International fuel quality standards and their …...International Fuel Quality Standards and T heir Implications for Australian Standards International Fuel Quality Standards and

International Fuel Quality Standards and Their Implications for Australian Standards


FINAL REPORT | OCT. 27, 2014

SUBMITTED TO: Tanya Kavanagh Australian Government, Department of the Environment Tel: +61 2 6274 1367 [email protected] RFQ # 1314-0536


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. i

Table of Contents

GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................................... viii

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1

I.1 Approach and Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 1

I.2 Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................................2

I.2.1 Alignment of Fuel Parameters ...............................................................................................................2

I.2.2 Fuel Quality Monitoring and Enforcement Programs .......................................................................... 5

I.2.3 Policy Initiatives in Fuel Quality and Vehicle Fuel Efficiency .............................................................. 5

II. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 6

II.1 Summary of International Standards ....................................................................................................... 6

III. EU ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7

III.1 EU Fuel Quality Regulation ....................................................................................................................... 9

III.1.1 European Directive ................................................................................................................................ 9

III.1.2 European Standard .......................................................................................................................... 10

III.2 Gasoline ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

III.2.1 Sulfur ................................................................................................................................................ 14

III.2.2 Manganese ........................................................................................................................................ 15

III.2.3 Aromatics .......................................................................................................................................... 16

III.2.4 Oxygen, Oxygenates and Bio-components...................................................................................... 18

III.2.5 Vapor Pressure and Distillation ..................................................................................................... 22

III.2.6 Phosphorus ....................................................................................................................................... 27

III.3 Diesel ........................................................................................................................................................ 28

III.3.1 Polyaromatics ................................................................................................................................... 31

III.3.2 FAME ............................................................................................................................................... 32

III.3.3 Cold Flow Properties and Biodiesel Blending in Colder Climate Conditions ...............................35

III.4 Autogas ......................................................................................................................................................35

III.4.1 Sulfur ............................................................................................................................................... 36

III.4.2 Methane Number ............................................................................................................................ 36

III.4.3 Other Parameters ............................................................................................................................. 37

III.5 Biodiesel .................................................................................................................................................... 37

III.5.1 Flash Point ....................................................................................................................................... 38

III.5.2 Phosphorus ...................................................................................................................................... 39

III.5.3 Acid Value ........................................................................................................................................ 39

III.5.4 Oxidation Stability .......................................................................................................................... 40

III.5.5 FAME Saturated Components and Glycerides .............................................................................. 40

III.5.6 Iodine Number ................................................................................................................................ 43


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. ii

III.6 E85 ............................................................................................................................................................ 43

III.6.1 Octane .............................................................................................................................................. 44

III.6.2 Sulfur ............................................................................................................................................... 45

III.6.3 Acidity .............................................................................................................................................. 45

III.7 Fuel Quality Monitoring and Enforcement ............................................................................................ 45

III.7.1 Case Studies: Belgium, the U.K. and Poland .................................................................................. 47

III.8 Alternative Fuels and Niche Fuels ........................................................................................................... 57

III.8.1 CEN Specifications for Alternative Fuels ....................................................................................... 58

III.8.2 National Specifications for Alternative Fuels ................................................................................ 59

III.8.3 Racing Fuels .................................................................................................................................... 59

IV. U.S. .................................................................................................................................................................. 60

IV.1 Gasoline ..................................................................................................................................................... 61

IV.1.1 Octane .................................................................................................................................................. 64

IV.1.2 Sulfur .................................................................................................................................................... 66

IV.1.3 Lead ...................................................................................................................................................... 70

IV.1.4 Benzene ................................................................................................................................................ 70

IV.1.5 Aromatics and Olefins .......................................................................................................................... 71

IV.1.6 Vapor Pressure and Vapor Lock .......................................................................................................... 72

IV.1.7 Distillation and Residue ....................................................................................................................... 73

IV.1.8 Oxygen, Ethanol and Tert-Butyl Alcohol............................................................................................. 74

IV.1.9 Other Parameters ................................................................................................................................. 75

IV.2 Diesel ......................................................................................................................................................... 75

IV.2.1 Cetane .................................................................................................................................................... 77

IV.2.2 Total Aromatics ............................................................................................................................... 78

IV.2.3 Sulfur ............................................................................................................................................... 78

IV.2.4 Density and Viscosity ....................................................................................................................... 79

IV.2.5 Distillation ........................................................................................................................................ 79

IV.2.6 Cold Flow .......................................................................................................................................... 79

IV.2.7 Oxidation Stability .......................................................................................................................... 80

IV.2.8 Lubricity ........................................................................................................................................... 80

IV.2.9 Other Parameters ............................................................................................................................ 80

IV.3 Autogas ...................................................................................................................................................... 81

IV.3.1 Octane and Propylene ......................................................................................................................... 82

IV.3.2 Composition .................................................................................................................................... 83

IV.3.3 Volatility and Vapor Pressure ......................................................................................................... 83

IV.3.4 Sulfur ............................................................................................................................................... 84


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. iii

IV.3.5 Evaporative Residue and Oil Stain ................................................................................................. 84

IV.4 Biodiesel ................................................................................................................................................... 84

IV.4.1 Cetane ................................................................................................................................................... 86

IV.4.2 Density and Viscosity ...................................................................................................................... 86

IV.4.3 Flash Point ....................................................................................................................................... 87

IV.4.4 Carbon Residue ............................................................................................................................... 87

IV.4.5 Total Contamination ....................................................................................................................... 88

IV.4.6 Acid Value ........................................................................................................................................ 88

IV.4.7 Total Glycerin .................................................................................................................................. 88

IV.4.8 Cloud Point ...................................................................................................................................... 88

IV.4.9 Oxidation Stability .......................................................................................................................... 88

IV.4.10 Cold-Soak Filterability .................................................................................................................... 89

IV.5 E85 ............................................................................................................................................................ 89

IV.5.1 Ethanol Content ................................................................................................................................... 92

IV.5.2 Benzene ............................................................................................................................................ 92

IV.5.3 Copper and Silver Corrosion........................................................................................................... 92

IV.5.4 Sulfur ............................................................................................................................................... 92

IV.5.5 Other Parameters ............................................................................................................................ 92

IV.6 Fuel Quality Monitoring and Enforcement ............................................................................................ 93

IV.7 Alternative Fuels and Niche Fuels .......................................................................................................... 94

IV.7.1 Butanol ................................................................................................................................................. 96

IV.7.2 Di-Methyl Ether (DME) ................................................................................................................... 97

IV.7.3 Racing Fuels .................................................................................................................................... 98

V. JAPAN ............................................................................................................................................................. 99

V.1 Gasoline .................................................................................................................................................... 99

V.1.1 Octane ................................................................................................................................................. 101

V.1.2 Sulfur ................................................................................................................................................... 102

V.1.3 Oxygen and Oxygenates ..................................................................................................................... 103

V.1.4 Lead ..................................................................................................................................................... 104

V.1.5 Oxidation Stability .............................................................................................................................. 104

V.1.6 Other Parameters ............................................................................................................................... 104

V.2 Diesel ....................................................................................................................................................... 105

V.2.1 Cetane .................................................................................................................................................. 107

V.2.2 Density ............................................................................................................................................... 108

V.2.3 Lubricity ............................................................................................................................................. 108

V.2.4 Other Parameters .............................................................................................................................. 108


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. iv

V.3 Autogas .................................................................................................................................................... 110

V.4 Biodiesel .................................................................................................................................................. 112

V.4.1 Oxidation Stability .............................................................................................................................. 113

V.4.2 Acid Value ........................................................................................................................................... 114

V.4.3 Other Parameters ............................................................................................................................... 114

V.5 Fuel Quality Monitoring and Enforcement ........................................................................................... 115

V.6 Alternative Fuels and Niche Fuels ......................................................................................................... 116

V.6.1 Dimethyl Ether (DME) ....................................................................................................................... 116

V.6.2 Racing Fuels ........................................................................................................................................ 117

VI. SOUTH KOREA ............................................................................................................................................. 118

VI.1 Gasoline ................................................................................................................................................... 118

VI.1.1 Aromatics ............................................................................................................................................ 120

VI.1.2 Oxygen and Oxygenates ..................................................................................................................... 120

VI.2 Diesel ....................................................................................................................................................... 120

VI.2.1 Polyaromatics ..................................................................................................................................... 121

VI.2.2 Viscosity and Cold Flow ................................................................................................................. 122

VI.2.3 Density ............................................................................................................................................ 122

VI.2.4 Oxidation Stability ......................................................................................................................... 122

VI.2.5 Electrical Conductivity ................................................................................................................... 122

VI.3 Autogas .................................................................................................................................................... 122

VI.4 Biodiesel .................................................................................................................................................. 124

VI.5 Fuel Quality Monitoring and Enforcement ........................................................................................... 126

VI.6 Alternative Fuels and Niche Fuels ......................................................................................................... 127

VI.6.1 Racing Fuels ........................................................................................................................................ 127

VII. COMMENTARY ON CHANGES THAT MAY BE NEEDED ........................................................................ 128

VII.1 Gasoline ................................................................................................................................................... 128

VII.2 Diesel ....................................................................................................................................................... 132

VII.3 Autogas .................................................................................................................................................... 135

VII.4 Biodiesel .................................................................................................................................................. 136

VII.5 E85 ........................................................................................................................................................... 139

VIII. COMMON APPROACHES USED GLOBALLY TO IMPLEMENT FUEL QUALITY STANDARDS .......... 141

IX. POLICY INITIATIVES IN FUEL QUALITY ................................................................................................. 144

X. POLICY INITIATIVES IN VEHICLE FUEL EFFICIENCY .......................................................................... 145

XI. INFORMATION GAPS .................................................................................................................................. 147

XI.1 South Korea ............................................................................................................................................. 147

XII. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 148


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. v

XIII. APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................................................... 151


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. vi

List of Tables

Table III.1: EU Fuel Policy Making Structure ............................................................................................................ 9 Table III.2: Main Differences between the Fuel Quality Directive and European Standards on Fuel Quality ..... 10 Table III.3: Main Gasoline Quality Parameters Addressed by the EU Legislation ................................................. 11 Table III.4: Gasoline Specifications in the EU .......................................................................................................... 13 Table III.5: Gasoline Composition and Driving Cycle Applied in EPEFE ............................................................... 16 Table III.6: Fleet Average Emissions on E100/ Aromatics Matrix Fuels ................................................................ 17 Table III.7: EU Limits for Oxygen and Oxygenates .................................................................................................. 18 Table III.8: Benefits and Disadvantages for Increasing Oxygen and Ethanol Levels in the EU ........................... 20 Table III.9: GHG Emissions when ILUC Is Added .................................................................................................. 22 Table III.10: Vapor Pressure Properties for Gasoline with Oxygen Content of 2.7 wt% ....................................... 23 Table III.11: Vapor Pressure Properties for Gasoline with Oxygen Content of 3.7 wt% ........................................ 26 Table III.12: Permitted Vapor Pressure Waiver for Gasoline Containing Bioethanol ........................................... 26 Table III.13: Main Diesel Quality Parameters Addressed by the EU Legislation................................................... 29 Table III.14: Diesel Fuel Specifications in the EU ................................................................................................... 30 Table III.15: GHG Emissions when ILUC Is Added ................................................................................................ 34 Table III.16: Auto LPG Fuel Specifications in the EU ............................................................................................. 36 Table III.17: CEN Proposal to Amend EN 589 .......................................................................................................... 37 Table III.18: Biodiesel Fuel Specifications in the EU .............................................................................................. 38 Table III.19: Sample FAME C14:0 & C16:0 Content................................................................................................. 41 Table III.20: Recommended Maximum SMG Levels .............................................................................................. 42 Table III.21: Cold Flow Property Choices................................................................................................................. 42 Table III.22: Monoglyceride Content Choices ......................................................................................................... 42 Table III.23: E85 Specifications in the EU ............................................................................................................... 44 Table III.24: Key Aspects of Fuel Quality Monitoring in the EU Member States .................................................. 46 Table III.25: Basis for Member State Selection ........................................................................................................ 47 Table IV.1: ASTM D 4814-14 Specifications for Gasoline ........................................................................................ 61 Table IV.2: Summary of Federal Fuel Programs and Specifications ...................................................................... 63 Table IV.3: EPA Complex Model Standards for RFG .............................................................................................. 64 Table IV.4: Market Quality for Antiknock Performance of Gasoline in the U.S. ................................................... 65 Table IV.5: Estimated Emission Reductions from the Final Tier 3 Standards ....................................................... 67 (Annual U.S. short tons) ............................................................................................................................................ 67 Table IV.6: Summary of Tier 2 Sulfur Standards .................................................................................................... 68 Table IV.7: ASTM D 975-14 Specifications for On-Road Diesel .............................................................................. 76 Table IV.8: Referee Test Methods, Alternate Test Methods and Range of Application ......................................... 79 Table IV.9: ASTM D 1835 Specifications for Autogas ............................................................................................. 82 Table IV.10: ASTM D -6751 Specifications for Grade No. 2-B S15 Biodiesel ......................................................... 85 Table IV.11: ASTM D -5798 Specifications for E85 ................................................................................................. 90 Table IV.12: ASTM D 5798 Specifications for Hydrocarbon Blendstock ................................................................ 91 Table IV.13: General Fuel Quality Monitoring Tools in the U.S. ............................................................................ 93 Table IV.14: ASTM D 7862 Specifications for Butanol ............................................................................................. 97 Table IV.15: ASTM D 7901 Specifications for DME .................................................................................................. 97 Table V.1: JIS K 2202 Specifications for Gasoline ................................................................................................. 100 Table V.2: Composition of Regular Grade Gasoline in Japan ................................................................................ 101 Table V.3: Commentary for Other Parameters of Japanese Gasoline ................................................................... 105 Table V.4: JIS K 2204 Specifications for Diesel ..................................................................................................... 106 Table V.5: CEC Mandatory Standard for Diesel ..................................................................................................... 107 Table V.6: Specifications forB5 in Japan ................................................................................................................ 107 Table V.7: Commentary for Other Parameters of Japanese Diesel ........................................................................ 109


