl yrelate d t o fue l safet yproblems . Onl y2 o f th e 6 8 fire s occurre d whe n th e AST M standar d wa s 9. 0 ps i RVP . * Gasolin e leak s fro mfue l spurtin g an d fue l over pressurrzatioi vaverag e ove r 2 gallon s pe r inciden t an d increas e tota l gasolin e evaporativ e emission s b y10-20% . * Fue l safet yreport s an d fire s wer e 50 % mor e likel yt o occu r i n state s wit hhighgasoho l (10 % ethanol-90 % gasolin e blends ) sale s unles s th e stat e require d gasoho l t o mee t a volatilit y standard s n o highe r tha n 10. 5 ps i RVP . * Hig hvolatilit ygasoho l state s wit hjus t 32 % o f th e nationa l vehicl e flee t hav e 50 % o f th e fue l safet ycomplaint s an d 56 % o f th e fue l safet yfires .

CONCLUSION S AND RECOMMENDATION S Th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc yshoul d mov e ahea d a s soo n a s possibl e wit hbot hgasolin e volatilit yan d onboar d system s t o contro l refueling emissions . Th e potentia l cras hfir e ris k fromonboar d system s i s small . Th e improve d onboar d system s unde r EPA' s propose d evaporativ e contro l rul e ar e onl ymarginall y mor e comple xtha n presen t onboar d systems . Anyincrease d cras h safet yris k fro

monboar d system s woul d b e a margina l increas e o f a n alread

yminima l safet yris k an d coul d easil yb e handle d b y improve d technology . Unlik e onboar d contro l system s whic hpresen t minima l risk , increasing gasolin e volatilit ypose s a clea r an d presen t dange r o f vehicl e fires . A s gasolin e volatilit yha s increased , th e incidenc e o f gasolin e spurting an d leaking fromoverpressurize d tank s ha s increase d dramaticall ya s ha s vehicl e fires . State s suc ha s Colorad o wit hhighsale s o f alcoho l blend s wit heve n highe r volatilit ylevel s tha n gasolin e ar e eve n mor e likel yt o hav e fue l safet yincident s an d fires . Onl ythos e state s whic h hav e enforce d mor e stringen t volatilit ystandard s fo r bot h gasolin e an

d alcoho l blend s hav e avoide d th e wors t o f thi s fir e hazard . Th e Agenc yshoul d mov e ahead t o impos e a nationa l 9. 0 ps i RV P standar d wit hn o exemptio n fo r alcoho l blends .

i iP.3 2

I . INTRODUCTION Th e Cente r fo r Aut o Safet yi s a consume r grou p concerne d wit h aut o safety , fue l qualit yan d aut o emissions . Thes e comment s focu s o n th e safet yissue s involve d i n bot hproceedings , th e environmenta l impac t o f fue l spurting an d overpressurization , an d th e inadequacy o f EPA' s propose d regulatio n o f alcoho l fuels . A . SAFET Y Whil e a grea t dea l o f attentio n ha s focuse d o n th e safet yo f requirin g onboar d control s t o contro l refueling emissions , th e far greate r an

d mor e rea l safet yris k i s th e highvolatilit yo f presen t fuels , particularl yethano l blends . Evaporativ e emissio n control s includin g charcoa l canister s an d ven t line s hav e bee n o n car s sinc e 197 1 s o tha t ther e i s a larg e dat a bas e o f bot hrecall s and report s o f fire s t o asses s thei r impact . A s show n below , evaporativ e emissio n control s hav e no t resulte d i n an ysignifican t incidenc e i n vehicl e fire s o r recalls . I n sharp contrast , exces s fue l volatilit y ha s le d t o man

ydocumente d bur n death s an d injurie s a s wel l a s recalls . A s fue l volatilit yan d ethano l blend us e hav e increase d i n recen t years , th e reporte d incidenc e o f fue l spurting fromover pressurize d ga s tank s an d stalling du e t o vapo r loc k hav e increase d significantly . Onl yi n thos e fewstate s whic hhav e mor e stringen t volatilit ystandard s ha s th e incidenc e o f suc hfue l volatilit y problem s bee n diminished . B yincreasing th e capacit yo f th e on boar d systemt o captur e refueling losse s a s wel l a s imposing tighte r fue l volatilit ycontrols , EPAwil l fin d tha t ther e i s a majo r safet yP.3 3

benefi t a s wel l a s a n environmenta l benefi t fromgoin g ahead wit h bot honboar d and fue l volatilit ycontrols . B . ENVIROMENTA

L IMPAC T OF FUE L SPURTIN GANDOVERPRESSURIZATIO N The Center s analysi s o f al l 20,00 0 fue l system s complaint s reporte d t o the . Nationa l HighwayTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n (NHTSA ) sinc e 197 7 show s majo r advers e impact s o n hydrocarbo n (HC ) emission s tha t EP Aha s no t considere d t o dat e i n thi s rulemaking — (1 ) th e massiv e releas e o f hydrocarbon s fro mwidel yoccurin g fue l spurtin g and pressurize d lea k incidents , an d (2 ) tamperin g wit hfue l systemcomponent s t o compensat e fo r advers e performanc e problem s associate d wit hhig hfue l volatilit yan d fue l systempressure . Th e averag e releas e o f gasolin e i n a fue l spurting inciden t o r lea k fro m a n overpressurize d fue l tank i s ove r 510 0 gram s o r th e equivalen t o f th e evaporativ e emission s fro m30 0 vehicle s a t presen t 198 8 flee t level s o r mor e tha n 60 0 vehicle s whe n th e propose d volatilit yan d evaporativ e emissio n control s tak e effect . I n a n effor t t o improv e performanc e o f vehicle s wit hexcessiv e fue l pressure , man yconsumer s ar e drillin g out , removing o r loosening th e ga s cap , o r eve n disablin g th e charcoa l canister ; al l o f whic hlead t o increase d H C emissions . C . ALCOHO L FUEL S Wit hthei r highe r volatility , alcoho l blend s hav e wors e safet y an d emissio n problem s tha n straigh t gasoline . Analysi s o f NHTS A fue l systemcomplaint s sho wtha t state s wit hmor e tha n 7 % gasoho l penetratio n (th

e nationa l average ) hav e 50 % mor e fue l safet y complaint s tha n state s wit hles s tha n 7 % gasoho l sales . Indeed ,P.3 4

thes e state s hav e jus t 37 % o f th e vehicl e populatio n bu t 52 % o f th e fue l safet yreports . Recalls , NHTS Ainvestigations , an d manufacture r bulletin s an d interna l document s al l sho walcoho l fuel s a s on e o f th e primarycause s o f vapo r lock , fue l spurting an d overpressurization , an d fue l systemcomponen t degradation . O f al l th e state s wit hhighgasoho l sales , thos e fe wwhic henforc e th e same summe r RV P standard s n o highe r tha n 10. 5 ps i fo r bot hgasolin e an d gasoho l hav e reduce d fue l safet ycomplaints . Th e remaining gasoho l state s wit hjus t 32 % o f th e vehicl e populatio n hav e 50 % o f th e fue l safet ycomplaint s an d 56 % o f th e vehicl e fue l volatilit yfires . Highe r volatilit ystandard s fo r alcoho l fuel s ar e worsene d b y weakene d enforcemen t levels . Withou t stringen t enforcement , alcoho l blend s ar e likel yt o excee d an ytolerance , 0. 5 t o 1. 0 psi , se t b y EPA . Th e propose d EPApape r certificatio n wher e a gasoho l blende r ca n demonstrat e complianc e b yshowing a documen t indicating th e bas e gasolin e me t RVP standard s i s fraugh t wit hproblems . EPA' s ow n experienc e wit hth e lead trading an d credit s program clearl y demonstrate s tha t widesprea d violatio n o f regulation s woul d occur . Th e Federa l HighwayAdministratio n (FHWA ) ha s estimate d tha t u p t o a billio n dollar s pe r yea r i n highwaytaxe s ar e evade d througha "dais ychain " o f pape r transaction s withi n th e gasolin e industry . Th e availabl e evidenc e doe s no t demonstrat e a volatilit y exemptio n i s necessaryfo r th e marketing o f ethano l fuel . A t leas t seve n state s hav e regulation s requiring ethano l blend s t o mee t th e sam e volatilit ystandard s a s gasoline . Ye t significan t quantitie s o f gasoho l ar e sol d i n thos e state s indicating sufficien t quantitie sP.3 5

