p. 1


# OAR Box 1142 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 7 ) IV-F- 5 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/23/200810:21:21 AM Sheet 7 of 30P. 2 

## MV-F- 5 n P T - ? IS" ' ^ ^ CHRYSLE R

I V f MOTOR S Chrysle r Motor s Corporatio n 

### Statemen t b

y Gordo nE . Allardyce , Manage r o f Environmenta l & Energy Regulator y Planning , Chrysle r Corporation . EP A Hearin g onRefuelin g Emissio n Regulations . Romulus , Michiga n Septembe r 26 . 199 1 Chrysle r i s please d t o hav e th e opportunit yt o presen t it s view s a t thi s EP A hearin g concernin g th e safet yissue s associate d wit honboar d refuelin g vapo r recover y(ORVR ) systems . Ou r comment s toda ysupplemen t thos e w e submitte d i n respons e t o th e Augus t 19 , 198 7 NPR M o n th e relativ e merit s o f vehicl e onboar d system s versu s Stag e I I gasolin e pum p system s fo r controllin g refuelin g emissions .
A t th e 198 7 hearing , Chrysle r challenge d EPA' s analysi s favorin g onboar d control s primaril ybecaus e i t erroneousl yexclude d a n analysi s o f th e increase d ris k t o fue l syste mintegrity . W e urge d EP At o conside r th e entir e matte r again . I t wa s ou r belie f tha t furthe r analysi s woul d sho wonboar d system s ar e no t a reasonabl e o r appropriat e approac ht o controllin g refuelin g emission s unde r an

ycircumstances . Sinc e tha t time , a numbe r o f importan t event s relevan t t o thi s issu e hav e occurred . Foremos t wa s th e CleanAi r Ac t Amendment s (CAAA ) o f 1990 . W e wer e please d t o se e th e entir e matte r o f refuelin g emission s considere d b yth e Congres s i n legislativ e debates , wit hEP Aa s a ke yparticipant . A s a result , th e Congres s include d i n th e Amendment s a requiremen t tha t EP Aconsul t wit h th e DO T regardin g th e safet yo f onboar d system s i n ligh t o f provision s prohibitin g us e o f device s tha t caus e unreasonabl e ris k t o publi c safety .

Highlan d Par k

M l 48288-111 8P. 3

Today , we hav e befor e u s th e result s o f th e DO T (NHTSA ) stud y ononboar d refuelin g systems . I t confirm s Chrysler' s continuin g concer ntha t thes e system s unreasonabl y

increas e safet y

risk s t o vehicl e occupants . A growin g bod y o f studie s an

dreport s corroborate s th e NHTSA' s findings . Fortunately , th e Congres s provide dfo r alternative s b y requirin g tha t Stag e I I system s b e use dinmany ozon e noncomplianc e region s o f th e country . We recogniz e tha t refuelin g emissions , thoug hsmal l inrelatio nt o othe r source s o f volatil e organi c compound s (VOCs) , nevertheles s contribut e t o th e overal l inventory , an

dtha t control s concentrate di nproblem region s ca ncontribut e towar dachievin g compliance . Stag e I I system s ar e idea l fo r tha t purpose . The y ca nbe installe dina shor t perio do f time an dimmediatel y

contro l al l refuelin g emission s a t th e source . Incontrast , th e introductio no f ORV R throug hth e sal e o f ne w vehicle s an

dth e turnove r o f th e curren t flee t i s a muc hslowe r process . We believ e tha t i f i t i s worthwhil e t o contro l thes e emission s a t all , the ni t i s clea r tha t Stag e I I i s a superio r approach .

