From: gmbeasley@mindspring.com ('R. Beasley" )
Subject: MtBE and vapor recovery
Date: Aug 25 1997
Newsgroups: sci.environment,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving

I've just received my Sept issue of Applied Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene.  There is an article in it on exposures to
oxygenated gasolines.  Among other things they say that the stage
II vapor recovery systems do not work - i.e. there was no
difference in exposure between stations that had the recovery
system and those that do not. (!!!)

The largest exposure  to THC (total hydrocarbons) was standing by
the tank while it was filing.(Duh)  They expected exposures from
spills and from engine exhausts, but there were none.

The total daily exposure was not over recommended limits (mean of
1.9 ppm and recommended 40 ppm for MtBE), but short term
exposures were more than 130 times greater for a second or two.

What's really scary about this (because a second or two of real
high exposure when you're filling your tank - which you can
reduce by putting on the automatic filler if one is available) is
probably not that bad, is that when underground storage tanks
leak (called LUST- leaking underground storage tanks), the MtBE
gets into the ground water, and there is NO easy convenient WAY
to remove it.  (You can't just put a charcoal filter on it like
you can with gasoline - it's a different process and the water
has to be heated.)

EPA's reply when people have complained is live with it.-that
MtBE in drinking water is not as much of a hazard as the air
pollution that it is supposed to prevent.

RosalieAnn Figge Beasley, C.I.H.
MOSHA Consultation
My opinions are not official OSHA positions.
"Use your own judgement and then do as I say"

From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: MtBE and vapor recovery
Date: Aug 27 1997
Newsgroups: sci.environment,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving

Carol Browner <browner.carol@epamail.epa.gov> wrote:

>gmbeasley@mindspring.com (Rosalie Ann Figge Beasley ) wrote:
>> I've just received my Sept issue of Applied Occupational and
>> Environmental Hygiene.  There is an article in it on exposures to
>> oxygenated gasolines. ...
>> EPA's reply when people have complained is live with it.-that
>> MtBE in drinking water is not as much of a hazard as the air
>> pollution that it is supposed to prevent.
>
>     Can you document EPA's position?

Well, somehow I don't think that you are newbie asking for help.

However, I've always assumed that, given the EPA sponsored the
National Research Council review ( " Toxicological and Performance
Aspects of Oxygenated Motor Vehicle Fuels " National Academy Press
1996 ) of the draft federal report  ( " Interagency Assessment of
Potential Health Risks Associated with Oxygenated Gasoline "
Office of Science and Technology Policy. Feb 1996 ), then the EPA
position should reflect their views.

However, the EPA document that appears to have arisen from the
Assessment ( " Oxyfuel Information Needs" EPA/600/R-96/069
May 1996 ) does not address many of the deficiencies in the
available data that the NRC identified, and my reading of the
EPA document is that it still hasn't defined the well-controlled
studies that the NRC review suggested are required before any
sensible assessment of the risks of the various alternatives
can be made.

My perception, from reading the above reports, is that the EPA
is focussed on ensuring that the current strategy of using
oxygenates is made acceptable, rather than investigating whether
oxygenates are the safest, and most appropriate, mechanism to
achieve the desired air pollution criteria. This basic assumption,
if true, means that the EPA position is entrenched, and unlikely
to be changed. What is likely, however, is that few other nations
will move towards using oxygenates to solve similar problems
until the USA experiment demonstrates that the risks are outweighed
by the benefits - something that is not yet clear at all.

For the curious, both the Interagency Assessment
http://www1.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/html/MTBE/report.html
and the EPA report ( at the EPA WWW site ) are available, but
I'm not certain if the NRC review is.

       Bruce Hamilton

From: Ross Kitson <rossk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: MtBE and vapor recovery
Date: Aug 27 1997
Newsgroups: sci.environment,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving

Bruce Hamilton wrote:


> Well, somehow I don't think that you are newbie asking for help.
>
> However, I've always assumed that, given the EPA sponsored the
> National Research Council review ( " Toxicological and Performance
> Aspects of Oxygenated Motor Vehicle Fuels " National Academy Press
> 1996 ) of the draft federal report  ( " Interagency Assessment of
> Potential Health Risks Associated with Oxygenated Gasoline "
> Office of Science and Technology Policy. Feb 1996 ), then the EPA
> position should reflect their views.
>
> However, the EPA document that appears to have arisen from the
> Assessment ( " Oxyfuel Information Needs" EPA/600/R-96/069
> May 1996 ) does not address many of the deficiencies in the
> available data that the NRC identified, and my reading of the
> EPA document is that it still hasn't defined the well-controlled
> studies that the NRC review suggested are required before any
> sensible assessment of the risks of the various alternatives
> can be made.
>
> My perception, from reading the above reports, is that the EPA
> is focussed on ensuring that the current stragegy of using
> oxygenates is made acceptable, rather than investigating whether
> oxygenates are the safest, and most appropriate, mechanism to
> achieve the desired air pollution criteria. This basic assumption,
> if true, means that the EPA position is entrenched, and unlikely
> to be changed. What is likely, however, is that few other nations
> will move towards using oxygenates to solve similar problems
> until the USA experiment demonstrates that the risks are outweighed
> by the benefits - something that is not yet clear at all.
>
> For the curious, both the Interagency Assessment
> http://www1.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/html/MTBE/report.html
> and the EPA report ( at the EPA WWW site ) are available, but
> I'm not certain if the NRC review is.
>
>        Bruce Hamilton

Just a point of information, I was unable to locate the NRC review a
year ago but National Academy Press is online and I ordered it there.
Most expensive paperback for its size I've ever purchased.

On the same topic, have you reviewed Gasoline Reformulation Parts 1 and
2 in Automotive Engineering June/July 1996?  Since I live in Calif. I
was most interested in simulated CaRfg vs CaRFG without oxygenate.  My
reading of the conclusions indicate that the CaRFG without oxygenate
performed just as well.  The "oilies" and the "cornies" are out in full
force here to protect the cash cow they've got in California.  Actually
I should say the "cornies" are trying to get a cut of the "oilies" pie
now.  They successfully prevented banning MTBE yesterday in a Calif
Assembly health committee yesterdayand settled for a study lasting until
1999.
("Oilies" and "cornies" are the names given to the oil and ethanol
lobbyists by the politicans.)

Ross Kitson