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. vii

Table V.8: JIS K 2240 Specifications for Autogas .................................................................................................. 110 Table V.9: Minimum Propane Content in LPG (mol%) .......................................................................................... 111 Table V.10: Commentary on Japanese LPG Specifications ..................................................................................... 111 Table V.11: JIS K 2390 Specifications for Biodiesel ............................................................................................... 113 Table V.12: Commentary on Japanese Biodiesel Specifications ............................................................................ 115 Table V.13: JIS K 2180-1 Specifications for DME ................................................................................................... 116 Table V.14: Japan Automobile Federation’s Racing Fuel Specifications ............................................................... 117 Table VI.1: South Korean Gasoline Specifications .................................................................................................. 119 Table VI.2: South Korean Diesel Specifications ..................................................................................................... 121 Table VI.4: Commentary on South Korean Autogas Specifications ...................................................................... 124 Table VI.5: South Korean Biodiesel Specifications ................................................................................................. 125 Table VII.1: Commentary on Changes That May Be Needed for Gasoline Parameters ........................................ 129 Table VII.2: Commentary on Other Gasoline Parameters ..................................................................................... 132 Table VII.3: Commentary on Changes That May Be Needed for Diesel Parameters ............................................ 133 Table VII.4: Commentary on Other Diesel Parameters ......................................................................................... 134 Table VII.5: Commentary on Autogas Parameters ................................................................................................. 136 Table VII.6: Commentary on Changes That May Be Needed for Biodiesel Parameters ....................................... 137 Table VII.7: Commentary on Other Biodiesel Parameters ..................................................................................... 139 Table VII.8: Commentary on Changes That May Be Needed for E85 Parameters ............................................... 140 Table VII.9: Commentary on Other E85 Parameters ............................................................................................. 140 Table VIII.1: Comparison of Fuel Quality Monitoring Programs and Enforcement Schemes ............................. 142 Table X.1: Outlook on Vehicle Fuel-Efficiency Requirements ............................................................................... 146 Table XIII.1: Comparison Between Australia and International Gasoline Standards – Specifications .............. 151 Table XIII.2: Comparison Between Australia and International Gasoline Standards – Test Methods ............... 154 Table XIII.3: Comparison Between Australia and International Diesel Standards – Specifications .................. 156 Table XIII.4: Comparison Between Australia and International Diesel Standards – Test Methods ................... 158 Table XIII.5: Comparison Between Australia and International Autogas Standards – Specifications ............... 159 Table XIII.6: Comparison Between Australia and International Autogas Standards – Test Methods ................ 161 Table XIII.7: Comparison Between Australia and International Biodiesel Standards – Specifications ............. 162 Table XIII.8: Comparison Between Australia and International Biodiesel Standards – Test Methods .............. 163 Table XIII.9: Comparison Between Australia and International E85 Standards – Specifications ...................... 165 Table XIII.10: Comparison Between Australia and International E85 Standards – Test Methods ..................... 166 Table XIII.11: Expected Changes for Fuel Quality Specifications in Africa, EU and U.S. .................................... 167 Table XIII.12: Expected Changes for Fuel Quality Specifications in Asia Pacific ................................................. 168 Table XIII.13: Expected Changes for Fuel Quality Specifications in Latin America ............................................. 170 Table XIII.14: Expected Changes for Fuel Quality Specifications in the Middle East .......................................... 173 Table XIII.15: Expected Changes for Fuel Quality Specifications in Russia & CIS ............................................... 174

List of Figures

Figure III.1: Evolution of the European Fuel Quality Specifications ........................................................................ 8 Figure III.2: Vapor Pressure of Mixtures on Unleaded Gasoline RON 95 and Ethanol ........................................ 24 Figure III.3: Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent of Blends of Ethanol-Free and Ethanol-Containing Gasoline ........25 Figure III.4: Structure of FAPETRO and Entities Engaged in FQMS in Belgium ................................................. 48 Figure III.5: Entities Engaged in Fuel Quality Monitoring Activities in the U.K. ...................................................52 Figure III.6: Entities Engaged in FQMS in Poland ................................................................................................... 55 Figure III.7: EU Documents Promoting Alternative Fuels ....................................................................................... 57 Figure IV.1: Summary of the Specification Development Process in Subcommittee J .......................................... 96 Figure VII.1: Australia’s Contribution of Top Five Substances to Air by Source, in % (Year 2006-07) .............. 131


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. viii

GLOSSARY

a arctic

ABT averaging, banking and trading

ACEA European Automobile Manufacturer’s Association

AECC Association for Emissions Control by Catalyst

AGQM German Association Quality Management Biodiesel

AKI antiknock index

ANP Brazil’s National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels

AOCS American Oil Chemists' Society

API American Petroleum Institute

AQIRP Air Quality Improvement Research Program

AQSIQ General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine

ARB California Air Resources Board

ASTM (formerly known as the) American Society for Testing and Materials

AUKOI Association of U.K. Oil Independents

BERR Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

BHT butylated hydroxytoluene

BTL biomass-to-liquids

°C Celsius = (°F – 32) *5/9

C carbon

Ca calcium

CAA Clean Air Act

CAAFI Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative

CAFE Clean Air for Europe

CBOB Conventional Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. ix

CEC Central Environment Council

CEC Coordinating European Council

CEN European Committee for Standardization

CFPP cold filter plugging point

CFR Cooperative Fuel Research

CG conventional gasoline

CHP combined heat and power

CNG compressed natural gas

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CONCAWE CONservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe

CRC Coordinating Research Council

cSt centistokes

CTL coal-to-liquids

Cu copper

CWA CEN workshop agreement

DG Directorate-General

DI direct injection

DIPE di-iso-propyl ether

DME di-methyl ether

DMEVPC DME Vehicle Promotion Committee

EBB European Biodiesel Board

EC European Commission

ECE Economic Commission for Europe

ECM electronic control module

EI Energy Institute


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. x

EIA Energy Information Administration

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPAct 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005

EPEFE European Programme on Emissions, Fuels and Engine Technologies

ePure European Ethanol Producers Association

ERIA Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia

ETBE ethyl tertiary butyl ether

EtOH ethanol

EU European Union

EUCAR European Council for Automotive R&D

EUDC extra urban driving cycle

°F Fahrenheit

FAEE fatty acid ethyl ester

FAME fatty acid methyl ester

FAPETRO Petroleum Analysis Fund

FBP final boiling point

FC fuel consumption

FCC fluid catalytic cracking

FFA free fatty acids

FIA Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile

FIM Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme

FQD Fuel Quality Directive

FQMS fuel quality monitoring system

g gram

GCC Gulf Cooperation Council

GDI gasoline direct injection


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. xi

GHG greenhouse gas

GPA geographic phase-in area

GPS global positioning system

GSO GCC Standardization Organization

GTL gas-to-liquids

GVW gross vehicle weight

h hour

H2S hydrogen sulfide

HC hydrocarbons

H/C hydrogen-to-carbon ratio

HCG heavy-cat gasoline

HDA hydrodearomatization

HDS hydrodesulfurization

HDV heavy-duty vehicle

HFRR high-frequency reciprocating rig

hr hour

HVO hydrotreated vegetable oil

IBA iso-butyl alcohol

ICA ignition control additive

IFQC International Fuel Quality Center

ILUC indirect land use change

IP Institute of Petroleum (now known as the Energy Institute)

IPA iso-propyl alcohol

ISO International Organization for Standardization

IT information technology

JAF Japan Automobile Federation


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. xii

JAMA Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association

JATOP Japan Auto-Oil Program

JCAP Japan Clean Air Program

JEC Joint Research Centre-EUCAR-CONCAWE

JIS Japanese Industrial Standards

JLPGA Japan LP Gas Association

JPEC Japan Petroleum Energy Center

JPI Japan Petroleum Institute

JRC Joint Research Centre of the European Commission

K potassium

K Petro Korea Petroleum Quality & Distribution Authority

kg kilogram

KOH potassium hydroxide

kPa kilo pascal

KS Korean Standard

l liter

LCG light-cat gasoline

LCO light cycle oil

LDT light-duty truck

LDV light-duty vehicle

LEV low-emission vehicle

LFL lower flammability limit

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas

LRP lead replacement petrol

LTFT low-temperature flow test

m meter (or mass)


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. xiii

max maximum

MC motorcycle

MCG medium-cat gasoline

MEA Ministry of Economic Affairs

METI Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

Mg magnesium

mg milligram

min minimum

MJ megajoule

ml milliliter

mm millimeter

MMT methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl

MN methane number

MOE Ministry of Environment

mol mole

MON motor octane number

MOPNG Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

MOTIE Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy

MS Member States

MSA Motor Sports Association

MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics

MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether

N newton

Na sodium

NASCAR National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing

NEA National Environment Agency


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. xiv

NEN Netherlands Standardization Institute

NGO nongovernmental organization

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NMHC non-methane hydrocarbons

NMVOC non-methane volatile organic compounds

NOx nitrogen oxides

NPA National Petroleum Association

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

O2 oxygen

OCCP Office of Competition and Consumer Protection

OEM original equipment manufacturer

ONR octane number requirement

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PAJ Petroleum Association of Japan

Pb lead

PC passenger car

PM particulate matter

PP pour point

ppm parts per million

PPO pure plant oil

psi pounds per square inch (1 psi = 0.145 kPa)

PULP premium unleaded petrol

RBD refined, bleached and deodorized

RBOB Reformulated Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. xv

RED Renewable Energy Directive

RFG reformulated gasoline

RFS Renewable Fuels Standard

RON research octane number

RVP Reid vapor pressure

s summer (or severe climate in EU’s case)

SASO Saudi Standards, Metrology and Quality Organization

short ton a unit of mass equal to 2,000 pounds (907.18474 kg), most commonly used in the U.S.

SMG saturated monoglyceride

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOx sulfur oxides

t temperate

TAME tert-amyl methyl ether

TC technical committee

THC total hydrocarbons

TI trade inspection

TMG total monoglyceride

TS technical standard

U.K. United Kingdom

UKAS U.K. Accreditation Service

UKPIA U.K. Petroleum Industry Association

ULG unleaded gasoline

ULP unleaded petrol

ULSD ultra-low-sulfur diesel

U.S. United States

UST underground storage tank


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. xvi

v volume

V/L vapor lock ratio

VLI vapor lock index

VOC volatile organic compounds

vol volume

w winter

WG working group

wt weight

WRFS World Refining & Fuels Service

WWFC World Wide Fuel Charter

XCG extra-light-cat gasoline

Zn zinc


© 2014 Hart Energy. All rights reserved. 1

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Australian Department of the Environment administers the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 (the Act), which provides the legislative basis for national fuel quality and fuel quality information standards for Australia. The intention of the legislation is not to dictate the composition of fuel, but rather to establish standards for certain fuel parameters. This legislation applies equally to fuel importers and domestic refiners. It regulates the quality of fuel along the entire chain of supply so testing of fuels under the Act is undertaken across all areas of the national fuel supply chain. Samples may be taken from importers, refiners, distributors and service station forecourts. The testing program for enforcement of the Act is structured to ensure that a broad range of sites and locations are sampled, including from fuel suppliers who have been the subject of a consumer complaint.

This report collates currently available information to compare the current Australian fuel quality standards for gasoline, diesel, autogas (LPG), biodiesel and E85 with standards for the same fuels in the European Union (EU), United States (U.S.), Japan and the Republic of Korea (South Korea), and examines points of difference. The report will also describe common ways that countries make fuel standards in order to compare with the Australian legislation-based approach, by which fuel standards are created in legislative instruments under the Act.

I.1 Approach and Methodology

This report is organized by jurisdiction and then by fuel type, where differences in Australia’s fuel parameters are compared with those of the respective jurisdictions. For each jurisdiction, a number of parameters are studied in detail by providing the background, drivers and reasonings behind their historical/current values and expected changes in the future, if any. For each jurisdiction, its fuel quality monitoring and enforcement program is described in detail, with an additional section addressing the main ways each of them addresses emerging alternative fuels and niche fuels, such as those used for racing, in fuel standards.

A list of the types of changes that may be needed to align any parameters for which there are differences is provided in a separate section. Additionally, the range of approaches used to regulate fuel quality and a list of countries using each approach are described in another section, which also compares how the enforcement of fuel standards is undertaken in different countries. Last but not least, two additional sections provide information on policy initiatives in fuel quality and vehicle fuel efficiency around the world.

Since 1998, Hart Energy Research & Consulting has run and maintained a fuel specifications database on its International Fuel Quality Center (IFQC) website, which contains specifications for various fuel types for more than 150 countries, including those of the EU, U.S., Japan and South Korea. Their specifications are sourced from the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), ASTM International, Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) and Korea’s Petroleum and Alternative Fuels Business Act, respectively.

Besides pulling data and information from Hart Energy Research & Consulting’s existing databases and tools, various stakeholders in the government and industry were approached to collect additional information or update existing information on the background, drivers and reasonings behind their historical/current values and expected changes in the future for the respective jurisdictions. Australia’s historical and current fuel specifications were also studied in detail to provide suitable recommendations for the alignment of parameters, in addition to approaching Hart Energy Research & Consulting’s World Refining & Fuels Service (WRFS) team



for inputs on the types of changes required to fuel production or feedstocks. WRFS contains databases monitoring not only refinery capacity, complexities, throughput and blending forecasts, but also crude supply and quality analysis.

I.2 Key Findings

Since the Australian fuel specifications primarily follow that of the CEN standards, they are largely different from those of the U.S., Japan and South Korea. However, for test methods, ASTM test methods are primarily used as reference in the Australian specifications for gasoline, diesel and E85. The specifications for autogas and biodiesel use not only ASTM but also test methods from CEN, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Institute of Petroleum1 (IP) and Japan LP Gas Association (JLPGA) as reference.

I.2.1 Alignment of Fuel Parameters

In Hart Energy Research & Consulting’s view, there are a number of specifications in Australian gasoline, diesel, biodiesel and E85 that may require changes. The autogas specifications are adequate for now, subject to discussions at the CEN level (e.g., sulfur). However, it is worthwhile to note that further study would be needed to assess the expected air quality improvements and enabling of advanced emission control technologies for the Australia vehicle fleet as well as the impact on the refining industry and to the fuel supply. This is recognition of the fact that the reference countries in this report (i.e., EU, U.S., Japan and South Korea) have different configurations in place for their refining industries, diverse vehicle fleets and air quality issues, as well as varying political and market conditions.

Gasoline

For gasoline, Hart Energy Research & Consulting suggests alignments for two parameters (sulfur and aromatics), including recommendations for one existing parameter (phosphorus) and one new parameter (silver corrosion):

• Sulfur: Align with the EU, Japan and South Korea by reducing the limit from the current 150 ppm for all grades and 50 ppm for premium-grade gasoline (PULP) to 10 ppm max for all grades to enable advanced emission controls on the vehicles that are being produced and driven in markets such as Australia today;

• Aromatics: Align with the EU by reducing the limit from the current cap of 45 vol% (42% pool average over 6 months) to 35 vol% max to help further reduce NOx, benzene and PM emissions in Australia;

• Phosphorus: Add a footnote to the current 0.0013 g/l max limit, i.e., “No intentional adding of phosphorus to unleaded gasoline is allowed,” which is included in EN 228:2012; and

• Silver corrosion: Consider adopting ASTM D4814’s limit of Class 1 max if a lower sulfur limit is adopted. This is aimed to protect against reactive sulfur compounds that can corrode or tarnish silver alloy fuel gauge in-tank sender units.

1 Now known as the Energy Institute (EI).



Reduction of gasoline sulfur will require investment in FCC gasoline desulfurization facilities. This has been the general strategy in all areas where gasoline sulfur levels were reduced to 10 ppm. For some refineries, the reduction may also be achieved by severe desulfurization of the FCC process feed. However, the gasoline desulfurization option has lower capital requirements and for most cases is likely to be the most cost effective option. However, the gasoline desulfurization typically results in octane loss which will require octane replacement.

