Automakers' fuel specs trouble U.S. refiners

Motor fuel specifications proposed by U.S. automakers are causing mounting concern among the nation's refiners. That was apparent last week in San Antonio when members of the National Petroleum Refiners Association gathered for their annual meeting.

March 25, 1996

3 min read

Motor fuel specifications proposed by U.S. automakers are causing mounting concern among the nation's refiners.

That was apparent last week in San Antonio when members of the National Petroleum Refiners Association gathered for their annual meeting.

Automakers apparently have abandoned the historic American Society of Testing & Materials process which, carefully and with a lot of peer review, examines technical data to ensure that a change in specification is needed, said Robert E. Yancey Jr., outgoing chairman of NPRA. Yancey also is president of Ashland Petroleum Co. and senior vice-president of Ashland Oil Inc.

"The Environmental Protection Agency has given only lukewarm support to its own fuel, reformulated gasoline," Yancey said, "while automobile manufacturers have published their own specifications."

Refiners are under no legal obligation to adopt specifications proposed by the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA). Even so, NPRA is concerned about the unilateral issuance of fuel properties designed to suit only one of the groups involved in the original regulatory negotiation (reg-neg) process under the Clean Air Act amendments.

NPRA's stance

NPRA Pres. Urvan Sternfels said, "Congress has spoken, EPA has acted, and now we see all other sorts of agendas beginning to form to make another cut at adopting separate specifications on a continuing basis for gasoline. Changing the rules in midstream is, we think, unwise and unwarranted, given the progress that has been made in protecting and improving the environment not only in cities that are in nonattainment but, for the most part, in many other areas.

"It's not just reformulated gasoline that was improved by this rule. Conventional gasoline as well is dramatically improved in terms of its environmental performance relative to emissions."

NPRA does not advocate regional gasoline specifications. Its position is that any proposed amendments to EPA's gasoline specifications should undergo rigorous, comprehensive scrutiny by all parties, including Congress, as did fuel properties that were agreed upon during the Clean Air Act's reg-neg process.

"Consumers...ultimately have to pay the cost of all these expensive changes that need to be made every time someone moves the mark," Sternfels said.

NPRA also believes refiners should be able to choose whether they want to use MMT in gasoline until EPA finds proof that the additive poses a health threat. EPA tried to restrict use of MMT on the suspicion there might be a health problem with its use, Sternfels said.

Sternfels pointed out that a court set a precedent by telling EPA Administrator Carol Browner she had to comply with requirements of the law before she could do anything to prohibit use of MMT. Even EPA has called MMT the most extensively tested additive ever, Ethyl Corp. says.

Incoming NPRA Chairman Roger R. Hemminghaus said NPRA will continue working to ensure that sound science is considered in all regulatory changes, the cost/benefit ratio is good, risk assessments are made, and all affected stakeholders get involved in the process of regulatory change.

Hemminghaus is president and chief executive officer of Diamond Shamrock Inc.

Sen. Lauch Faircloth (R-N.H.) told refiners, "Any proposed changes in the national fuel standards, including those that may come from the Clean Air Act, will not be passed, and will not come out of the environment and public works committee without your full input and support."

Faircloth, however, supports regional gasoline specifications: "I certainly don't believe you have a situation where one size fits all."