966 L '9 L
eui|oseg jo \no pea-| u;
uo doqs>|4o/\/\ |euoi}eu
pajosuods ooixa|y\| pue
6u;sei|d
-------
-------
Summary Proceedings of the
International Workshop
on
Phasing Lead Out of Gasoline
'March 14,15,1995
'Washington, 'D.C.
Co-hosts:
T'he 'United' States Environmental Protection 'Agency
T'he Mexican Secretariat of Environment, tfaturaC 'Resources, and Fisheries
Sponsors:
T'he
T'he Pan-American tfeafah Organization
-------
-------
Introduction
On March 14 and 15, 1995, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Mexican Secretariat of Envi-
ronment, Natural Resources and Fisheries (SEMARNAP) co-hosted
an International Workshop on Phasing Lead Out of Gasoline. The
development of this workshop dates back to the 1994 meeting of
the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development
(CSD), where USEPA Administrator Carol Browner called for a
global phase out of lead in gasoline. At the Summit of the Ameri-
cas held in December, 1994, heads of state committed to develop
action plans to phase lead out of gasoline in the Western Hemi-
sphere. As a follow-up to these high-level commitments, in March,
1995, USEPA and SEMARNAP hosted this workshop.
More than 80 representatives from more than 25 nations,
international organizations, industry associations and universities
participated in the workshop. Participants discussed rationales and
incentives to encourage the phaseout of lead in gasoline, identified
national commitments required and highlighted available technolo-
gies and techniques. Administrator Carol Browner and Minister
Julia Carabias opened the workshop with remarks, and Kyaw
Kyaw Shane spoke on behalf of Dr. Klaus Toepfer, chairman of the
Commission on Sustainable Development. The speakers empha-
sized the need for cooperation among industry, government and the
public and requested due consideration of technical and fiscal
issues facing developing countries as they strive to eliminate lead
from gasoline.
The opening session concluded with an international status
report on lead phaseout from Dr. Valerie Thomas of the Center for
Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton University, who
pointed out that lead use in gasoline has been declining by about
seven percent a year and that, with the exception of one small plant
in Russia and another in Germany, Octel is the sole remaining
producer of tetraethyl lead. Thomas reviewed the history of lead
phaseout in various nations and concluded that many of the techni-
cal and practical problems they faced can provide valuable insights
for other nations.
At the conclusion of the workshop, the participants agreed
that the workshop's two major goals had been met. First, the
workshop provided a valuable forum for exchanging views and
sharing information and experiences regarding the phaseout of lead
from gasoline. Second, workshop discussions outlined the steps
needed at national levels to remove lead from gasoline, identified
key obstacles to achieving a phaseout and described mechanisms
that can be used to overcome these obstacles.
-------
-------
Contents
Session 1: Health Effects of Lead Exposure & Benefits of Removing Lead
Introduction: Page 1
Health Effects: Page 1
Benefits versus Costs: Page 1
Characterizing the Problem:
Mexico: Page 2
Egypt: Page 2
Sources of Lead Exposure, Panel: Page 2
Session 2: Obstacles and Successes: Country Experiences
United States: Page 3
Turkey: Page 3
South Africa: Page 3
Sweden: Page 3
Bulgaria: Page 3
Russia: Page 3
Session 3: Support for Unleaded Gasoline: Improving Capacity Via Technology
Introduction: Page 3
Lead Reduction Technologies & Costs: Page 3
Infrastructure and Vehicle Issues:
U.S. Petroleum Industry: Page 4
U.S. Auto Industry: Page 4
Technology Issues & Approaches:
India: Page 5
Japan: Page 5
Netherlands: Page 5
Session 4: Policy Reform, Financing, & Implementation
The World Bank: Page 5
Inter-American Development Bank: Page 6
Private Industry: Page 6
Costa Rica: Page 6
Philippines: Page 6
Thailand: Page 7
United States: Page 7
Session 5: Conclusions & Next Steps: Page 7
Follow-up Activities: Page 8
-------
-------
International Workshop on
Phasing Lead out of Gasoline
Workshop sessions began with a discussion of the health
effects of exposure to lead and the benefits of removing it.
Dr. Lynn Goldman, Assistant Administrator for Pollution
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (USEPA), stated that lead expo-
sure reduces intelligence in children, who are generally
more vulnerable than adults, and that the effects are irre-
versible. Goldman described U.S. success in reducing lead
exposure through both regulatory and voluntary measures.
Health Effects of Lead Exposure
Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, Department of Epidemiology, Uni-
versity of Maryland Medical School, reviewed the data on
the health effects of exposure to lead. She stated that lead
poisoning is prevalent but preventable and that children
are especially vulnerable because their brains are still de-
veloping. Children absorb lead three to ten times more eas-
ily than do adults, so a given exposure can be much more
injurious to children. In addition, since they explore the
physical environment with their hands and mouths, infants
and toddlers are more exposed to lead from all sources.
Lead in gasoline is also a 'multiplier/ meaning that its
widespread dispersion and deposition guarantee many
exposure pathways. Lead levels are high in urban air and
soil, particularly in heavy-traffic neighborhoods. Indeed,
the close correlation between leaded gasoline and serum
lead is undeniable in the light of 'fingerprinting' techniques.