Inm y followin g comment s I wil l presen t a summary o f Chrysler' s positio non thi s issu e whic hi s o f vita l importanc e t o ou r compan y and , mos t importantly , t o ou r customer s an

dthei r families . Chrysle r ha s a mora l obligatio nt o oppos e an

y regulator y

requiremen t tha t ma y compromis e th e integrit y o f ou r vehicle s and , a s indicate db y NHTSA , wil l increas e th e safet y ris kt o occupants .P. 4



### I wil l explai nou r positio na s follows :

o First , why

Chrysle r believe s tha t onboar dsystem s caus e a nunreasonabl e ris kt o publi c safety ;

o Second , why

EPA mus t conclud e tha t onboar dvapo r recover y control s caus e a nincrease dris kt o publi c safety ;

o Third , why

EPA mus t conclud e tha t ORV Ri s a nunreasonabl e ris kt o safet y becaus e a saf e alternativ e i s available ;

o Fourth , why

Stag e I I system s ar e superio r alternative s t o onboar d systems ;

o Fifth , Chrysler' s recommendation s fo r EPA' s furthe r action s onthi s importan t issue .P. 5



### 1 . Chrysle r believe s tha t onboar dsystem s caus e a nunreasonabl e ris kt o publi c safetv . Chrysle r continue s t o believ e tha t mandate donboar dvapo r recover y system s caus e a

nunreasonabl e ris kt o th e safet y o f ou r customers . Thi s positioni s base donth e fac t tha t system s neede dt o mee t th e propose d standar dar e inherentl y les s saf e du e t o thei r complexity . Chrysle r ha s bee nworkin g onth e developmen t o f onboar drefuelin g emissioncontro l system s sinc e 1984 . Ou r eight hgeneratio nsystem a s i t stand s toda y

i s greatl y

superio r t o ou r initia l design . Thoug hproudo f thei r progress , ou r engineer s conced e tha t seriou s problem s remain .
Th e issu e i s th e increase dris kt o saf e operatio no f th e vehicle , specifically , th e increase dris ko f fires . However , problem s wit h durability , driveability , an deffect s o f propose dexhaus t an d evaporativ e requirement s mus t als o be addressed .
Some critic s o f th e aut o industr y clai m tha t engineerin g anonboar d system shoul db e a simpl e task . Thei r basi c descriptio no f anonboar d system i s tha t o f anevaporativ e contro l system wit ha large r canister . Tha t I s a misconception .
We know fro m experienc e tha t aneffectiv e onboar dsystem wil l b e muc h mor e complex . Th e hear t o f ou r system i s a new

fille r tub e refuelin g modul e designe dspecificall y t o contro l th e routin g o f th e refuelin gP. 6

vapor s t o th e canister . Incorporate dinth e refuelin g modul e i s a nozzl e sealin g device , a refuelin g even t device , a pressur e relie f device , provision s fo r nozzl e shu t of f an dliqui dcarryove r protection , an da larg e vapo r connectio nt o th e canister . Additiona l an dlarge r lines , connections , valves , fitting s an dclamp s ar e als o required , a s wel l a s a

nadditiona l openin g i nth e fue l tan k t o accommodat e th e additiona l hardware . And , o f course , a muc hlarge r charcoa l caniste r wil l b e required .
Th e locatio nan

dspac e neede dfo r a larg e caniste r present s a desig n challenge . Inmos t vehicles , th e underhoo dspac e use dfo r th e curren t evaporativ e caniste r woul dno t be sufficien t fo r th e large r onboar d canister . Rearwar dlocation s onth e vehicl e ar e th e onl y alternatives , bu t fue l system

vulnerabilit y

ma y b e increased . Thi s mean s trun kspac e o r fue l tan kcapacit y ma y b e los t t o provid e spac e fo r th e canister . Whil e ther e i s no indicatio ntha t canister s hav e bee nth e caus e o f fire s i nou r vehicles , th e caniste r ca nac t a s a secondar y acceleran t i f a fir e i s present .
Th e adde dcomplexit y

o f th e onboar dsystem wil l caus e complianc e wit h MVS S 30 1 Fue l System

Integrit y

requirement s t o b e a majo r obstacle . Extensiv e change s i nth e fue l tan k andfille r tub e connection s andth e numbe r o f adde dcomponent s als o rais e Chrysler' s concer nfo r potentia l fue l spillag e inth e even t o f a naccident . Th e consequenc e o f includin g th e adde dcomplexit y

o f thi s system

i na vehicl e i s a greatl y increase d potentia l fo r fue l o r vapo r leakag e i na naccident . Th e fille r tub eP. 7