o f sub-RVP gasolin e ar e availabl e fo r blendin g wit hethanol . Give n th e increase d VO C emission s fro mth e us e o f alcoho l blend s a s wel l a s th e demonstrate d safet yhazard s o f highe r volatilit yfuels , EP A shoul d requir e 'al l alcoho l blend s t o mee t th e same volatilit y standard s a s othe r gasolines . Thi s i s particularl ytru e o f methano l blend s whic har e no wrequire d t o mee t ASTM volatilit ylimit s an d whic hhav e bee n successfull ymarkete d i n th e pas t whil e meetin g thes e limits . Whateve r actio n EPAtake s i n thi s rulemaking , th e agenc yshoul d mak e i t clea r state s ar e fre e t o mandat e stricte r gasolin e volatilit ystandard s t o protec t vehicl e driveabilit yand safety . Th e purpos e behind ASTM volatilit ystandard s an d stat e adoptio n thereo f i s no t emissio n contro l bu t publi c safet yan d consume r protection . I f EP Awer e t o exemp t alcoho l blend s fromvolatilit y standards , clearl ya ho t weathe r o r hig haltitud e stat e coul d se t volatilit ystandard s fo r alcoho l blend s t o preven t vapo r loc k an d fue l spurting . Whateve r els e safet ymean s i n thi s proceeding , i t mean s state s ar e fre e t o protec t consumer s fro mvehicl e safet yan d driveabilit yproblems . II . SAFET Y Throughou t EPA' s rulemaking process , muc hattentio n ha s bee n focuse d o n th e safet yo f requiring onboar d system s t o contro l refuelin g emissions . A t th e Octobe r 27 , 198 7 publi c hearin g o n thi s notice , th e Insuranc e Institut e fo r HighwaySafet ystate d "abou t 1,20 0 fata l passenge r vehicl e crashe s —plu s abou t 16,00 0 nonfata l one s — alread

yinvolv e fir e ever yyear . Mor e tha n 1,50 0 occupant sP.3 6

sustai n a t leas t on e bur n injur yeac hyear. " Th e Nationa l Highwa y Traffi c Safet yAdministratio n (NHTSA ) ha s tol d EPAtha t "ther e wil l b e som e unquantifiable , increase d risk s o f cras han d non-cras hfir e associate d wit honboar d controls. " Despit e thes e concerns , littl e effor t ha s bee n mad e thu s fa r t o quantif yth e increase d ris k tha t ha s bee n suppose d an d t o separat e ou t th e fire s fro m evaporativ e emissio n system s fro mothe r fire s whic hcompromis e th e vas t majorit y o f vehicl e fires . Th e Cente r fo r Aut o Safet y(CAS ) woul d b e th e firs t t o agre e tha t an ysignifican t increas e i n th e ris k o f fir e an d bur n injurie s cause d b

yonboar d control s i s unjustified . Sinc e 1970 , CA S has . bee n a n outspoke n advocat e o f safe r vehicle s an d criti c o f design s tha t compromis e safety . Ove r th e years , CA S ha s urge d adoptio n o f tough federa l safet ystandard s t o reduc e th e ris k o f bur n relate d injurie s and submitte d comment s o n NHTS Arulemaking action s establishing importan t standard s suc ha s Federa l Moto r Vehicl e safet yStandar d (FMVSS ) 3 01 , concerning post-cras hfue l systemintegrity . CA S ha s als o playe d a leading rol e i n securing th e recal l o f vehicle s wit h defect s whic hcaus e fire s sucha s th e 1971-7 6 Ford Pint o wit h explodin g ga s tanks , th e 198 4 Pontia c Fier o wit hengin e compartmen t fires , an

d th e 1983-8 6 Ford ambulance s an d van s tha t spur t fuel . FMVS S 30 1 ha s reduce d th e ris k o f post-cras hfire s i n vehicle s mad e sinc e it s Septembe r 1 , 1976 , effectiv e dat e an d wil l continu e t o assur e a n adequat e leve l o f safet yafte r onboard control s ar e required . I n a Marc h27 , 1986 , lette r t o Congressma n John Dingell , NHTS AAdministrato r Dian e Stee d pointe d ou t tha t FMVS S 30 1 is :P.3 7

a performanc e standard , an d assuming curren t cras h tes t complianc e ca n b e me t b yth e particula r onboar d systema manufacture r maychoose , maysimpl ymea n tha t th e cost s an

d benefit s o f th e vapo r control s ca n b e assume d a t a constan t leve l o f cras hsafety . Apar t from; th e overal l leve l o f safet yprovide d b yFMVS S 301 , a Jun e 11 , 1987 , lette r fro mNHTS At o EP Anote d tha t "th e Nationa l Traffi c an

d Moto r Vehicl e Safet yAc t require s manufacturer s t o b e responsibl e fo r th e recal l an d remed yo f an yo f thei r vehicle s foun d t o contai n an

ysafety-relate d defect , including an ydefec t no t relate d t o aspect s o f performanc e covere d b you r safet ystandards. " Thi s recal l authorit yenable s NHTS At o obtai n a leve l o f fir e safet y abov e tha t require d b yFMVS S 301 . I n determinin g whethe r th e propose d onboar d control s pos e an y significan t safet yproblem , CA S use d th e tw o larges t availabl e dat a base s t o quantif yth e ris k associate d wit hth e potentia l fue l system hazard s identifie d i n thi s rulemaking . Thes e dat a base s ar e (1 ) al l safet yrecall s sinc e 196 6 an d (2 ) al l safet ycomplaint s sinc e 1977 . Eac ho f thes e dat a base s i s quit e larg e s o tha t vali d conclusion s ca n b e drawn therefrom . Revie wo f thes e dat a base s i s a n effectiv e metho d o f quantifyin g th e ris k associate d wit honboar d control s an d fue l volatilit ysinc e th e propose d emissio n control s ar e quit e simila r t o thos e use d o n vehicle s sinc e 1971 . A . SAFET Y RECALL S Sinc e 196 6 thr u February1988 , moto r vehicl e manufacturer s hav e recalle d 130. 8 millio n vehicle s i n 4,27 6 recalls . CA S analyze d eac h on e o f thes e recall s an d identifie d 29 1 recall s manufacturer s hav e conducte d fo r gasolin e fue l systemproblem s o n vehicle s subjec t t oP.3 8

* EPA ' s propose d onboar d rule . ( Acomprehensiv e lis t an d containe d i n Appendi xA. ) I n reviewing th e conditio n recall , CA S identifie d 1 0 distinc t problem s tha t led t o th e 29 1 recall s num b categorie s o f fo r fue l system j i 1 analysi s i s prompting each sa : fety-relate d defects . Th e e r and percen t o f tota l recall s associate d wit heac h categoryi s show n i n Tabl e 1 belo wan d i n th e graph s o n th e following page .

1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 10 . TABL E 1 —NHTS AFUE L

CATEGORY Fue l tan k ruptures ; al l FMVS S 30 1 failure s Fue l leak s fro

mchemicall y cause d componen t degradatio n Fue l leak s fro

mmechanicall y cause d componen t failure s Fue l systempressurization , fue l spurting Evaporativ e emissio n system failure s Miscellaneou s Stallin g Manufacturin g problem s Structura l failure s Fue l line s loose n o r disconnec t TOTA L

7 SYSTE M RECALL S

NUMBE R 4 4 2 7 4 6 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 3 6 3 2 5 2 6

29 1 PERCEN T 1 5 9 1 6 4 7 5 4 2 2 9 9

10 0

## MOTO R VEHICL E RECALLS SINC E 196 6 Al l Recall s (4,276 ) Fue l Syste m Recall s (291 )

Fue l Syste m Fue l Leaks (Chemical ) 9 %

Fue l Pressur e 4 % Miscellaneou s 5 % Stallin g 4 % Evaporativ e 7 %P.4 Q

Analysi s o f thes e recall s show s tha t man ydifferen t fue l system condition s ca n caus e fire s an d promp t safet yrecalls . Thes e condition s rang e fro mgasolin e leak s cause d b ycarpe t fastener s penetratin g th e 'fue l tank durin g manufacture , t o misroute d fue l lines , t o defectiv e fue l fille r caps , an d tank s tha t ruptur e i n crashes . Th e larges t singl e categoryo f fue l safet yrecall s wit h 22 % i s error s i n manufacturin g and installatio n suc ha s misroutin g th e fue l line , puncturing th e fue l tank , an d omitting components . Indeed , carpe t tacks , screw s an d dril l hole s alon e accounte d fo r 1 0 o f th e 29 1 recalls . Th e recal l categorywhic hreceive d th e mos t emphasi s i n thi s rulemakin g i s fue l systemfailure s whic har e associate d wit hbur n injurie s i n post-cras hfires . Post-cras hfire s ar e particularl y dangerou s becaus e occupant s trappe d i n wreckag e froma collisio n may b e unabl e t o extricat e themselve s i n tim e t o avoi d bur n injuries . Further , post-cras hfire s an d FMVS S 30 1 failure s ar e mor e likel yt o involv e fue l tank rupture s causing explosion s an d rapidl yspreading fires . Becaus e o f th e dange r o f post-cras hfires , th e likelihoo d o f evaporativ e system s t o caus e themi s give n particula r attention . Revie wo f manufacture r recall s show s tha t condition s involving cras hrelate d fue l tank ruptures , fille r nec k break s an d primary fue l lin e failure s accoun t fo r 15.1 % o f al l fue l system recalls . Thes e cras hrelate d failure s ar e cause d b yfactor s including pinche d fue l lines , missin g fue l tank shields , fault yga s cap s an d mis

positione d fue l hose s — condition s likel yt o produc e fire s immediatel yfe d b

ya larg e quantit yo f fuel .P.4 1

I n contrast , evaporativ e emissio n system s accoun t fo r onl y7.2 % o f al l fue l syste mrecalls . Virtuall yal l o f thes e condition s caus e fue l leak s rathe r tha n post-cras hfires . Ou t o f th e 29 1 fue l syste m recalls , 2 0 involve d th e evaporativ e system . Onl y2 o f th e 29 1 fue l syste m an d 4,27 6 tota l recall s pertai n t o gasolin e vapo r lin e o r valv e malfunction s tha t ca n caus e post-cras hfue l leakage . I n Octobe r 1985 , Subar u recalle d 11,00 0 X T model s becaus e th e bumpe r coul d damag e th e ai r ven t hos e an d caus e a fue l lea k durin g a collision . I n Januar y1976 , Jagua r recalle d 91 1 XJ 6 model s becaus e th e fue l pum p non-retur n valv e coul d caus e fue l t o sypho n fro mon e tan k t o th e other , an d caus e th e carbo n caniste r t o overflow. 1 Recal l dat a showin g onl ytw o defect s associate d wit hpost
collisio n failur e o f curren t evaporativ e system s indicate s th e potentia l cras hfir e ris k fro monboar d system s i s small . Th e improve d onboar d system s unde r EPA' s propose d evaporativ e contro l rul e ar e onl ymarginall ymor e comple xtha n th e presen t system s whic h hav e generate d tw o post-cras hfir e recall s o f 11,91 1 ou t o f 130,800,00 0 vehicle s (0.01% ) i n 1 8 years . Neithe r o f thes e recall s wa s linke d wit han yfires , death s o r injuries . An yincrease d cras h safet yris k fro monboar d system s woul d b e a margina l increas e o f a presen t smal l safet yris k an d coul d easil yb e handle d b yimprove d technology .

