GRPE GRPE CGH 2 Experts (A sub-group of the GRPE Informal Group “Hydrogen/Fuel Cell”) JASIC Presentation At The GRPE CGH 2 Experts Meeting In Munich January 2003

Pressure Sensor 3 Temperature Sensor 3 Pressure Regulator 2 Filter 2 PRV Filter 1 Pressure Regulator 1 Receptacle Container Valve (Automatic Shut off Valve) Pressure Sensor 1 Temperature Sensor 1 Pressure Relief Device Container Non Return Valve Automatic Shut off Valve Container Manual Valve To FC Stack Pressure Sensor 2 Temperature Sensor 2 ECU Non Return Valve Hydrogen Sensor 2 Hydrogen Sensor1 Components to be Type Approved JASIC: Orange TUV: Orange+Blue (Green may be included)+Pipes

Basis of the Regulation Required design for Safety: “Single-point failure should not result in an unreasonable safety risk ” Definition of “unreasonable safety risk”: (i) Leakage resulting in uncontrollable hydrogen outflow from container (ii) Burst of components at high pressure Definition of “high pressure” +JASIC: Container pressure +TUV: Class 0

Points of the Proposals on Burst Risk Definition of “high pressure” +JASIC: Container pressure +TUV: Class 0 TUV JASIC SafetyCost effectivenessScientific background better ? ? The both proposals lack enough scientific background that is essential for global consensus.

The Way to Define Burst Risk Not only fuel pressure but also fuel volume in the component should be considered. Burst RiskBurst Energy Pressure x Volume +In what way, the burst happen? +How often the burst occur? +What range of the (pressure x volume) cause dangerous burst? Necessary discussions with scientific background

Summary 1. Pressure range of type approval for “burst” should be determined by technical discussions. + Volume of fuel should be considered. 2. Certification for safety systems are necessary. +It is necessary to discuss on which systems and how they are certified. Scientific background is necessary for global consensus.

以下は予備

Annex 7B B13(Burst Test) “The Container Burst Pressure shall exceed the Working Pressure times the Burst Pressure ratio given in Paragraph A3.3 of this Annex.” The wording (including figures) in the provision on burst pressure should be harmonized based on 2001 US FMVSS related to compressed natural gas, which has been already put into force, or NGV 2000, the document based on which US FMVSS was made.

bar L ⅠⅡⅢⅣ Ⅳ Ⅲ Ｐ＝２００ Ｐ＝１０００ ＰＶ＝２５ ＰＶ＝２００ ＰＶ＝５０ ＰＶ＝１０００ Ｐ＝０． ５ Article, paragraph 3 V=1L 97/23/EC, in case of hydrogen gas

Article, paragraph 3: Pressure equipment and/or assemblies below or equal to the limits in section 1.1,1.2 and 1.3 and section 2 respectively must be designed and manufactured in accordance with the sound engineering practice of a Member State in order to ensure safe use. Pressure equipment and/or assemblies must be accompanied by adequate instructions for use and must bear marking to permit identification of the manufacturer or of his authorized representative established within the Community. Such equipment and/or assemblies must not bear the CE marking referred to in Article 15. Which conformity assessment category applies to vessels with a volume less than or equal to 0.1 litter? If pressure ≦ 200 bar, then Article 3.3 applies otherwise see paragraph 3 below, Reason: (See “Guidelines related to the application of the Pressure Equipment Directive (97/23/EC)”.) The conformity assessment categories for vessels with a volume less than or equal to 0.1 litter can not determined Table 1,2,3 and 4 because the Tables are not specified for volumes less than 0.1 litter. However, Article 3.1 together with Article 3.3 can be used to determine which vessels must satisfy the essential safety requirements and those that must be designed and manufactured according to the Sound Engineering Practice (SEP) of a Member State. If a vessel has a volume less than or equal to 0.1 litter, and a value of pressure above the limits defined in Article 3.1, then the vessels must satisfy the essential safety requirements of Annex Ⅰ. In the absence of specific information in the Table for the conformity assessment of vessels in paragraph 2, the manufacturer may choose any module, or single combination of modules, set out in paragraph 1 of Annex Ⅱ.

Items to be Type Approved Required Design for Safety: “Single-point failure should not result in an unreasonable safety risk” (i) The components that are not protected by any systems from single-point failure resulting in unreasonable safety risk (ii) The systems to protect components from single-point failure resulting in unreasonable safety risk