p.1 

OAR Box 1142 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

11) IV-F-9 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/23/2008 10:21:21 AM Sheet 11 of 30 
P.2 

SEP-26- 9 1 TH U 13:1 6 KTWM A S D LA W OFFICE S •=» ca -^> 

A-87-11 

STATEMENT OF SERVICE STATION DEALERS 

OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

on 

SAFETY ISSUES CONCERNING 

ONBOARD REFUELING EMISSION CONTROL CANISTERS 

o\g» 

:*. > 

Detroit, Michigan 

September 26, 1991 
S E P —2 6 —9 1 TH U 1 3 : 1 T KTWMf t S= D LA W OFFICE S P.0 3 

Service Station Dealers ot" America, a national trade 

association representing over fifty thousand independent service 

station dealers, is pleased to have this opportunity to testify on 

issues relating to the safety of onboard vapor recovery systems. 

SSDA is a federation of forty-three state and regional associations 

of independent service station dealers, that serves as the voice 

of America's fifty thousand independent service station dealers. 

The issue of control over fuel emissions is one of great concern 

to our membership, and has been for some years. imposition of 

costly, redundant, and ineffective Stage Two vapor recovery 

controls, on top of already burdensome regulations in the areas of 

underground storage tanks, injection wells, used oil, and small 

quantity generator hazardous waste, threatens the existence of 

thousands of independent dealers nationwide. At the outset, SSDA 

would point out that we believe that refueling emissions eventually 

will be controlled on a nationwide basis. For example, in 

California and Wisconsin, the rationale promulgated for expansion 

of existing Stage Two systems, or the installation of Stage Two 

systems in the first instance, has been the need to control air 

toxic emissions. As a result of moves such as these, SSDA believes 

that any arguments related to the "cost effectiveness of a targeted 

Stage Two program versus a national onboard canister program" are 

most likely misdirect. For purposes of the issue at hand, however, 

we believe that the proper question before the Agency is whether 

onboard refueling emission vapor recovery systems pose an 

unreasonable Incremental safety risk in comparison to the enhanced 
P.4 

; Ep -26-9 1 TH U 1 3 : 1 T KTWM A & D LA W OFFICE S P . © 4 

evaporative canister that will be required both under the 1990 

Clean Air Act Amendments, as well as on the "California vehicle". 

SSDA believes it is important for the agency to recognize that the 

California vehicle is likely to find widespread use in nonattainment areas throughout the country and in particular, we would 

direct the Agency's attention to recent actions by NESCAUM, 

Northeastern States for Coordinated Air Use Management, whereby the 

administrators of the states in the northeast corridor plan to push 

for the use of the "California car" in all states in the northeast 

transport region. 

SSDA shares the concern that motor vehicles are safe to drive. 

Our fifty thousand dealers employ over five hundred thousand 

people. The fifty thousand dealer members of SSDA, combined with 

the employees and the families of both, represent well over one 

million motorists. Therefore, legitimate safety concerns would 

naturally be of great concern to SSDA. Two aspects of the current 

debate over the safety of onboard refueling emission canisters are 

particular troubling to SSDA. 

First, many of the claims with reference to the safety of 

these canister appear to be in reference vehicles which are 

equipped either with no evaporative emission canister at all, or 

with regard to cars that may have used older canisters, which would 

not be representative of the enhanced evaporative canister that 

will be found both on the California car, as well as on future low 

emission vehicles as required under the 1990 Clear Air Act 

Amendments. This particular flaw was one of the chief flaws we 
P.5 

x o : J. «=s KIWM A S. D LA W OFFICE S P . 0 5 

found in the 1989 Arthur D. Little Report to NHSTA, a document we 

found flawed. In many respects our initial review of NHSTA's most 

recent report indicates to us that it relies very heavily on the 

1989 Arthur D. Little Report. SSDA found the 1989 Arthur D. Little 

Report to be seriously flawed in many respects. 