refuelin g modul e i s neede d t o clos e of f th e ven t lin e i n suc h a n event . I f th e modul e wer e t o b e sheare d of f i n a sid e impact , a lea k coul d occur . An d leak s coul d als o resul t fro man yo f th e connectio n point s o n th e fue l tan k neede d fo r additiona l hardware .
Onboar d syste mdurabilit yremain s a formidabl e obstacle . Auseful-lif e requiremen t o f 1 0 year s an d 100,00 0 mile s fo r passenge r cars , an d longe r fo r trucks , i s required . Thi s i s a majo r undertakin g fo r designer s o f thi s ne wcomple x system . We wil l hav e t o conduc t a lengthytes t progra m o n eac h o f th e differen t classe s o f ou r vehicle s t o assur e tha t al l component s surviv e and continu e t o functio n properly . Eve n then , o f course , al l ou r bes t effort s ma yb e defeate d b ytampering , a significan t obstacl e t o ensurin g prope r safet yand emissio n control .
Durin g ou r developmen t o f ORVR systems , w e als o studie d EPA' s "simpl e system " i n hop e o f findin g som e innovativ e feature s t o us e i n mitigatin g th e problem s wit h ou r systems . Th e result s wer e disappointing . Althoug h i t perform s th e basi c functio n o f capturin g refuelin g emission s unde r controlle d laborator yconditions , ou r engineer s conclude d tha t i t need s a lo t o f wor k t o hav e anychanc e o f bein g eve n marginall y acceptabl e unde r rea l worl d conditions . Briefly , ou r concern s wit hth e EP Asimpl e syste minclud e a n increase d difficult y

i nrefueling , spitback , an d poo r operatio ndurin g high ambien t conditions . Chrysler' s testin g reveale d a hig h vapo r generatio n problem . Althoug h a fe wproblem s ca n b e alleviated , thi s require sP. 8

additiona l hardwar e an dcost . Thes e sam

e drawback s wer e als o note db y NHTS A intheir tes t o f a simpl e system .
NHTS A als o liste ddriveabilit y a s a safet y

issue . While testin g a vehicl e equippe dwit hth e AP I onboar dsystem , NHTS A experience d driveabilit y

problem s tha t they

characterize da s " a seriou s safet y concern. " Seriou s driveabilit y problem s wil l be furthe r exacerbate da s stricte r evaporativ e control s an deve r tighte r exhaus t emission s standard s ar e implemented . Takin g al l o f thes e concern s int o consideration , NHTS A

conclude dtha t a simpl e system doe s no t necessaril y mea ntha t i t i s a safe r system . Chrysle r engineer s continu e t o searc hfo r a system tha t wil l minimiz e th e increase dsafet y

risk s o f onboar dsystems . Th e ris kt o saf e operatio no f th e vehicl e i s threatene ddu e t o th e increase dsiz e an d complexit y

o f th e system . Chrysle r believe s thi s increase dris k i s unnecessary .
2 . Th e EPA

mus t conclud e tha t onboar dvapo r recover y control s caus e a

n increase dris kt o publi c safetv .
Th e Congres s clearl y

expresse dthei r concer nabou t th e safet y o f onboar d refuelin g emissio ncontro l system s a s evidence db y th e languag e o f sectio n202(a)(6) . Th e EPA Administrato r wa s specificall y directe dt o consul t wit hth e Secretar y o f Transportatio nregardin g th e safet y o f thes e systems . Inresponse , NHTS A conclude dthat ,P. 9

"ORV R system s woul d increas e th e ris k o f fir e and henc e resul t i n increase d safet y ris k compare d t o curren t vehicles. "

NHTS Aevaluate d th e influenc e o f increasin g syste mcomplexit yb y comparin g vehicle s wit h early , simpl e vapo r contro l system s wit h vehicle s no t havin g thes e systems . NHTS Afoun d tha t vapo r contro l system s hav e show n a n increas e i n fir e frequenc yove r pre-vapo r contro l vehicles . Despit e year s o f production , vapo r contro l system s a s recentl ya s 199 1 mode l yea r hav e bee n th e subjec t o f recall s becaus e o f potentia l fir e situations . NHTS Ai s concerne d tha t onboar d syste mfire s wil l b e mor e intens e and sel f sustainin g becaus e o f th e presenc e o f a greate r quantit yo f highl yflammabl e materia l availabl e i n large r canister s neede d fo r th e propose d ORVR systems .
Fo r 1975-1988 , NHTS Areporte d th e annua l averag e numbe r o f injurie s i n moto r vehicl e crashe s involvin g fire s a s numberin g 13,000 , wit h 1 0 percen t o f the mbein g fatal . Sixty-fiv e percen t o f th e injurie s wer e incapacitating . A s previousl yreasoned , thes e number s ca n onl yincreas e wit honboar dsystems .