Based on the configurations and likely gasoline blending operations of the Australian refineries, the average gasoline aromatics content is not likely to be significantly above the recommended 35 vol% limit. However individual batches and grades could be much higher. For those refineries which do not now have isomerization facilities (two of the Australian refineries) and blend straight run naphtha, investment in isomerization capacity will allow for some reduction in reformate octane with a concurrent reduction in aromatics. Other small octane improvements (and opportunity for reformate octane/aromatics reduction) may be accomplished by FCC operation adjustments to yield more light olefin for alkylation processing. This may require some investment to increase alkylation capacity and/or for butane isomerization. In any event this option will not yield a large change in aromatics. Furthermore, these types of small adjustments may be required to make up octane loss from gasoline desulfurization.

Aromatics reduction can be achieved by investing in aromatics extraction facilities and diverting aromatics product to the petrochemical market. This is a high cost option and would only be economically viable if refineries have access to an attractive aromatics market.

Finally, refineries can reduce octane requirements (and aromatics) by shifting gasoline production to a higher portion of low octane grade and importing the higher octane grade.

Diesel

For diesel, Hart Energy Research & Consulting suggests alignments for two parameters (polyaromatics and carbon residue 10%):

• Polyaromatics (PAH): Align with the EU by reducing the limit from the current 11 wt% to 8 wt% max, which could further help reduce NOx and PM emissions in Australia; and

• Carbon residue 10%: Align with the U.S. and South Korea by reducing the limit from the current 0.2 wt% to 0.15 wt% max to help further reduce engine deposits.

PAH content of diesel fuel is very site specific and will depend on a number of factors including feed quality and process operating conditions. The changes refineries would have to make to comply with reduced PAH limits will depend on their starting point and on the type and degree of diesel desulfurization employed. Many refineries will likely be able to meet the 8 wt% spec with no change from current operations. Refineries may be able to reduce PAH by increasing the severity of operation in existing diesel/kerosene desulfurization facilities and/or reducing on-stream run lengths on these facilities. Refineries can also reduce PAH to some extent by reducing diesel endpoint which will also reduce volume. Finally, refineries can reduce PAH by investing in high cost hydro-aromatization facilities. In Hart Energy Research & Consulting’s view, the recommended 8 wt% limit is not too stringent and may be achievable by Australian refineries with little or no change.

Similarly to PAH, the carbon residue specification impact will be similar where Hart Energy Research & Consulting does not anticipate an impact on the Australian refineries. If there is some impact on specific facilities, the specification can likely be addressed with a small change in end point with a concurrent small reduction in production volume.



Biodiesel

For biodiesel, Hart Energy Research & Consulting suggests alignments for three parameters (acid value, phosphorus and oxidation stability) and recommendations for one new parameter (cold soak filterability):

• Acid value: Align with the EU, U.S., Japan and South Korea by reducing the limit from the current 0.80 mg KOH/g to 0.50 mg KOH/g max to ensure the storage of biodiesel, as well as protect against fueling system deposits and corrosion;

• Phosphorus: Align with the EU by reducing the limit from the current 10 mg/kg to 4 mg/kg max to help improve the performance of catalytic converters and newer vehicle technologies;

• Oxidation stability @ 110°C: Align with the EU by tightening the limit from the current 6 hours min to 8 hours min; and

• Cold soak filterability / cold flow: If precipitates have been an issue in Australia’s biodiesel, consider adding a cold soak filterability specification in line with ASTM D6751 at 200-360 seconds max, depending on temperature. Similarly, if there are any instances of gelling or fuel injector fouling, the government may want to consider adding a cold flow specification.

The acid value or acid number of edible oils or their corresponding esters indicates the quantity of free fatty acids (FFA) and mineral acids (negligible) present. One way to deal with a high percentage of FFAs is to use an acid catalyst such as sulfuric or hydrochloric acid to convert the FFAs to esters, followed by an alkali catalyst to convert the triglycerides to esters. One problem with this approach is that the conversion of FFAs to esters causes water formation, which can cause soaps to form during the alkali-catalyzed process.

However, this problem can be overcome by using an acid pre-treatment process to reduce the FFAs of the oil or grease. An acid catalyst and alcohol are added and reacted, the mixture is allowed to reach equilibrium, and the methanol, water, and acid portion that separates is removed. Then, if necessary, more acid and alcohol are added, and the process is repeated until the FFA level is less than 1%. After this pre-treatment process, the reaction is continued with alkaline-catalyzed transesterification.

E85

For E85, Hart Energy Research & Consulting suggests alignments for two parameters (sulfur and acidity) and recommendations for two new parameters (existent gum solvent unwashed and silver corrosion):

• Sulfur: Align with the EU and proposed reduction of Australia’s gasoline sulfur limit to 10 ppm max; • Acidity (as acetic acid): Align with the EU and the U.S. by reducing the limit from the current 0.006

wt% to 0.005 wt% max to further protect against corrosion; • Existent gum (solvent unwashed): If gums are an issue in Australia’s E85, it may be worth considering

adding a solvent unwashed existent gum specification of 20 mg/100ml max as required in ASTM D5798; and

• Silver corrosion: Consider adopting ASTM D5798’s limit of Class 1 max to protect against reactive sulfur compounds that can corrode or tarnish silver alloy fuel gauge in-tank sender units.

For E85, Australia could also possibly consider setting specifications for the hydrocarbon blendstock, similar to ASTM D 5798 in the U.S.



I.2.2 Fuel Quality Monitoring and Enforcement Programs

The most important implementation building blocks for any fuel quality strategy are sampling, monitoring and enforcement. Fuel specifications or standards, however strict they are, do not guarantee good fuel quality at the filling station. The foundation for clean fuels at the pump is based on two key elements:

• National standards; and • The ability to ensure and/or control fuel quality at the point of distribution––the filling station.

The latter can be achieved only through implementation and commitment to an effective fuel quality monitoring program. Without the effective monitoring of cleaner fuels at the pump, there is no basis for a national standard for cleaner fuel specifications. Experience in the U.S., EU and Japan has shown this to be the potential weak link in many fuel programs and an area that must be strengthened.

Depending on various factors, such as a country’s economic situation, culture and traditions, the legal obligation is either put on the industry to report fuel quality, as is the case in the U.K., or on the legislature, as in the case in a number of countries, including Brazil, most countries in the EU, Hong Kong, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and the U.S. On the other hand, developing countries do not always have the same financial or human resources as developed countries, and therefore cannot invest in as extensive a system, nor in many cases is it necessary to do so. A good example is China, which currently has only a voluntary program in place to monitor fuel quality and is in the process of setting up a fuel quality monitoring legislation and system by the end of 2014.

Comparing all of the fuel quality monitoring programs, it appears that Brazil, New Zealand, South Korea and the U.S. have common compliance and enforcement regimes to that of Australia’s, with the exception that the U.S. enforces a fuel quality monitoring system (FQMS) also at the state level. Australia undertakes quality testing across all areas of the fuel supply chain, while countries in the EU, Hong Kong and Japan undertake testing only at the service stations. Similarly to Australia, monetary penalties and fines are a common approach taken by most countries in enforcing their fuel quality monitoring legislations.

I.2.3 Policy Initiatives in Fuel Quality and Vehicle Fuel Efficiency

In the next ten years, gasoline and diesel sulfur reductions to 50 ppm and below are expected for several countries, although reduction to 350 ppm and above is ongoing for diesel fuel in a number of countries in Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Russia & CIS. Looking at the top 3 gasoline markets, including the U.S., China and Japan, in that order, the U.S. will move to 10 ppm sulfur gasoline by 2017 and China nationwide by 2018. In 2005, Japan already achieved 10 ppm sulfur fuels, two and three years ahead of legislation for diesel and gasoline, respectively. However, plans to reduce sulfur or improve fuel specs will only proceed depending on the progress of refinery upgrades, bringing about the timely distribution of the upgraded products through local production or imports, and fuel pricing.

Between 2015 and 2022, a number of countries are setting stricter targets for vehicle fuel efficiency. Developed regions and countries such as the U.S., the EU, Japan and South Korea have stringent mandatory targets, primarily set in line with overall CO2-reduction targets. Developing countries such as China and Mexico aim to follow in their footsteps to reduce dependence on fuel consumption further. Mexico became the first country in Latin America to institute fuel-economy requirements, which will be implemented progressively from 2014 to 2016. Similarly with Australia, others such as India and Vietnam are still in the process of setting up mandatory fuel-efficiency targets and standards, while Taiwan looks to improve its vehicle fuel efficiency further.



II. INTRODUCTION In this report, Hart Energy Research & Consulting will assess information on international fuel quality standards and their implications for current Australian fuel quality standards. Standards for gasoline, diesel, autogas (LPG), biodiesel and E85 will be compared with standards for the same fuels in the EU, U.S., Japan and South Korea, wherever available, with the differences examined. The report will also describe common ways that countries make fuel standards in order to compare with the Australian legislation-based approach, by which fuel standards are created in legislative instruments under the Fuel Quality Standards Act.

The following issues will be addressed in this report:

• The differences between each Australian standard and the corresponding EU, U.S., Japanese and South Korean standards.

• Possible reasons for the difference(s), such as climatic conditions, for which such reasons may exist.

• Types of changes that may be needed (for example, to feedstocks or production processes) to align any parameters for which there are differences.

• The range of approaches used to regulate fuel quality (for example, in national legislation, regional legislation, voluntary codes of practice or agreements, coregulation, etc.), and which countries use each approach.

• How enforcement of fuel standards is undertaken in different countries, and comment on the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms.

• The main ways countries address emerging alternative fuels and niche fuels, such as those used for racing, in fuel standards. For example, what triggers the development of standards for alternative fuels?

• Any recently announced policy initiatives in fuel quality and vehicle fuel efficiency around the world.

II.1 Summary of International Standards

Along with the current Australian fuel quality standards, the international standards and their test methods can be found in Tables XIII.1-10 in the Appendix for the following fuel types and countries/regions:

• Gasoline: Australia, EU, Japan, South Korea and the U.S. (see Tables XIII.1-2); • Diesel: Australia, EU, Japan, South Korea and the U.S. (see Tables XIII.3-4); • Autogas: Australia, EU, Japan, South Korea and the U.S. (see Tables XIII.5-6); • Biodiesel: Australia, EU, Japan, South Korea and the U.S. (see Tables XIII.7-8); and • E85: Australia, EU and the U.S. (see Tables XIII.9-10).

Note that for Japan and South Korea, E85 has not been included, as there are no specifications in existence currently in these countries.



III. EU Fuel quality in the EU started to be regulated in the mid-1970s, when sulfur limits in all types of fuel had been reduced to the levels between 8,000 ppm and 3,000 ppm (depending on the area where fuels were used–in environmentally sensitive zones where the sulfur limits must be lower than in other areas). A few years later, the lead content of gasoline was addressed for the first time by the European legislation. The allowable limit has been reduced from 0.40 g/l to 0.005 g/l in a step-by-step process. In both cases, the main driver for reductions in permissible limits of lead and sulfur was concern over their impact on human health and the environment. Since the early 1970s, in the numerous action programs on the environment, the European Community has addressed the need to protect the European population and natural environment from the hazardous influence of polluting substances present in the atmosphere. Exhaust pollutants, in particular those resulting from the combustion of fuels’ sulfur and lead, were addressed by these programs.

Another factor that influenced the introduction of fuel quality parameters at the EU level was the proper functioning of the internal market. Any disparities in the national laws concerning the composition of fuels (sulfur and lead at the beginning of the process) could negatively affect free trade among the 282 Member States (MS) and competitiveness of some European oil companies against others.

These two factors remain the main drivers of any further changes in the fuel quality.

Figure III.1 depicts the evolution of the European fuel quality specifications as a result of the decades of development described above.

2 As of July 2013



Figure III.1: Evolution of the European Fuel Quality Specifications

Source: Hart Energy Research & Consulting, 2014

Today, fuel quality specifications are a result of the joint work by the EU institutions, MS, fuel and automotive industries on the EU air quality strategy in conjunction with other EU policies as indicated in Table III.1.



Table III.1: EU Fuel Policy Making Structure

Objectives Program Description Stakeholders • Air Quality • Security of Energy

supply • Single European

Market • Usage of indigenous

resources • Economic

competitiveness of the European region

Auto Oil I 1993-1995

European Program on Emissions, Fuels and Engine Technologies (EPEFE) examined the effect on emissions of vehicle technology and fuels characteristics.

• European Petroleum Refiners Association:

o Research organization for oil companies operating in Europe (CONCAWE)

o European Refiners Association (FuelsEurope, formerly known as Europia)

• European Automobile Manufacturer’s Association (ACEA)

• Association for Emissions Control by Catalyst (AECC)

• European Council for Automotive R&D (EUCAR)

• EU institutions • EU Joint Research Centre

(JRC) • Consortium of JRC,

EUCAR and CONCAWE (JEC)

• EU MS and their national associations

• European Biodiesel Board (EBB)

• European Ethanol Producers Association (ePure)

• NGOs

Auto Oil II 1997-2000

Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) studied gasoline and diesel sulfur reduction; increasing fuel economy (CO2) and use of on-board diagnostic in diesel engines.

Impact Assessment under Climate – Energy Package 2020, published in 2007

Impact Assessment analyzed increasing bio-components in conventional fuels and life cycle GHG emission reduction from fuels


III.1 EU Fuel Quality Regulation

Automotive fuel quality specifications in the EU are addressed at two levels: binding legislation and nonmandatory technical specifications. This dualism often creates confusion as to which parameters must be obeyed by fuel suppliers and the requirements that are obligatory in each of the 28 MS.

III.1.1 European Directive

Fuel Quality Directive or FQD (Directive 98/70/EC as amended) sets mandatory environmental and health requirements for automotive gasoline and diesel. The directive binds MS as to its parameters, i.e., the quality of fuels placed on European markets must be in compliance with the directive and no MS can refuse access to the market if the fuel meets quality requirements from the directive.

The FQD covers parameters that are important from an environmental point of view and require limitations for the protection of human health. Another important aim of the directive is to harmonize the EU market and

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1998L0070:20090625:EN:PDF



avoid negative consequences for fuel suppliers in all 28 MS, which could be provoked if each state had its own quality requirement for fuels.

The content of the directive is an outcome of the consultation process with all stakeholders (auto and petroleum industries, NGOs, experts, etc.) as well as negotiations between decision makers in the EU, i.e., the European Commission (which is the initiator), the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union representing the MS, as indicated in Table III.1.

