The fight for U.S. clean motor fuels is turning dirty.
The Environmental Protection Agency issued a rule requiring renewable fuels, mainly ethanol, to provide 30% of the oxygen content of reformulated gasoline.
Last week the American Petroleum Institute and National Petroleum Refiners Association sued to block that rule (see story, p. 29).
But that's only the legal tip of the controversy. At a more basic level, oil and agriculture groups are slugging it out to win public support.
CENTRAL ISSUE
Basically, API and NPRA are fighting against refiners being required to use ethanol and ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), while agriculture is counterattacking against the other most likely oxygenates, methanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).
Last May, ethanol interests took out full page newspaper ads attacking the safety of MTBE and confusing it with methanol, which is toxic. The ads prompted API and the American Methanol Institute to lodge complaints with the Federal Trade Commission, alleging deceptive advertising.
The fight moved to another forum recently when the American Medical Association innocently adopted a resolution, proposed by its delegation from Alaska, that use of MTBE in Alaskan gasoline be suspended.
Alaskans have complained for some time that use of MTBE in their state has harmed health (OGJ, Mar. 15, 1993, p. 36). Last winter Gov. Walter Hickel ordered use of MTBE suspended in the state. EPA, which is conducting studies of its own, did not object.
The AMA resolution said, 'While testimony indicated there are potential benefits in using MTBE, it was not clear that possible benefits outweigh the potential health effects in Alaska, given that state's unique geography, climate, and composition of automotive fuels. Alaska's chief epidemiologist noted the benefits of MTBE in Alaska were few, and its adverse health effects appear to be numerous."
AMA EXPLAINS
Fuels for the Future jumped on the AMA resolution, issuing a press release implying AMA had asked EPA for a nationwide moratorium on MTBE. That forced AMA to explain that its resolution applied only to the extremely cold climates of Alaska and contained no conclusions about MTBE use in Alaska or anywhere else.
And it allowed the American Methanol Institute to take a jab at Fuels for the Future, which it called "a front group for the ethanol industry."
AMI Pres. Raymond Lewis said, "It's no accident that this action by ethanol advocates comes on the heels of recent negative publicity regarding ethanol's desperate and blatantly political attempts to cling to its government subsidies, preferential tax treatment, and impending market mandate.
"The Fuels for the Future release gave the misleading impression that MTBE had never been tested for toxicity. In fact, unlike ethanol and its additive ETBE, methanol and MTBE have undergone thorough testing by EPA."
The official word last week from EPA on MTBE: "We still don't believe there's a problem."
Copyright 1994 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