Silbergeld presented evidence of the detrimental effects
of lead on children's cognitive development, academic per-
formance, and attention span. Such effects appear even at
relatively low exposures. There does not appear to be a 'safe'
level of lead exposure. In adults, lead can cause high blood
pressure, perinatal injury to the fetus, and kidney disease.
Levels of lead in the blood of women rises markedly at
menopause, suggesting mobilization of lead reserves in
bone. The phenomenon may also appear during pregnancy
and lactation, with the concomitant risk of transferring the
lead to fetuses and infants.
The toxicity of lead appears to be independent of its
chemical form, being generated by the lead cation itself. As
increasing evidence of lead toxicity has emerged, the Cen-
ters for Disease Control has continued to lower the level at
which medical intervention is recommended from 70 ug/
dl before 1986 to 25 ug/dl in 1986 and again down to 10
ug/dl in 1991. Death occurs at about 100 ug/dl.
Suggesting removal of lead from all major exposure path-
ways, Silbergeld reminded her audience that: lead is ubiq-
uitous and can't be detoxified; lead provides no known
biological benefit; lead health effects are irreversible; and
lead remains toxic indefinitely in humans.
Benefits versus Costs
Prof. Joel Schwartz of the Harvard School of Public
Health discussed the costs and benefits of phasing out lead
in gasoline in the United States. The costs include changes
in refining and fuel distribution, plus the abiding concern
over damage to engine valve seats. In the mid-1980's, a
refinery optimization model indicated that unleaded gaso-
line requirements in the U.S added three to four cents per
gallon to the cost of gasoline. Similar cost estimates have
also been reported for OECD nations. Distribution costs will
rise only where the distribution system has to accommo-
date both leaded and unleaded fuel at the same time.
With regard to concerns regarding valve seat damage to
older vehicles run on unleaded gasoline, there is little or
no evidence that this is a real, as opposed to a theoretical,
problem. Studies indicate that valve seat damage can be a
problem under extreme conditions - during extended driv-
ing at high engine speeds and/or pulling heavy loads.
However, in 1973 the U.S. Army tested unleaded gasoline
on a fleet of 5000 vehicles under varying conditions and
found no valve seat damage.
Benefits include far lower vehicle maintenance costs and
dramatic health benefits for children and adults. Gasoline
traditionally accounts for about half of exposure to lead in
developed societies. A major benefit to consumers of re-
moving lead from gasoline is fewer engine and exhaust
system repairs. Lead additives cause corrosion and require
more frequent oil changes and replacement of mufflers,
exhaust pipes and spark plugs. In the United States in the
1980's, studies of large fleets of vehicles showed a savings
in maintenance costs of about 18 cents per gallon1. Remov-
ing lead from gasoline was justifiable on the basis of sav-
ings in car maintenance costs alone.
In adult U.S. men, lead boosts blood pressure by one
mm of mercury for each five ug/dl rise in blood lead lev-
els—an increase that can increase strokes, infarctions and
deaths. A comparable one ug/dl reduction in blood lead
produces health benefits valued at $57 per year.
The benefits associated with avoiding the adverse health
effects of lead exposure in children have been quantified in
two areas: a reduction in measured Intelligence Quotient
(IQ,) and lower educational attainment. Children exposed
to lead have lower IQ'S and grow into adults who earn less
and are at greater risk of unemployment.
1 Since the early 1980's, the use of upgraded steel for the ex-
haust systems of new U.S. cars has provided more corrosion-re-
sistance than was previously the case. This would lower the cost
savings slightly for newer cars, but a high percentage of cars in
third world countries are pre-1980 models.
-------
In the United States, a one ug/dl increase in blood lead
level for the first six years of life was estimated in 1988 to
reduce an individual's potential earnings by about $1,300
(present value). A one point increase in IQ is associated with
an increase of approximately one percent in lifetime earn-
ings. Lead exposure also is associated with lower educa-
tional attainment because of inattention and behavior dis-
orders. Lead exposure in children can also induce hearing
loss and ancillary effects which have not yet been quanti-
fied in dollar terms.
Measured serum levels in U.S. children prior to phase-
out were about nine ug/dl. Considering only the health
effects of lower IQ 's of children2 in the United States as a
result of exposure to lead in gasoline, the health benefits to
society of eliminating lead from gasoline are as high as 45
cents per gallon. This figure was calculated assuming that
there is no 'safe' exposure threshold.
Schwartz noted that one concern about lead phaseout is
the potential increase in aromatics, particularly benzene
emissions, as refiners seek the least-cost approach ('reform-
ing' process) to compensate for lost octane. But in the United
States today, refiners replace the octane by using alterna-
tive processes that, though more costly, limit increases in
aromatics and benzene. Moreover, where lead phaseout is
accomplished in concert with the introduction of catalyst-
equipped vehicles, 90 to 95 percent of any unburned aro-
matics and benzene are oxidized as they pass through the
exhaust system catalyst. Catalysts also cut emissions of
ozone precursors.
Even without catalyst-equipped vehicles, the adverse
health effects from potential increases in the aromatic of
greatest concern, benzene, are minor compared with the
health effects associated with exposure to lead in gasoline.
The USEPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group estimated that,
in 1976, one of the early years of lead phasedown, automo-
bile emissions of benzene were responsible for 47 cases of
leukemia in the United States. By comparison, for white
males age 40 to 59 can expect 5,000 deaths per year from
high blood pressure and 6,000 first-time strokes and heart
attacks per year due to lead in gasoline. These estimates
were based on maintaining lead in gasoline at 0.5 gr/gal
in the mid-1980s (USEPA'S 1985 Regulatory Impact Analysis).
Thus, the health benefits from gasoline lead reduction far
outweigh the adverse health effects from any increase in
benzene emissions.
Characterizing the Problem
Mexico: Dr. Isabelle Romieu, of the Pan American
Health Organization, analyzed the distribution and extent
of lead exposure from gasoline in Mexico. She found that
children, especially in industrial areas, are at high risk of
2 These figures also assume that, on average, four million chil-
dren in the United States turn six each year and that approxi-
mately 100 billion gallons of gasoline are consumed each year.
lead exposure and that airborne lead from gasoline is a
major contributor to exposure (other sources, such as lead
glazes in ceramics, are also important). Romieu also dis-
cussed findings of greater cumulative exposure with longer
residence, as measured in the bones of women. This has
implications for transfer of lead contamination from mother
to fetus and infant.
There is a substantial number of Mexican children and
adults with elevated blood lead levels. In Mexico City, an
estimated 25,000 children have blood lead levels greater
than 25 ug/dl, and 800,000 women have blood lead levels
greater than 15 ug/dl. Romieu highlighted the need for
epidemiological studies to monitor changes in lead levels,
because governments are more likely to intervene when
they can see a significant impact. She also discussed the
need in Latin America for more technical capability to test
blood for lead and emphasized the importance of educat-
ing the population about the health effects of lead from
gasoline and other exposure pathways.
Egypt: Dr. Yasser Sherif of the Cabinet of Ministers,
Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, indicated that the
Egyptian government believes that current scientific infor-
mation justifies reducing exposure to lead and that ben-
efits outweigh costs. The government is pursuing several
lines of activity to reduce airborne lead exposure. First, to
reduce exposure from private smelters, a major source of
airborne lead, the government is using a cooperative ap-
proach to relocate industry outside Cairo to a less popu-
lous region and to introduce cleaner technologies. Second,
the government will phase out leaded gasoline in Cairo and
Alexandria, where rates of gasoline consumption are high-
est. The government has moved to boost production of re-
duced-lead fuel, improve transportation between Suez
(where more refining production capacity exists) and Cairo,
and build an isomerization plant. Emissions requirements
for new vehicles have been tightened. Also, the govern-
ment intends to reduce exposure by constructing a "ring
road" to shift traffic to the Cairo outskirts.
Sources of Lead Exposure
Dr. George Alleyne, director of the Pan American Health
Organization, introduced a panel lead by Assistant Admin-
istrator Dr. Lynn Goldman of USEPA's Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances. The panel discussed other
sources of lead exposure. Panelists included Dr. Isabelle
Romieu of the Pan American Health Organization and Dr.
John Buccini from Environment Canada. Panelists identi-
fied alternative lead exposure pathways including pottery
glazes, can solder, house paint, toys, water pipes, sports
equipment, crystal, and industrial sources and processes.
The panel surveyed current and planned actions, includ-
ing progress in the OECD Chemicals Group, to address all
sources of lead exposure. They concluded that a combina-
tion of mandatory and voluntary programs is necessary to
reduce overall risk.
-------
Obstacles and Successes
Assistant Administrator Mary Nichols of USEPA'S Office
of Air and Radiation, recounted the United States' experi-
ence of phasing lead out of gasoline, including the obstacles
encountered. Unleaded gasoline was initially required in
the U. S. so that cars could meet new vehicle emissions stan-
dards established to reduce smog. Lead in gasoline 'poi-
sons' (disables) catalytic converters. During the phasedown
transition period, both leaded and unleaded gasoline were
sold. Thus, policymakers confronted the dual problems of
preventing contamination of supplies of unleaded gasoline
with leaded gasoline and of misfueling catalytic converter-
equipped cars with leaded gasoline.
The problem of misfueling was exacerbated by the higher
market price of unleaded gasoline. After her presentation,
Nichols moderated presentations by five countries that fo-
cused on obstacles encountered and successes realized in
lead phaseout programs.
Turkey: Fulya Somunkiranoglu, Turkish Ministry of
Environment, stated that as motor vehicle use has risen in
Turkey, so has air pollution. Turkey has approached the
problem of lead in gasoline by revising gasoline standards,
investing in unleaded refining technology, using economic
incentives, and educating the public. Specific measures
were: adoption of the EU standard of 0.15 g/1 for leaded
gasoline in 1988; investment in technologies for producing
unleaded gasoline; reduction of the price of unleaded gaso-
line through decreased taxes; introduction of new cars with
catalytic converters and imposition of higher taxes on cars
not meeting EU emission standards.