1 I n Decembe r 1983 , Grumma n Olso n recalle d 5 1 diese l truck s becaus e "th e locatio n an d lengt ho f th e ven t valv e hose " coul d resul t i n fue l spillag e durin g a n accident . Thi s recal l an d fue l syste mi s no t affecte d b yEPA' s gasolin e evaporativ e emissio n controls . 1 0P.4 2

Recal l dat a clearl ydemonstrat e tha t th e safet yris k fro mhigh fue l volatilit yand excessiv e fue l pressur e i s fa r greate r tha n fro m evaporativ e contro l systems . Exces s fue l pressur e cause s larg e amount s o f gasolin e spurting ou t o f th e fille r nec k afte r th e ga s cap i s remove d as . wel l a s larg e fue l leak s fromth e fue l systemeve n wit hth e fille r cap i n place . Automaker s hav e conducte d 1 2 recall s o f 654,07 1 vehicle s t o alleviat e fue l pressur e and spurtin g prob

lems . Thes e recall s hav e bee n associate d wit ha t leas t 7 1 fires , 2 5 injurie s and 2 deaths .

TABL E 2 —NHTS AFUE L PRESSUR E RECALL S Recal l Numbe r 79V-02 8 79V-04 8 79V-13 2 80V-08 3 81V-05 8 82V-07 6 85V-01 4 85V-10 6 87V-11 3 87V-144 87V-15 5 88V-01 3

TO r Manufacture r

Volv o Volv o Volv o Fia t Volkswage n Genera l Motor s Heritag e Fleetwoo d For d For d Winnebag o Georgi e Bo y

fAL Typ e & Yea r 1975-7 6 Car s 1975-7 7 Car s 1974-7 5 Car s 197 9 Car s 1980-8 1 Car s 198 2 Car s 198 4 Motorhome s 1979-8 5 Motorhome s 1983-8 7 E35 0 1983-8 7 E250 ,

Ambulance s E35 0 Van s 1985-8 7 Motorhome s 1984-8 5 Motorhome s Numbe r o f Vehicle s 57,00 0 61,00 0 121,00 0 13,28 0 133,00 0 24,45 5 75 0 28,54 5 16,00 0 188,00 0 9,04 1 2,00 0

654,07 1 

### 1 1P.4 3

Th e NHTS Afue l pressur e recall s closel ytrac k th e increas e i n gasolin e fue l volatilit ywit hn o fue l pressur e recal l befor e 197 9 whe n th e nationa l averag e summe r RVP wa s les s tha n 1 0 psi. 2 I n additio n t o these * recalls , NHTS Aha s activ e investigation s int o fue l pressur e problem s o n 1983-8 5 Renaul t Fuego' s (E A88-020 ) an

d Genera l Motor s 2 0 and 3 0 chassi s (E A88-016 ) s o th e fue l pressur e recal l trend wil l continu e up i n th e futur e unles s fue l volatilit ycontrol s ar e imposed . C . SAFET Y COMPLAINT S NHTS Amaintain s a compute r dat a bas e o f 146,00 0 safet y complaint s receive d b yth e agencysinc e 1977 . CA S requeste d a compute r searc ho f th e entir e dat a bas e t o identif yand segregat e al l fue l syste mcomplaint s withi n thi s dat a base . CA S receive d a compute r printou t o f 20,00 0 complaint s whic hcovere d al l fue l system safet yreport s ranging fromfue l tank explosion s i n crashe s t o fue l leak s o f al l types , t o defectiv e carburetors , an d eve n sudde n acceleration . CAS staf f analyze d everysingl e abstrac t t o identif y al l report s o f fires , fue l pressur e an d spurting , vapo r loc k an d fue l foaming , carbo n canisters , an d degradatio n o f fue l system component s b

yth e fue l (excludin g contaminate d fuel) . Copie s o f eac hidentifie d complain t wer e obtaine d fromNHTS At o verif ythem . 1 . Fire s Th e fue l system

dat a bas e contai n 1,50 1 report s o f fire s whic h wer e identifie d b yexamining th e "faul t code " an d abstrac t section s

2 "Stud yo f Gasolin e Volatilit yan d Hydrocarbo n Emission s fro m Moto r Vehicles, " Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Tabl e 2- 6 (Novembe r 1985) . 1 2P.4 4

o f th e compute r printou t o f NHTSA' s 20,00 0 fue l systemcomplaints. 3 Identificatio n o f a complain t containing on e o f thes e faul t code s wa s followe d b

yexaminatio n o f th e abstrac t describin g th e reporte d problem . Revie wo f th e abstrac t verifie d tha t a fue l fir e wa s involve d and provide d a metho d fo r determinin g whethe r o r no t th e fir e resulte d froma crash . Th e vas t majorit yo f th e 1,50 1 fue l relate d fire s identifie d b y thi s proces s wer e non-cras hengin e compartmen t fire s whic hcomprise d 60 % o f th e complaint s i n th e dat a base . Th e mos t frequentl ycite d known cause s o f engin e compartmen t fire s wer e fue l leak s fromfue l injectors , carburetors , an d fue l lines. 4 Th e nex t mos t commo n fir e cause s wer e catalyti c converter s overheatin g wit h10%

- an d fue l leakin g o r spraying ou t fro mth e fille r nec k wit h5% . Cras hfire s totale d 2 4 o r 2 % o f th e dat a base . O f thes e 2 4 cras hfires , non e wer e cause d b

yfailur e o f th e evaporativ e emissio n contro l system .
3 Th e complain t summarie s o f al l fir e report s ar e identifie d b y on e o f th e following 8 faul t codes . [ Acomplet e lis t o f NHTS Afaul t code s i s include d a s Appendi xB. ] Cod e Fir e Type/Caus e 2 2 Flui d Fir e (transmission , etc. ) 2 3 Liqui d Propan e Gas e Fir e 2 4 Gasolin e Fir e 2 5 Unknow n Fir e 1 6 Flui d Explosio n 1 7 Liqui d Propan e Ga s Explosio n 1 8 Gasolin e Explosio n 7 4 Electrica l 4 Agoo d exampl e o f thi s i s Ford' s recal l (87V-139 ) o f 3. 6 millio n 1986-8 8 vehicle s fo r defectiv e fue l lin e coupler s tha t uncouple d and spraye d gasolin e unde r hig hpressur e i n th e engin e compartment . A t th e time th e recal l wa s announced , For d reporte d 22 5 fire s an

d 8 injurie s du e t o th e defect . 1 3P.4 5

No r di d th e CA S analysi s fin d an ysignifican t numbe r o f report s o f cras ho r non-cras hexplosions . Report s describin g explosion s eithe r alon e o r i n crashe s accounte d fo r les s tha n 1 % o f al l fir e report s identifie d b yCAS . Sinc e NHTSA' s vehicl e systemcategorie s ar e eac hdistinc t (a s show n b yth e lis t i n Appendi xC ) , report s o f explosion s and/o r cras hrelate d fire s woul d almos t certainl yhav e bee n code d a s fue l systemproblems . Th e lo winvolvemen t o f evaporativ e emissio n component s i n vehicl e fire s i n th e NHTS Adat a bas e wa s cros s checke d b yanalysi s o f thos e safet yreport s tha t specificall yreference d evaporativ e components . Thi s searc hturne d up onl y2 7 complaint s whic har e liste d i n Appendi xD . Onl y6 o f thes e involv e a vehicl e fir e (0.4 % o f al l fir e report s i n th e dat a base) , non e i n a cras ho r causing a n injury . No t al l 6 fir e complaint s poin t t o th e evaporativ e system a s causin g th e fire . Fo r example , complain t H6087 7 indicate s th e fir e wa s cause d b ya catalyti c converte r malfunctio n althoughth e caniste r purg e valv e wa s repaire d earlier . Wher e th e evaporativ e emissio n syste mcause d th e fire , th e mechanis mvarie d fromcontac t o f a caniste r wit hth e exhaus t manifol d t o gasolin e backin g u p throug hth e ven t line s du e t o overfilling . Revie wo f existin g highwaysafet yliteratur e confirm s crash

relate d fire s accoun t fo r a smal l fractio n o f al l vehicl e fire s an d resultin g injuries . A198 1 Societ yo f Automotiv e Engineer s Tech

nica l Paper , fo r example , highlighte d Michiga n Stat e Polic e fir e dat a tha t showe d "accident , overturn an d knockdown " relate d event s accounte d fo r onl y5.3 % o f al l passenge r ca r fires. 5 I n contrast ,

