p. 1 

# OAR Box 1142 Prepped by Ollie Stewart

Document

Number: 

# 16 ) IV-F-1 4 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/23/2008 10:21:21 AM Sheet 16 of 30P. 2 4 

## A-87-/ I

nr r- ? 199

1 

# TOYOTA' S COMMENTSFO R EP A OV RHEARIN G TOYOT A MOTO RCORPORATIO N

Ryozo Ito September27,1991P. 3 Slide 1 Goo d Morning - I a mRyoz o It o of

TM C Japan . At

Toyot aI' maGenera

l Manage r o f Technica l Administratio n . Division . I cam

e ove r fro mJapa n a s arepresentativ e o

f Toyot aMotor Corporation . Wit h m e today , ar e Mr . Bran e and Mr . Kib e fro mT.T.C.-U.S.A. , Inc . An

n Arbor . Mr . Ohsita fro mTM C Service , Washingto n Office , an d M r Penna , who i s aconsultant to Toyota . I' mver y please d to b e here , to mak e apresentatio n a

t today' s publi c hearing . Slide2 W e hav e expresse d our

basi c stanc e fo

r OV Ro n ever y opportunit

y to EP A and NHTSA . W e explaine d i n detai l a

t th e forme r publi c hearin g hel d in Octobe r in 198 7 i n Washingto n D.C . Toda y I woul d lik

e to present

ashorte r statemen t whic h update s th e dat aw e presente d and restat e ou r basi c position . Toyot astrongly support s NHTSA' s Judgemen t expresse d i n th e repor

t about OV Rsafety . First , OV Rincrease s safet

y risks . Second , there i s abette r

alternativ e for

refueling , tha

t is , Stag e n . OV Rincrease s safet

y risk o f vehicles , but

Stag e I I decrease s fir

e risk i n ga s stations . Considerin g safety , i t

i s obviou s tha

t Stag e n i s awis e choice . Slide 3 - EVP

(current) Next , I woul d lik

e t o discus s th e differenc e between EVP Syste mand OV Rsystem . I t i s irresponsibl e t

o tak e th e positio n tha

t i t i s possibl e to implemen

t OV Rregulatio n becaus e a n EV P systemi s feasible . Thi s slide show s acurrent

EV P system . Th e curren t systemcontrol s o

f EV P emission s a

t norma l conditions . Th e systemi s rather

simpl e an d th e fue l suppl y systemi s almos t

th e sam e specificatio n a s the non-EVP contro l system . Slide 4 - New Features of

EVP System Fo r th e new EP

A and CAR

B tes t metho d revision s we mus t

enlarg e th e canister

volume , increas e purg e air , an d add variou s function s fo r control . However , n o chang e to th e fue l tan k i s required . It

i s als o possibl e t

o moun t evaporativ e contro l part s in th e engin e compartment . However , th e OV

Rcanister canno t b e mounte d i

n th e engine compartmen

t and mus t b e locate d nea r th e fue l tank . OV

Rdesig n consideration s requir e thi s location . I wil l no w explai n th e reason s fo r thi s limitation .P. 4 Slide 5 - OVR System Update Ther e ar e basi c syste mdifference s require d between EV P and OVR . Th e larg e amoun t o f vapo r generate d durin g refueling affects th e abilit y to meet applicabl e exhaus t

emissio n standard s due . t o th e requirement s i n EPA' s revise d tes t procedure . Therefore , aseparate canister i s neede d fo

r OV Rtha t i s anon-integrate d type . I n order t o reduc e flow resistanc e and achiev e prope r fillability , i t

i s als o necessar

y to moun t a larg e OV Rcaniste r nea r th e fue l tan k and connec t

i t to th e tan k wit h alarg e diamete

r pip e o r hose . W e hav e to detec t

th e overfill during refueling b y anothe r metho d differen

t fro mthe conventiona

l system . Slide 6 - Differences Between EVP and OVR Ther e ar e man y difference s between EV P and OVR . Thes e difference s include th e vapor generatio n process , vapor

composition , vapor

flow speed and configuratio n o

f vapo r passage . I will firs t discus s th e differenc e in vapo r generatio n rate . Thi s slid e show s th e differenc e i n vapo r generatio n rat e i n th e case s o f EV P and OVR . I n addition , I woul d lik