South Africa: Dr. G. P. Venter, South African Depart-
ment of Minerals and Energy Affairs, stated that in
Capetown blood lead levels are estimated to be low — be-
tween five and seven ug/ dl. There are no requirements for
lead phaseout. Nevertheless, a voluntary phaseout of lead
in gasoline is underway due to technical and economic con-
cerns of the auto industry as well as for environmental rea-
sons. To encourage the use of unleaded gasoline, a fuel tax
to create a price differential between leaded and unleaded
gasoline has been considered. Of concern is the fact that
such a tax would fall inordinately on the poor since the
poor drive older cars that are thought to need leaded gaso-
line. In general, it is believed that costs should be borne by
consumers and cost-benefit criteria should be established
for installing catalytic converters on automobiles.
Sweden: Jan Karlsson, of the Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency, stated that Sweden began limiting the
lead content of gasoline in 1970. Since then, voluntary stan-
dards, economic incentives, and mandatory requirements
have been used to convert the vehicle fleet to catalytic con-
verters and to boost the use of unleaded gasoline. Tax dif-
ferentials and information programs have been used to en-
courage the use of unleaded fuel. Lead will be completely
phased out of gasoline in 1995. The Swedish experience
indicates that cooperation with industry is important, al-
ternative octane enhancers must be available, distribution
costs can be cut by opening up a large market for unleaded
gasoline, and quality control is vital as long as both leaded
and unleaded are sold.
Bulgaria: Dr. Jontcho Pelovski, of the Bulgarian Min-
istry of Environment, stated that in Bulgaria emissions from
the transportation sector and power plants account for ap-
proximately 80 percent of the country's air pollution. In
1983, Bulgaria reduced the lead content in gasoline from
1.2 gr/1 to 0.15 gr/1. In 1985, refineries began to produce
unleaded gasoline. However, unleaded accounts for only
five percent of gasoline production today. The major prob-
lem with implementing lead phaseout is the prohibitive
cost of upgrading the country's two refineries. In addition,
there is a concern that older vehicles, which comprise a large
share of the vehicle fleet, cannot use unleaded gasoline.
Russia: Vladimir Prozorov, chairman of the Dzerzhinsk
City Committee on Nature Protection, stated that in 1992
Russia began a program to reduce lead in gasoline. Several
cities, including Moscow and St. Petersburg, prohibit the
sale of leaded gasoline. However, such programs have had
limited success. Russia has one of the few plants in the
world that still produces tetraethyl lead and officials have
been unsuccessful in persuading the plant even to reduce
emissions. Fiscal conditions make progress difficult. Fur-
ther, the question of whether old cars can operate on un-
leaded fuel has not been resolved.
Gaining Support for Unleaded Gasoline
David Gardiner, Assistant Administrator for Policy, Plan-
ning, and Evaluation, USEPA, emphasized that reducing lead
poisoning is a major sustainable development issue. He
indicated that eliminating lead from gasoline has been one
of the most successful regulatory efforts in the United States,
and that the benefits have far exceeded the costs. Further-
more, phaseout and 'reformulated' gasoline have revolu-
tionized U. S. refining technology. New production pro-
cesses, utilizing pollution prevention technology, have been
installed in the last few years. Gardiner also described the
USEPA's Environmental Technology Initiative, which facilitates
sharing information on clean technologies.
Lead Reduction Technologies & Costs
A presentation by David Hirshfeld and Dr. Jeffrey Kolb
of Abt Associates examined refinery technology and the
economic impacts of lead phasedown on third-world re-
fineries. Hirshfeld pointed out that lead is a relatively in-
expensive way to boost octane ratings by 12 to 15 points
and that replacement-process options vary in cost and emis-
sions consequences.
In an overview of petroleum refining processes and re-
finery types, Hirshfeld classified refineries (in increasing
order of complexity) as: topping, hydroskimming, coking,
-------
cat cracking, and deep conversion. As the complexity of a
refinery increases, so does the range of process options
available to phase down lead in gasoline. About 90 percent
of refining capacity resides in 'conversion' refineries, which
produce most of the gasoline sold in the world.
The least-cost option for refineries to replace lost octane
is 'reforming', however, this process raises the aromatic and
benzene content of gasoline. Higher cost processes that limit
these and other pollutants include alkylation, pen/hex
isomerization, and MTBE production.
A planning analysis was presented that addressed the
cost of phasing out lead with process configurations typi-
cal of Latin American, Asian, and Pacific Rim areas. Using
a refining optimization model and imposing the constraint
that pollutant emissions were limited, Hirshfeld indicated
that, for deep conversion refineries, the refining cost of re-
moving lead from gasoline in developing countries is about
six ce^its/gal3. When reforming processes alone are used
and emissions are allowed to rise, refinery costs are about
five cents/gal. The small additional cost to ensure emis-
sions do not increase suggests that employing the more so-
phisticated processes constitute a cost-effective strategy.
Infrastructure and Vehicle Issues
U.S. Petroleum Industry: Ronald Jones, a vice-presi-
dent of the American Petroleum Institute, spoke of why
lead should be removed from gasoline, how it should be
done, and what the U.S. has done thus far. In the U.S. there
were two reasons for removing lead from gasoline. The first
was to allow catalytic converters to be used to reduce car-
bon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and nitrogen oxide emissions.
