Richard E. Woodward, Principal, Sierra Environmental Services, Inc.  9431 W Sam Houston Pkwy. South, Houston, TX 77099 rwoodward@mindspring.com /phone 713-774-1605/ fax 713-774-1602)

The EU is composed of 15 member states that, like the contiguous lower 48 states of the US, share common air basins.  Transportation is the major source of air pollution in these basins in both the US and EU.  Engine emissions and fuel fugitives produce most of the air pollutants: NOx, lead, VOC, CO, CO2, HC and SO2.  Growing scientific and public concern over the health effects of engine emissions and fuel fugitives has resulted in policies focused on mass transit and improvements in vehicles and fuels.  However, significant differences exist between the US and the EU in the definition of and in the solution to air quality degradation.  The two major areas of divergence are air quality standards/targets and specific fuel quality parameters. 

Air Quality standards vs. targets. Through the Clean Air Act Amendments, the US has established a series of air quality standards that have resulted in changes in engine design and fuel quality.  Numerous non-compliant air quality zones have become the focus of action.  In the US, air quality is regulated by a set of legislated standards. The Clean Air Act, adopted in 1970 was  “The first modern environmental law enacted by any nation…establishing targets, standards, and procedures for reducing human and environmental exposures to a range of pollutants.”  The Act's subsequent amendments mandated

• Phasing out of tetraethyl lead additives,

• Introduction of catalytic converters

• Nationwide requirement for unleaded gasoline,

• Establishment   of reed vapor limit for fuels

Ultimately the Clean Air Act Amendments mandated the use of Reformulated Gasoline that mandated the use of the fuel oxygenates.  The ether, MTBE, possessed highly desirable characteristics for fuel formulation, combustibility, cold state performance, etc. without violating Reid vapor pressure limits and so became the oxygenate of choice.  In contrast, the EU has adopted air quality targets based on World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines and regional concentrations of particulate matter, CO, ozone and NOx. 

Specific Fuel Quality Parameters.  Like the US, the European Union (EU) initially used fuel oxygenates to reduce engine knock during tetraethyl lead phase out and subsequently to attain clean air objectives.  The EU has adopted a stepwise program of improved fuel formulations, Auto Oil 1 and Auto Oil 2, similar to the phases of the US RGF and CARB programs. While driven by different air quality standards and targets, the fuel quality specifications exhibit an uncanny convergence in fuel formulation. Both are striving to decrease the content of benzene and aromatics in general, olefins, sulfur and lead and to increase the content of oxygen. Both fuel programs provide flexibility for the delivery of oxygen from an assortment of oxygenates: MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, TBA and ETOH with the EU program even specifying that ethers containing five (5) or more carbons can comprise up to 15% of the formulation. 

An important measure of fuel performance is octane. The EU benchmarks fuel according to the research octane value, with common grades of regular and premium testing at 91 and 98 octane respectively.  The US on the other hand, uses the arithmetic average of the research plus the mechanical octane value (R+M/2) to define octane rating.  This results in an apparent lower octane rating in the US for comparable grades in the EU. 

Even though differences exist in the definition and assessment of air quality issues and in the solution to cleaning up shared air resources, there is clearly movement to a convergence of thought and action between the EU and the US.  Fuel management, on the other hand, remains significantly different.  Major differences between the US and EU programs lie in four areas of fuel management:

• Economics,

• Regulation and Engineering,

• Geology and Hydrogeology,

• Litigation.

Economics.  The unit price and tax structure in the EU, in contrast to the US, provides a strong incentive for proactive monitoring; secure storage and prompt action to a release. In the EU, taxes can comprise up to 80% of the price of fuel.  Tax is levied when the product is delivered, wholesale,  to bulk storage.  Consequently, any product released from the storage tank carries the tax burden.  A small loss of product can quickly result in significant loss in profit to a retailer.  In contrast, fuel incurs the state and federal tax burden in the US when it is dispensed to the consumer.  Fuel delivered to the US retailer is relatively inexpensive (generally < $0.80/gal, March 2001).  Product lost by a leak or spill prior to delivery to the consumer is tax-free.  This low pre-tax value of fuel in the US provides little incentive to monitor the storage/dispensing systems or to react quickly to an alert.  This results in unmitigated release of significant fuel volumes (>1000 gallons) over extended periods of time. The high post-tax value of EU fuel provides a strong incentive for sensitive monitoring of storage and dispensing facilities and prompt response to a release.