e yo u to understan d tha

t workin g capacit

y o f th e charcoa

l canister , tha

t i s vapor storag e ability , greatl y decrease s whe n there i s ahig h vapor

generatio n rate . In m y opinion , th e mos t

importan t differenc e i s a s follow s : I n th e EVP System , w e ca

n us e multipl e canister s i n paralle l o r series , t o increas e vapor storag e capacity . W

e hav e th e flexibilit

y i n mountin g th e EVP canister ; thi s i s no t the cas e wit h th e OV RCanister . A s I sai d amomen

t ago , th e OV

RSystemrequire s asingl e larg e canister . Toyotadoe s not believ e it i s no t possibl e to us e multipl e canister s in ou r vehicles , sinc e thi s will no t allow balance d flow-rates , pressure s and s o on . Slide 7 - Required

Function of

OVR System Saf e installatio n o

f OV RSystemi s almos t

impossibl e becaus e o

f spac e limitations . W e strongly suppor

t NHTSA' s repor

t whic h state s tha

t th e additiona

l functiona l part s fo r OVR(including th e canister) cause s a n unreasonabl e vehicl e safet y risk. Thi s slid e show s th e function s require d for th e OVR . Using Failur

e Mod e and Effec

t Analysi s w

e hav e evaluate d eac h o

f the majo r parts . I would lik

e t o explai n som

e o f thes e items . Slide 8 - VaporLine Slide 9 - Vent

ValveP. 5 Slide 10- Canister Slide 11-Float

Valve Slide 12 - Purge System Slide 13 - Summary of

Failure Modes Thi s slide present s asummar y o f th e failur e modes . Thes e failure s result i n system malfunction s tha

t caus e safet

y concerns . The failur

e mode analysi s summarize d in thi s slid e present s datatha

t ar e consistent

wit h th e finding s in th e NHTS A report . When asafe r alternativ e exist s (Stag e II ) it doe s no t see mreasonabl e to requir

e OV Rregulations . SUde 14 - EPA's Simplified OVR System Th e EP A staffha s propose d asimplifie d OV RSyste mwhic h they though

t woul d decreas e the numbe r o f part s and resul t

in asaf e system . SUde 15 - Concerns With EPA Simplified System (1) In th e SA E Government-Industr

y meetin g hel d i n 1988 , w e pointe d ou t som e expecte d failur

e modes . We constructe d asystemfollowing EPA' s logic , and teste d eac h component . Th e result s will b e show n i n avide o in amoment . I a mgoing t o introduc e possibl e failur

e mode s in thi s slide . Also , thes e wil l b e shown in the video . I woul d lik

e t o point ou t tw o problems . First , whe

n refueling , hig h flo

w resistanc e i

n th e vapor lin e cause s th e fue

l nozzl e i n ga s station s to shut of f automatically to o frequently , making refuelin g ver y difficult . Slide 16 - Concerns With EPA Simplified System (2) Ther e i s th e possibilit

y o f variou s failure s in the valve s becaus e they d o no t conside r all operatin g requirements . It

i s possibl e t

o instal l acheck

valv e in th e EV P caniste

r bu t no t i n th e OV Rsystemdue to th e hig h flo w rat e requirement . Whe n th e liqui d surfac e i s incline d an d th e vehicl e i s vibrated , fue l leak s fro mth e simplifie d valve . In the vide o I a

mgoin g to sho w you , ther

e i s leakag e whe

n hil l climbin g an

d in afigur

e 8 drivin g pattern . (VIDE O PRESENTATIO N HERE )P. 6

Slide 17 - Balanced

Approach Required Ou r presentatio n ha s focuse d on safety . However , a s a n automobil e manufacturer , w e mus t balanc e severa

l other concern s create d b y OVR . Thes e are : packaging , th e advers e effec t o n tailpip e emissions , increase d cos t and decrease d vehicl e utility . Slide 18- Installation Concerns of OVR (LDV) The OV RSystemrequire s tha

t alarg e caniste

r b e locate d nea

r th e fue l tank . Ther

e i s ver y littl e spac e availabl e i n th e rea

r o f th e vehicl e to meet

thi s requirement . Th e vehicl e floo r pan , rea r sea t and chassi s component s limi t th e are awher

e th e OV Rcaniste r ca n b e located . A s thi s slide show s there wil l likel y b e damag e to th e OV Rcaniste r i f area r collisio n occurs . I

f th e caniste

r an d fue l tan k ar e displaced , there i s astron g possibilit y tha t fue l leakag e coul d occur . Whe n al l vehicl e configuration s ar