III.1.2 European Standard

European Standards are established by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), the only recognized organization in the EU empowered to elaborate and adopt standards with fuel quality requirements. Quality standards (referred to as ENs) are technical specifications with which compliance is not compulsory. These technical specifications are characteristics required of a product for reasons of safety, engine and vehicle performance, drivability, air pollution mitigation, health and environmental protection, etc. This is why the lists of parameters included in European standards for fuels are longer than those covered by the directive. The aim of the standard is to ensure that fuels produced in accordance with it pose environmental threats that are as negligible as possible, and at the same time ensure the best possible performance of the vehicle.

Standards are elaborated by experts in the field of fuel quality – those working in the fuel production sector and those representing the vehicle industry, as well as experts from fuel laboratories and research institutes with extensive and thorough knowledge and experience in fuel-quality-related research and science. Experts are representatives of the standardization bodies of 31 states that are currently members of CEN.

Gasoline quality properties are established by the most recent version of gasoline standard EN 228:2012, “Automotive fuels – Unleaded petrol – Requirements and test methods.” Diesel quality properties are established by the most recent version of diesel standard EN 590:2013 “Automotive fuels – Diesel – Requirements and test methods.”

It is accepted in the EU (and the majority of other European countries) that the industry follows and respects the widest range of quality parameters for fuels. Fuel producers and distributors use EN 228 and EN 590 as reference documents in their trade transactions. Acknowledging these standards reflects on the quality of products they distribute and that they take responsibility for this quality.

Table III.2 summarizes the main differences between the FQD and CEN standards.

Table III.2: Main Differences between the Fuel Quality Directive and European Standards on Fuel Quality

Directive 98/70/EC as amended (Fuel Quality Directive)

CEN Standards on Fuel Quality (EN 228 – Gasoline; EN 590 – Diesel)

Adopted by the EU bodies Established by the European Committee for Standardization (a stakeholders’ platform; industries’ consensus)

Valid for the EU territory Valid for the countries that are members of CEN (or have similar status) – the geographical coverage is wider than the EU

Must be implemented by MS Voluntary – can be followed by the industry or not; if a MS’s authorities decide to incorporate the standard into national legislation, they are mandatory

Fuel quality specifications regulated on the grounds of their impact on environment and human health; and also to harmonize “product requirements” among MS

Fuel quality specifications established for technical reasons – proper vehicle running; therefore the gamut of parameters is wider than in the directive




The development of specifications for gasoline and diesel is controlled by a committee known as CEN Technical Committee (TC) 19. This committee has the wider responsibility for petroleum products, lubricants and related products. Of the 13 different working groups that come under the jurisdiction of TC 19, two have the specific responsibilities for gasoline and diesel, WG 21 and WG 24, respectively, and these groups developed EN 228 and EN 590 specifications. The TC 19 working groups are very active, are responsible for publishing 159 standards and are in the process of developing another 40.

The mission of CEN TC 19 is to:

• Support EU policies on environment, transportation, energy and open market; • Complement them with consumer safety, including trouble-free operation; and • Incorporate industry needs to guarantee fuels production and distribution reliability, vehicle safety and

life span, and compatible fuel-vehicle combinations.

For their analytical test requirements, CEN generally adopts test methods defined by ISO. ASTM methods are adapted only when there are neither suitable ISO nor EN methods available.

III.2 Gasoline

Table III.3 addresses major gasoline parameters regulated by the EU legislation and their effect on emissions and vehicle performance.

Table III.3: Main Gasoline Quality Parameters Addressed by the EU Legislation

Fuel Specification Function Effect on Pollutants Current Status of the

Specifications

Lead

Good octane component; Poisonous for vehicle emissions control systems; Adverse health

effects

Reduction in lead emissions Regulated at 0.005 g/l

Aromatics

Good octane components; Increases engine deposits and

tailpipe emissions – e.g., benzene emissions

Reduction in HC, CO, CO2 and benzene emissions

Increase NOx emissions over full

European driving cycle for constant E100

Regulated at 35 vol%

Vapor pressure

Affects cold-start and warm up performance; Sensitive to oxygenates

and gasoline blending with ethanol or methanol

Reduction in PM LDVs and NOx from HDVs; Reduction in

VOC emissions

Regulated max vapor pressure and distillation

parameters; vapor pressure waiver per

ethanol content

Sulfur

Corrosive; Source of sulfur emissions; Sulfur reduction enables application on new emission capture

technologies

Reduction in HC, CO and NOx emissions

From 2009, limited to 10 ppm EU wide

Olefins

Good octane component; Can lead to deposit formation and

increased emissions of reactive (ozone forming) hydrocarbons and

toxic compounds

Reduction of evaporation, which contributes to ozone formation and toxic dienes

Limited to 18 vol%

Benzene Produces high-octane gasoline streams; Human carcinogen

Reduction in benzene emissions Limited to 1 vol%

Bio-components and oxygenates

Reduces life cycle GHG emissions of fuels; Octane enhancers, affects

vapor pressure

Reduction in GHG emissions from fuels life cycle

From 2009, oxygen content increased to 3.7 wt%, ethanol content to

10 vol%




The EU regulates automotive gasoline parameters through Directive 98/70/EC as amended (mandatory) and EN 228:2012. Table III.4 shows gasoline specifications in the EU. Within the limits of Directive 98/70/EC, the EN 228 standard indicates parameters for two gasoline grades:

• Gasoline blended with 5 vol% of ethanol max, provided that oxygen content is 2.7 wt%; and • Gasoline blended with 10 vol% of ethanol, provided that oxygen content is 3.7 wt%.

According to Directive 89/70/EC, from 2009 gasoline containing max 2.7 wt% of oxygen and max 5 vol% of ethanol (known as “E5” grade) was required to be distributed in the EU markets until at least 2013. EU Member States were obliged to implement this requirement on their national markets. In addition, they may decide to mandate a longer period of E5 distribution and are responsible for determining who may distribute E5 and how it should be distributed.



Table III.4: Gasoline Specifications in the EU Country/Region EU Spec Name Dir. 98/70/EC as amended EN 228:2012 EN 228:2012 Grade Petrol Unleaded Petrol Unleaded Petrol E10 Year of implementation May 2009 Apr. 2013 Apr. 2013 Property RON, min 95(1) 95(1) 95(1) MON, min 85 85 85 Sulfur, ppm, max 10 10 10 Lead, g/l, max 0.005 0.005 0.005 Manganese, g/l, max 2(2) 2(2) 2(2) Benzene, vol%, max 1 1 1 Aromatics, vol%, max 35 35 35 Olefins, vol%, max 18 18 18 RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, min-max 60 max(3)(4)(5) 45-60 (class A) –

70-100 (class F1)(6) 45-60 (class A) – 70-

100 (class F1)(6) VLI, calculated, max 1050 (class C1) -

1250 (class F1)(6) 1064 (class C1) - 1264

(class F1)(6) Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 720-775 720-775 Distillation E70, vol%, min-max 20-48 (class A) –

22-50 (class F1)(6) 22-50 (class A) – 24-

52 (class F1)(6) E100, vol%, min-max 46 min 46-71 46-72 E150, vol%, min 75 75 75 FBP, °C, max 210 210 Residue, vol%, max 2 2 Oxygen, wt%, max 3.7(7) 2.7 3.7 Oxygenates Methanol, vol%, max 3(8) 3 3 Ethanol, vol%, max 10(9) 5(10) 10(10) Iso-propyl alcohol, vol%, max 12 (11) 12 Iso-butyl alcohol, vol%, max 15 (11) 15 Tert-butyl alcohol, vol%, max 15 (11) 15 Ethers (5 or more C atoms), vol%, max 22 (11) 22 Others, vol%, max 15(12) (11) 15 Phosphorus, g/l, max 0(13) 0(13) Oxidation stability (induction period), minutes, min

360 360

Existent gum (solvent washed), mg/100ml, max

5 5

Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C, merit (class) No. 1 No. 1 Appearance Clear & bright Clear & bright Dye content, g/100 l, max Allowed Allowed Use of additives (14) Allowed Allowed

Notes:

(1) Member States may decide to continue to permit the marketing of gasoline with a minimum MON of 81 and a minimum RON of 91.

(2) Effective Jan. 1, 2014.

(3) Vapor pressure determined for summer period.

(4) The summer period shall begin no later than May 1, and shall not end before Sept. 30. For Member States with low ambient summer temperatures, the summer period shall begin no later than June 1 and shall not end before Aug. 31.

(5) In the case of Member States with low ambient summer temperatures, where the derogation from 60 kPa, after the assessment and permission of the European Commission, is in effect, the maximum vapor pressure shall be 70 kPa. In the case of Member States with no low ambient summer temperatures, for gasoline containing bioethanol, after the assessment and permission of the European Commission, vapor pressure shall be 60 kPa plus the waiver specified in the Directive (0-8 kPa).

(6) Depends on volatility classes determined by the country's seasonal and geographical conditions. To relevant countries, volatility class A shall apply during summer starting no later than May 1 and ending not before Sept. 30. In countries with



arctic conditions class B shall apply during summer, starting no later than June 1 and ending not before Aug. 31.

(7) Member States shall require suppliers to ensure the placing on the market of gasoline with a maximum oxygen content of 2.7% and a maximum ethanol content of 5% until 2013 and may require placing on the market of such gasoline for a longer period if they consider it necessary.

(8) Stabilizing agents may be added.

(9) Stabilizing agents may be necessary.

(10) It should meet requirements of EN 15376.

(11) Volume blending restricted to 2.7 % (m/m) maximum oxygen content.

(12) Other mono-alcohols and ethers with a final boiling point no higher than stated in EN 228:2004.

(13) In order to protect automotive catalyst systems, phosphorus containing compounds shall not be included in unleaded gasoline.

(14) The European Commission assessed the risk for health and the environment from the use of metallic additives in fuel. The report was completed in 2013. The metallic additive methylcyclopentadienyl (MMT) in fuel shall be limited to 6 mg/l from Jan. 1, 2011; and further to 2 mg/l from Jan. 1, 2014. These limits were revised on the basis of the results of the assessment.

Source: Directive 98/70/EC as amended, EN 228:2012

III.2.1 Sulfur

Sulfur impacts engine life and it can lead to corrosion and wear of the engine systems. As Figure III.1 indicates, the EU reduced sulfur content in fuels in seven major stages in collaboration among the following sectors:

• Refining and fuel suppliers: costs on upgrade refining units and fuel distribution; • Automotive sector: vehicles’ ability to conform with vehicle emission standards – e.g., NOx

technologies – enables them to upgrade vehicles with new emission capturing systems; and • The EU institutions and the EU Member States: costs for upgrading fuel and vehicle infrastructure.

In 1996, Auto Oil program I and EPEFE concluded that reducing sulfur content in gasoline lowered HC, CO and NOx emissions.

In 2000, the European Commission, DG Environment published a report on consultation on the need to reduce sulfur content of gasoline and diesel fuels to below 50 ppm in a policy makers summary. It assessed the opinion of vehicle and fuel industries, and different institutions, about reducing sulfur below 50 ppm in automotive fuels. The policy summary informed that:

• Direct effects of reducing sulfur to 10 ppm in gasoline are reduction in sulfate-based particulate matter (PM and total SO2 emissions). However, CONCAWE noted that the emission fall from 50 ppm to 10 ppm is less considerable compared to sulfur reduction from 3,000 ppm to 150 ppm and then to 50 ppm.

• Transition to 10 ppm fuels indirectly would aid performance of three-way catalysts, especially those sensitive to sulfur.

• 10 ppm sulfur gasoline presents the possibility of reducing NOx emissions by 21% and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) emissions by 13% compared to low-sulfur fuels.

• ACEA and AECC informed that 10 ppm sulfur gasoline would reduce the rate of deterioration of the lambda sensor and improve efficiency of the three-way catalyst.

• In the opinion of ACEA, 10 ppm sulfur gasoline would reduce N2O and methane emissions. • Lowering sulfur in gasoline to 10 ppm would bring air quality benefits if the reduction would be

mandatory for fuel suppliers EU-wide.



In 2007, the Impact Assessment of the EU Climate – Energy Package 2020 noted sulfur reduction in fuels would advance vehicle emission control, e.g., enabling Euro 5 technologies.

In 2008, CONCAWE published a study on the impact of reducing sulfur to 10 ppm max in European automotive fuels. It estimated that moving from 150 ppm for gasoline and 350 ppm in diesel to 50 ppm sulfur fuel would cost €2.8/ton and €6.2/ton to 10 ppm, which is much lower than when CONCAWE estimated them in 2000. The upgrade of refineries would generate more CO2 for around 1.1-1.4 Mt per year.

By 2008, the vast majority of sulfur in gasoline came from FCC components. The main options to reduce sulfur were:

• Splitting either 2 or 3 streams (heavy HCG, Light LCG split into Medium MCG and Extra light XCG); • Selective hydrotreatment of HCG to reduce sulfur (the same method could apply to MCG); and • Sweetening or selective hydrotreatment of LCG and XCG.

From 2009, the EU limited sulfur content in gasoline to 10 ppm EU-wide while Australia permits 150 ppm sulfur for gasoline-grade RON 91 and 50 ppm for gasoline-grade RON 95. Australia relies on ASTM D 5453 test method, while the EU uses EN ISO 20884 and EN ISO 20846.

III.2.2 Manganese

In 2007, the European Commission’s impact assessment noted that metallic additives bring specific performance characteristics in a manner that is cheaper than other possibilities. In the case of particulate filter, using fuel born catalyst, metallic additives are vital to ensure the correct functioning of the after-treatment device.

On the other hand, the Commission noted that metallic additives can damage engines and emissions control equipment, which could lead to worsening of performance, higher pollutant emissions and possible malfunctioning and need for repair.

In 2007, the European Commission lacked comprehensive information on the use of metallic additives to assess their usage and importance in the EU. It was reported that MMT was used in one refinery in Belgium and Eastern MS.

Therefore, on a precautionary principle, from 2011, the EU introduced a limit on metallic additive methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) at 6 mg/l of manganese through Directive 98/70/EC and EN 228. The Directive stipulated that from Jan.1, 2014, the permitted content of MMT should be reduced to 2 mg/l of manganese. Moreover, the EU ruled that an assessment should be carried out about risks for health and the environment from the use of metallic additives in fuel, and for this purpose the EU should develop a methodology.

By 2012, the EU developed methodology for the assessment on the basis of which in 2013, the EU industry produced an assessment. The assessment concluded that MMT usage in fuel is not harmful to the environment or health.

The EU accepted the results of the assessment and proposed the MS keep the limit of 6 mg/l of manganese. The larger MS refused the proposal and the Directive 98/70/EC was not amended in relation to the content of manganese.



As a result from Jan. 1, 2014, the EU permits max 2 mg/l of manganese in gasoline and diesel, while Australia does not set a limit for manganese content.

III.2.3 Aromatics

In gasoline, aromatics are a good octane component. However, heavier aromatics have been linked to engine deposit formation, e.g., combustion chamber deposits. Countries experiencing lead phase-out or moving to higher-octane gasoline often have high aromatic content in gasoline.

