# OAR Box 1142 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 17 ) IV-F-1 5 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/23/200810:21:21 AM Sheet 17 of 30 P. 1P. 2 

# , *-87-/ / J 

# IV-F - W

Ora l Testimonyo f Willia mF . O'Keef e Chie f Operatin g Office r America nPetroleumInstitut e j o n Onboar d Refuelin g Control s nC l - ? 1991

befor e th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y

Romulus , Michiga n Septembe r 27 , 199 1 t _ Goo d afternoon . M ynam e i s WilliamO'Keefe , Chie f Operatin g Office r o f th e America n PetroleumInstitut e (API) . I a m accompanie d todaybyBil l Upchurch , Vic e Presiden t o f Exxo nUSA . W e ar e her e o n behal f o f th e mor e tha n25 0 AP I membe r companie s engage d i n al l aspect s o f th e oi l industry . I amals o offerin g thi s testimonyo n behal f o f th e Nationa l PetroleumRefiner s Associatio n and it s 13 0 member s wh o represen t virtuall yal l o f th e domesti c refinin g an d petrochemica l manufacturin g industry . Congres s ha s spoke ntwic e o nrefueling canisters . I n1977 , i t directe d EP At o stud yth e canister . I n1990 , i t directe d EP At o consul t wit hth e Nationa l Highwa yTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n (NHTSA ) o n safet yissue s and the nphase-i nth e onboar d canister . I n a phrase , Congres s ha s sai d "ge t o nwit hit. "

Th e debat e o nrefuelin g control s goe s bac k mor e tha na decad e t o th e 197 7 amendment s t o th e Clea nAi r Act . Sinc e tha t time , objection s t o th e refuelin g caniste r hav e focuse d o nthre e mai n arguments : o First , th e lac k o f technology . o Second , th e cos t o f controls . o An d third , an d mos t important , th e safet yo f th e onboar dP. 3

Sffi b

'••"..'1

x*?i 

### system .

A t th e outset , I wan t t o be clea r o non e majo r point . I f th e America npetroleum industrybelieve d onboar d refuelin g control s lA'or : unsaf e o r pcse d a nunreasonabl e safet yris k t o th e nation' s motorin g public , w e woul d vigorousl yoppos e them . However , ove r a decad e o f research , technica l dat a and objectiv e analyse s demonstrat e convincingl yth e safet yo f th e refuelin g canister . An d th e caniste r i s a n efficien t and cos t effectiv e wa yt o reduc e pollution . Our writte n submissio n wil l documen t th e base s fo r thes e conclusions . i First , I'l l addres s th e technologyo f th e refuelin g canister . I t i s importan t t o remembe r that , sinc e it s inception , th e Clea n Ai r Ac t ha s bee ntechnologyforcing . Th e 199 0 Clea nAi r Ac t , ' / Amendment s ar e n o exception . The yimpos e rigi d requirement s fo r ne wtechnologie s o nmanyAmerica n businesses , includin g bot hth e petroleumand automobil e industries . However , th e refuelin g caniste r i s readil yavailabl e technology . Th e automotiv e industr y' doe s no t hav e t o discove r entirel yne wmethod s t o compl ywith , Congress ' mandate . W e hav e bee n workin g closel ywit hth e automobil e industr yo n a numbe r o f ai r qualit yissue s ove r th e pas t severa l year s — particularl yo njoin t researc ht o identif yth e mos t effectiv e fue l and vehicl e systems , whic hi s a technology-forcin g endeavor . Tha tP. 4

3 cooperatio n wil l continue . However , o nth e refuelin g caniste r issu e w e simpl ydisagree .

Eve n i f EP Aissue d th e onboar d regulatio ntoday , automaker s woul d hav e fou r mor e year s t o tes t and perfec t thei r systems . I believ e tha t America n engineer s ar e mor e tha ncapabl e o f meetin g tha t challenge . They'v e bee nabl e t o desig nclosed-loo p fue l managemen t system s s o vehicle s ca n operat e a t optima l level s unde r anyweathe r conditions . They'v e designe d compute r aide d steerin g and suspensio n and othe r high-tec hdevice s suc ha s ai r bags . I n contrast , a n onboar d vapo r recove r systemi s a relativel ysimpl e desig n modificatio n o f a n existin g system . I t doe s no t requir e comparabl e technologica l advances . I t require s th e us e o f existin g knowledge .