e taken int o accoun t along wit h all th e variou s type s of

collision s which ca n occur , findin g asaf

e canister locatio n i n th e limite d spac e availabl e doe s no t appea r t o b e possible . Th e Stag e n systemseem s t o b e amuch mor

e practica l and safe r approach . Slide 19 - Installation Concerns of OVR (LDT) Th e Clea n Ai r Act Amendment s d

o no t specificall y requir e th e applicatio n o

f th e OV Rsyste m t o light-dut y trucks . EP

A ha s mad

e th e judgemen

t tha t OV Rca n b e applie d to light-dut

y truck s becaus e they ar

e th e sam e a s ligh t -dut y vehicles . Toyotadoe s no t agre e wit h thi s position . As thi s slide show s there i s muc h les s spac e fo r installin g th e OV

Rsystemo n light-dut

y trucks . Slide 20 - Installation SummaryP. 7

Slide 21 -Balanced

Approach Required Ther e i s on e fina

l technica l point tha t mus t b e addressed . Tha

t is , under th e Californi aPilo t Progra mand th e Federa

l Flee t Vehicl e program , ther

e i s apossibilit

y tha t electrically heate d catalys t (EHC ) technolog y wil l b e neede d t o mee t thes e ver y stringen t NMO G standards . W

e ar e conductin g developmenta l testin g o n EH C technolog y fo r bot h th e Californi aLE

V serie s progra mand thes e federa

l requirements . Whil e i t

i s no t certai n i f th e EH C wil l wor

k i n the rea l world , i t i s a n optio n bein g considere d fo r meetin g thes e tailpip e emissio n standards . EHC technolog y require s larg e amount s of electricit y t o hea t th e catalyst . Som

e prototype s migh t us e asecon d batter

y whic h ma

y nee d t o b e mounte d i n th e rea

r o f th e vehicle . I n thi s cas e acabl e run s fro

mth e rea r o f th e vehicl e to th e fron

t t o suppl y th e electricit

y fo r th e device . A s yo u ca n imagine , w e ar

e ver y concerne d about

th e introductio n o

f OV Rand EHC o n th e sam e vehicle , sinc e aspar

k sourc e coul d b e locate d ver y nea r th e OV Rcanister . Neithe r th e EP A "Change d Circumstances " documen t no r th e NHTS A safet

y stud y addres s th

e additio n o f EH C technology , and th e possibl e additiona l complication s thi s technolog y wil l creat e fo r saf e desig n o f vehicles . W

e believ e thi s additiona

l complicatin g factor

i s anothe r reaso n wh y EP A shoul d no t requir e OVR . Befor e concludin g I woul d lik

e t o briefly addres s tw o point s raise d in th e EP A "Changed Circumstances " document . I n tha t document , EP

A state s tha

t it intend s t o requir e OV Ro n bot h light-dut y vehicle s subjec t

t o Californi aemissio n standard s an d light-dut y tracks . A s m

y earlie r testimon y indicate s there ar

e seriou s complication s create d b y a'pplyin g OV Rt o vehicle s require d to meet

Califomi aLE

V standards . Bu

t ove r and above th e technica

l problems , Toyot

a ha s concern s ove

r EPA' s lega

l authorit y to requir e OV Ro n thes e vehicles . Ou

r writte n comment s t

o b e submitte d in Octobe

r wil l discus s thes e issues . Slide 22- Conclusion I than k you fo r allowin g Toyotato present it s view s o n thi s importan

t subject .

# TOYOTA' S POSITIO N

o n OV R SAFET

Y CONCERN S
TOYOT A MOTO R CORPORATIO N RYOZ O IT O 1

0 0

# GENERA L STANC E TOYOTA SUPPORT S NHTSA' s JUDGMEN T FO R THI S REASON S 1 . SAFETY RIS KINCREASE S 2 . BETTE R ALTERNATIV E EXIST S

C O

# CURREN T EVAP . SYSTE M

INJECTO R Ilifei l INTAK E MANIFOL D *****-**•*-*•-*••* - *-

* *-T r \iwyvhir-

(F FUE L CA P

EVP . CANISTE R FILLE R PIP E BREATHE R PIP E

m. I . .iff... . •. . • ..'.J j J jl . I..I . • I . • I . • I. . I . • I . • I . • I . • • • •• • .U*?J /?? &