In July 1989, CONCAWE published a report on economic consequences of limiting benzene and aromatics in gasoline. At the time, European gasoline contained on average 2.6 vol% benzene and 34 vol% aromatics. It was calculated that these levels would increase to 3.2 vol% and 43 vol%, respectively, if all gasoline were to be supplied as 95 octane unleaded grade. The report concluded that aromatic content could be reduced through additional use of oxygenates and isomerization, resulting in average aromatics levels still exceeding 40 vol%. Further aromatics reduction in simple refineries would result in yield losses of up to half or more of gasoline production. Complex refineries could achieve aromatics levels generally in the range of 30-35 vol% through the wide use of oxygenates as well as additional isomerization.

In 1996, EPEFE concluded that reducing aromatic content in gasoline reduced HC and CO emissions but increased NOx emissions over the European driving cycle for a constant distillation point of E100. CO2 emissions decreased with reducing aromatics due to their effect on H/C ratio and hence the carbon content of the fuel. Benzene emissions decreased with decreased aromatic content. Tables III.5 and III.6 below explain the correlation between aromatics and E100.

Table III.5: Gasoline Composition and Driving Cycle Applied in EPEFE

Fuel Aromatics (vol%) E100 (vol%) Driving cycle Explanation EPGA1 24.1 40.7 COMPOSITE Composite test cycle

EPGA2 37.0 36.3 ECE The Urban Driving Cycle ECE-15: The cycle has been designed to represent typical driving conditions of busy European cities, and is characterized by low engine load, low exhaust gas temperature, and a maximum speed of 50 km/h.

EPGA3 51.1 36.5 EPGA4 19.5 51.4

EPGA5 35.2 51.0 EUDC The Extra-Urban Driving Cycle EUDC, introduced by ECE R101 in 1990 has been designed to represent more-aggressive, high-speed driving modes. The maximum speed of the EUDC cycle is 120 km/h; low-powered vehicles are limited to 90 km/h.

EPGA6 58.3 50.3 EPGA7 20.3 64.5 EPGA8 34.1 61.8 EPGA9 43.8 59.9

Source: EPEFE, 1996



Table III.6: Fleet Average Emissions on E100/ Aromatics Matrix Fuels

Emission Cycle EPGA1 EPGA2 EPGA3 EPGA4 EPGA5 EPGA6 EPGA7 EPGA8 EPGA9

HC g/km COMPOSITE 0.159 0.217 0.252 0.149 0.157 0.165 0.146 0.151 0.157

ECE 0.402 0.552 0.641 0.374 0.396 0.412 0.367 0.380 0.397

EUDC 0.019 0.022 0.027 0.018 0.018 0.021 0.017 0.018 0.018

CO g/km COMPOSITE 1.305 1.508 1.638 1.211 1.407 1.471 1.342 1.365 1.485

ECE 3.297 3.750 3.954 3.082 3.519 3.617 3.455 3.443 3.722

EUDC 0.147 0.209 0.295 0.126 0.179 0.225 0.113 0.156 0.187

NOx g/km COMPOSITE 0.171 0.159 0.152 0.181 0.179 0.164 0.184 0.180 0.176

ECE 0.291 0.302 0.314 0.299 0.323 0.337 0.298 0.333 0.344

EUDC 0.102 0.077 0.059 0.113 0.095 0.064 0.118 0.090 0.080

CO2 g/km COMPOSITE 217.6 222.1 227.9 214.9 221.1 226.2 215.3 219.9 224.1

ECE 301.2 307.3 315.7 297.7 305.7 312.3 297.6 303.4 309.5

EUDC 169.1 172.5 177.0 167.2 172.1 176.2 167.5 171.5 174.5

FC l/100km COMPOSITE 9.28 9.25 9.26 9.31 9.28 9.29 9.41 9.29 9.30

ECE 12.97 12.94 12.96 13.01 12.96 12.96 13.13 12.94 12.97

EUDC 7.14 7.10 7.11 7.17 7.15 7.17 7.24 7.17 7.16

Source: EPEFE, 1996

In 2000, the EU finalized Auto Oil Program II, which suggested keeping aromatic content at 35 vol% max.

In 2004, CONCAWE published a report on fuel effects on emissions from modern gasoline vehicles: Part 2 aromatics, olefins and volatility effects. The study reported the following conclusions of gasoline car trials with aromatics content of 26 vol% and 38 vol%:

• Reduction of aromatics did not indicate major difference in NOx decrease; • Reducing aromatics from 38 vol% to 26 vol% increased HC emissions significantly; • Changing aromatics content had no effect on CO emissions; • Reducing aromatics content reduced vehicle CO2 emissions; and • Reduced aromatics slightly contributed to PM reduction.

From 2000, Directive 98/70/EC introduced a limit for aromatics at 42 vol%. From 2005, the aromatics content in gasoline was reduced to 35 vol%.



The 2009 impact assessment of the EU Directive 98/70/EC did not suggest changing the content of aromatics.

Australia’s gasoline specifications set a cap for aromatics at 45 vol% max with a pool average content of 42 vol% per six months. Australia relies on ASTM D 5580 test method for aromatics, while the EU uses EN 14517 and EN 15553.

III.2.4 Oxygen, Oxygenates and Bio-components

Oxygen

From 2000, Directive 98/70/EC introduced a limit for oxygen at 2.7 wt% in correlation with reduction of lead from 0.013 g/l to 0.005 g/l and aromatics at 42 vol% max to balance octane needs. The 2.7 wt% oxygen limit in gasoline originated in the U.S. and it was considered the optimal level for air quality benefit from oxygenates while avoiding potential disadvantages of higher levels. Increasing the oxygen limit can lead to lighter exhaust emissions of NOx and reduced VOC exhaust emissions. Depending on oxygenate, there may be offsetting effects from higher evaporative and permeation emissions of VOCs.

From 2009, Directive 98/70/EC introduced a limit for oxygen at 3.7 wt% as a result of:

• a need to increase content of ethanol to achieve the renewable energy target and life cycle GHG emission reduction target from fuels (see the Oxygenates and Bio-components section); and

• a need for additional octane sources because of a reduction in aromatics to 35 vol% in 2005.

Emissions of NOx and VOCs are of concern because of the damage they cause to the environment and health. The study conducted under the EU Auto Oil program II in 2000 estimated that in 2010, 10 MS would exceed the national emissions ceiling of NOx and 4 MS would exceed the VOC ceiling. Both NOx and VOC are ozone precursors. Motor vehicles are a major contributor of NOx and NMVOC.

Oxygenates and Bio-components

Oxygenates are used as octane boosters and volume extenders. They include MTBE, ethanol, methanol, ETBE, TBA, isopropyl alcohol and iso-butyl alcohol.

From 2000, Directive 98/70/EC introduced limits for oxygenates as indicated in Table III.7. The overall maximum permitted oxygenate content is determined by the volumetric limits in conjunction with the global oxygen limit of 2.7 wt%. The chemical formula of each compound determines its oxygen content (e.g., ethanol contains 34.8% oxygen by mass, butanol 21.9% and ETBE 15.7%).

Table III.7: EU Limits for Oxygen and Oxygenates

Property 2000-2009 2009 and onwards Oxygen, wt% 2.7 2.7 3.7 Methanol, vol% 3 3 3(1) Ethanol, vol% 5 5 10 Isopropyl alcohol, vol% 10 10 12 Tert-butyl alcohol, vol% 7 7 15 Isobutyl alcohol, vol% 10 10 15 Ethers containing five of more carbon atoms per molecule, vol%

15 15 22

Other oxygenates, vol% 10 10 15

Note:

(1) EU decided not to increase methanol content in gasoline because of low energy content.

Source: Directive 98/70/EC as amended



In 2003, the EU adopted Directive 2003/30/EC promoting biofuels usage in the EU. The Directive introduced an indicative target of 5.75% by energy content for biofuels and other renewable fuels in the EU by 2010. At that time, it was politically supported that biofuels are cost- and technology-efficient and can make the EU transport sector “greener.” Some Member States decided to make biofuels targets mandatory; therefore, fuel suppliers were obliged to blend biofuels into fossil-based gasoline and diesel.

Moreover, from 2009, the EU introduced two new targets:

• a mandatory target for MS: 10% of energy consumed by the transportation sector should come from renewable sources by 2020; and

• a mandatory target for energy suppliers to the transportation sector to reduce life cycle GHG emissions from supplied energy by 6% by 2020.

As a result, from 2009, the EU increased the limits for ethanol to 10 vol%, ethers and other oxygenates as indicated to Table III.7.

ETBE and Ethanol vs. MTBE

Until 2004, MTBE was a popular oxygenate to increase octane because of low production costs.

In 2003, when the EU started promoting renewable energy usage in the transportation sector, bio-ETBE and ethanol were the most developed bio-based blending components for gasoline. In addition to the fact that bio-ETBE (derived from ethanol) and ethanol could be counted toward the aforementioned targets, these components also help to increase octane.

As a result, the market share of ETBE grew from 15% in 2002 to about 60% in 2010, while MTBE production capacity decreased. In the EU, the production of methanol from renewable sources has not reached the economy of scale. There is currently no production of MTBE from methanol of renewable origin.

Performance of Low Bio-component Blends

There are a number of side effects of blending bio-components with gasoline. Ethanol at low concentrations in motor gasoline impacts fuel consumption and emissions from vehicles. Because ethanol has lower energy content per liter compared to conventional hydrocarbons like gasoline, a vehicle’s volumetric fuel consumption generally increases when running on ethanol/gasoline blends. On the other hand, ethanol has a higher octane number and high latent heat of vaporization for ethanol, which allows better engine efficiency.

In 2006, CONCAWE published a literature review and an assessment of the impact of ethanol content in gasoline fuel consumption. The scope of this assessment was the use of low-level ethanol/gasoline blends, specifically 5 vol% (E5) and 10 vol% (E10) in gasoline. The study concluded that lower heating value of ethanol requires a greater mass of fuel to realize a given quantity of energy. Comparing an E10-grade gasoline with hydrocarbon-only gasoline, this effect is estimated to increase the fuel consumption by 4.2%.

In recent years, JEC together with CONCAWE and EUCAR investigated the effect of oxygenates in gasoline on fuel consumption, regulated emissions, and particle emissions of three passenger cars homologated at the Euro 4 emission level (last study published in 2014). The objective of these studies was to determine whether “today’s” gasoline vehicles can improve their efficiency when running on oxygenate/gasoline fuel blends (E5, E10) and reduce the volumetric fuel consumption penalty by taking advantage of either higher RON or the latent heat of vaporization for ethanol. The study concluded:



• Over all vehicle test results showed that the volumetric fuel consumption changed in direct proportion to the fuel’s volumetric energy content. Fuel with higher volumetric energy content performed better. The use of oxygenates or higher octane did not provide a volumetric fuel consumption benefit. This means that these Euro 4 passenger cars were not able to compensate for the lower energy content of oxygenated fuels through better engine efficiency.

• All vehicles complied with the Euro 4 emission limits for NOx, CO and THC. Fuel properties had little effect on these emission levels even though the level of oxygenates was varied. Driving cycle and vehicle technology were found to have a much greater impact on these regulated pollutants compared to fuel properties. The same refers to PM emissions, although they were not regulated for Euro 4 emission requirements.

In 2007, the EU impact assessment of Directive 98/70/EC analyzed benefits and advantages of increasing bio-components content in gasoline, as indicated in Table III.8.

Table III.8: Benefits and Disadvantages for Increasing Oxygen and Ethanol Levels in the EU

Benefits Disadvantages Emission testing on engines without sophisticated control systems illustrated that addition of oxygenates would lower CO and HC emissions

Increasing oxygen limit can lead to higher exhaust emissions of NOx (especially ethanol) and contribute to higher evaporative and permeation emissions of VOCs

There is a potential to reduce GHG emissions through replacing MTBE with ETBE3

Decreasing energy content may lower fuel efficiency

Blending ETBE into gasoline could help to reduce vapor pressure and thus VOC emissions

Increasing content of oxygenates promoted higher acetaldehyde and formaldehyde emissions (especially from ethanol and ETBE)

Newer vehicles (on average produced after 2000) can tackle NOx and manage higher ethanol blends better than older vehicles

The addition of ethanol to gasoline causes the mixture to have a greater vapor pressure than that of the sum of the individual components because of the very different physical and chemical properties of gasoline and ethanol. The peak vapor pressure is observed at around 5 vol% of ethanol content in gasoline.

Contributes to the security of energy supply: usage of indigenous resources and differentiated supply of energy sources

Mixing E10 with E5 blend could cause the vapor pressure limit to be exceeded – for example, at the refueling stations

Reduction of the GHG emissions from fuel life cycle

The gasoline blended with 10 vol% ethanol should be sold at separate pump and it would need to have lower maximum vapor pressure to avoid an exceedance

Increase renewable energy usage in transportation sector; reduction of fossil energy usage

Adding ethanol to gasoline can create compatibility problems with fuel system components such as elastomer swelling and corrosion

Vehicle producers in the EU should specify if their vehicles are compatible with E10

Ethanol has tendency to absorb water, which promotes phase separation of ethanol-gasoline blends. Therefore, ethanol should be directly blended into gasoline at distribution centers.

Possible oxygen sensor problems in older vehicles

Source: EU Impact Assessment of Directive 98/70/EC, 2007

3 JRC/CONCAWE/EUCAR Well-to-wheel GHG assessment



From 2009, the EU decided to increase oxygen content to 3.7 wt% while permitting the EU Member States to continue selling gasoline with oxygen content 2.7 wt% according to their needs because of possible vehicle incompatibility.

According to Hart Energy Research & Consulting’s analysis, despite the allowable blending limit for ethanol of 10 vol% max, the actual blending volumes of ethanol in European countries is low. By 2014, only three countries (Finland, France and Germany) have introduced sales of E10 blend. Other Member States are hesitant because of older vehicle fleets and investments needed in distribution systems.

There is a group of South European countries where, on average, ethanol blending is between 0 vol% and 1 vol%. The limit is low because these countries usually blend ethanol only in the winter period, when the 60 kPa limit for RVP does not apply (more on ethanol’s impact on RVP follows below). In the vast majority of countries, on average, ethanol blending volumes range between 1 vol% and 4 vol%. There is a group of countries where annual average ethanol volumes are between 4 vol% and 6 vol%: U.K., Denmark and Latvia (in addition to the three countries with E10).

In contrast to the EU, Australia has restricted oxygenates content in gasoline: MTBE as well as DIPE limited to 1 vol%. In addition, the Industrial Chemicals Act 1989 prohibits the import and manufacture of ETBE, TAME and ETAE. Therefore, Australia has fewer options of increasing octane content in gasoline.

Australia permits gasoline blending at 10 vol% ethanol, which can function as an octane enhancer via splash blending (similar with the experience of the U.S. and some EU countries).

For the test methods, Australia relies on ASTM D 4815, while the EU uses EN 1601, EN 13132 and EN 14517.