The second was to reduce lead emissions and health risks.
The phaseout was accomplished from 1974 to 1995 by
introducing catalysts for cars and lowering, and eventu-
ally banning, lead content in gasoline. Service stations were
required to sell unleaded fuel, misfueling was prohibited,
refiners had to report lead usage, and vehicle emissions
inspection and maintenance were required. As for infra-
structure changes, refineries had to be rebuilt, storage sys-
tems were revamped and refineries, pipelines, terminals
and service stations were cleaned up.
Initially, refiners were skeptical of claims by regulators
that removing lead from gasoline would have significant
economic benefits for automobile maintenance. By reduc-
ing the lead in gasoline, the life of exhaust systems and
spark plugs was found to increase. As to valve seat prob-
lems, there was some evidence that valve seat life would
3 For less sophisticated refineries, e.g. hydroskimming refin-
eries, limiting the dramatics and benzene content (and other emis-
sions increases) of unleaded gasoline requires the addition of more
expensive processes. The refining cost is roughly ten cents per
gallon. Only a small proportion of total gasoline consumed in
developing countries is produced in such refineries.
be reduced in older cars fueled with unleaded gasoline.
However, this turned out not to be a problem in the United
States. In fact, for many years, Amoco marketed an un-
leaded premium gasoline for vehicles that also used leaded
premium gasoline, without creating valve seat problems.
Jones pointed out that developing countries should learn
from the mistakes made during the protracted U.S. pro-
gram. In particular, he noted that certain gasoline proper-
ties with adverse environmental effects, such as gasoline
volatility and aromatics content, increased during the lead
phaseout period. This, in turn, required the imposition of
new rounds of regulations controlling these gasoline prop-
erties. He emphasized that refiners should have flexibility
in responding to lead phaseout and that countries should
plan for lead phasedown in the context of an integrated air
pollution control strategy.
U.S. Automobile Industry: Loren Beard of the
Chrysler Corporation, representing the American Automo-
bile Manufacturers Association, explained that there is an
inherent relationship between the design of automotive en-
gines and emission control technology and fuel. Further,
fuel quality must match expectations for vehicle perfor-
mance. Vehicles without catalytic converters have much
higher pollutant emissions: twenty times higher for hy-
drocarbons and carbon monoxide and six times higher for
nitrogen oxides. Unleaded gasoline allows the use of cata-
lysts and other on-board emissions control systems.
Beard said the U.S. experience demonstrated that leaded
gasoline aggravated tailpipe and muffler corrosion, short-
ened sparkplug life, and facilitated carbon deposits and oil
contamination in engines. Lead also poisons catalysts, dis-
ables oxygen sensors, degrades cold-start performance in
newer engines by causing intake valve and intake port de-
posits, and requires more frequent oil changes.
Pollution control technology is such an integral part of
motor vehicles today that changes have to be made to mod-
ern cars to adapt them for sale in leaded gasoline markets.
It is less expensive to produce vehicles designed to run on
unleaded gasoline and then disable or remove emission
control systems for sale in markets which allow leaded
gasoline than it is to make vehicles without emission con-
trol systems in the first place. For such markets, Chrysler
produces vehicles with pollution control systems, removes
the catalysts and oxygen sensors, and disables closed loop
controls, adaptive learning, and ori-board diagnostics.
The issue of valve seat recession is not a problem in the
United States. The use of hard valve seats in modern ve-
hicles is now required. However, even with older valve
seats, countries should not experience difficulties, because
it is likely that lead levels would be maintained at low lev-
els (such as 0.1 gr/gal) for several years, even in an aggres-
sive lead phaseout program. Countries do, however, need
to deal with possible misfueling during any period when
leaded and unleaded gasoline are both available.
-------
Technology Issues and Approaches
William Nitze, Assistant Administrator for International
Activities, USEPA, introduced speakers from India, Japan,
and the Netherlands and moderated the discussion.
India: Dr. T. Chandini, Joint Director, Ministry of Envi-
ronment and Forests, stated that a dramatic increase in the
number of vehicles, coupled with weak emissions standards
and enforcement, led India to introduce catalytic convert-
ers in 1995. The primary goal is to reduce air pollution in
general, and the secondary goal is to reduce lead exposure.
While India has no studies on costs of health effects related
to automobile pollutants, it is estimated that at least one
member of every family in metropolitan areas is suffering
from a respiratory disease, particularly asthma.
In 1994, a lead phaseout initiative was launched that in-
cludes: upgrading existing refineries (only one or two out
of 12 could produce unleaded gas as of 1991); introducing
stricter emission standards; developing quality specifica-
tions for reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel; introduc-
ing unleaded gasoline for cars; and developing specifica-
tions for the nozzle size of fuel dispensers and tank heads.
Catalytic converters are imported duty-free; however,
cars equipped with catalysts are still more expensive than
cars without catalysts. The government wants the car in-
dustry to cross-subsidize catalyst-fitted cars with charges
imposed on the others, but industry objects. Another prob-
lem is the increased use of highly-polluting two- and three-
wheeled vehicles.