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

# NE

W FEATURE S O F EVAP . SYSTE MP.1 2



## m



# L U

< 

# Q CL L U CO 

# O

# DIFFERENCE S BETWEE N EVAP . AN D OV R

OV R RAPI D VAPO R GENERATIO N EVAP . DB L i 0.02 RL T OV R 0 tc 10 0 2 0 DB L - Diurna l Breathin g Los s Tes t RL T - Runnin g Los s Tes t 4 0 VAPO R FLOW RAT E 6 0 8 0 g/mi n CANISTE R WORKIN G CAPACIT Y

1. 1 1. 0 RELATIV E BUTAN E WORKIN G CAPACIT

Y 0. 9 0 2 0 4 I 0 6 0 8 0 BUTAN E FLO

W RAT E g /

mi n 

## OV R REQUIRE S LARGE R CANISTE R THA N EVAP .

# REQUIRE

D FUNCTIO

N O F OV R SYSTE M

# FAILUR E MOD E O F VAPO R LIN E

FAILUR E MOD E ASSOCIATE D WIT H LARG E VAPO R LIN E CHOKIN G WIT H CONDENSE D LIQUI D JOIN T DISCONNECTIO N LOS S O F ABILIT

Y TO SEA L IMPRACTICABILIT Y O F REFUELIN G LEAKAG E VAPO R LEAKAG E 

# E
Tsgs r ? 5 JhrfhAA *

* & 

# <£ ? 

# ra

IS L 8

# FAILUR E MOD E O F VEN T VALV E

ENGIN I 

## H I | |j- L FAILUR E MOD E ASSOCIATE D WIT H VAPO R VEN T VALV E NO T CLOSIN G COMPLETEL

Y DU E T O VALV E JAMMIN G VALV E STICKIN G I N OPENIN G POSITIO N NO T OPENIN G FULL

Y VALV E STICKIN G FUE L LEAKAGE , VAPO R LEAKAG E THR U CANISTE R IMPRACTICABILIT Y O F REFUELIN G ^MM = 

### NE [CESjS t T^n^T^T^T^T^T^T ^

• _ \\\\ \ ^ 

# £ AAA . 

# f ; VAli>OR VElil T VAllV E

, .sp.... . .T. u . i Lu l 11.11.11 . • 1.11 . • i « , .»*HLJf t *?»* . »<•*». • 

# D

# FAILUR E MOD E O F OV R CANISTE R

( 1 FAILUR E MOD E ASSOCIATE D WIT H REFUELIN G CANISTE R HIG H FLO

W RESISTANC E B Y SUPERSATURATION , WATE R FREEZIN G PLUGGIN G OPEN-POR T B Y MUD , FREEZIN G OVERLOADIN G TS59 - ^ 

### REFUELIN G CA 

### , N 

### l STER 

### ..0PEN-PO R IMPRACTICABILIT Y O F REFUELIN G VAPO R LIN E DAMAG E SPILLAG E DURIN G REFUELIN G POO R DRIVEABILIT Y (TO O RIC H PURG E GAS )

^ **" • • •*•••'•'•'•'•'•*•*•••*•'•* • •*.••*.••-* . •*.'.•.•..*.*•*.•.* . •*.••*.*•*••'•*•••*.••*.*••*•*•.*.•••.••*.*; • 

## 1 0

# FAILUR E MOD E O F FLOA T VALV E

- I L 

## FAILUR E MOD E ASSOCIATE D WIT H OVER-FILL-PREVENTIO N VALV E NO T CLOSIN G COMPLETEL Y DU E TO VALV E JAMMIN G VALV E STICKIN G A T OPENIN G POSITIO N NO T OPENIN G DU E T O VALV E STICKIN G FUE L LEAKAGE , VAPO R LEAKAG E THR U CANISTE R O N REFUELIN G IMPRACTICABILIT Y O F REFUELIN G TSga - ' '-'*-*• * '• * •*•'- ' * '*- * '*•" ' " *.'.-'.'.'• • .'..'. • .*•'.•.'••'.- - .'-- - . ' • .*.••*•>•*• • .'.V.•.••.'.• • •'.-••'.-'••.*• • .••*• • .•.*• ' 

## 1 1

# FAILUR E MOD E O F PURG E SYSTE M

FAILUR E MOD E ASSOCIATE D WIT H PURG E SYSTE M OPE N FAILUR E

• CLOS E FAILUR E UNUSUA L ECU-SIGNA L ffigjBT ^ 

### POO R DRIVEABILIT Y VAPO R LEAKAG E THR U CANISTE R O N REFUELIN G POO R DRIVEABILIT Y UNUSUA L VEN T VALV E OPE N LIQUI D LEAKAG E THR U CANISTE R O N RUNNIN G 

## 1 2

T J C O

# SUMMARY-FAILUR E MODE S

LARG E VAPO R LIN E VEN T VALV E OV R CANISTE R FLOA T VALV E PURG E SYSTE M COMPUTE R DISCONNECTIO N

— | CHOKIN G BY CONDENSATIOlL^ . 