5 "Moto r Vehicl e Non-Cras hFires, " Pete r Coole y(Highwa ySafet y Researc hInstitute , Universit yo f Michigan ) SAE No . 810012 , p. 3 (1981) . 1 4P.4 6

th e mos t commo n cause , "par t failure " accounte d fo r 38.7 % o f al l passenge r ca r fires . Accordin g t o thi s SAE paper , onl y"on e i n every1 5 reporte d bur n injurie s associate d wit hmoto r vehicle s result s froma crash." 6 2 . Fue l Volatility , Stalling an d Degradatio n NHTS Asafet yrepor t dat a confirmtha t th e larges t safet yhazar d involve d i n thi s rulemaking i s fromhighe r fue l volatilit yan d re sultin g fue l systemoverpressurizatio n whic hcaus e fue l leaks , fue l spurtin g and fire s a s wel l a s fue l foaming , vapo r loc k an d stalling . I n sharp contras t t o th e 2 7 safet ycomplaint s o n evaporativ e emis

sio n systems , CA S identifie d 1,16 3 vehicl e safet ycomplaint s wit h 1,66 1 report s o f fue l overpressurization , vapo r lock/fue l foaming , fue l spurtin g an

d fue l degradatio n o f vehicl e component s and per formanc e a s show

n i n th e following graph . Appendi xE i s a n explana

tio n o f thi s analysi s wit hcoding sheet s listing everyrepor t b y categoryalon g wit hth e date , locatio n and vehicl e mode l an d year. 7 CA S foun

d th e safet yhazard s o f highe r fue l volatilit yar e (1 ) concentrate d durin g MaythroughOctober , (2 ) i n state s wit hhighe r fue l volatilit ylevels , an d (3 ) increasing a s fue l volatilit ylevel s increase . Tabl e 3 o n pag e 1 7 compare s th e occurrenc e o f fue l safet y complaint s versu s vehicl e registrations , AST M lo wsumme r mont hRei d vapo r pressur e (RVP ) volatilit ystandard , an d stat e RVP volatilit y standard . Th e 2 6 state s fo r whic hASTM se t a voluntaryRVP standar d fo r on e summe r mont ho f no highe r tha n 10. 0 ps i ha d onl y34 % o f th e

6 Id . a t 5 . Attachmen t Ainclude s th e 1,13 3 complaint s fo r 1,16 3 vehicles . 1 5

## EVAPORATIV E AN D FUE L SAFET YCOMPLAINT S

Numbe r

e n

Fue l Syste m Pressur e Vapo rLoc k Fue l Spurtin g Componen t Degradatio n Evaporativ e

^ iC O

d ) 

# B 3 

# i

o • H 

## i i l O 

### J . &<*. - H

- H - H 

### i l B . o in * * 

# I

i n 

## s g s g o o o o & a5s 5

5 

# a i J. 

# n 5 5 5 5 2 1 5 5 5

5 < 5 5 < 5 5 5 5 oinooooinmininoinoioioinoinoinmininmoooooininoinooinooininoooooininoinin o o n r H t- l OnO^OCnOHHHHOHOHHr-!OrHOf-li-trH*HHOOOOOHHCnrHOOiHOOHHOOOONOHt-HOHH O

^ cHrHrHiHt-li-tHHHHHi-trHt-li-lrHiHHrHfHrHHHHiHr- l rHHHr-i«-4fHiHHHH H r H H H H r- t H H

TrN^]'OcoHl^ln^olcoolOln^^o^o(nNHOln^oon't^TrHn<J , N^^D^co^lOH^N'trl^oo^^Ntol n OOWOlOTTrHOO^OOrHHCNlOfH^OOrirH^OHOlOOOOMiHintHOr^OMinOOOfHfnOO^Hnr-i d 

## a

<H > rgHOWcooia)HHr^oooa)t^u>Nr^riOiHOooooo^o^o^<^oocnorHt^nu>iHOOvDoifovo\oO'^chOco H 'oooHdodd(oooinin^NrJr^riooorio>ooHNr(oo(oOMin«)Hoooo«)inTroo'tooo d 

### 3 MiNnnri H n 

## a a

m

£ - " » ^oo^nH^o^on^m^OlnalcooH^)N(^(^JcoOH^O(^lnlnH(^^{^lOO^lOHlnlnln^eocoHTrN^^Nr10lne o (nHntOHln^NH»wn^^^lnN<J , ^'^'O^HOOOOn^rlln^li)^lnn^«J( , lH^M^(^lrl^OMln^l^(O N rH O H O HHHddlnrldd«NHHHHdHN«MH^IOOOONOlnPl01fHH'tOHO^^^OOM^JOH d

n J 

## 5 *SSH5" H O e ' d t i h S s 

# V<

- 9 g 3 S 3 8 gfe'l d u

0 * jj f > w

^ H 3 wwP.4 9

fue l safet yreport s bu t 48 % o f th e nationa l vehicl e fleet . Wit h66 % o f th e fue l safet yreport s an d 52 % o f th e vehicl e fleet , thos e 2 4 state s wit hAST M summe r level s highe r tha n 10. 0 ps i wer e 80 % mor e likel yt o hav e fue l safet yproblems . A s shown belo wi n Tabl e 4 an d i n th e ba r grap ho n th e following page , th e incidenc e o f fue l problem s ha s increase d a s fue l volatil

itylevel s hav e increased . From197 8 thr u 1980 , NHTS Areceive d onl y 8 fue l safet ycomplaints . Thereafter , th e complaint s climbe d t o th e leve l o f ove r 10 0 pe r year . (CA S eliminate d al l 1983-8 6 Ford ambulance s whic hwer e recalle d fo r fue l spurting fromthi s tabl e t o exclud e th e effec t o f thi s batc ho f lat e mode l vehicles. ) Sinc e th e tabl e i s base d onl yo n th e yea r o f firs t incidence , th e greate r numbe r o f complaint s i n late r year s i s no t du e t o ne wvehicle s continuin g t o hav e fue l volatilit yproblem s i n late r years . TABL E 4 ~ FUE L COMPLAINT S BY YEA R O F INITIAL INCIDENC E 197 8 197 9 198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 4 198 5 198 6 198 7 2 0 6 1 1 4 1 15 0 16 7 19 9 19 3 34 8
T o confirmtha t th e increas e i n fue l safet ycomplaint s i s relate d t o fue l volatility , CA S examine d th e record s fo r th e 198 0 t o 198 3 mode l year s i n depth . First , CA S eliminate d al l degradatio n complaint s whic har e mor e likel yt o b e time relate d and les s likel y t o b e volatilit yrelated . The n CAS plotte d th e yea r o f firs t incidenc e veru s mode l yea r fo r fue l overpressurization , fue l spurt s ing and vapo r lock/fue l foaming report s whic har e volatilit y related . (Tabl e 5. ) Onl y15 % o f th e vehicle s ha d a volatilit y 1 8P.5 0



### DISTRIBUTIO N O F FUE L SPURTING , PRESSURIZATION , AN D VAPO R LOC KREPORT S B Y SEASO N (1,55 1 TOTAL) Fall/Sprin g 12% " 

### Winte r 4- %

FUE L SAFET

YCOMPLAINTS B

YYEAR O F INITIA L INCIDENC E (Excludin g 1983-198 6 Ford Ambulances ) numbe r36 0 34 0 32 0 30 0 28 0 26 0 24 0 22 0 20 0 180 160 140 12 0 100 8 0 60 4 0 2 0 0 1 1 150

235 ? 167 . 