Japan: Takeshi Miki, of the Petroleum Department, MITI,
and Shigeo Yamagishi, Deputy Director of the Environment
Agency/Automobile Pollution, presented the Japanese
experience with lead gasoline phaseout. Unleaded gaso-
line was introduced in Japan to prevent airborne emissions
of lead and to ensure the durability of catalysts installed to
reduce emissions of ozone precursors.
From 1972 to 1987, Japan tightened emissions standards,
introduced catalytic converters, and set up refineries to
produce unleaded gasoline. Between 1970 and 1974, the
mean concentration of atmospheric lead along Tokyo's
roadsides was reduced from 3.19 ug/cubic meter to 0.73
ug/cubic meter. Today, the level is 0.1 ug/cubic meter.
Four prominent issues surfaced in Japan's lead phase-
out program. First, to address the potential valve seat re-
cession problem, Japan required hardened valve seats and
a dual fuel system (one-third leaded and two-thirds un-
leaded). In actuality, Japan did not experience a significant
valve seat problems even for cars with unhardened valve
seats using unleaded gasoline. Second, lead phasedown
caused octane levels in gasoline to drop by two or three
octane numbers in Japan's low-grade gasoline. Japan was
able to increase gasoline octane to 90-92 without using MTBE
by increased refinery processing. Third, to avoid a poten-
tial lead contamination problem in the distribution system,
Japan required separate pipelines and trucks for leaded and
unleaded gasoline and conducted periodic gasoline qual-
ity checks. Fourth, to prevent misfueling, Japan required
different fuel dispensers in service stations for unleaded
and for leaded gasoline and fuel-specific tank caps on cars
requiring unleaded gasoline. Service station workers were
trained and consumers informed of potential problems.
Netherlands: Jan Jrupp de Graeff of the Dutch Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, stated that in the late 1980's,
prompted by political pressures and environmentally con-
scious consumers, Dutch industry reversed its uncoopera-
tive position towards the Dutch government's spending on
environmental issues. This change opened the door to co-
operation between industry and government.
The most significant form of this cooperation is the vol-
untary agreement, which has resulted in increased support
for both environmental and industrial policies. For a vol-
untary agreement to be effective, there must be political or
market pressure to motivate the industry, clear and achiev-
able targets, a recognition of mutual benefits between in-
dustry and government, and legal measures and licensing
to guard against 'free-riders.'
Agreements can be enforced in court, but that's unlikely
to be needed. It is difficult for industries to enter into an
agreement and not fulfill it, since there are future repercus-
sions, such as problems obtaining government licenses. To
date, 50 voluntary agreements have been drawn up.
Policy Reform & Financing
William Nitze of USEPA moderated this session on inter-
national financial institutions and industry perspectives.
The World Bank: The World Bank assists governments
of developing countries by identifying problems; provid-
ing analysis and support to policymakers; helping to build
commitments among such policymakers; playing a cata-
lytic role in mobilizing finance from a variety of sources;
and providing financing for specific projects. Dr. Andrew
Steer, Director of the World Bank's Environment Depart-
ment and Dr. Richard Ackermann, Principal Analyst in the
Environment Department, discussed the World Bank's role
in assisting developing countries.
Dr. Steer stated that, in the World Bank's view, there is
no question that removing lead from gasoline is an appro-
priate public policy, since the benefits far exceed the costs.
Further, he emphasized that the issue of introducing cata-
lytic converters on cars as a pollution control measure is
separate and distinct from the issue of removing lead from
gasoline—that is, there is no reason to delay removing lead
from gasoline. Failure to reduce the lead content of gaso-
line, given projections of substantial growth in consump-
tion, would result in a large increase in lead emissions in
developing countries where many children already suffer
from high serum lead levels.
-------
Steer and Ackermann outlined the methods typically
used by the World Bank to promote projects in developing
countries: direct loans and loan guarantees to governments;
loan, equity, and guarantees to the private sector; coordi-
nation of donor financing; and policy analysis and dialogue
at the global, regional, and country levels.
Steer indicated that obtaining financing for investments
to phase out lead in gasoline should not be an impediment
as long as countries establish appropriate production in-
centives for refineries, regardless of whether state-owned
or privately held. Such incentives enable the investment
to be commercially viable and make possible the conditions
for the private sector or the government to provide financ-
ing. The World Bank may fund pre-loan studies, but it will
not usually fund detailed engineering studies on refinery
conversion projects by the private sector.
Steer and Ackermann identified several key policy is-
sues: gasoline prices should be allowed to rise to interna-
tional market levels, providing proper incentives to refin-
eries and users and facilitating market supply adjustments;
gasoline taxes should be used to make unleaded gasoline
five to ten percent (revenue neutral) less expensive than
leaded gasoline during the phasedown period to encour-
age a shift in demand to low-lead or unleaded; institu-
tions and regulations must be developed to ensure an ap-
propriately-paced phaseout that does not replace lead with
other harmful substitutes; public education and outreach
must be used to convey the health impacts of exposure to
lead, the higher maintenance costs of leaded gasoline, that
use of unleaded gasoline does not require catalytic convert-
ers, and other information to gain consumer support.
