p. 1



# OAR Box 1142 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 11 ) IV-F-9 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/23/200810:21:21 AM Sheet 11 of 30P. 2

SEP-26- 9 1 TH U13:1 6 KTWM AS D LA WOFFICE S •= » c a -^ > 

# A-87-1 1

STATEMEN

T O F SERVIC E STATIO NDEALER S O F AMERICA BEFOR E TH E U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENC Y

o n SAFETYISSUE S CONCERNIN G ONBOARD REFUELIN

GEMISSIO

NCONTRO L CANISTER S



### o\g » :* . >

Detroit , Michiga n Septembe r 26 , 199 1S E P —2 6 —9 1 TH U1 3 : 1 T KTWMf t S = DLA W

OFFICE S P.0 3

Servic e Statio n Dealer s ot " America , a nationa l trad e associatio n representing ove r fiftythousan d independen t servic e statio n dealers , i s please d t o have thi s opportunit yt o testif yon issue s relating t o th e safet yo f onboar d vapo r recoverysystems . SSD Ai s a federatio n o f forty-thre e stat e an d regiona l association s o f independen t servic e statio ndealers , tha t serve s a s th e voic e o f America' s fift ythousand independen t servic e statio n dealers . Th e issu e o f contro l ove r fue l emission s i s on e o f grea t concer n t o ou r membership , an d ha s bee n fo r some years . impositio no f costly , redundant , an d ineffective Stag e Tw o vapo r recovery controls , o n to p o f alread yburdensome regulation s i n th e area s o f underground storag e tanks , injectio nwells , use d oil , an d smal l quantit ygenerato r hazardou s waste , threaten s th e existenc e o f thousand s o f independen t dealer s nationwide . A t th e outset , SSD A woul d poin t ou t tha t w e believ e tha t refueling emission s eventuall y wil l b e controlle d o n a nationwid e basis . Fo r example , i n Californi a an

d Wisconsin , th e rational e promulgate d fo r expansio n o f existing Stag e Tw o systems , o r th e installatio no f Stag e Tw o system s i n th e firs t instance , ha s bee nth e nee d t o contro l ai r toxi c emissions . A s a resul t o f move s suc ha s these , SSD Abelieve s tha t an yargument s relate d t o th e "cos t effectivenes s o f a targete d Stag e Tw o progra

mversu s a nationa l onboar d caniste r program " ar e mos t likel ymisdirect . Fo r purpose s o f th e issu e a t hand , however , w e believ e tha t th e prope r questio nbefor e th e Agenc yi s whethe r onboar d refueling emissio nvapo r recoverysystem s pos e an unreasonabl e Incrementa l safet yris k i n compariso n t o th e enhance dP. 4

; E p -26-9 1 TH U1 3 : 1 T KTWM A & DLA W

OFFICE S P . © 4

evaporativ e caniste r tha t wil l b e require d bot hunde r th e 199 0 Clean Ai r Ac t Amendments , a s wel l a s o n th e "Californi a vehicle" . SSD Abelieve s i t i s importan t fo r th e agencyt o recogniz e tha t th e Californi a vehicl e i s likel yt o fin d widespread us e i n non attainmen t area s throughou t th e countryan d i nparticular , w e woul d direc t th e Agency' s attentio n t o recen t action s b yNESCAUM , Northeaster n State s fo r Coordinate d Ai r Us e Management , whereb yth e administrator s o f th e state s i n th e northeas t corrido r plant o pus h fo r th e us e o f th e "Californi a car " i n al l state s i n th e northeas t transpor t region . SSD Ashare s th e concer n tha t moto r vehicle s ar e saf e t o drive . Ou r fift ythousand dealer s employove r fiv e hundre d thousand people . Th e fift ythousand deale r member s o f SSDA , combine d wit h th e employee s an

d th e familie s o f both , represen t wel l ove r on e millio n motorists . Therefore , legitimat e safet yconcern s woul d naturall yb e o f grea t concer nt o SSDA . Tw o aspect s o f th e curren t debat e ove r th e safet yo f onboar d refueling emissio n canister s ar e particula r troubling t o SSDA . First , man

yo f th e claim s wit hreferenc e t o th e safet yo f thes e caniste r appea r t o b e i nreferenc e vehicle s whic har e equippe d eithe r wit hn o evaporativ e emissio n caniste r a t all , o r wit hregar d t o car s tha t mayhav e use d olde r canisters , whic hwoul d no t b e representativ e o f th e enhance d evaporativ e caniste r tha t wil l b e foun

d bot ho n th e Californi a car , a s wel l a s o nfutur e lo w emissio n vehicle s a s require d unde r th e 199 0 Clea r Ai r Ac t Amendments . Thi s particula r flawwa s on e o f th e chie f flaw s w eP. 5

xo : J . «= s KIWM AS . D LA WOFFICE S P . 0 5

foun d i n th e 198 9 Arthu r D . Littl e Repor t t o NHSTA , a documen t w e foun d flawed . I n man