### •is ? 19 9 19 6 .j.>. t - -

••*;*;••

. :;yi'J 348 :

J&' s Calenda r yea r Nationa l Averag e Summe r Gasolin eRV

P (Excludin g California) * 197 8 197 9 1980 198 1 1982 198 3 1984 198 5 198 6 198 7 9. 9 9. 2 10. 0 10. 1 10. 5 10. 6 10. 4 10. 8 10. 4

PromTabl e2 Evaporativ eHy

d -5 » Draf t

Regulator y Impac t

Analysis , "Contro l o f Gasolin eRV

PVolatilit y an d Hydrocarbo nEmission s fro mNe w Moto r Vehicles, * U.S
. BPA , Jul y 1987
. 1 9P.5 1

9 3

-

— 3 1 6 1 7

- 2 8 2 5 2 9 5 2 1 9

1 5 1 3 3 8 7

1 7 8 3 8 7

1 0 2 6 8 4 6

1 1 1 1 2 1 relate d complain t i n th e firs t yea r the ywer e sol d wit h85 % havin g thei r firs t volatilit ycomplain t i n late r year s whe n volatilit y level s wer e higher . I f CA S ha d plotte d additiona l volatilit y complaint s fo r th e sam e vehicl e i n late r years , th e numbe r o f complaint s i n late r year s woul d hav e bee n fa r higher . TABL E 5 —VOLATILIT Y COMPLAINT S B Y MODE L YEA R AN D FIRS T INCIDENC E

198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 4 198 5 198 6 198 7 Mode l Yea r 198 0 3 198 1 198 2 198 3 Analysi s o f th e fue l safet ycomplaint s bytim e o f yea r confirm s tha t controllin g fue l volatilit yi n th e summe r wil l advanc e bot h environmenta l an d safet ygoal s a s th e greates t incidenc e (84% ) o f fue l safet ycomplaint s occur s durin g thi s tim e perio d a s show n i n th e pi e char t o n th e previou s page . Betwee n 8 2 t o 87 % o f al l fue l spurting , overpressurizatio n an d vapo r lock/fue l foamin g report s occurre d i n th e summe r (Maythr u September ) . Onl y2 t o 6 % occu r durin g th e col d weathe r winte r month s (Decembe r thr u February) . Durin g th e sprin g an d fal l month s (Marc ht o Apri l an d Octobe r t o November ) whe n ther e ar e occasiona l war mdays , volatilit yrelate d safet ycomplaint s rang e fro m9 t o 14% . Degradatio n o f vehicl e performanc e du e t o fue l problem s i s no t strongl ycorrelate d wit h seaso n wit h53 % occurin g durin g th e 5 summe r months , 28 % durin g th e 4 spring/fal l month s an d 19 % durin g th e winte r months . 2 0P.5 2

TABL E 6 ~ SEASONAL INCIDENC E O F FUE L SAFET Y REPORT S Spurtin g Pressur e Vapo r Loc k Degradatio n Seaso n Summe r Spring/Fal l Winte r 85 %

9 % 6 % 82 %

14 % 4 % 87 %

11 % 2 % 53 %

28 % 19 % Examinatio n o f th e 6 8 reporte d fire s du e t o fue l safet y problem s confirm s thi s seasona l distributio n wit h81 % occurring i n th e summe r a s show n i n Tabl e 7 . Sinc e th e dat e an d locatio n fo r eac hfir e wa s known a s show n i n Appendi xF , CA S wa s abl e t o deter

in e th e applicabl e voluntaryASTM RV P standar d fo r th e tim e o f th e fir e a s wel l a s whethe r ASTM standar d D 43 9 wa s adopte d b yth e state . A s shown i n th e char t o n th e nex t page , onl y2 fire s occur re d whe n th e AST M RV P standar d fo r th e are a o f th e fir e wa s 9. 0 psi . Moreover , on e o f th e fire s occurre d i n Texa s whic hha s no t adopte d AST M o r an

yothe r volatilit ystandards . Th e othe r fir e occurre d i n Ne wMexic o whic hha s adopte d ASTM D 43 9 bu t whic hha s grante d ethano l blend s a volatilit yexemption . Colorad o le d al l state s i n fire s cause d b

yfue l volatilit yproblem s wit h1 2 o f th e 6 8 o r 18% . TABL E 7 ~ SEASONAL FIR E DISTRIBUTION Summe r Soring/Fal l Winte r 5 6 (81% ) 1 1 (16% ) 2 (3% )

a . Fue l Spurtin g Th e mos t seriou s safet yhazar d identifie d i n th e NHTS Asafet y complain t dat a bas e i s fue l spurting —wher e th e gasolin e spurt s o r spray s fro

m th e fue l tank upo n remova l o f th e fille r cap . I n mos t cases , th e fue l releas e i s du e t o exces s pressur e i n th e fue l tank . 2 1

## FUE L SAFET YREPORT

S AN D ETHANO L SALES 10 0

Percen t Shar e

Colorad o Ethano l States * Al l Othe rState s

State s wit h ethano l sale s greate rtha n 7. 0 percen t an d ethano l volatilit y standar d highe rtha n 10. 5 ps i RVP

. 0 1 t oP.5 4

I n som e cases , th e fue l boil s and pour s ou t o f th e tank . Fue l spurtin g occurre d i n 37 % o f th e vehicl e fue l safet ycomplaint s wit h th e amoun t o f fue l ranging fro ma pin t t o manygallons . Th e -safety.hazard s o f fue l spurting ar e readil yapparen t —i f there• s a n ignitio n source , there' s a fire . Thi s i s bes t show n b y som e o f th e fue l spurting report s CA S analyze d a s summarize d below . Jul y9 , 1985 . Do n Palanuk remove d th e ga s cap o f hi s Fleetwoo d Southwind motorhom e t o investigat e a nois e comin g fromth e ga s tank . Gasolin e spraye d ou t o f th e fille r nec k ont o Palanuk , anothe r motorhom e an d a car . Whe n a pilo t ligh t i n th e othe r motorhom e ignite d th e gasoline , everythin g wen t up i n flames . Th e ca r and bot h motorhome s wer e destroyed . Do n Palanuk die d 3 1 hour s late r i n a bur n cente r i n Sal t Lak e City . Augus t 17 , 1986 . Anse l Masse yo f Amarill o TX wa s vaca tionin g i n Ne wMexic o i n hi s 198 6 Winnebag o Chieftai n whe n h e sawfue l spilling fro m hi s ga s cap . Whe n h e stoppe d and too k of f th e cap , gasolin e spraye d o n hi mand ignited . Althoug ha passerb ysmothere d th e flame s wit ha blanket , Mr . Masse ydie d th e following dayo f burn s suffere d ove r 63 % o f hi s body . Ma y9 , 1986 . Thoma s Clougho f Seminol e F L pulle d int o a ga s statio n i n Acwort hG Ai n hi s 198 5 For d E25 0 van . Whe n h e remove d th e fille r cap , gasolin e spraye d ou t an d ignited , destroyin g th e va n an d ga s statio n and causing first , second an

d thir d degre e burn s t o Mr . Clough . b . Fue l Overpressurizatio n Th e mos t commo n safet yhazar d identifie d i n th e safet y complain t dat a bas e i s fue l overpressurizatio n wher e th e gasolin e i n th e fue l tank build s u p dangerousl yhighlevel s o f pressur e tha t manifest s itsel f i n fue l leak s fro mth e tank an

d ven t lines , poo r vehicl e performance , excessiv e gasolin e odors , constan t whistlin g fromth e tank , and a rus ho f pressur e upo n remova l o f th e fille r cap . I n som e cases , th e exces s pressur e ca n blo wven t line s an d ga s tank seams . To o muc hexces s pressur e ca n als o caus e vehicl e stall

in g whic hth e drive r often , an d dangerously , alleviate s b yremoving 2 3P.5 5

o r loosening th e ga s cap . Exces s fue l pressur e occurre d i n 58 % o f th e vehicl e fue l safet ycomplaints . Th e amoun t o f gasolin e tha t ca n b e los t t o a lea k fromexces s pressur e i s staggerin g —up t o 2 0 gallon s i n a motorhom e an d severa l gallon s i n a car . Althoughfire s d o no t occu r a s frequentl y a s i n th e cas e i n o f fue l spurting , pressur e leak s ofte r resul t i n fires . Som e owner s wh o hav e experience d th e exces s pressur e i n th e ga s tank eve n sto p drivin g th e vehicles . Th e following ar e typica l example s o f th e safet yproblem s experience d b yconsumer s wit hexces s pressur e i n thei r vehicles . Christia n Speake r o f Graterfor d P Awrot e abou t hi s 198 6 Tiog a motorhom e wit h" a lo t o f problem s wit hi t over pressurizing . Once , th e moto r jus t stoppe d an d lef t m e sittin g i n th e middl e o f th e road . I ha d t o remov e th e fil l cap an

d reliev e th e pressur e befor e i t woul d start . Everytim e I remov e th e fille r cap I ge t a 'whooshing 1 sound o f al l th e pressur e being released . . . . Eve n durin g th e daywhe n th e motorhom e i s jus t sitting , I hav e a pressur e buildup . Hele n M . Fipp s o f Hyattsvill e M D complaine d tha t "th e fue l tan k wa s leaking [on he r 198 3 For d Thunderbird ] becaus e o f excessiv e pressure . I ha d t o cal l th e fir e departmen t t o hos e down th e parking lot . . . . For d representativ e [said ] tha t thi s i s normal . .. . W e d o no t lik e puttin g ou r live s o r ou r children' s live s i n dange r b ydriving thi s car . Ethe l V . Vann o f Owning s M D had a n exces s fue l tank pressur e wit hhe r 198 3 Renaul t Allianc e suc htha t "whe n th e tank i s fille d ove r 1/2 , th e gasolin e i s expelle d from th e tan k and run s down th e sid e ... . I bega n t o kee p les s and les s ga s i n th e tank . . . approximatel ythre e t o fou r gallons . Whe n ther e i s an ignitio n source , gasolin e leak s fro mfue l tank s wit hexces s pressur e can tur n int o fire s a s i s clearl ypointe d ou t b yAssistan t Fir e Chie f Mar c Crai n fo r Hoodland Fir e Distric t #7 4 i n Rhododendro n OR i n reporting o n tw o For d F25 0 pickup fires : 2 4P.5 6