I n fact , Toyot a ha s tol d NHTSA , "i f certai nsafet yrisk s appea r concretely , ou r experience d engineer s canthe nmodif yth e desig n t o eliminat e th e problem. " I f Toyot a ca nprovid e tha t assurance , I d o no t understan d wh yother s can' t d o likewise .

A s thi s pane l i s wel l aware , canisters , whic htrap evaporativ e emission s whe na ca r i s parked , adde d a whol e ne wtechnologyt o th e automobil e i n1971 . The ywer e teste d fo r onl ya fe wyears . By contrast , th e onboar d refuelin g technologyi s a simpl e and logica l extension , fo r whic hther e i s almos t 2 0 year s o f experience .P. 5

Th e petroleum

industryha s bee ndevelopin g and testin g refuelin g caniste r system s sinc e 1978 . Thi s woul d typicall yb e a subjec t fo r researc hb yth e automobil e industry' s researc h laboratorie s —

bu t vapo r recover ysystem s us e charcoa l adsorptio n technology—and th e petroleumindustryha s expertis e i nthi s area . I nfact , th e existin g evaporativ e caniste r syste mi ntoday' s automobile s i s base d o nresearc hb yExxon . Scientist s a t Exxon' s researc hlaboratorie s ar e experimentin g wit ha ne wsuper-adsorptiv e materia l tha t coul d lea d t o th e developmen t o f a neve nmor e efficien t syste monboar d containe d withi nth e fue l tank .

Second , th e refuelin g caniste r systemdoe s a mor e cost effectiv e jo bo f reducin g ozone-formin g emission s tha nth e alternativ e —Stag e I I vapo r recoveryunits . I nfact , th e regulator yrequirement s fo r th e enhance d evaporativ e syste mshoul d mea n tha t th e cos t o f goin g fro mth e enhance d evaporativ e caniste r t o th e refuelin g caniste r shoul d b e les s tha npreviousl yestimated .

Severa l year s ago , i t wa s asserte d tha t th e refuelin g caniste r coul d add $8 0 t o $10 0 o r mor e t o th e cos t o f a nautomobile . Tha t estimat e wa s neve r validate d b ypee r review . Indeed , base d o nou r critique , i t belong s i n th e categor yo f fiction . EPA' s origina l estimat e O f th e incrementa l purchas e pric e increas e t o instal l onboar d control s wa s $1 9 pe r vehicle . There' s n o reaso nt o believ e tha t estimat e wa s overl yoptimistic .P. 6

5 Th e refuelin g caniste r wil l replac e th e existin g evaporativ e canister , whic hi s expecte d t o b e enlarge d anywaya s a resul t o f EP Aand Californi a rulemaking . EP Aestimate d th e incrementa l cos t o f enhance d evaporativ e emission s controls , includin g a large r caniste r system , t o b e abou t $1 0 pe r car . Th e cos t o f a refuelin g caniste r i s th e incrementa l cos t t o tak e th e nex t step . However , EPA' s mos t recen t cos t estimat e show s tha t movin g fro mth e enhance d evaporativ e syste mt o onboar d control s coul d actuall yresul t i n consume r cos t saving s becaus e o f th e fue l econom ybonu s provide d b y onboar d systems . Excludin g California , b yth e yea r 200 0 th e combinatio n o f canister s and Stag e I I control s require d b ylawwil l remov e 100,00 0 mor e ton s a yea r o f volatil e organi c compound s tha nStag e I I control s alone . Tha t benefi t wil l mor e thandoubl e b yth e yea r 2004 . Mos t o f thes e ai r qualit yimprovement s wil l com e i narea s no t require d t o us e Stag e I I controls . Th e cos t effectivenes s o f onboar d control s alon g wit hStag e I I i nseriou s and sever e non attainmen t area s i s abou t $1,45 0 a ton . Thi s i s nearl ytwic e a s cos t effectiv e a s th e alternativ e o f Stag e I I control s alon e i n covere d non-attainmen t areas . W e wil l provid e a nin-dept hstudy documentin g thes e number s fo r th e record .

A t a n earlie r stag e i nth e rulemaking o nthi s issue , EP A conclude d tha t th e onboar d refueling systemwa s th e mos t cost effectiv e approac hfo r controllin g refueling emissions .P. 7

6 However , th e rulemakin g wa s hel d up b ya ninterna l disput e withi n th e Reaga n administratio nove r th e cos t and benefit s o f th e caniste r and Stag e I I controls .