For example, it contains many unsupported gratuitous comments 

concerning the efficiency of Stage Two vapor recovery systems, and 

continues to repeat the incredible assertion that Stage Two systems 

actually pose a safety benefit to American motorist. This absurd 

claim was first made by an auto-funded lobbying group and appears 

to be attempting to gain credibility by constant repetition without 

reference to the underlying basis for the report. SSDA has 

testified before Congress on our concerns that Stage Two does pose 

safety concerns of its own beyond those experienced with 

conventional refueling systems, we would be happy to provide this 

testimony, as well as any other more recent data that the Agency 

may desire. 

Another example of the glaring inaccuracies in the Arthur D. 

Little Report is the instance concerning an API proto-type 1987 

Buick LaSabre. This vehicle experienced "driveability problems", 

which in turn could lead to increased chances of a crash, when a 

NHSTA technician caused the automatic shutoff on a refueling pump 

to work one hundred nine times during one refueling. This is 

clearly not a real world scenario. A survey done by SSDA indicates 

that during a typical refueling episode, the automatic shutoff is 

not likely to be activated more than five times. We bring this up 

. 
P.6 

f EP-26- 9 1 TH U 13:1 9 KTWM A Si D LA W OFFICE S P . 0 6 

only because the Arthur D. Little Report appears to us to form much 

of the underlying basis for NHSTA's conclusion that it would be 

reasonable for EPA to conclude that onboard refueling vapor 

recovery systems pose an unreasonable safety risk. 

SSDA believes that the NHSTA data is an inadequate basis for 

tho agonoy to violate what we believe fn hR a non-discretionary 

duty to promulgate an onboard canister rule. Again, we view the 

question for decision as whftther the onboard vapor recovery system 

poses an unreasonable incremental safety risk over and above the 

risk posed by the enhanced evaporative canister required under the 

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, as well as that under the California 

car which is likely to find very widespread use. The Arthur D. 

Little Report claims that existing evaporative systems posing a 

safety risk to the motoring public. If this is the case, one 

wonders why there have not been widespread recalls of this system 

or a public outcry against the existing canister system, as well 

as against any enhanced canister system, be it the "Federal system 

or the California system". It is interesting to note that in the 

comments received to date, both in California as well as by the 

agency on the enhanced evaporative system, there has been a curious 

absence of any discussion by the auto manufacturers on the safety 

issue. 

Additionally, we would point out that at least one foreign 

manufacturer has publicly stated that if the onboard system is 

required, its engineers are more than capable of overcoming any 

safety problems that may be presented. We would also point out 
P.7 

SEP-26.-5 1 TH U 13:1 5 KTWM A g= D LA W OFFICE ; 

P . S T 

that in 1987 testimony before the Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee, Senator David Durenberger asked the pointed 

question of a panel of automobile industry representatives to the 

effect that if one more pound of VOC reduction were to be required 

of the auto manufacturers, would they rather have had it done 

through control of tailpipe emissions or through the onboard 

canister system. Without reservation, the companies present 

answered that their preference would be that such reductions be had 

through the onboard system. 

In conclusion, SSDA and its members certainly share the 

concerns of those who are concerned with vehicle safety, and we 

would not like to see vehicle safety compromised to any significant 

extent. We believe that the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments require 

the Agency to promulgate the onboard canister rule in the absence 

of a clear and convincing affirmative showing that a refueling 

emissions canister posses patently unreasonable safety risks, over 

and above those posed by the enhanced evaporative canister system. 

In the absence of such a showing, we believe that the Agency is 

legally compelled to go forward with the rule making. While our 

minds remain open on the subject, SSDA does not believe that the 

evidence brought before the agency to date, is sufficient to meet 

this burden of proof, mandated by the 1990 Clean Air Act. Unless 

such evidence comes forward, either through this hearing, or in a 

subsequent rule making, then EPA must proceed to finalize an 

onboard canister rule making. We appreciate this opportunity to 
P.8 

S-^P -26- 9 1 TH U 13:2 0 KTWN A S= D LA W OFFICE S P.0 8 

present our testimony today and intend to present a full statement 

for the record.