Bot hvehicl e driver s experience d a mino r backfir e an d los t power , fir e appeare d a t th e fue l fille r spouts , driver s pulle d th e vehicle s t o th e sid e o f th e highwayan d fir e rapidl yinvolve d th e cam p vehicle s attached . [The ingnitio n facto r identifie d wa s "fue l fro moverpressure d tan k spilled-ont o sid e & rea r o f vehicle." ]

c . Vapo r Loc k an

d Fue l Foaming Anothe r commo n safet yhazar d associate d wit hhighfue l volatilit yi s vapo r loc k an d fue l foaming whic hcaus e stalling an d othe r performanc e problem s i n moto r vehicles . Vapo r loc k an d fue l foaming occurre d i n 39 % o f th e fue l safet ycomplaints . A s wit hfue l spurtin g an

d overpressurization , vapo r loc k an d fue l foaming ar e warmweathe r problem s wit h87 % o f th e report s occurring fro mMay throug hOctobe r wit h11 % occurring i n Marc ht o Apri l an d Octobe r t o November . Vapo r loc k an

d fue l foaming hav e becom e suc hcommo n problem s a s fue l volatilit yha s increase d sinc e 198 0 tha t mos t manufacturer s hav e devise d specia l repai r procedure s fo r vehicle s i n us e an d hav e mad e productio n change s fo r ne wvehicle s i n effort s t o alleviat e th e problem . Fo r example , Chrysle r ha s issue d specia l driveabilit ykit s fo r mos t o f it s 1981-8 7 vehicl e productio n a s show n i n Appendi xG . A s par t o f a n overal l effor t t o resolv e fue l problem s i n 1982-83 , Genera l Motor s (GM ) note d tha t 100 % o f al l clas s Amotorhome s coul d hav e vapo r loc k a s fue l volatilit yincreased . G M wa s s o concerne d abou t vapo r loc k i n thes e vehicle s tha t i t hel d a meetin g a t it s Phoeni xProving Ground s i n Octobe r 198 3 o f 3 4 o f th e 3 6 Clas s A motorhom e manufacturer s t o discus s ho wt o reduc e vapo r lock . (Se e Appendi xH. ) A t th e meeting , G M pointe d out : 2 5P.5 7

Th e highe r th e Rei d vapo r pressur e th e mor e vapo r loc k ca n b e expected . Th e averag e Rei d vapo r pressur e o f regula r unleade d gasolin e wa s 9. 3 i n 1980 , 9. 8 i n 198 1 an d 10. 3 i n 198 2 wit hindividua l location s showing 1 2 and 1 3 and i t appear s th e trend wil l continu e upward . Thi s reall ycon vert s -t o explai n wh ysome motorhome s tha t hav e neve r had an yproblem s could , wit hfue l change s towar d th e highe r Rei d vapo r pressur e fuels , fin d problem s o f vapo r loc k tha t di d no t exis t a yea r o r s o ago . Examinatio n o f th e man yindividua l consume r vapo r loc k an d fue l foaming report s i n th e dat a bas e confir mth e safet yhazard s o f highe r volatilit yfuels . I n Septembe r 1985 , Richar d Antolovic ho f Denve r wrot e th e NHTS Atha t hi s 198 3 Chevrole t S-1 0 Blaze r "vapo r lock s a t th e mos t dangerou s times , e.g. , pulling ou t ont o a bus y roa d . . . ascending a mountai n interstat e highwaygrad e i n th e middl e o f a lo t o f traffi c . . . attemptin g t o pas s anothe r vehicl e o n a 2-lan e highway . . . . Thi s conditio n ha s becom e verycommo n i n m yare a o f th e country . I t i s als o s o dangerou s tha t I n o longe r trus t allowin g m ywif e & childre n i n th e vehicl e unde r th e state d conditions. " I n Jun e 1983 , Christin e Sedlmayr o f Arvad a C O wrot e NHTS A tha t he r 198 1 Plymout hRelian t "vapo r lock s an d stalls . I conside r thi s problemt o b e a life-threatening hazard , a s ther e i s n o telling wh o mayb e behind m e whe n th e ca r stops . S o fa r I hav e bee n fortunate . Nex t tim e I mayb e dead . I n Jun e 1986 , Barto n Sadowsk yo f Ne wYor k N

Y wrot e NHTS A tha t hi s 198 5 MercuryMerku r "ha s develope d a progres sivel yworsenin g cas e o f vapo r lock . [O n a trip ] th e ca r backfire d an

d stalle d ou t approximatel y1 5 times . Eac h tim e I wa s surrounde d b yheav ySaturdaymid-daytraffic . I ha d t o ge t ou t o f th e ca r eac htime , lif t th e hoo d t o coo l th e engin e an d th e trunk li d t o war n motorist s behind m e and stand i n th e road unti l th e engin e wa s coo l enough t o restar t ... . d . Degradatio n o f Fue l SystemComponent s I n 10 % o f th e fue l safet ycomplaints , degradatio n o f fue l systemcomponent s b yth e fue l itsel f cause d fue l leak s o r poo r performanc e suc ha s stalling . Thi s analysi s exclude d problem s 2 6P.5 8

cause d b

yfue l contaminate d wit hwate r o r impuritie s suc ha s rus t o r debris . Thu s i t wa s limite d t o degradatio n cause d b ya fue l meetin g specification s se t b yth e marketer . Unlik e th e othe r fue l safet y reports , degradatio n wa s no t concentrate d i n an yseason . Th e fue l systemcomponent s mos t likel yt o b e degrade d wer e carbureto r float s an d j ets , gasket s an d seals , hoses , fue l injectors , filters , fue l pum p diaphragms , an

d tern e plate . Mos t frequentl yconsumer s woul d specif yonl ytha t th e component s deteriorate d suc ha s Joann e Chri s o f Monrovi a CAwh o reporte d th e carbureto r i n he r 198 0 Hond a floode d becaus e "th e float s wer e plasti c & hole s go t eate n throughthem. " Philli p Lewi s o f Memphi s TNreporte d hi s 198 4 Peugeo t 50 5 leake d ga s from th e fille r nec k becaus e "th e rubbe r gaske t o n th e ga s ca p react s wit hgasoline , ex pand s & n o longe r seals. " Th e fuel s mos t commonl yidentifie d a s degradin g fue l system component s and causing safet yproblem s wer e alcoho l fuels . I n fact , the yar e th e onl yuncontaminate d fuel s tha t wer e identifie d a s degradin g vehicl e components . Thi s i s supporte d b yth e fac t tha t thos e state s wit hgasoho l sale s greate r tha n th e nationa l 7 % averag e hav e mor e fue l degradatio n complaints . Thes e state s hav e jus t 35 % o f th e vehicl e marke t shar e bu t 51 % o f th e fue l degradatio n complaints . Th e following ar e typica l example s o f fue l degradatio n report s abou t alcoho l fuels . Kathi e Roger s o f Prett yPrairi e K S experience d chroni c stallin g i n he r 198 4 Hond a CR X tha t th e deale r advise d "wa s cause d b

ycarbureto r flaking awaydu e t o ethanol. "

2 7P.5 9

WilliamLorenze n o f Vallej o C Aha d th e fue l lin e deterio

rat e o n hi s ne w198 2 For d Mustang afte r drivin g fo r 7,00 0 mile s o n 10 % ethano l blend s despit e th e owner' s manua l sayin g the ywer e acceptable . Harold . Dillenbec k o f Johnso n Cit yTNpai d a $100 + t o replac e th e fue l pum p o n hi s 198 1 Plymout hRelian t afte r usin g A P gasolin e containing 10 % ethano l tha t cause d i t t o fail . Do n Youn g o f Garland TX had t o replac e th e fue l injector s i n hi s 198 3 Nissa n 280Z X a t a cos t o f $60 0 afte r using Vicker s gasolin e containing ethanol . Althoug hVicker s assure d hi mit s gasolin e di d no t contai n ethanol , h e ha d a sampl e o f th e ga s fromhi s tank analyze d and foun d i t containe d 8 % ethanol . II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T O F FUE L SPURTIN G AND OVERPRESSURIZATION Highe r fue l volatilit yha s a majo r advers e impac t o n ozon e level s tha t EP Aha s no t considere d t o dat e i n thi s rulemakin g —(1 ) th e massiv e releas e o f hydrocarbon s (HC ) from widel yoccuring fue l spurtin g and pressurize d lea k incidents , and (2 ) tamperin g wit hfue l systemcomponent s t o compensat e fo r advers e performanc e problem s associate d wit hhighfue l volatilit yan d fue l system

pressure . Ou t o f th e 116 3 vehicl e safet ycomplaints , 41 % reporte d majo r gasolin e losse s t o th e environmen t du e t o fue l spurtin g o r leak s fro mga s tank s wit hexces s pressure . Th e averag e releas e o f gasolin e i n a fue l spurtin g inciden t o r lea k froma n overpressurize d fue l tank i n th e safet ycomplain t dat a bas e i s ove r 2 gallon s o r 510 0 grams . Thi s i s th e equivalen t o f th e evaporativ e emission s fro m30 0 vehicle s a t presen t 198 8 flee t level s o f 16.9 3 grams/dayo r mor e than 60 0 vehicle s a t th e projecte d level s o f 7.2 3 grams/daywhe n th e propose d gasolin e volatilit ystandard s tak e effect . Th e following example s from th e complain t dat a bas e 2 8P.6 0