Regulation and Engineering issues.  Significant differences also exist in tank and dispensing system design standards, positive/ negative pumping systems and vapor collection systems as well as certification and inspection programs. Dispensing systems in the US are pressurized from the storage tank to the delivery nozzle. Failure in the dispensing system results in forced release product into the subsurface.  European dispensing systems operate by suction from the dispenser, so loss of system integrity protects the environment and alerts to a failure, by pulling air or groundwater into the dispensed product.  Vapor collection systems are frequently implicated in product release and are common in the US but not in the EU.  The US recently implemented UST legislation requiring tank upgrades, release detection systems and periodic certification. However regulatory agencies were not sufficiently funded for adequate staffing to verify installation-to-code prior to backfilling, to certify system integrity following installation and to provide frequently and periodic inspection of monitoring and alarm system operations.  Most member states in the EU implemented strict storage facility regulations and upgraded UST to standards similar to our RCRA requirements for priority pollutants, well before the US.  Integral to EU design is an impervious surface barrier and provision for surface spill recovery. Few US facilities maintain an effective, occlusive surface barrier or surface spill recovery systems.

Siting Issues.  Member states of the EU continue to proactively protect resources by implementing siting regulations.  Germany, for example, prohibits storage or even transport of priority pollutants like gasoline in designated water protection areas.  While the US recognized the need for water protection areas and developed local and regional water resource management models (DRASTIC, USEPA), only isolated, local legislation has been implemented.

Drinking Water Standards and MTBE use. Unlike the US, there are currently no drinking water standards specifically for MTBE in the EU.  The EU standards for drinking water, however, give a maximum admissible concentration for dissolved or emulsified hydrocarbons, including MTBE, of 10 µg/L.  In the US, the federal drinking water advisory for MTBE for consumer acceptability is 20-40 ug/L.  However, individual state standards range from 10 to 170 ug/L.  With the exception of Finland, the volume of MTBE in EU gasoline is significantly lower (<4%) than in the US (as high as 15%).  However this is likely to change with increasing demand for high-octane fuels and the implementation of increasingly stringent air quality targets and fuel quality parameters.

Geology and Hydrogeology.  While both regions have diverse geology and hydrogeology and generalizations are difficult, they do differ in general historical aquifer utilization, potable water sources, recharge rates and shallow aquifer utilization. Furthermore, seismic activity in more pronounced on the US west coast than in Europe.  Drinking water is pumped from deep aquifers or surface impoundments in Europe but shallow, surfacial aquifers are typically not used. Generally, recharge rates are high and water table gradients steep compared to much of the US.  In contrast, many urban areas of the US rely on more shallow-aquifer resources for drinking water.

Litigation.  Punitive liability litigation and a system of torts in the US paralyzes rapid response, delays source removal and inhibits voluntary, proactive corrective action while EU laws focus on resource protection and urgency of action. In much of Europe, local jurisdictions prevail and are empowered to protect resources.  This leads to rapid response, effective source control and remediation.  Since proactive corrective action is not considered an admission of guilt, legal issues of liability, tort and allocation can be sorted out after remedial action.

Conclusions

While there is wide divergence in assessment and definition of air quality issues, the solution to improved air quality in both the EU and the US remains focused on transport; specifically, improved vehicles and fuel quality. Fuel standards for both the US and EU already exhibit a convergent trend in basic formulation and characteristic. As the automotive and fuel industries globalize, convergent alignment of policies from both the EU and US will drive trends in fuel formulation and air quality attainment to a unified air quality target.  Nevertheless, significant differences remain in fuel management practices.  These practices will continue to define the environmental impact of gasoline/MTBE releases in the US and in the EU. 

Top