But , th e passag e o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t Amendment s ha s clearl y resolve d tha t debate . Whil e th e Clea nAi r Ac t Amendment s requir e servic e statio n pum p control s i ncitie s wit hseriou s and sever e non-attainmen t problems , the ytrea t the ma s a ninteri mmeasure , givin g EP Ath e abilit yt o waiv e Stag e I I requirement s onc e onboar d control s "ar e i n widesprea d use. " Congres s properl yrecognize d tha t th e refuelin g caniste r i s a mor e cos t effectiv e metho d o f controllin g refuelin g vapor s tha n servic e statio npum p controls . And Administrato r Willia mReill yrecentl ynote d tha t refuelin g canister s ar e th e "mos t importan t modificatio nt o moto r vehicle s thi s agenc yca n requir e t o achiev e a genuin e ai r qualit y improvement. "

Th e third , and mos t important , facto r i nth e debat e i s safety . Th e primar ypurpos e o f thi s hearin g i s t o answe r th e questio no f whethe r th e refuelin g caniste r pose s anunreasonabl e ris k t o motorists . I wan t t o reiterat e tha t i f th e America npetroleum industr ybelieve d th e refuelin g caniste r wa s unsaf e w e woul d activel yoppos e it s introduction . Instead , w e believ e th e refuelin g caniste r ca n improv e vehicl e safety .

Tw o independen t studies , on e conducte d b yth e Battell eP. 8

Institut e an d th e othe r b yth e Cente r fo r Aut o Safety , als o sugges t tha t refuelin g canister s coul d actuall yimprov e automobil e safety . Th e Cente r fo r Aut o Safet ytol d EPAtha t "I f anything , th e EP A combine d packag e o f fue l volatilit y(reductions ) and ...[refuelin g canisters ] wil l reduc e th e ris k o f fire s i nautomobiles. "

Her e ar e th e reasons :

o Th e curren t evaporativ e emission s contro l system' s "externa l ven t line " tha t release s exces s refueling vapor s outsid e th e vehicl e woul d b e eliminated , simplifying controls . Refuelin g canister s coul d easil yaccommodat e the amoun t o f vapor s generate d durin g refueling .

o Tank pressure s durin g vehicl e operatio nwoul d b e reduce d becaus e th e large r vapo r line s and caniste r woul d allo wth e vapor s t o flo w fro mth e gasolin e tank a t atmospheri c pressure . I nexistin g system s exces s vapo r i s temporaril ystore d unde r pressur e i nth e ga s tank . Tha t pressur e coul d increas e th e amoun t o f fue l tha t migh t escap e throug ha brea k i nth e fue l systemdurin g a naccident . Thi s pressur e ca nals o resul t i nthe releas e o f vapors , and eve n liquid s a t times , whe n th e fue l tan k fille r ca p i s remove d fo r refueling .

o Th e AP I demonstratio nrefuelin g caniste r system s ar e locate d a t th e rea r o f th e car , withi nth e vehicle' s unibodyconstructio n —P. 9

8 outsid e th e cras hzon e —o r integrate d int o th e fue l tank and awa y fro mth e engine . Movin g th e syste mawayfro mth e engine , wher e mos t existin g evaporativ e canister s ar e located , decrease s th e chance s o f accident-relate d fire s an d thereb

yincrease s safety .

Mr . Upchurc ho f Exxo n wil l discus s th e technica l aspect s o f thes e and othe r relate d issue s i ngreate r detail . Befor e h e does , I' d lik e t o addres s NHTSA' s analysi s o f th e safet yo f refuelin g canisters . Despit e th e dat a o n safet yI'v e jus t outline d —

NHTS Aha s sai d tha t i t woul d b e "reasonable " fo r EP At o determin e tha t refuelin g canister s pos e a n"unreasonable " safet yrisk . However , NHTS Aitsel f di d no t conclud e tha t th e refueling caniste r pose d a n unreasonabl e ris k o r indee d wa s "unsafe. " NHTS Asai d ther e wa s "n o factua l dat a o n whic ht o bas e th e absolut e quantificatio n o f risk. " Apar t fro m

it s study , NHTS Aals o tol d the Genera l Accountin g Offic e tha t i t coul d no t quantif yth e risk s withou t testin g manufacturer

produce d vehicles .