sho wth e magnitud e o f th e gasolin e los s t o th e environment . Thoma s Mar k o f Evergree n C O ha d 5 gallon s o f ga s blo wou t o f th e fille r nec k o f hi s 197 9 Nissa n 200Z X whe n h e too k of f th e cap o n a daywhe n th e temperatur e wa s 90 ° an d h e wa s a t a 750 0 foo t altitude . (H61017 ) Th e Iredel l Count yN C EM S reporte d thei r 198 1 For d Econo
lin e ha s leake d ove r 5 gallon s o f ga s severa l time s wit h an d withou t th e engin e running . (141415 ) John Matra s o f Granit e Cit yI L reporte d a fue l spurting cas e o n hi s 198 5 HolidayRamble r motorhome , "On taking th e cap off , th e ga s spewe d ou t abou t 4 o r 5 fee t i n th e ai r and . . . severa l gallon s ejecte d fro m th e tank. " (147907 ) Whe n Kary

n Litaker-Parke r o f Mes a A Z remove d th e fille r cap fromhe r 198 3 Renaul t Fueg o o n Augus t 17 , 1985 , sh e "wa s drenche d b

ya floo d o f gasolin e shooting fro mth e fille r are a .. . a t leas t a gallo n o f gasolin e wa s thrown o n m e from

hea d t o toe. " (136510 ) I n orde r t o determin e th e additiona l H C emission s du e t o fue l spurtin g and exces s pressur e leaks , on e mus t estimat e th e percentag e o f vehicle s affecte d an d th e frequencyo f fue l expulsio n incidents . Base d o n th e tota l numbe r o f 146,00 0 vehicl e report s i n th e consume r complain t dat a base , th e frequenc yo f fue l spurting o r leak s fro m overpressurize d ga s tank s i s a t leas t 0.4% . I f thes e vehicle s hav e on e fue l los s inciden t every3 0 day s during Maythr u October , thi s suggest s tha t fue l spurting an d overpressurizatio n increase s evapor ativ e H C emission s b y40 % ove r th e bas e 198 8 level . Eve n eliminat

in g vehicle s recalle d fo r fue l spurting suc ha s th e 1983-8 6 For d ambulance s fro

mth e dat a base s suggest s th e presen t incidenc e rat e i s a t leas t 0.1-0.2 % whic hincrease s evaporativ e H C emission s b y1 0 t o 20 % ove r th e bas e 198 8 level . B ylowering th e gasolin e volatilit ystandard , EPAwil l no t onl y reduc e norma l evaporativ e emission s bu t als o fue l spurting and leak s 2 9P.6 1

fro mexces s ga s tan k pressure . However , significan t reduction s i n fue l spurtin g an d leak s wil l no t occu r unles s th e RV P volatilit y standar d i s se t a t 9. 0 psi . Th e bes t indicato r o f thi s i n th e dat a bas e i s th e incidenc e o f fir e byRV P standar d a s show n i n Appendi x F . Th e primar ydifferenc e betwee n a fue l spur t wit han d withou t a fir e i s th e presenc e o f a n ignitio n source . Onl ytw o o f 6 8 fire s occurre d whe n th e AST M standar d wa s 9. 0 an d on e o f thes e occurre d i n Texa s whic hdoe s no t enforc e AST M standards . (Se e p . 2 2 supra. ) Th e stat e bystat e examinatio n o f al l fue l safet yreport s als o show s a reductio n i n fue l spurtin g an d pressur e leak s a s volatilit y level s ar e reduced . Thos e 2 6 state s wher e th e AST M RV P standar d wa s 10. 0 ps i ha d onl y34 % o f th e fue l safet ycomplaint s eve n thoug hthe y ha d 48 % o f th e vehicl e fleet . Fo r th e 2 4 state s wher e th e AST MRV P standar d wa s higher , the yha d 66 % o f th e fue l safet yreport s bu t onl y52 % o f th e vehicl e fleet . I n a n effor t t o improv e performanc e o f vehicle s wit hexcessiv e fue l pressure , man yconsumer s ar e drillin g out , removin g o r loosenin g th e ga s cap , an d disablin g ven t line s t o th e charcoa l canister ; al l o f whic hlea d t o increase d H C emissions . Whil e th e Cente r ha s no t quantifie d th e amoun t o f additiona l H C emission s tha t ar e released , o n a n individua l vehicl e basi s thi s ca n eliminat e mos t o f th e reductio n i n H C emission s fro mevaporativ e controls . IV . ALCOHO L FUEL S Sinc e alcoho l fuel s hav e highe r volatilit yan d mor e material s incompatabilit ytha n straigh t gasoline , the ywil l caus e mor e performanc e problems , particularl yi n olde r vehicle s an d vehicle s 3 0P.6 2

wit hheavie r drivin g cycle s suc ha s motorhomes , truck s and vans , an d thos e operatin g a t hig haltitude . Thes e performance s problem s lead t o greate r safet yhazard s an d highe r emissions . Controllin g th e volatilit yo f ethano l blend s t o th e sam e leve l a s straigh t gasolin e i s a n importan t mean s o f bot hreducing safet yhazard s an d H C emissions . A . SAFETYHAZARD S Wit hthei r highe r volatility , alcoho l blend s hav e wors e safet y emissio n problem s tha n straigh t gasoline . Analysi s o f NHTS Afue l systemcomplaint s show s tha t state s wit hmor e tha n 7 % gasoho l penetratio n (the nationa l average ) hav e 50 % mor e fue l safet y complaint s tha n state s wit hles s tha n 7 % gasoho l sales . Indeed , thes e state s hav e jus t 35 % o f th e vehicl e populatio n bu t 52 % o f th e fue l safet yreports . Recalls , NHTS Ainvestigations , an d manu acture r bulletin s and interna l document s al l sho walcoho l fuel s a s on e o f th e primar ycause s o f vapo r lock , fue l spurting and over ressurization , and fue l systemcomponen t degradation . O f al l th e state s wit hhighgasoho l sales , thos e fe w(Alabama , Sout hDakot a and Tennessee ) whic henforc e summe r RV P standard s n o highe r tha n 10. 5 ps i an d n o ethano l exemptio n hav e reduce d fue l safet ycomplaints . Th e remaining gasoho l state s wit hjus t 32 % o f th e vehicl e populatio n hav e 50 % o f th e fue l safet ycomplaint s an d 56 % o f th e vehicl e fue l volatilit yfire s a s i s show n i n th e grap ho n th e following page . Colorad o i s a wors t cas e exampl e o f providin g a volatilit y exemptio n fo r ethano l blends . Muc ho f th e stat e i s a t hig haltitud e 3 1P.6 3



## FUE L SAFET

YFIR E REPORT

S AN D RV P LEVEL

S (6 8 TOTAL )

AST M standar d fo r locatio n an d dat e o ffir e 9. 0 ps i fW 3 %

3 2P.6 4

whic hincrease s th e advers e effect s o f highe r fue l volatilit y includin g fue l spurting , vapo r loc k an d fires . A t presen t Colorad o provid e a volatilit yexemptio n fo r gasolin e blende d wit hethano l whil e requirin g straigh t gasolin e t o mee t ASTM D 43 9 RV P standard s o f 10. 0 ps i fromJun e thr u Septembe r an d 11. 5 ps i fo r Mayan d October . Prio r t o Jul y1986 , Colorad o di d no t enforc e an yvolatil

it ystandard s fo r gasolin e o r ethano l blends . A s th e ba r grap ho n th e previou s pag e shows , Colorad o ha s onl y1.56 % o f th e U.S . vehicl e flee t bu t ha s 4.1 % o f th e fue l safet ycomplaint s an d 17.6 % o f th e fue l relate d fire s i n th e complain t dat a base . Colorad o shoul d hav e a 9. 0 ps i RV P volatilit ystandar d fo r al l gasolin e an d n o ethano l exemptio n fo r Ma ythr u Octobe r i n orde r t o reduc e it s fue l safet y problem . Manyowner s wh o hav e fue l safet yproblem s o n 10 % ethano l blend s find th e problem s disappea r whe n the ychang e t o straigh t gasoline . Th e followin g ar e som e typica l examples : Th e Cerr o Gord o Communit yAmbulanc e Servic e i n Cerr o Gord o I L ha d vapo r loc k cause d b yusin g gasolin e wit hethanol . "Whe n fue l no t containing ethano l i s used , vehicl e seem s t o ru n normally. " Whe n Gordo n McGre wo f Evansto n I L ha d hi s 198 0 Hond a Accor d "starte d running awfu l withi n 50 0 fee t o f th e station" , h e ha d th e Roa d Pilo t gasolin e teste d o n a ga s chromatograp han

d foun d tha t i t containe d 10 % ethano l an d n o water . H e refuele d wit hnon-ethano l gasolin e an d ha d n o problems . Debbi e Carrol l o f Resto n V Ahad $20 0 t o $30 0 o f engin e repair s afte r using Diga s containing 10 % ethano l tha t resulte d i n he r 198 4 Chrysle r E Clas s having "ver ylittl e powe r whe n acceleratin g an d a lo t o f stalling. " Sh e change d t o non-ethano l blende d gasolin e an d ha d n o problem s thereafter .