The World Bank supports several projects that address
phasing lead out of gasoline, including work with Thai-
land, Bulgaria, Indonesia, and Costa Rica. Also, Mexico was
highlighted for its pursuit of lead reduction in the context
of an integrated, cost-effective pollution control strategy.
Inter-American Development Bank: Antonio Vives,
Chief of the Infrastructure and Financial Markets Division
at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDE), explained
that the bank works with both governments and the pri-
vate sector in Latin American countries. The IDB functions
much as does the World Bank, except that the IDB tends to
work more directly with the private sector. Loans to pri-
vate sector companies are set at international market inter-
est rates. Loans to the public sector have lower rates.
The IDB can provide financing for lead phaseout in the
following ways: direct loans and equity to firms for devel-
opment projects at refineries and/or introduction of addi-
tives that increase octane; loans through IDB'S subsidiary
Inter-American Investment Corporation; direct loans to lo-
cal banks, which then allocate funds to the local private
sector; and technical support to governments on issues such
as air quality monitoring, enforcement mechanisms, and
drafting of legislation and regulations.
Private industry: Paul Brochu of Wright Killen & Co.
emphasized that when developing countries design phase-
out programs, they should first determine the full set of
properties they want their unleaded gasoline to have. This
is important because it will guide how refineries respond
to lead removal and can reduce the need for later changes
in gasoline standards and, thus, for additional investments
in refining processes.
Costa Rica: Mauricio Castro explained that, in Octo-
ber of 1994, coincident with the Summit of the Americas, Costa
Rica and the other Central American countries signed an
Agreement on Sustainable Development, under which they are
committed to phase out lead in gasoline.
Juan Felix Martinez spoke about how Costa Rica is pro-
moting the use of unleaded gasoline. Leaded gasoline is
scheduled to be banned by 1997. However, refinery esti-
mates indicate this may not be possible because Costa Rica
largely depends upon imports (e.g., MTBE) to produce un-
leaded gasoline. Currently, unleaded gasoline comprises
80 percent of all gasoline sold, and there is a price differen-
tial of ten percent between super unleaded and regular
leaded gasoline. A Costa Rican survey indicated that con-
sumers are willing to pay eight percent more per gallon for
unleaded gasoline. In 1990, the regulated lead content of
gasoline was 0.84 gr/1. It dropped to 0.4 gr/1 in 1993 and
then to the present level of 0.2 g/1. There is a campaign to
encourage the public to use unleaded gasoline.
David Pierce indicated that the President of Costa Rica
has very actively pursued lead phaseout. Costa Rica has
passed a law requiring that as of January, 1995, all cars en-
tering Costa Rica must have catalytic converters. Several
obstacles must be overcome: only 56 percent of service sta-
tions can handle three grades of fuel (diesel, low-octane
gasoline, high-octane gasoline); refiners may not be able
to meet demands for unleaded gasoline; and a recent fiscal
crisis has forced a moratorium on expenditures.
Philippines: Maria Ana C. Corpuz, Chief of the Envi-
ronmental Protection and Monitoring Division, and
Zenaida Ygnacio Monsada, Chief of the Energy Resources
Supply Administration Division, discussed gasoline lead
phasedown in the Philippines. The oil industry in the Phil-
ippines is heavily regulated. The government is consider-
ing a lead phaseout program and is moving to deregulate
the industry by 1997. Oil companies are filing petitions to
upgrade and refurbish a number of refineries. Thus, the
government needs to determine lead reduction goals soon.
Air pollution in the Philippines is largely due to vehicu-
lar emissions. Gasoline can contain up to 65 percent aro-
matics content. It is difficult to justify reducing lead con-
tent when gasoline comprises only 14 percent and diesel
fuel comprises 40 percent of the total demand for petro-
leum products. Furthermore, the diesel fuel has a high sul-
fur content, which should be reduced.
-------
The Philippine government thinks a switch from diesel
to regular gasoline must precede a shift from leaded to un-
leaded. Other issues, such as the lack of multiple grade
pumps at service stations; concerns over misfueling and
valve seat recession problems; questions regarding the vi-
ability of MTBE as a safe octane enhancer; concern over the
ability of refineries to produce low-aromatic unleaded gaso-
line; and whether to mandate the use of catalytic convert-
ers for both old and new automobiles, need to be resolved
before a shift to unleaded gasoline will be made.
Thailand: Apichai Chvajarernpun, Minister-Counse-
lor for Science and Technology, stated that in 1990 some 51
percent of all Thailand's energy consumption occurred in
Bangkok, and 75 percent of this was for land transporta-
tion. A lead phaseout scheduled for 1984 to 1996 has in-
cluded gasoline lead level reductions to 0.15 gr/1 in 1992.
Leaded gasoline will be completely banned in 1996. In 1993,
all cars in Thailand were required to be equipped with cata-
lytic converters. This increased the price of cars, but the
increase was offset by government tax incentives for in-
stalling the catalysts. Both grades of unleaded gasoline in
Thailand have a lower price than leaded. At this stage of
the lead phaseout program, ambient lead levels in Bangkok
have decreased from 0.5 ug/m3 in 1987 to 0.1 ug/m3 in 1994.