### 8P.1 0

I nth e word s o f NHTSA ,

".. . fire s ar e a majo r safet y concern . Clearly , an y action , suc ha s th e implementatio no f ORV Rsystems , tha t coul dincreas e th e potentia l fo r fir e ris k woul d hav e a nadvers e effec t onsafety. "

Th e magnitud e o f th e number s inan y o f th e studie s i s debatable . Th e direction , however , i s clear . Onboar dcontrol s increas e safet y risks . NHTS A furthe r stated ,
"Th e complexit y

o f a nORV Rsystem result s i nan increase dris ko f componen t failur e wit hresultan t fir e risk. " Additionally ,
"Unde r .. . condition s .. . o f .. . motor vehicl e crash ,

.. . ORV Rrefuelin g vapor recover y system s woul dresul t i na substantia l Increas e infir e potential . Thes e occurrence s resul t i na nincrease dsafet y

risk... "
Chrysle r believe s th e availabl e evidenc e i s irrefutable . ORV Rsystem s caus e anIncrease dris kt o publi c safety . Andth e overwhelmin g weigh t o f evidenc e mus t lea dEPA t o th e same conclusion .P.1 1



### Th e EPA mus t conclud e tha t ORV Ri s a nunreasonabl e ris kt o safet y becaus e a saf e alternativ e i s available . Congres s hadgrea t foresigh t inprovidin g alternative s fo r protectin g agains t refuelin g emission s b y mandatin g Stag e I I system s inozon e noncomplianc e regions . We believ e EPA shoul drecogniz e tha t th e publi c healt hi s appropriatel y protecte db

y thi s requirement . Anadde d requiremen t alon g wit hit s associate drisk s i s no t necessary . Further , Chrysle r believe s tha t EPA woul db e barre dfro

m requirin g us e o f ORV

Rb y provision s o f Sectio n202(a)(4)(A ) tha t states ,
".. . n o emissio ncontro l devic e .. . shal l b e use di na ne w moto r vehicl e .. . i f suc hdevic e .. . wil l caus e o r contribut e t o an unreasonabl e ris kt o publi c .. . safet y i nit s operatio no r function. "
Stag e I I contro l i s a

navailabl e an

dprove ntechnology . Agencies , includin g th e EPA , hav e conclude dtha t "Stag e I I system s ar e safe r tha n non-Stag e I I gasolin e dispensin g pumps. " Fro m it s revie w

o f th e literature , NHTS A

cite d"[a ] unanimou s conclusio ntha t Stag e I I ha s a lowe r ris k o f servic e statio nfire s tha nexistin g gasolin e pumps. "


### Th e technolog y

fo r Stag e I I ha s evolve dsignificantl y sinc e bein g introduce di nSa nDieg o i n1974 . Washingto nD.C . implemente da Stag e I I program i nth e 1980 s an

dmany othe r loca l an

dstat e agencie s hav e adopte dStag e I I regulations . Wha t bega na s a somewha t clumsy , 1 0difficul t t o us e system , ha s evolve d int o a fift h generatio n devic e tha t i s nearl ytransparen t t o th e consumer .
Th e technolog yi s als o durabl e an d ver yeffectiv e i n reducin g refuelin g emissions . Thir d generatio n system s i n Californi a hav e bee n show n t o hav e a n actua l in-us e effectivenes s o f 90-9 5 percent . Whil e EP A estimate s in-us e effectivenes s o f onboar d t o b e 9 4 percent , Multinationa l Busines s Service s projecte d onl ya n 8 3 percen t in-us e effectivenes s o f ORVR whe n malmaintenanc e and tamperin g ar e considered . W e believ e EP Amus t tak e not e o f th e effectiveness , durabilit yand availabilit yo f Stag e I I whe n considerin g th e overal l strateg yfo r refuelin g controls .
Commentin g o n syste m

effectiveness , NHTS Anotes , "Implementatio n o f Stag e I I woul d negat e th e nee d fo r ORVR systems , sinc e th e objectiv e o f capturin g refuelin g vapor s woul d b e accomplished. "