3 3P.6 5

B . STRINGENT ENFORCEMENT O F VOLATILITY STANDARD S Th e ethano l industryha s propose d tha t whateve r volatilit y standar d EP Aset s fo r ethano l blend s shoul d b e enforce d b y"pape r certification " —i.e. , wher e th e ethano l blender/retaile r show s complianc e b

yprovidin g pape r record s tha t th e bas e gasolin e me t EPA' s RV P standar d an d tha t onl yethano l wa s adde d t o produc e th e finishe d 10 % ethanol-gasolin e blend . Eve n i f EP Atestin g showe d th e ethano l blen d t o hav e a 1 4 ps i RVP , th e blende r coul d avoi d al l liabilit yfo r th e violation . A s experienc e wit hothe r gasolin e regulatoryprogram s ha s shown , pape r certificatio n i s a n invitatio n t o disaster . Experienc e wit hgasolin e regulatoryprogram s show s significan t fraudulen t and evasiv e practices . Whil e th e majorit yo f gasolin e marketin g practice s ar e i n accordanc e wit happlicabl e law s an d regulations , th e incidenc e o f unlawfu l practic e undermine s th e regulatoryprogram s and put s thos e wh o obe yth e la wa t a competitiv e disadvantage . Suc hunlawfu l practice s hav e bee n particularl ywide

sprea d wher e th e regulation s rel yupo n pape r record s t o demonstrat e complianc e a s th e fue l ethano l industr yha s proposed . Example s o f suc hunlawfu l gasolin e marketin g practice s i n th e pas t includ e cheatin g o n generatio n and sal e o f lea d right s unde r EPA' s lea d phasedown program . Base d o n a sampl e o f refiners , EPA' s Offic e o f th e Inspecto r Genera l foun d widesprea d noncomplianc e wit h EPA' s lea d conten t an d reporting regulation s including : [EPA ] refiner s report s di d no t suppor t th e sal e an d pur chas e o f 13 7 millio n gram s o f lead usag e right s durin g 198 4 and 6 4 millio n during 198 5 .. . 3 4P.6 6

Refiner s i n ou r sampl e di d no t repor t purchasin g 76 3 millio n gram s o f lead additiv e tha t lead manufacturer s reporte d sellin g t o them ; an d Te n refiner s reporte d substantia l decrease s i n lead us e betwee n 198 4 and 1985 , withou t havin g t o provid e detaile d explanation s o f thei r actions. 8 EP Aaudit s confirme d th e widesprea d noncomplainc e wit hth e lead phasedown programwit hEP Aannouncing o n Decembe r 2 , 1986 , tha t base d o n jus t . on e audit , i t wa s seeking $4 0 millio n dollar s i n penaltie s fo r violatio n o f th e lead conten t regulations . Thi s audi t foun d tha t certai n refiner s di d no t repor t th e us e o f ove r 2 billio n gram s o f lead . Th e Genera l Accoun t Offic e (GAO ) ha s issue d tw o report s sinc e 198 6 whic hals o sho wth e gasolin e industryfailing t o compl ywit h regulator yrequirements . I n Augus t 1987 , GA O foun d widesprea d octan e mislabelin g i n Ne wYor k Cit ytha t resulte d i n consumer s being sol d lo woctan e gasolin e a s highoctan e a t a pric e 1 2 t o 2 5 cent s pe r gallo n highe r tha n wha t lo woctan e sol d for. 9 Th e GAO als o found widesprea d noncomplianc e wit hEPA' s lea d phasedown programand foun d case s o f lead us e a s muc ha s 30 0 millio n gram s i n exces s o f th e standard. 1 0 Accordin g t o GAO , EP Aitsel f recognize d "th e increasingl yrestrictiv e lead standard ha s increase d th e incentive s t o chea t o n th e rules. "

8 "Significan t Contro l Weaknesse s Identifie d I n Programt o Reduc e Lead Emissions, " February1987 , a copyo f whic hi s provide d a s Attachmen t B . ^"Gasolin e Marketing : Octan e Mislabelin g i n Ne wYor k City, " Augus t 1987 .

10 "Vehicl e Emissions : EPAProgra mT o Assis t Leaded-Gasolin e Producer s Need s Promp t Improvement, " Augus t 1986 . 3 5P.6 7

I n Jul y15 , 1986 , testimon ybefor e th e Hous e Way s an d Mean s Committee , Federa l HighwayAdministratio n Chie f Counse l Anthon yJ . McMaho n testified , "evasio n o f gasolin e taxe s ha s reache d a staggerin g level. " Accordin g t o th e Committee : Informa l estimate s o f annua l Federa l revenu e losse s rang e from$10 0 millio n t o ove r $ 1 billion . .. . I n a typica l evasio n scheme , a n individua l o r busines s maypurchas e gasolin e throug ha "daisy-chain " serie s o f tax-fre e pape r transactions , th e gasolin e mayb e sol d .. . t o a non exemp t produce r o r retailer . Th e selle r the n misrepresent s tha t th e . . . gasolin e excis e taxe s hav e bee n paid . Thus , th e las t produce r i n th e chai n receive s a tax-include d purchas e pric e fro mth e buyer , bu t th e ta x i s neve r pai d t o th e Federa l government. 1 1 I n implementin g a volatilit ystandar d fo r 10 % ethano l blends , EP Amus t adop t a rigorou s enforcemen t program includin g sampling a t al l level s o f th e gasolin e refining , distributio n an d marketin g syste mt o ensur e tha t ful l complianc e occur s an d tha t n o frau

d suc h a s misrepresentin g th e volatilit yo f th e bas e gasolin e occurs . Th e potentia l fo r abus e b ypape r certificatio n exist s whethe r EP Aset s th e sam e standar d fo r ethano l blend s a s fo r straigh t gasolin e o r give s a 1. 0 ps i toleranc e fo r suc hblends . I n eithe r case , pape r certificatio n create s an economi c incentiv e t o misrepresen t th e bas e gasolin e a s eithe r being (1 ) a sub-RVP gasolin e (wher e ethano l blend s hav e th e sam e standard ) o r (2 ) a bas e gasolin e meetin g th e RV P standar d (wher e ethano l blend s hav e a se t ps i tolerance) . Th e regulator yoptio n o f giving ethano l blend s a 1. 0 ps i toleranc e i s particularl yba d sinc e th e averag e volatilit yincreas e fromth e additio n o f 10 % ethano l t o a certifie d bas e gasolin e mayb e

11 Hearin g o n Complianc e Wit hFedera l Gasolin e Excis e Tax Provision s Befor e th e Oversigh t Subcomm . o f th e Hous e Comm . o n Way s and Means , 99t hCong. , 2 d Sess . (July15 , 1986) . 3 6P.6 8

a s lo wa s 0.3-0. 7 psi . Unles s EPAadopt s a stric t enforcemen t mech

ansim , hig hvolatilit ycomponent s suc ha s butan e ca n b e adde d t o th e gasolin e blen d t o furthe r rais e it s volatilit yup t o th e allowe d ceilin g of

- 1. 0 ps i wher e additio n o f ethano l raise s th e volatilit y b ya lesse r amount . V . N O FEDERA L PRE-EMPTIONO F STAT E VOLATILIT Y STANDARD S Th e ASTM

- ha s issue d voluntarystandard s fo r moto r gasolin e sinc e 193 7 t o hel p ensur e fuel s tha t performwel l i n moto r vehicles . Manystate s hav e adopte d th e AST M gaso l in e standard , D 4 39 , t o protec t consumer s and ensur e th e saf e operatio n o f moto r vehicle . Othe r state s hav e se t thei r ow n moto r gasolin e qualit ylaw s an d regulations , som e a t a n earlie r dat e tha n ASTM . A t th e hear t o f th e AST M D 43 9 standar d and man yo f th e individua l stat e standard s ar e volatilit yrequirement s fo r moto r gasoline . Ye t th e purpos e o f al l thes e earl ymoto r fue l qualit ystandard s wa s consume r protection , no t contro l o f moto r vehicl e emissions . A s show n b yth e abov e analysi s o f th e vehicl e complain t dat a base , state s tha t hav e mor e stringen t gasolin e volatilit ystandard s hav e reduce d fue l safet yproblem s including vapo r lock , fue l spurting an d overpressuization , an d fires . Onl y3 % o f al l fue l relate d vehicl e fire s i n thi s dat a bas e wer e i n state s tha t enforce d a 9. 0 ps i RVP standar d a t th e tim e an d plac e o f th e fire . State s whic henforce d a n RV P standar d o f 10. 5 ps i o r les s during th e summe r ha d reduce d fue l safet ycomplaint s (19% ) compare d t o vehicl e marke t shar e (32%) . State s suc ha s Alabama , Sout hDakot a an d Tennesse e wit hsignifican t gasoho l sale s hav e lowe r fue l safet ycomplaint s tha n othe r state s 3 7P.6 9

wit hsignifican t gasoho l sale s tha t provid e a volatilit yexemptio n fo r ethano l blends . EP Acanno t and shoul d no t attemp t t o preemp t state s whic hhav e chose n t o protec t th e healt han d welfar e o f thei r motorist s b y settin g stringen t volatilit ystandard s fo r gasolin e and alcoho l blends . EP Amayse t mor e stringen t nationa l volatilit ystandard s t o reduc e evaporativ e H C emissions . Bu t i t i s withi n th e polic e powe r o f th e state s t o se t volatilit ystandard s i f the yfin d i t necessary t o protec t th e safet yan d welfar e o f thei r citizens . Bot hstat e an d federa l regulation s ca n exis t together .



### 3 8