Beyond E10

In 2013, Delft published a study conducted by the EU on the options to increase EU biofuels volumes beyond the current blending limits. The aim of the study was to analyze different options to increase bio-based component blending components into fuels because the EU is running short on biofuel usage in transport to successfully achieve the 10% renewable energy target. In the case of gasoline, it would be increasing ethanol content in gasoline to 20 vol% and/or increasing content of bioETBE, bioMTBE and using biomethanol. The study supported introducing E20 blend but for flexible fuel cars, and it also noted fuel efficiency loss along with increasing ethanol content.

However, the EU option to increase the blending limits of bio-based components is constrained by the European Commissions impact assessment4 on the effect of increasing biofuel production and usage on the indirect land use change emissions, which were not considered when the EU approved the EU Climate – Energy Package and its targets. The impact assessment questioned life cycle GHG emissions from some land-based bio-components blending and their contribution to GHG emission reduction from fuel life cycle. In case of bio-

4 Impact Assessment accompanying the document “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources,” European Commission, Oct. 17, 2012

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/fuel/docs/swd_2012_343_en.pdf



based components for gasoline, they were ethanol produced from cereals and other starch-rich crops, as well as sugar (e.g., sugar beets).

As a result, in October 2012, the European Commission proposed to amend the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED), which introduced the 10% renewable energy target for the transportation sector by 2020. The proposal suggested capping contribution of the land-based biocomponents at 5% in the total 10% target and to report on preestablished values of emissions from indirect land use change (ILUC) on top of biofuel life-cycle emissions, as indicated in Table III.9.

Table III.9: GHG Emissions when ILUC Is Added

Biofuel Type MS Report to the Commission on Progress in Renewable Energy

(Every two years)

Fuel Suppliers Report to National Authorities on GHG Emissions Reduction

(Annual) Typical GHG(1)

Emissions + ILUC (gCO2/MJ)

% GHG Savings(2) Default GHG Emissions + ILUC (gCO2/MJ)

% GHG Savings(3)

Wheat ethanol (straw as process fuel in CHP plant)

26+12=38 55% 26+12=38 57%

Sugar beet ethanol 33+13=46 45% 40+13=53 40%

Sugarcane ethanol 24+13=37 56% 24+13=37 58%

Notes: CHP – combined heat and power

(1) Member States may use typical values, but may also use other values.

(2) Fossil Fuel comparator 83.8gCO2/MJ.

(3) GHG emission baseline in 2010 (as discussed by the Commission and MS) against which 2020 target should be reported is proposed to be 88.3gCO2/MJ.

Source: Hart Energy Research & Consulting citing RED and FQD and Commission’s draft ILUC proposal, September 2012

The reporting on GHG emission from ILUC would not have direct impact on biofuels sustainability and market. However, it would affect Member States and economic operators’ perception of land-based biofuels because the ILUC values increase total GHG emissions from biofuels. As a result, they would prefer biofuels e.g. advanced biofuels, which have very small or zero ILUC values. The EU is still in negotiation for the proposal on ILUC.

There has been no official mandate from the European Commission to the CEN to start work on higher ethanol blends. However, in 2013, CEN published a report on requirements, test methods and parameters necessary to develop for E20 standard if required. CEN indicated that it could take around six years to develop this standard. Currently, ePure is conducting a study on E20/E25 gasoline blends.

III.2.5 Vapor Pressure and Distillation

Volatility may be characterized by various measurements, the most common of which are vapor pressure, distillation and the vapor/liquid ratio. The presence of ethanol or other oxygenates may affect these properties and, as a result, performance and emissions as well. Since volatility is directly related to vehicle performance and emissions, it is more important than the composition of hydrocarbons, which is related in an indirect way



to parameters such as oxidation stability (olefins), octane number (aromatics, olefins) and deposit formation (aromatics).

In January 1999, CONCAWE published a proposal for revision of volatility classes in EN 228 in light of EU fuels directive5. CONCAWE had reviewed the volatility specifications related to hot weather drivability, i.e., RVP, E70 and VLI, in anticipation of changes to volatility characteristics after the year 2000 due to the impact of the new Directive 98/70/EC. It was noted that restrictions on maximum content of olefins, aromatics and benzene would require changes in refinery processing and a need for increased use of lower boiling blending components, which would be constrained by the volatility specifications after 2000. An example of this is the parameter E70.

From 2000, Directive 98/70/EC regulated specifications for vapor pressure and distillation as indicated in Table III.4.

According to the EN 228 standard from 1999, CEN set 10 volatility classes for gasoline with 5 vol% of ethanol and 2.7 wt% of oxygen to meet hot and cold drivability requirements under the European seasonal geographical conditions. The standard indicated that each country should specify which of these 10 volatility classes apply during which period of the year for defined regions of the country, as indicated in Table III.10. Class A shall apply during summer, starting no later than May 1 and ending not before Sept. 30. In countries with arctic or severe winter conditions, class B shall apply during summer, starting not later than June 1 and ending not before Aug. 31.

Table III.10: Vapor Pressure Properties for Gasoline with Oxygen Content of 2.7 wt%

Property Oxygen Content 2.7 wt% Class A Class B Class C/C1 Class D/D1 Class E/E1 Class F/F1 Vapor Pressure (VP) kPa, min 45.0 45.0 50.0 60.0 65.0 70.0

kPa, max 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 % evaporated at 70° C (E70)

% (V/V) min 20.0 20.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 % (V/V) max 48.0 48.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0

% evaporated at 100° C (E100)

% (V/V) min 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 % (V/V) max 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0


% (V/V) min 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0

Final Boiling Point (FBP)

° C, max 210 210 210 210 210 210

Distillation Residue % (V/V) max 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vapor Lock Index(VLI) (10 VP+ 7 E70)

C D E F Index max -- -- -- -- -- --

Vapor Lock Index(VLI) (10 VP+ 7 E70)

C1 D1 E1 F1 Index max 1050 1150 1200 1250

Source: EN 228:2012

5 CONCAWE report no. 99/51 (January 1999), “Proposal for revision of volatility classes in EN 228 specification in light of EU fuels directive.”



Following changes in the EU’s legislation on fuel quality in 2009, when oxygenates content was increased to allow for maximum oxygen limit of 3.7 wt%, the European petroleum industry analyzed the impact on ethanol in gasoline, both on the distillation properties and the hot and cold weather drivability performance of vehicles. Based on this analysis, the industry claimed that the addition of ethanol in gasoline (from 5 vol% to 10 vol%) changes volatility.

Increasing gasoline blending with ethanol from 5 vol% to 10 vol% max substantially increases the volatility of the final blend, especially E70max and E100max. This would be constraining for refineries that blend fuels that are already in the upper half of the volatility class ranges.

In 2008, CONCAWE published a report on guidelines for blending and handling motor gasoline containing up to 10 vol% of ethanol. The report indicated that addition of only about 2 vol% of ethanol into unleaded gasoline can increase the vapor pressure of the mixture by 6-8 kPa, potentially leading to noncompliance with the requirements of EN 228 (see Figure III.2). The vapor increase with low concentration of ethanol is also observed to be larger when the vapor pressure of the base gasoline is reduced (see Fuel 1).

Figure III.2: Vapor Pressure of Mixtures on Unleaded Gasoline RON 95 and Ethanol

Note: Fuel 1 base gasoline has lower vapor pressure than Fuel 2.

Source: CONCAWE, 2008

Figure III.3 indicates the change in dry vapor pressure equivalent of three different ethanol-free gasolines when blended with 5 vol% ethanol-containing gasoline (also containing 1,250 ppm of water). The final ethanol content of these blends ranged from 0 to 5 vol% of ethanol.



Figure III.3: Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent of Blends of Ethanol-Free and Ethanol-Containing Gasoline

Source: CONCAWE, 2008

Regarding refineries, the potential impact would be that some portion of the base gasoline must be diverted to other uses if the maximum volatility limits are not relaxed for the blended fuels. Subsequently, the industry requested a relaxation for these two parameters in the European gasoline quality standard EN 228 that had to accommodate specifications for E10.

In response to this proposal, the European auto industry expressed concerns about possible relaxation, explaining that it may have implications for regulated limits on exhaust emissions, CO2 emissions and hot and cold weather drivability. Between 2010 and 2012, the auto and petroleum industries performed several independent vehicle tests to verify changes in emissions when volatility limits are changed. In addition to tests performed by both industries, the European Commission financed an independent performance study. These tests and studies showed that some vehicles experienced an increase in CO2 emissions; there were some irregularities with engine speed or potential for stalling, lack of richness and potential misfire.6

6 CONCAWE report (April 2008) on guidelines for blending and handling motor gasoline containing up to 1 vol% ethanol; CONCAWE report (2009) on Ethanol/Petrol Blends: volatility characterization in the range 5-25 vol% ethanol; EU JRC/ CONCAWE report (2009) on volatility and vehicle drivability performance of ethanol/gasoline blends: literature review.



Based on all results, the petroleum and auto industries accomplished a compromise in early 2012, which resulted in new limits for volatility classes for the E10 (oxygen content 3.7 wt%; see Table III.11) blend as compared with the E5 blend (oxygen content 2.7 wt%; see Table III.10).

Table III.11: Vapor Pressure Properties for Gasoline with Oxygen Content of 3.7 wt%

Property Oxygen Content 3.7 wt% Class A Class B Class C/C1 Class D/D1 Class E/E1 Class F/F1 Vapor Pressure (VP)

kPa, min 45.0 45.0 50.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 kPa, max 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 95.0 100.0


% (V/V) min 22.0 22.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 % (V/V) max 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0


% (V/V) min 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 % (V/V) max 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0


% (V/V) min 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0

Final Boiling Point (FBP)

° C, max 210 210 210 210 210 210

Distillation Residue

% (V/V) max 2 2 2 2 2 2


C D E F Index max -- -- -- -- -- --


C1 D1 E1 F1 Index max 1064 1164 1214 1264

Source: EN 228:2012

The addition of ethanol to gasoline also causes this blend to have a greater vapor pressure than the sum of the individual components because of differences in chemical properties (e.g., molecular mass) of ethanol and gasoline. Increasing ethanol content of up to 10 vol% affects vapor pressure, which in turn increases NMVOC emissions – the precursors of ozone formation. In vehicles, ethanol in gasoline increases permeation and may cause reduced effectiveness of carbon canisters because of the interaction of ethanol with active ingredients. This results in the canister having a lower capacity to absorb VOC emissions from the tank. For these air-quality-related reasons, the Directive 98/70/EC as amended limits RVP in summer to 60 kPa. There are two conditional derogations envisaged:

• In the case of MS with low ambient summer temperatures, the RVP limit may be increased to max 70 kPa in summer; and

• In the case of other countries, the RVP limit in summer may be increased through a waiver of maximum 8 kPa, but only if the ethanol used is bioethanol as indicated in Table III.12.

Table III.12: Permitted Vapor Pressure Waiver for Gasoline Containing Bioethanol

Bioethanol Content (%v/v) Permitted Vapor Pressure Waiver (kPa) 0 0 1 3.7 2 6.0 3 7.2 4 7.8 5 8.0 6 8.0 7 7.9 8 7.9 9 7.8 10 7.8

Source: Directive 98/70/EC as amended



The permitted vapor pressure waiver for intermediate bioethanol content between the values listed shall be determined by a straight-line interpolation between the bioethanol content immediately above and that immediately below the intermediate value.

In both cases, MS are required to apply to the European Commission for a waiver (either 70 kPa or 60 kPa + 8 kPa). In their applications, the MS must provide the Commission with information on the socioeconomic consequences of the relaxed RVP limits and of the environmental and health consequences of the higher vapor pressure, in particular the impact on compliance with EU legislation on air quality.

As a result, EU countries with low ambient temperatures (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden and the UK) were granted a waiver, thus their summer RVP limit is 70 kPa. Out of the remaining EU countries, Spain, Czech Republic and Poland applied for a waiver. The EC granted derogation to Spain and Bulgaria until Dec. 31, 2020. The Czech Republic was denied derogation. The Polish application is suspended because the Commission requested that the country update the data in the submission. So far, the Polish government has not submitted revised documentation.

CEN uses EN 13016-1 for testing vapor pressure. As for distillation, the CEN uses EN ISO 3405 as the test method. Australia has not specified the test methods for the aforementioned parameters.

Compared to the EU MS, Australia’s states have more flexibility in regulating vapor pressure requirements according to their climate conditions.

Vapor Pressure Recovery

It is worth noting that in 1994, the EU published the Directive 94/63/EC on the control of VOC emissions resulting from the storage of gasoline and its distribution from terminals to service stations (so-called Stage I Petrol Vapour Recovery). It aimed to prevent emissions to the atmosphere of VOCs during the storage of gasoline at terminals and its subsequent distribution to service stations. The Directive contains measures that terminals should employ, such as floating roofs and reflective coatings so as to reduce evaporative losses from storage tanks. In addition, when gasoline is loaded onto tankers and transported to service stations, the directive ensures that any vapors are recovered and returned to the tanker or terminal.

In 2009, the EU published Directive 2009/126/EC on Stage II Petrol Vapour Recovery during refueling of motor vehicles at service stations. The Directive aims to ensure the recovery of gasoline vapor that would otherwise be emitted to the air during the refueling of vehicles at service stations.

It has been assessed that around half of the fuels stations in the EU have implemented the aforementioned Directives’ provisions. If the majority of the stations had implemented them, the vapor issue in the EU would have been minimized.

III.2.6 Phosphorus

The latest World Wide Fuel Charter (WWFC) indicates that phosphorus is a fuel contaminant that is sometimes used as a valve recession additive. It can foul spark plugs and will deactivate catalytic converters. The chemical composition in which phosphorus can be found in catalyst converters depends on many factors, such as the chemical composition of oil and oil additives, the age of the oil used and engine conditions.

In 1950, Shell introduced phosphorus-based additives (marketed as “ICA,” or ignition control additive) to prevent problems of spark-plug fouling encountered with the high-lead gasolines, prevalent at the time. During the development work, it was discovered that phosphorus compounds also provided a high level of protection



against valve seat recession. Further work during the late 1960s showed that phosphorus compounds gave good protection at relatively low concentrations.

This led to the use of phosphorus additives in unleaded gasoline in the 1970s. However, concerns over the toxicity of the phosphorus compounds being used at that time and the introduction of catalytic converters on new cars from 1975 effectively prohibited the use of phosphorus, as it was shown to be a severe catalyst poison. Consequently, it was banned in many countries.

Since 1993, CEN EN 228 stipulates this: “In order to protect automotive catalyst systems, compounds containing phosphorus shall not be added to unleaded petrol.”

The reason to address the item at CEN was that historically the impact of phosphorus on catalyst systems had been proven. However, there was little data available to know what an actually acceptable level would be for the catalyst systems. Reasons for that were presumably that these metals build up in the catalyst over time; problematic fuels could not be retrieved from the market to see what levels they effectively contained; or that the cause of the problems could be pinpointed toward fuels that were over-additivized.