yrespect s ou r initia l revie wo f NHSTA' s mos t recen t repor t indicate s t o u s tha t i t relie s veryheavil yo n th e 198 9 Arthu r D . Littl e Report . SSD Afoun d th e 198 9 Arthu r D . Littl e Repor t t o b e seriousl yflawe d i nman yrespects . Fo r example , i t contain s man yunsupporte d gratuitou s comment s concerning th e efficienc yo f Stag e Tw o vapo r recoverysystems , an d continue s t o repea t th e incredibl e assertio ntha t Stag e Tw o system s actuall ypos e a safet ybenefi t t o America n motorist . Thi s absurd clai mwa s firs t mad e b yan auto-funde d lobbying grou p an d appear s t o b e attempting t o gai n credibilit yb yconstan t repetitio nwithou t referenc e t o th e underlying basi s fo r th e report . SSD Aha s testifie d befor e Congres s o n ou r concern s tha t Stag e Tw o doe s pos e safet yconcern s o f it s ow nbeyond thos e experience d wit h conventiona l refueling systems , w e woul d b e happyt o provid e thi s testimony , a s wel l a s an yothe r mor e recen t dat a tha t th e Agenc y maydesire . Anothe r exampl e o f th e glaring inaccuracie s i n th e Arthu r D . Littl e Repor t i s th e instanc e concerning a nAP I proto-typ e 198 7 Buic k LaSabre . Thi s vehicl e experience d "driveabilit yproblems" , whic hi n tur n coul d lead t o increase d chance s o f a crash , whe na NHST Atechnicia n cause d th e automati c shutof f o na refueling pum p t o wor k on e hundre d nin e time s during on e refueling . Thi s i s clearl yno t a rea l worl d scenario . Asurveydon e b ySSD Aindicate s tha t during a typica l refueling episode , th e automati c shutof f i s no t likel yt o b e activate d mor e tha n five times . W e bring thi s up

.P. 6

f EP-26- 9 1 TH U13:1 9 KTWM AS i D LA WOFFICE S P . 0 6

onl ybecaus e th e Arthu r D . Littl e Repor t appear s t o u s t o for mmuc h o f th e underlying basi s fo r NHSTA' s conclusio ntha t i t woul d b e reasonabl e fo r EPAt o conclud e tha t onboar d refueling vapo r recoverysystem s pos e an unreasonabl e safet yrisk . SSD Abelieve s tha t th e NHST Adat a i s aninadequat e basi s fo r th o agonoyt o violat e wha t w e believ e f nh Ra non-discretionary dut yt o promulgat e an onboar d caniste r rule . Again , w e viewth e questio n fo r decisio n a s whftther th e onboar d vapo r recoverysystem pose s an unreasonabl e incrementa l safet yris k ove r an d above th e ris k pose d b

yth e enhance d evaporativ e caniste r require d unde r th e 199 0 Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendments , a s wel l a s tha t unde r th e Californi a ca r whic hi s likel yt o fin d verywidesprea d use . Th e Arthu r D . Littl e Repor t claim s tha t existing evaporativ e system s posing a safet yris k t o th e motoring public . I f thi s i s th e case , on e wonder s wh

yther e hav e no t bee n widesprea d recall s o f thi s system o r a publi c outcryagains t th e existing caniste r system , a s wel l a s agains t an

yenhance d caniste r system , b e i t th e "Federa l system o r th e Californi a system" . I t i s interesting t o not e tha t i nth e comment s receive d t o date , bot hi n Californi a a s wel l a s b yth e agencyo n th e enhance d evaporativ e system , ther e ha s bee n a curiou s absenc e o f an

ydiscussio n b

yth e aut o manufacturer s o nth e safet y issue . Additionally , w e woul d poin t ou t tha t a t leas t on e foreign manufacture r ha s publicl ystate d tha t i f th e onboar d systemi s required , it s engineer s ar e mor e tha ncapabl e o f overcoming an y safet yproblem s tha t ma yb e presented . W e woul d als o poin t ou tP. 7

SEP-26.-5 1 TH U13:1 5 KTWM A g = DLA W

OFFICE ; P . S T

tha t i n 198 7 testimon ybefor e th e Senat e Environmen t an d Publi c Work s Committee , Senato r Davi d Durenberge r aske d th e pointe d questio n o f a pane l o f automobil e industr yrepresentative s t o th e effec t tha t i f on e mor e pound o f VO C reductio nwer e t o b e require d o f th e aut o manufacturers , woul d the yrathe r hav e had i t don e throughcontro l o f tailpip e emission s o r throughth e onboar d caniste r system . Withou t reservation , th e companie s presen t answere d tha t thei r preferenc e woul d b e tha t suc hreduction s b e had throughth e onboar d system . I n conclusion , SSD Aan d it s member s certainl yshar e th e concern s o f thos e wh o ar e concerne d wit hvehicl e safety , an d w e woul d no t lik e t o se e vehicl e safet ycompromise d t o an ysignifican t extent . W e believ e tha t th e 199 0 Clean Ai r Ac t Amendment s requir e th e Agenc yt o promulgat e th e onboar d caniste r rul e i nth e absenc e o f a clea r an

d convincing affirmativ e showing tha t a refueling emission s caniste r posse s patentl yunreasonabl e safet yrisks , ove r an d abov e thos e pose d b yth e enhance d evaporativ e caniste r system . I n th e absenc e o f suc ha showing , w e believ e tha t th e Agenc yi s legall ycompelle d t o g o forward wit hth e rul e making . Whil e ou r mind s remai n ope n o n th e subject , SSD Adoe s no t believ e tha t th e evidenc e brough t befor e th e agencyt o date , i s sufficien t t o mee t thi s burde n o f proof , mandate d b yth e 199 0 Clea nAi r Act . Unles s suc hevidenc e come s forward , eithe r throughthi s hearing , o r i n a subsequen t rul e making , the n EPAmus t procee d t o finaliz e a n onboar d caniste r rul e making . W e appreciat e thi s opportunit yt oP. 8

S-^ P -26- 9 1 TH U13:2 0 KTWN AS = D LA WOFFICE S P.0 8

presen t ou r testimon ytoda yan d inten d t o presen t a ful l statemen t fo r th e record .