NHTS Aconclude d that , "[their ] findin g o f increase d safet yris k associate d wit hORV

Rsystems , couple d wit h th e lac k o f increase d safet y ris k wit hStag e II , shoul d be use d byEPA i n thei r regulatio n concernin g ORVR installation. "



### 1 1P.1 3



### Th e Agenc ymus t loo k t o Sectio n 202(a)(4)(B ) and se e tha t Stag e I I system s offer , "availabilit yo f othe r device s .. . whic hma yb e use d t o confor mt o requirement s .. . withou t causin g o r contributin g t o .. . unreasonabl e risk. "
Wit ha safer , equall yeffectiv e syste m available , w e believ e ORVR system s ar e b

ydefinitio n a n unreasonabl e ris k t o publi c safety . Chrysler' s conclusio n i n thi s regar d i s consisten t wit hth e MVMA' s comment s presente d earlie r today . W e suppor t th e MVMA' s positio n and contribute d t o it s preparation . Stag e I I system s ar e superio r alternative s t o onboar d svstems . Everyon e agree s tha t ther e ar e onl ytw o potentia l mean s fo r controllin g refuelin g emissions : Stag e I I system s and onboar d systems . Afte r severa l year s o f studyand debat e o n th e merit s o f each , a n objectiv e assessmen t wil l sho

w Stag e I I system s t o b e clearl yth e superio r approach .

o Stag e I I system s caus e n o unreasonabl e ris k t o publi c health , welfar e o r safety . Onboar d system s increas e th e safet yrisk .

1 2P. M

o Stag e I I i s prove ntechnolog y tha t i s availabl e an d currentl y

in service . Onboar dha s ye t t o b e prove nreliable .

o Stag e I I system s ar e neede donl y inregion s wit hozon e ai r qualit y problems . Onboar dsystem s woul db e use donal l vehicle s everywhere .

o Stag e I I system s ca nb e installe dquickly , withi na few years . Onboar dsystem s canno t b e installe donal l car s an d ligh t truck s unti l wel l int o th e nex t century .

o Stag e I I control s wil l b e require dinmany nonattainmen t area s wher e refuelin g contro l i s needed . T o requir e th e redundan t onboar dsystem s wil l cos t th e natio nbillion s o f dollars .
Stag e I I system s ar e available , technicall y proven , an

d inexpensive . Th e us e o f suc hsystem s ha s bee nsupporte dbroadl y b y consume r groups , environmenta l activists , an d representative s o f stat e an d loca l government s (no t t o mentio nendorsemen t b y th e CAAA) . Wit hthi s se t o f fact s i nfavo r o f Stag e I I systems , w e d o no t se e how th e EPA ca n requir e onboar d systems , eithe r unde r an y term s o f th e amende d Ac t o r o n th e basi s o f an

y othe r imperativ e o r logic .



### 1 3

### 5 . Chrysler' s recommendation s fo r th e EPA' s action s o nthi s issue .
I nconclusion , Chrysle r urge s EP A t o carefull y

conside r the DO T findings , ou r comments , an dthos e o f th e MVM

A an dit s membe r companies . W e believ e th e Agenc y

mus t conclud e fro

m th e overwhelmin g weigh t o f evidenc e presente dtoday , an dunde r applicabl e provision s o f th e amende d Act , tha t onboar dsystem s caus e a nunreasonabl e ris kt o safet y and , therefore , shoul dno t be mandated .
Any decisio nt o th e contrar y wil l increas e th e safet y ris kt o vehicl e occupants , especiall y

sinc e Congres s ha s provide deffectiv e alternative s tha t giv e ampl e protectio nfro m th e effect s o f refuelin g emissions .

D0C19-GEA1 3 

### 1 4