W e d o no t believ e th e entir e record o nthi s issu e point s t o a conclusio no f "unreasonable " risk . I believ e tha t NHTS Aha s no t thoroughl ystudie d th e issue . Indeed , whe nw e aske d NHTS Afo r it s criteri a fo r definin g reasonabl e and unreasonabl e risk s an d the methodologytheyuse d i nP.1 0

9 reachin g thei r conclusions , w e wer e tol d tha t theydidn' t exist . I n othe r words , th e NHTS Afinding s ar e no t th e resul t o f a n empirica l o r rigorou s analytica l process . Withou t objectiv e criteri a o r a nexplici t methodologyfo r assessin g refuelin g caniste r risks , thei r conclusio nshoul d b e regarde d fo r wha t i t i s

—thei r judgment , and subjectiv e judgemen t a t that . I nth e end , EP Amus t hav e th e fina l decision , taking int o accoun t NHTSA' s views , a s wel l a s al l othe r evidenc e i nth e recor d and th e requirement s o f law . NHTS Aappear s t o hav e base d it s conclusion s o n inaccurat e inference s abou t th e complexit yo f th e system , concern s abou t vapo r flow , th e fac t tha t automobil e manufacturer s wer e unabl e o r unwillin g t o provid e manufacturer-buil t system s t o tes t an d a Stud yb yArthu r D . Littl e whic hi s seriousl yflawed . I wil l addres s eac ho f thes e issues .

A s I note d earlier , th e refueling caniste r i s a nexpansio no f existin g technology—alreadyprove nsaf e ove r tw o decade s o f use . W e hav e found n o evidenc e t o sugges t otherwise . Th e Cente r fo r Aut o Safet yha s conducte d a simila r revie wand reache d th e sam e conclusions . i n 1988 , th e CA S reviewe d th e 4,27 6 safety-relate d recall s datin g bac k t o 196 6 and th e 146,00 0 vehicl e safet yreport s file d wit hNHTS Asinc e 1977 . Onl ytw o recall s involve d post collisio nfailur e o f th e existin g caniste r system . Si xengin e fire s ou t o f 1,50 1 complaint s i n the NHTS Adat a bas e involve d th e canister .P.1 1

1 0 Th e CA S studyreporte d tha t al l recall s fo r fue l syste m pressur e problem s o n vehicle s manufacture d betwee n198 3 and 198 7 wer e fo r moto r homes , vans , and ambulance s and appea r t o hav e bee n relate d t o specifi c manufacture r o r modificatio nproblems . Commendably , manufacturer s hav e had relativel yfe wproblem s wit h thes e systems , particularl ysinc e th e mid-1980s . I nfact , NHTSA' s dat a sho wth e fir e rate s i npassenge r ca r crashe s sinc e mode l yea r 197 5 hav e dropped , eve n a s vehicl e complexit yha s increased . Thi s i s - a ver yimportan t fac t fo r EP At o tak e int o accoun t i nreachin g it s decision . NHTSA' s opinio n rest s o na presume d correlatio n betwee n complexit yand risks , bu t thei r owndat a abando nthem .

NHTS Aha s use d it s dat a bas e t o conduc t a statistica l analysi s comparin g th e safet yo f pre-197 1 car s wit hcar s tha t hav e evaporativ e caniste r systems . W e believ e thi s analysi s i s severel y flawed . I nfact , w e hav e shown n o statistica l significanc e exist s i n th e relationship s discusse d i nthei r study . NHTSA' s owndat a d o no t suppor t it s clai mo f a "statisticall ysignificant " increas e i n automobil e fire s followin g th e installatio no f evaporativ e canisters . W e wil l includ e in-dept hcomment s o nNHTSA' s analysi s i n ou r writte n submission .

I believ e EP Aca n reasonabl yconclud e tha t th e curren t evaporativ e caniste r syste mi s no t unsafe . Million s o f vehicle s o n th e roa d ar e usin g i t and n o concret e evidenc e ha s emerge d t o demonstrat e tha t thes e system s pos e a nunreasonabl e ris k t o th e1 1

motorin g public . And , a s th e Battell e stud yconcluded , car s wit h onboar d refuelin g control s mayb e safe r thancar s wit hevaporativ e canisters .

Th e petroleum

industrybega n testing demonstratio nrefuelin g caniste r system s i n th e lat e 1970 s an d a nextensiv e bodyo f researc hdocument s thei r performanc e an d safety .

Mor e recen t demonstratio n model s develope d b yth e petroleum industr yhav e focuse d o n addressin g safet yconcerns . Th e system s hav e bee nmove d fromth e engin e compartmen t t o protecte d area s nea r th e fue l tank .