Moreover, CEN’s decision to ban phosphorus in gasoline was related to the refineries’ hesitance to run an expensive catalyst-testing program to determine the exact level of phosphorus. If a limit had been introduced, it would have forced refineries to measure their product by a relatively expensive test.

Australia limits the content of phosphorus to 0.0013 g/l max, which restricts the possibility of intentionally adding it to gasoline. However, it also does not exclude this possibility.

Australia uses ASTM D 3231 test method for phosphorus, while the EU does not apply a test method.

III.3 Diesel

Table III.13 reflects on the major automotive diesel parameters regulated by the EU and their implications for emissions and vehicle performance. The trend in diesel fuel is to reduce aromatics and sulfur content, lower density and distillate curve control, and increase cetane number.



Table III.13: Main Diesel Quality Parameters Addressed by the EU Legislation

Fuel Specification Function Effect on Pollutants Current Status of the

Specifications

Lower Density

Affects injection timing of mechanically controlled injection

equipment, emissions and fuel consumption; Sensitive to increasing

FAME content in diesel

Reduces HC, CO and PM from LDV and NOX from

HDVs. Increases NOx from LDVs; HC and CO

from HDVs.

Regulated at 820-860 min- max at @ 15°C (60°F),

kg/m3

Lower Polyaromatics

The fuel aromatic content affects combustion and the formation of particulate and PAH emissions

Reduces NOX and PM from LDVs, and HC, NOX and PM from

HDVs; Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

emissions in LDVs. Increases CO, HC and benzene emissions in

LDVs.

Regulated at 8%

Higher Cetane

Measure of compression ignition behavior of diesel fuel; Higher cetane levels enable quicker ignition; Cetane

affects cold startability exhaust emissions and combustion noise

Decreases HC and CO from LDVs and HDVs;

NOx from HDVs.

Cetane number: 51.0 min Cetane index 46.0 min

(cannot be used for fuels containing FAME)

Lower Sulfur

Corrosive; Can lead to wear of the engine systems; Reduction enables

application of after-treatment systems to remove NOx

Reduces SOx, PM Regulated at 10 ppm max

Higher Biodiesel (FAME)

Reduces life cycle GHG emissions from fuels; Has characteristics of

lubricant

Reduces life cycle GHG emissions of fuels Regulated at 7 vol%

Source: Hart Energy Research & Consulting, EPEFE, 1996

EU regulates automotive diesel parameters through Directive 98/70/EC as amended (mandatory) and EN 590:2013. Table III.14 shows the EU parameters for automotive diesel.



Table III.14: Diesel Fuel Specifications in the EU Country/Region EU Spec Name Dir. 98/70/EC as amended(1) EN 590:2013 Year of implementation May 2009 July 2013 Property

Cetane number, min 51 51 (temperate) / 47-49 (arctic & severe winter)(2)

Cetane index, min 46 (temperate) / 43-46 (arctic & severe winter)(2)

Sulfur, ppm, max 10 10 Polyaromatics, wt%, max 8 8(3)

Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 845 max 820-845 (temperate) / 800-840 (arctic & severe winter)(2)

Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt, min-max 2.0-4.5 (temperate) / 1.2-4.0 (arctic & severe winter)(2)

Distillation (4)(5)(6)

T95, °C, max 360 360 E180, vol%, max 10 E250, vol%, max <65 E340, vol%, min 95(7) E350, vol%, min 85 Flash Point, °C, min above 55 Carbon residue 10%, wt%, max 0.3(8)

Cold Filter Plugging Point (CFPP), °C, max +5 (class A temperate) to -44 (class 4 arctic & severe winter)(2)

Cloud Point (CP), °C, max -10 to -34(7) Water and sediment, vol%, max Water, vol%, max 200 ppm Ash, wt%, max 0.01 Total contamination, ppm, max 24 Lubricity, HFRR wear scar diam @ 60°C, micron, max

460

Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C, merit (class), max

No. 1

Oxidation stability, mg/100ml, max 25 g/m3(9) Dye content, g/100 l, max Allowed Use of additives Allowed FAME content, vol%, max 7(10) 7(11) Metal content (Zn, Cu, Mn, Ca, Na, other), g/l, max

(12)

Notes:

(1) Fuel Directives set by the European Institutions complement Dir. 98/69/EC for Euro IV vehicle emission specifications.

(2) Depends on climate rating.

(3) For the purposes of this European standard, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are defined as the total aromatic hydrocarbon content less the mono-aromatic hydrocarbon content, both as determined by EN 12916.

(4) Calculation of the Cetane Index will also require distillation values at 10%, 50% and 90% (v/v) recovery points.

(5) The limits for distillation at 250°C and 350°C are included for diesel fuel in line with EU Common Customs tariff.

(6) EU Common Customs Tariff definition of gas oil may not apply to the grades defined for use in arctic or severe-winter climates.

(7) Only applicable to countries with arctic or severe winter conditions.

(8) The limiting value for the carbon residue is based on product prior to addition of ignition improver, if used.

(9) When diesel fuel contains more than 2 vol% FAME, oxidation stability as determined by EN 15751 is the requirement.

(10) FAME shall comply with EN 14214.

(11) Diesel with FAME complying with EN 14214:2012: The climate-dependent requirements set out in 5.4.2 of EN 14214:2012 do not apply.



(12) The presence of MMT in diesel shall be limited to 2mg/l of manganese from Jan. 1, 2014.

Source: Directive 98/70/EC as amended, EN 590:2013

III.3.1 Polyaromatics

From 2000, Directive 98/70/EC set a limit for PAH in diesel at 11 wt%.

In June 2005, CONCAWE published a report on the evaluation of automotive PAH emissions. It concluded that older diesel vehicles showed relatively high-exhaust PAH emissions, which increased linearly with higher diesel fuel PAH content.

In 2006-2007, during the stakeholders’ discussions on the review of Directive 98/70/EC, ACEA requested lowering of diesel PAH content. However, it did not present analysis on environmental benefits from reducing PAH content in diesel.

CONCAWE suggested that PAH content should be limited to 8 wt% because the path of the EU refineries for diesel sulfur reduction to 10 ppm would not require additional investments to achieve this limit. CONCAWE also suggested that further PAH emissions should be tackled through tighter emission control requirements for vehicles. CONCAWE’s proposal was based on a study on the impact of a potential reduction of PAH content of diesel fuel on the refining industry published in August 2005. The study noted the following:

• The PAH content of virgin gasoils is highly dependent on the crude origin. Cracked gasoils and light cycle oil (LCO) have generally high to very high PAH content, the precise amount depending on the feed origin and the specific severity conditions of the plant. When it comes to the PAH content of a final diesel blend meeting the 10 ppm sulfur limit, the only components of interest are all hydrotreated (or come from hydrocracking processes).

• Hydrodesulfurization generally reduces the PAH content of gasoils, but the reaction is limited either by kinetics or by thermodynamics (PAH saturation is favored by a higher hydrogen partial pressure and a lower temperature). At the high-severity conditions prevailing to reach the 10 ppm sulfur limit, the thermodynamic limit is reached in most cases.

• A typical refinery producing low sulfur and even 10 ppm sulfur diesel will not have a separate mechanism to control PAH. The hydrodearomatization (HDA) plants will be run to meet the sulfur limit and PAH will be resultant. The actual level achieved will depend on the feed type, the unit process parameters (hydrogen partial pressure, space velocity) and the activity of the catalyst (which will decrease during a cycle). The only practical option for the refiner would be to limit the cycle length in order to avoid an increase of PAH when the reactor temperature needs to be increased beyond the point where the thermodynamic equilibrium limits PAH conversion. The availability of a separate HDA unit provides the extra degree of freedom to properly control PAH.

• Depending on the specification level envisaged, reduction of the PAH content of diesel fuel would require investment of between €0.8 million at the 6 wt% level and nearly €9 million at 1 wt%. The majority of the capex would be for new HDA and hydrogen production plants.

As a result from 2009, the EU limited the content of PAH in diesel to 8 wt%. According to the EU fuel quality monitoring reports, the automotive diesel contains around 6 wt% of PAH because of the refinery specification to balance potential PAH variation +/-2 wt% in the final blend.

It is worth noting that from Jan. 1, 2013, the EU introduced Euro VI emission limits for HDVs, and from Sept. 1, 2014, Euro 6 was introduced for LDVs. The main changes between Euro 5 and Euro 6 emissions



requirements for diesel cars are that the new emission standards will require significant reductions in NOx (50% compared to Euro 5 limits), combined HC+NOx and PM emissions.

Compared to the EU, Australia allows 11wt% of PAH in diesel, which limits max sulfur content to 10 ppm. A higher PAH content in diesel relates to the lack of units or processes reducing PAH at the refinery level.

Australia uses IP 391 test method, while the EU applies EN 12916.

III.3.2 FAME

As a result of the EU renewable energy target in the transportation sector and GHG emission reduction target for fuels supplied for the transportation sector, from 2009, Directive 98/70/EC and EN 590 introduced a parameter for biodiesel (FAME) content in automotive diesel and regulated it at 7 vol%.

Addition of FAME to diesel impacts the final blend in a number of ways, such as oxidation stability under both thermal and longer-term storage conditions, density, cold-flow properties, sensitivity to water and deposit formation in the fuel injection system. It has a tendency to create sediments and to dissolve the paint coatings.

Following are some blending effects FAME has on diesel:

• FAME inherently has poor oxidation stability due to the nature of its chemical composition. Most FAME contains carbon-to-carbon double bonds in its chemical construction that are easily oxidized after production and during the storage and use of the fuel. Such oxidation reactions are why precautions must be taken, such as the use of oxidation stability enhancing additives like BHT, when blending and distributing biodiesel fuels.

• To secure the quality of biodiesel-blended fuel, additional oxidation stability criteria are being introduced into finished fuel specifications in some regions. The European standard EN 590 for B7 requires a 20-hour minimum induction period by the modified Rancimat method, in addition to oxidation stability at 25 g/m3 max. However, CEN is working on the oxidation stability test method aiming at introducing the Petroxy method. The goal of the investigation is to shorten the test duration and improve repeatability of the results.

• In order to improve the oxidation stability of FAME, EN 590 strongly recommends adding oxidation-stability-enhancing additives to FAME at the production stage and before storage, providing an oxidation stability similar to that obtained with 1,000 mg/kg of 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxytoluene. The standard notes that there is potential risk of precipitate formation with oxidation-stability-enhancing additives at low temperatures in low aromatic fuel.

• Biodiesel requires special care at low temperatures to avoid an excessive rise in viscosity and loss of fluidity. EN 590 requires that Member States specify biodiesel blending limits according to climatic conditions. It also suggests that cold-flow additives, when used in FAME, should be specifically matched to the base diesel fuel and FAME quality to ensure correct performance consistent with the requirements set out in the standard.

• Adding FAME would increase overall density of the blend, but European industry sources say that the density of mineral diesel in Europe is low enough to allow for up to 7 vol% FAME without exceeding the maximum density limit of 845 kg/m3 of B7. In its impact assessment (for Directive 98/70/EC revision in 2009) conclusions, the European Commission did not find a strong argument for any change to maximum diesel blends containing FAME and did not modify the maximum density limit of blends containing 7 vol% FAME. Further review of current density limits as well as refining and biodiesel blending practices is recommended to understand the best approach to address the density



issue. For higher biodiesel blends (B20 or more), it seems inevitable that a higher-density limit is needed to compensate for the higher density of the biodiesel blendstock.

• FAME made from used cooking oils/tallow may also retain some residual products that were formed when the feedstock was heated for cooking, and can increase thermal and oxidative instability. These risks can be mitigated by maintaining the level of water, glycerol, glyceride, saturated monoglycerides (SMG) and other impurities in the final EN 590 blend to ensure trouble-free operation. CEN is working on developing a suitable test method for saturated monoglycerides or a performance test to control this aspect of low-temperature performance.

• CEN has also amended EN 14214 standard for FAME and introduced additional requirements for FAME for use as a blending component to help solve precipitation problems observed in the EU market during cold periods (refer EU’s Biodiesel section).

• Blends of biodiesel from B5 to B20 could have some engine and fuel system compatibility issues and injector nozzle coking tendencies.

• Volumetric fuel consumption increases in direct proportion with increasing FAME content and the decreasing volumetric lower heating value (energy content) of the FAME/diesel fuel blends. 7

• Generally, biodiesel is believed to enhance the lubricity of conventional diesel fuel and reduce exhaust gas particulate matter.8

• The production and use of biodiesel fuel is reported to lower carbon dioxide emissions on a source to wheel basis, compared to conventional diesel fuel.9 This is the major reason behind the EU decision to introduce a limit for FAME in Directive 98/70/EC as amended.

• Increasing the FAME content also reduced the PM but increased the NOx, HC and CO emissions.10

In 2009, CONCAWE published guidelines for handling and blending FAME that addressed some of the technical issues above.

Compared to the EU, Australia permits 5 vol% biodiesel blending in diesel. Further increase in biodiesel blending should be discussed with the automotive and biodiesel production industry. Moreover, the relationship between economics and climate benefits should be assessed.

The EU and Australia apply the same test method for biodiesel content, i.e., EN 14078.

7 CONCAWE. Impact of FAME on the performance of the three Euro 4 light duty diesel vehicles. Part 1: Fuel consumption and regulated emissions. 2014

8 World Fuel Charter, ed. 2013

9 FQD, impact assessment

10 CONCAWE. Impact of FAME on the performance of the three Euro 4 light duty diesel vehicles. Part 1: Fuel consumption and regulated emissions. 2014



Beyond B7

The CEN is working on new standards permitting higher-biodiesel blends:

• CEN is developing a standard for B30 (up to 29.9 vol%) for captive fleets. The industry is required to relax density values for this blend.

• CEN has developed standard prEN16734, Automotive B10 diesel fuel - Requirements and test methods. It still needs to be adopted.

However, in the last few years, the EU has been giving out contradicting policy messages regarding biofuel usage in the transportation sector. On one hand, the adopted legislative acts promote wider biofuel usage in the transportation sector, which has implications on fuel specifications—e.g., developing standards for higher-biodiesel blends.

On the other hand, recently published EU studies11 question the benefits that land-based bio-components blending into conventional fuels offers in terms of GHG emission reduction from fuel life cycle. In case of biodiesel, the study addressed feedstocks such as rapeseed, palm oil and soybean oil.

In October 2012, the European Commission proposed to amend the RED that introduced the 10% renewable energy target for the transportation sector by 2020. The proposal suggested capping contribution of the land-based biocomponents at 5% in the total 10% target and to report preestablished values of emissions from ILUC on top of biofuel life cycle emissions, as indicated in Table III.15.

