API LOBBYING FOR ONBOARD AUTO FUEL CANISTERS

The American Petroleum Institute is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to proceed with a rule requiring expanded onboard refueling canisters beginning with 1996 model cars. The charcoal filled cans collect gasoline vapors that otherwise might escape into the air during refueling. The expanded canister would be located in the rear of the automobile near the fuel tank, replacing a smaller canister in use since 1971.

Nov. 11, 1991

3 min read

The American Petroleum Institute is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to proceed with a rule requiring expanded onboard refueling canisters beginning with 1996 model cars.

The charcoal filled cans collect gasoline vapors that otherwise might escape into the air during refueling. The expanded canister would be located in the rear of the automobile near the fuel tank, replacing a smaller canister in use since 1971.

The latter, generally located near the engine, was designed only to collect vapors escaping the fuel system while the vehicle was parked. Both systems send the vapors to the engine for use as fuel.

The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments require EPA to consult with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and issue a regulation by Nov. 15, 1991, requiring phase-in of the onboard canister.

API VIEW

William O'Keefe, API chief operating officer, said, "A strong argument in favor of the refueling canister is the fact that it does a more cost-effective job of reducing ozone forming emissions than the alternative, the so-called Stage II vapor recovery units on service station pumps.

"While the Clean Air Act amendments require controls on service station pumps in cities with serious and severe air quality nonattainment problems, they treat them as an interim measure, giving EPA the ability to waive Stage II requirements."

He noted EPA Administrator William Reilly has called canisters the "most important modification to motor vehicles this agency can require to achieve a genuine air quality improvement."

OTHER INDUSTRY VIEWS

Ray Campion, Exxon Co. U.S.A. environmental conservation adviser, said expanded canisters should effectively control 98% of refueling emissions while limiting exhaust and evaporative emissions.

He said they also can control "running losses," a phenomenon in new car designs that maintain the fuel delivery system under positive pressure.

Campion said the canisters are cost-effective at about $1,000/ton of emissions collected compared with $2,000-4,000/ton for Stage II controls.

Phil Chisholm, Petroleum Marketers Association of America executive vice-president, said if EPA fails to require canisters, small marketers will bear the brunt of costs to install Stage 11 equipment, as much as $40,000/station, plus cost of maintaining it.

He said expanded canisters would cost less than $25/vehicle and not be a burden to the motorist like the Stage II vapor recovery system at service stations. He added that would represent a uniform, nationwide strategy for capturing gasoline vapors.

AUTOMAKERS' STANCE

Thomas Hanna, president of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, said, "Try as it might, API can't alter the fact that vapor recovery canisters pose a greater risk of fires in normal vehicle operations or crash situations because of the increased canister size and greater fuel system complexity."

He said Stage II controls will cost consumers a twentieth as much as onboard systems over the long term.

"The auto and oil industries have worked together on many regulatory issues and I hope this cooperation continues. It is unfortunate that API continues to ignore the safety of U.S. motorists by promoting onboard canisters over the proven Stage II technology."