Thes e demonstratio n vehicle s hav e bee ndrive nfo r ten s o f thousand s o f mile s unde r condition s simila r t o thos e encountere d b y mos t consumers . Thes e vehicle s ca n mee t existing federa l exhaus t and evaporativ e emission s standards . W e als o believ e tha t onc e productio nvehicle s meetin g th e 199 0 Clea r Ai r Ac t Amendmen t standard s ar e availabl e the yca nb e equippe d wit honboar d contro l system s an d stil l mee t th e standards . Vehicle s equippe d wit h refuelin g caniste r system s wil l als o mor e effectivel ycontro l runnin g losses .

Moreover , independen t blind test s o f demonstratio nvehicle s ove r a wid e rang e o f temperature s showno significan t driveabilit y difference s betwee n car s using existing system s and thos e wit hP.1 3

1 2 refuelin g canisters . I n onl yon e instanc e di d thes e vehicle s hav e problem s durin g testing . Driveabilit yproblem s di d resul t afte r a NHTS Aemploye e overrod e th e automati c shutof f featur e o f a gasolin e dispensin g nozzl e 10 9 time s whil e refueling .

T o n o one' s surprise , thi s di d caus e th e syste mt o overflo w and i t di d forc e liqui d int o th e refueling canister , damagin g th e canister . But , thi s ac t i s s o extreme tha t i t shoul d b e give n littl e weigh t i n safet yo r driveabilit yconsiderations . Ho wman y driver s woul d stand a t a servic e statio nfo r 2 0 minute s afte r fillin g th e fue l tank , overridin g the shutof f featur e i ncontinue d attempt s t o forc e mor e fue l int o th e vehicle ?

W e als o late r discovere d anothe r mino r proble mwit hth e ca r tha t ha d bee n sen t t o NHTS Afo r testing . An.engine contro l syste m senso r wa s defective . Thi s failur e occurre d unde r wid e ope n throttl e conditions , whic hwoul d als o contribut e t o driveabilit y problem s simila r t o thos e found b yNHTSA . Whe nthi s par t wa s replaced , th e ca r operate d withou t problems . Thi s fault ypart , totall yunrelate d t o th e refueling canister , coul d als o explai n th e proble mNHTS Aencountered . Thi s informatio nwa s sen t t o NHTSA , and AP I aske d tha t i t b e include d i n th e Arthu r D . Littl e revie wo f caniste r safety , bu t ther e i s n o evidenc e tha t i t wa s considered .

Le t m e als o not e tha t th e onl ytes t tha t ha s no t performe d wit hthes e tw o demonstratio nvehicle s i s cras htesting . However ,P.1 4

1 3 Ford , Toyot a and Hond a hav e reporte d t o NHTS Atha t thei r refuelin g canister-equippe d tes t vehicle s passe d th e federa l moto r vehicl e cras han d rollove r standard s fo r fue l syste mintegrity . Thi s importan t fac t wa s als o no t discusse d i nth e NHTS Areport .

Ou r test s o f demonstratio nvehicle s hav e neve r endangere d drivers . Th e performanc e o f thes e vehicle s ha s bee ncomparabl e wit hothe r vehicle s fromth e same mode l yea r and clearl y demonstrate s tha t properl ydesigne d onboar d refueling canister s wil l operat e safel yand no t affec t driveability .

NHTS Aha s als o expresse d concern s abou t vapo r flo wwithi nth e system . The yhav e focuse d o n th e flammabilit yo f th e vapor s generate d durin g refueling . Arathe r simpl e observatio ni s i n order . I nth e Exxo n refueling caniste r systems , th e caniste r itsel f i s locate d awayfromth e mai nhea t source s i nautomobiles , th e engin e and th e exhaus t manifold . Thus , i t is , t o b e generous , highl yunlikel ytha t a n ignitio nsourc e woul d b e presen t nea r thes e canister s durin g refueling . I migh t add tha t i nman ycase s fue l tank s ar e clos e t o th e catalyti c converte r o r exhaus t pipe , whic h ar e als o majo r hea t sources . Ye t nobod yconsider s thi s vehicl e configuratio n t o b e unsaf e and indee d i t i s not . I nshort , th e ris k o f fire s relate d t o refueling canister s during refillin g i s to o remot e t o b e a seriou s consideratio ni nyou r decision . Th e prope r desig nand placemen t o f refueling canister s shoul d pos e n o safet yproblems .1 4 Concern s abou t th e complexit yo f the refuelin g caniste r ar e als o ill-founded . Th e aut o industryha s progresse d fromcar s wit h carburetor s t o car s wit hfue l injectio nsystems . Vehicle s no whav e electroni c fue l managemen t systems . Onboar d computer s diagnos e engin e problems , hel p contro l steerin g and leve l loads . Th e ca r ha s becom e a compute r wit hwheels . A s anyon e wh o ha s looke d unde r th e hoo d o f a recen t mode l ca n attest , car s ar e unquestionabl ymuc h mor e comple xtha n the yuse d t o be . But , i nspit e o f al l thi s increase d complexity , th e fatalit yrat e ha s actuall ydecreased , reachin g a n all-tim e lo wthi s year .