## - T " NO T OPE N

NO T CLOS E FREEZIN G OPE N POR T CLOGGIN G SUPER-SATURATIO N NO T OPE N NOTCLOS E UNUSUA L CONTRO L INCREAS E O F TAN KINTERNA L PRESSUR E LOS S O F ABILIT Y T O SEA L N O INCREAS E O F TAN KINTERNA L PRESSUR E )LTO O RIC H /LEA N T A/ F RATI O IRREGULA R VEN T VALV E OPE N SAFET Y CONCERN S SPILLAG E DURIN G REFUELIN G FUE L LEAKAG E VAPO R LEAKAG E POO R DRIVEABILITY IMPRACTICABILIT

Y O F REFUEUN G 

## 1 3

r o o

# EPA' s SIMPLIFIE D OV R SYSTE M

^SHORTE R VAPO R LIN E
ENLARGE D CHARCOA L CANISTE R 

# r MODIFIE D FLOA T ROL L OVE R VALV E N O EXTERNA! }

VEN T LIN E NORMALL Y OPE N

•'.'-.'.'•.'•'•?.'''-'.'•*.'•*.'•*. '

.- • .•.... . • .•.•.•••.•..' . .• , • l^•'^V»^•'^^•i^^^^i.^V^i^t*^'••V^•^^^••l'•.*•^••'^*••'^^^' »

ANTI-SPITBAC K VALV E 

## 1 4

# CONCERN S WIT H EP A SIMPLIFIE D SYSTE M (1 )

I y"ii.11.11,1 1 ii ;
± = 

## Poo r Fillabilit y

Frequen t Auto-shut-of f 

# 5 7 D H Shorte rbu t Small ]

Vapo rLin e /

Tsgs r 

## 1 5

r o r o

# CONCERN S WIT H

EP A SIMPLIFIE D SYSTE M (2 )

ri^^^^ n 

### LOS S O F ABILIT Y T O SEA L —OVERFILLING . HIGHE R VAPO R GENERATION , FUE L LEAKAG E WIT H DAMAGE D VAPO R LIN E $ 

### MODIFIE D FLOA T ROL L OVE R VALV E NORMALL

Y OPE N 

## 1 6

r o t o

# BALANCE D APPROAC H REQUIRE D

SAFET Y PACKAGIN G DEVICE S 

# A V COS T VEHICL E UTILIT Y 

# TAILPIP E EMISSION S

1 7

r oP.2 5

> 

# Q C O 

# D C > 

# o Li . 

# o D C L U 

# O Z 

# o o g

<

<

.•L.^v^i'^vi^'^AiX^^'''^'"*^-''*'"- 8 '£.2 6 

# I - 

# o o > 

# D C > 

# o L L 

# O Q C U J 

# O O 

# o o

< 

# I -

# INSTALLATIO N SUMMAR Y

SPAC E T O INSTAL L TH E OV R SYSTE M I S LIMITE D I N ALIV E ZON E AFTE R CRUS H TES T NEITHE R LD V NO R LD T HA S ALLOCATIO N T O INSTAL L LARG E COMPONEN T SAFEL Y

•'/. I 

## 2 0

; • r o ^ i

# BALANCE D APPROAC H REQUIRE D PACKAGIN G DEVICE S 

# A V COS T VEHICLE UTILIT Y 

# TAILPIP E EMISSION S

2 1

r o o o

# CONCLUSIO N

1 . OV R INCREASE S TH E SAFET Y RIS K 2 . OV R SHOUL D NO T B E IMPLEMENTE D 3 . A S A N ALTERNATIV E FO R REFUELIN G VAPO R CONTROL , STAG E I I MUS T B E TH E SOLUTIO N

2 2

r o C O>



# o

z H i C O C M

- P.3 0

:- . r.^j-"zzr.z