United States: Marc Hillson, Chief of the Mobile Source
Enforcement Branch, USEPA, spoke about three key imple-
mentation issues: keeping track of the actual lead content
of gasoline; assuring a sufficient supply of uncontaminated,
unleaded gasoline to fuel catalyst-equipped cars; and elimi-
nating the misfueling of unleaded vehicles with leaded fuel.
Each year, Federal inspections for contamination and
misfueling were carried out for 10,000 of the 150,000-200,000
retail gas stations in the United States. There were state in-
spections also. Wholesale purchasers of gasoline, distribu-
tors and terminals were inspected. Where uncovered, it was
determined that contamination of unleaded gasoline was
generally unintentional and caused by sloppy operations.
In some cases, higher prices charged for unleaded gaso-
line led to some fraudulent sales of leaded gasoline labeled
as unleaded. In response, the United States changed the
gasoline pump nozzle size and filler inlet size of unleaded
vehicles, which was only partially successful due to vehicle
tampering. USEPA also required reports from both refiners
and lead producers to track lead use and ensure compli-
ance with lead content standards.
Beginning in the early 1980's, USEPA instituted a lead
credit trading system that allowed refiners to trade unused
lead credits (credits were earned by producing gasoline
with lower than allowed lead content), which were worth
about five cents a gram. In 1985, the rule that reduced the
lead standard from 1.1 to 0.1 gr/gal allowed a refiner to
bank lead credits for use in later years. The credits could
also be sold to other refiners. On-site audits of refiners re-
vealed that some companies had greatly overstated their
gasoline volume and had falsely indicated compliance with
the lead standard. Other audits showed the misreporting
of imports to disguise leaded gasoline use. Hillson con-
cluded by stating that where there is a financial incentive
against compliance oversight is necessary.
Conclusion and Next Steps
There was general agreement among workshop partici-
pants that serious and irreversible health effects result from
exposure to lead and that no level of exposure should be
considered 'safe'. Current data does not permit establish-
ing a clear threshold for adverse effects. Participants agreed
that the savings to consumers and human health benefits
of lead gasoline phaseout far exceed the costs imposed on
refiners. The favorable benefit/cost ratio provides a strong
rationale for lead phaseout. Participants supported ex-
panded worldwide efforts to phase out gasoline lead. The
key points include:
The technology exists to eliminate lead from gasoline.
Lead phase-out planning should be part of an integrated
air quality program, and should take into account a nation's
economic, energy, and environmental goals.
If gasoline prices are set at international market levels,
and an effective policy framework is developed, the capi-
tal necessary for upgrading refineries should be available.
An effective policy-making framework means govern-
ment willingness to commit to: enacting regulations to de-
fine and institutionalize lead phaseout; enforcement of the
program, starting with proper monitoring and reporting;
ensuring that the phaseout fits into a larger, comprehen-
sive environmental and energy strategy; ensuring that the
phased reductions are achievable; elimination of energy
subsidies and the use of economic incentives, such as taxes,
to ensure unleaded is not priced above leaded; and launch-
ing of a public awareness and education program.
The concern over valve seat damage in older cars from
unleaded gasoline is not justified. Experiments and expe-
rience show that it only occurs under fairly heavy engine
loads. For farm and construction vehicles, alternative ad-
ditives are available. Lead additives can corrode and dam-
age mufflers, exhaust valves and pipes, and spark plugs.
Aromatic and benzene increases concomitant with lead
removal can be limited. At some cost, alternative refinery
processing can replace octane while limiting increases in
aromatics or benzene content. Also, where catalytic con-
verters are installed on motor vehicles, 90 to 95 percent of
unburned benzene in gasoline is oxidized. Most impor-
tantly, the health effects from exposure to lead are far more
serious than those from exposure to benzene.
-------
Follow-Up Activities
The USEPA will distribute a summary of Workshop pro-
ceedings to all participants.
The Center for Sustainable Development (CSD), at their
April, 1995 meeting, formally supported the results of the
workshop by endorsing efforts to reduce the use of lead in
gasoline and urging countries to develop action plans o
meet this goal.
The United States and Mexico will recommend that an
appropriate organization consider developing an informa-
tion network and/or clearinghouse on phasing lead out of
gasoline to allow for dissemination of technical informa-
tion assist countries in converting to unleaded gasoline.
During May, 1995, the U.S. National Academy of Sci-
ences, in cooperation with the Institute Nacional de Salud
Publica and the Academia Nacional de Medicina of Mexico,
held an International Symposium and Workshop series,
Lead in the Americas: Strategies for Disease Prevention, in
Cuernavaca, Mexico.The Symposium developed a frame-
work and action plan to reduce the pathogenic burden of
environmental and occupational lead throughout the West-
ern Hemisphere.
In September of 1995, pursuant to commitments made
at the 1994 Summit of the Americas, Puerto Rico will host
technical experts from the Western Hemisphere. Their task
will be to establish clear priorities under the Pollution Pre-
vention Partnership Program, including gasoline lead phase-
out.
Through its bilateral and multilateral programs USEPA
will provide technical guidance to help others choose the
most cost-effective courses of action to achieve phaseout.
-------
-------
-------
-------
------- |