I migh t als o not e that , despit e our overal l problem s wit hth e Arthu r D . Littl e report , eve n AD L di d no t suppor t NHTSA' s assertio n tha t a "complex " caniste r systemwoul d lead t o increase d risks . An d I quot e "AD L believe s tha t increase d complexit ydoe s tend t o increas e risks , bu t doe s no t hav e t o increas e ris k and ca ni nfac t reduc e risk. "

I nfact , th e refuelin g caniste r i s reall ya simpl e system . Whil e refuelin g canister s ca n b e large r tha nexistin g caniste r systems , an d solv e othe r problem s suc ha s tank pressur e and spitback , the yar e n o mor e complex . An d i n som e cases , the yar e eve n les s complex . The yar e no t nearl ya s complicate d a s automotiv e system s wit hwhic hNHTS Aha s no t take nexception .

Bot hCaliforni a and EPAar e engage d i nrulemaking s tha t ma yP.1 6

1 5 requir e automaker s t o instal l a larger , "enhanced " evaporativ e caniste r system . Nothin g tha t ha s bee nsubmitte d t o th e docke t fro mth e automaker s indicate s significan t safet yconcern s wit h thes e propose d systems . And NHTS Aha s no t questione d th e safet yo f th e propose d upgrade d system . Give nthi s se t o f facts , NHTSA' s oppositio no nth e purporte d complexit yo f th e refuelin g caniste r i s curiou s a t best .

I n conclusion , I woul d lik e t o mentio ntha t I hav e activel y followe d thi s issu e fo r th e pas t nin e years . I hav e see nstudie s and paper s g o bac k and fort hbetwee nth e agencie s and variou s interes t groups . I believ e Congres s an d th e Genera l Accountin g Offic e hav e mad e a majo r contributio nt o cutting th e gordia nkno t an d findin g a rea l solutio nt o th e problemo f seemingl yendles s and unproductiv e agenc yrevie w—issu e the rul e and brin g th e debat e t o a halt . Give n th e Congressiona l mandate , GA O "recommend s tha t th e Administrato r o f EPA , and th e Secretaryo f Transportatio n direc t tha t th e Administrato r o f NHTS Ato , develo p a join t approach , o r actio nplan , t o performa safet yevaluatio no f manufacturers ' onboar d system s t o identif yand correc t an ysafet y defect s o r flaw s wel l i n advanc e o f th e 199 6 mode l yea r s o tha t a n orderl yphase-i n occurs. " Suc ha napproac hwoul d allo wNHTS At o resolv e it s speculativ e conclusion s regarding th e safet yo f onboar d systems . Th e petroleumindustry' s experienc e wit hMarin e Vapo r Recover yP.1 7

1 6 System s demonstrate s tha t thi s canb e don e successfully . Whe n thes e system s wer e firs t required , th e industryha d seriou s concern s abou t thei r safety . Nevertheless , workin g cooperativel y wit hEPA , th e Coas t Guar d and th e state s w e hav e develope d a syste m an d testin g procedure s tha t hav e prove nsatisfactory .

I migh t als o sugges t tha t th e Nationa l Academ yo f Engineerin g b e engage d t o overse e engineerin g developmen t and addres s NHTSA' s safet yconcerns . Th e Academ ywoul d b e a nappropriat e forumfo r reviewin g progres s a s thi s proces s unfolds .

I a m firml yconvince d tha t th e refuelin g caniste r ca nindee d safel ymee t th e goal s o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendments . Congres s ha s mad e i t clea r tha t i t want s t o forc e technologyand i t want s EP At o sto p debatin g and star t acting . Issuing th e regulatio n o n th e schedul e se t b yCongres s mean s tha t dozen s o f communitie s throughou t th e Unite d State s wil l benefi t fromus e o f wha t EPA , AP I an d NPRArecogniz e i s a cos t effectiv e and saf e measur e fo r reducin g gasolin e vapo r emission s fromautomobiles .

Mr . Upchurc ho f Exxo nUS Awil l no wprovid e th e pane l wit h furthe r detail s o nsevera l technica l issues .