Table III.15: GHG Emissions when ILUC Is Added

Biofuel Type MS Report to the Commission on Progress in Renewable Energy

(Every two years)

Fuel Suppliers Report to National Authorities on GHG Emission Reduction

(Annual)

Typical GHG(1) Emissions + ILUC

(gCO2/MJ)

% GHG Savings(2) Default GHG Emissions + ILUC

(gCO2/MJ)

% GHG Savings(3)

Rapeseed biodiesel 46+55=101 -21% 52+55=107 -21%

Palm oil biodiesel (process not specified)

54+55=109 -30% 68+55=123 -39%

Palm oil biodiesel (with methane capture)

32+55=87 -4% 37+55=92 -4%

Soybean biodiesel 50+55=105 -25% 58+55=113 -28% HVO from palm oil (with methane capture)

27+55=82 2% 29+55=84 5%

HVO from rapeseed 41+55=96 -15% 44+55=99 -12%

Notes:

(1) Member States may use typical values, but may also use other values.

(2) Fossil Fuel comparator 83.8gCO2/MJ.

(3) GHG emission baseline in 2010 (as discussed by the Commission and MS) against which 2020 target should be reported is proposed to be 88.3gCO2/MJ.

Source: Hart Energy Research & Consulting citing RED and FQD and Commission’s draft ILUC proposal, September 2012

11 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/doc/biofuels/swd_2012_0343_ia_en.pdf



The reporting on GHG emission from ILUC would not have direct impact on biofuels sustainability and market. However, it would affect Member States and economic operators’ perception of land-based biofuels because the ILUC values increase total GHG emissions from biofuels. As a result, they would prefer biofuels—e.g., advanced biofuels, which have very small or zero ILUC values. The EU is still in negotiation for the proposal on ILUC.

III.3.3 Cold Flow Properties and Biodiesel Blending in Colder Climate Conditions

In the EU, the MS decide upon the CFPP grade based on meteorological data. EN 590 sets climate-dependent requirement options to allow for seasonal diesel grades to be set nationally. For temperate climates, six CFPP grades are defined as Grade A to F. For MS with arctic or severe winter climates, five different classes are defined (Class 0 to 4) that specify requirements for CFPP, cloud point, density, viscosity, cetane number and index, and distillation points E180 and E340.

As aforementioned, FAME must be properly controlled for blending into diesel to avoid blockage of diesel vehicle fuel filters. One aspect of the issue is that the type of feedstock has influence on the final blend. For example, Nordic countries (with the exception of Finland) blend FAME of up to 7 vol% in winter. In the most severe weather conditions over the last several years, they have not experienced any problems with the final blend. The feedstock used is rapeseed.

For a long time in Spain, the dominant feedstock for FAME was soybean oil (imported from Argentina); there were no problems with the quality of the final product.

On the other hand, a number of auto manufacturers in the U.K. reported instances of filter clogging during winter 2010-2011. The U.K. Petroleum Industry Association (UKPIA) associated these cases with the increased volume of waste cooking oil, predominantly tallow, used as a feedstock for the production of FAME.

All of the above examples show that the type of feedstock used for the production of FAME directly affects diesel quality.

Following the issues reported by the U.K. auto manufacturers, and after identifying that monoglycerides (in particular, saturated monoglycerides) are responsible for the issues, CEN updated the FAME standard EN 14214 to address some of them. As a result, producers are to follow two sets of requirements to choose a combination of cloud point and CFPP temperatures based on the maximum monoglyceride content. The result of this exercise would be FAME with such a low content of monoglycerides that the risk of precipitation provoked by SMGs would be significantly limited. The U.K. producers reported that the updated version of the standard helped to avoid further issues (refer to EU’s Biodiesel section).

It is worth noting that this method did not eliminate the root of the problem, which is SMGs. The main problem is the lack of a proper test method. The CEN is currently working on this issue.

Australia does not address CFPP in its diesel standard, where the fuel purchasers and blenders define climatic specifications per state.

The EU applies the EN 23015 test method, while Australia does not specify a test method for CFPP.

III.4 Autogas

In the EU, CEN standard EN 589 regulates quality parameters for auto LPG. The EU legislation does not set quality parameters for auto LPG and the EU is not planning to do so. Table III.16 shows auto LPG parameters set in the EU.



Table III.16: Auto LPG Fuel Specifications in the EU

Country/Region EU Spec Name EN 589:2008 + A1:2012 Year of implementation Sept. 2012 Property MON min 89 Sulfur, ppm max 50(1) Vapor pressure @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa max 1550(2) Composition Total Dienes max 0.5 mol% Evaporative Residue max 60 ppm Water, vol% max None Hydrogen sulfide, wt% max Negative Copper corrosion, 1hr @ 40°C, merit (class) max No. 1 Odor (3)

Notes: (1) Autogas naturally has low sulfur content but odorants added for safety reasons contain sulfur. (2) Measured at 40°C. (3) Unpleasant and distinctive at 20% of lower flammability limit.

Source: EN 589:2008 as amended in 2012

III.4.1 Sulfur

According to the standards in force, Australia and the EU limit sulfur in autogas to 50 ppm. Moreover, the same test methods (ASTM D 3246, ASTM D 6667) are being applied for sulfur evaluation.

CEN is planning to limit sulfur content in LPG to 30 ppm. The proposed content would help to improve performance of catalytic converters in Euro 6/VI vehicles. The revised standard could be published by 2015.

CEN also indicated future discussion about further sulfur reduction to 10 ppm.

III.4.2 Methane Number

The methane number (MN) is a parameter indicating the knock sensitivity of a fuel (much like MON or RON), and expresses it in comparison to methane (higher knock resistance) and hydrogen (lower knock resistance). It is used for gaseous fuels (predominantly CNG). Similarly with iso-octane, a fuel exhibiting the same knock behavior as methane will receive the number “100,” whereas a fuel exhibiting the knocking behavior of hydrogen will receive 0 (akin to n-heptane for MON and RON). A mixture of methane and hydrogen also shows fairly linear behavior depending on the mixture ratio. This property can be used to order other fuels according to this “knock index.”

The idea to index LPG components according to MN resulted from the experiments conducted with DI engines running on various mixtures of different LPG components with varying MON values. It was found that the actual knocking behavior did not correlate with the calculated MON values. It did, however, correlated to a fair degree with MN calculated according to the AVL method, a method of calculation developed by the development company AVL. It is not as complicated as the experimental tests with a CFR (Cooperative Fuel Research) engine, but, since it was validated using these tests, it includes that methodology to a certain extent.

Currently, Australia and the EU do not regulate MN. However, CEN has proposed to introduce methane number 22 as it could help better measure pinging behavior in engines. It does not have a unit, similarly to RON and MON.



III.4.3 Other Parameters

Table III.17 looks at the parameters to which CEN is considering amendments.

Table III.17: CEN Proposal to Amend EN 589

Property Australia’s

Autogas Specifications

EN 589

Comparison Between Test

Methods Comment

MON, min 90.5 89

Australia and EU both use

ISO 7941 / EN 589 Annex B.

CEN is not planning to increase the MON limit because it is irrelevant for existing engines.

CEN had studied RON parameter for auto LPG. But the results showed that RON measures inaccurate pinging behavior because of butane.

Total dienes content (including 1.3 butadiene), mol%

0.3 0.5

Australia uses ISO 7941, while the EU uses EN

27941.

CEN has proposed to reduce the content of butadienes to 0.1 because it would avoid dangerous substances labeling and to align with international standards.

Pentane and heavier

2 mol% -

Australia uses ISO 7941 while the EU does not

specify a test method.

The EU considers that parameters for density and vapor pressure regulate pentane, and there is no need to set a specification for pentane.

Plasticizers - - - CEN has proposed to include a caution note

into the standard about washed-out plasticizers by propane.

Propane - - -

CEN proposed to introduce a value for propane (saturated) at 40% by mass to improve performance of direct-injection engines.

Hart Energy Research & Consulting’s commentary: This value might not be valuable for Australia since it mainly uses propane.

Source: Hart Energy Research & Consulting, European LPG Association, 2014

III.5 Biodiesel

In the EU, biodiesel (FAME) quality parameters are regulated through EN 14214, which was last updated in 2012. The EU legislation does not set quality requirements for biodiesel. Currently, the major item on CEN’s agenda in relation to FAME standard is solving filter blocking problems in cold weather. Table III.18 shows biodiesel parameters set in the EU.



Table III.18: Biodiesel Fuel Specifications in the EU

Country/Region EU Spec Name EN 14214:2012 Grade FAME (Fatty Acid Methyl Esters) Year of implementation Aug. 2012 Property Cetane number, min 51 Ester content (concentration), wt%, min 96.5 Sulfur, ppm, max 10 Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 860-900 Density @ 20°C, kg/m3, min-max (1)

Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt, min-max 3.5-5.0 Flash Point, °C, min 101 Carbon residue 10%, wt%, max 0.3 Water, vol%, max 500 mg/kg Sulfated Ash, wt%, max 0.02 Total contamination, ppm, max 24 Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 100°C, merit (class), max No. 1(2) Acid value, mg KOH/g, max 0.5 Alcohol Methanol, vol%, max 0.20 wt% Monoglycerides, wt%, max 0.7 Diglycerides, wt%, max 0.2 Triglycerides, wt%, max 0.2 Glycerol Free Glycerol, wt%, max 0.02 Total, wt%, max 0.25 Linolenic acid methyl ester, wt%, max 12.0 Polyunsaturated methyl esters, wt%, max 1.0 Iodine number, g/100g, max 120 Phosphorus, ppm, max 4 Alkali, Group I (Na, K), ppm, max 5.0 Metals, Group II (Ca, Mg), ppm, max 5.0 Oxidation stability @ 110°C, hour, min 8.0 Others (use of additives etc.) (3)

Notes:

(1) Density may be measured over a range of temperatures from 20°C to 60°C. See testing methods for details.

(2) Measured at 50°C.

(3) The use of dyes and markers is allowed.

Source: EN 14214:2012

III.5.1 Flash Point

The flash point is a measure of a fuel’s flammability and is considered important for assessing hazards during storage.

In 2008, CEN lowered flash point from 110°C to 101°C. The original standard value of 120°C was satisfactory for transporting the product as a nonhazardous liquid. The flash point was lowered because the CEN adopted the automated Pensky Martens Method EN ISO 27190 used for diesel fuel.

It should be noted FAME still exhibits higher flash points as compared with EN 590 diesel, and this can be seen to be a safety advantage for biodiesel over fossil diesel.

Australia regulated biodiesel flash point at 120°C and relies on the ASTM D 93 test method.



III.5.2 Phosphorus

Phosphorus is a typical catalyst poison that can irreversibly affect the function of exhaust gas after-treatment systems. Even low phosphorus content can already lead to long-term effects in continuous operation.

In 2008, CEN reduced phosphorus content from 10 mg/kg to 4 mg/kg. The last version of the standard EN 14214 indicates that a lower limit of 2.5 mg/kg may come into force after validation work on the measurement standard and on engine oil impacts.

CEN noted that it was the first reasonable step toward meeting the needs of the latest technology engines, being a measurable amount and achievable with not-too-large investments by the FAME producers. Moreover, the current test method EN 14107 is valid for phosphorus content in range of 2-4 mg/kg, and not higher.

Currently, CEN is working on a new test method that would support lowering the phosphorus content from 4 to 2 mg/kg. CEN has indicated that these limitations are needed to meet the needs of the latest technology engines. The European Biodiesel Board has supported lowering the content of phosphorus.

According to the German Association Quality Management Biodiesel (AGQM) paper on Biodiesel Analytics issued in November 2012, the phosphorus content may be reduced by degumming in vegetable oil production, distillation having to be carried out during the production of biodiesel from animal fats.

If phosphoric acid is used in the process to remove catalyst, phosphorus can also originate from there. However, phosphoric acid can usually be removed from biodiesel with water.

CEN is also researching to lower limit of sodium, and potassium from 5 mg/kg to 3.5 mg/kg.

Compared to the EU, Australia permits 10 mg/kg of phosphorus in biodiesel. Australia uses the same test methods as the EU and the U.S., i.e., ASTM D 4951 and EN 14107.

III.5.3 Acid Value

The acid value is a measure of the free fatty acids and mineral acids contained in FAME sample, which are potentially corrosive properties of biodiesel. The acid value is influenced by the type of feedstock used and the process parameters, and also gives an indication of fuel aging during storage (increase in acid value).

Since EN 14214 was first published, it has set acid value at 0.5 mg KOH/g, max. The EBB’s quality report for winter 2009/2010 indicated that samples collected had 0.28 mg KOH/g max on average.

AGQM notes that the reaction of free fatty acids from the feedstock with the catalyst, as well as saponification of fats, causes alkaline metal soaps formation in a secondary reaction of the trans-esterification. These soaps are removed from the product by physical separation. The remaining soap is split by washing with inorganic acids, and the resultant free fatty acids remain as fat-soluble component in the biodiesel.

Free fatty acids are very weak acids and hence only slightly corrosive; nevertheless, an effect on metallic components cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, pump and filter failures have resulted in the past from reactions of the fatty acids with basic additives, e.g., from engine oil.

The limitation of the acid value to 0.5 mg KOH/g, max using test method EN 14104, corresponding to a fatty acid content of approximately 0.25%, ensures that biodiesel does not induce corrosion caused by acids. Nevertheless, the acid value of FAME can rise during storage if esters are split or short chain carbonic acids are



formed as a result of the aging process. This effect should be hardly observed if the storage conditions are appropriate. Australia sets a slightly higher limit for acid value at 0.8 mg KOH/g max and relies on the ASTM D 664 test method.

III.5.4 Oxidation Stability

The oxidation stability is a measurement of the resistance to the oxidative process. It also affects the storage stability of the product.

FAME is prone to oxidation owing to its chemical structure. Double bonds of unsaturated fatty acids react with oxygen-forming peroxides, while consecutive reactions can cause the chains to break, leading to formation of short-chain carbon acids and polymeric structures. Possible consequences of these aging processes are blocked fuel filters, corrosion and deposits on parts carrying fuel through to the injection system of diesel engines.

According to EN 14112, Rancimat serves as the test method for oxidation stability: Air is bubbled through the sample at high temperature. Volatile oxidation products form after any present antioxidants are used up. The volatile compounds increase the conductivity in the measuring cell – the so-called induction time is reached.

In 2012, CEN amended EN 14214 to increase oxidation stability from 6 to 8 hours. It was noted that this limit could be difficult to achieve for products obtained by the distillation method. But the initially proposed limit of 10 hours was not approved because it would lead to excessive use of antioxidant additives, which would compromise other fuel-additive packages.

According to the last version of EN 14214, CEN has developed an additional determination method – EN 16091:2011, Determination of oxidation stability by rapid small scale oxidation method – but it needs to be assessed for actual field performance prediction.

Australia regulates oxidation stability at 6 hours and uses the CEN and the ASTM test methods, i.e., EN 14112, ASTM D 2274 and prEN 15751.

III.5.5 FAME Saturated Components and Glycerides

Following increasing biodiesel production from new kinds of feedstocks and wider biodiesel blending in diesel in 2009, an important number of vehicle owners noted filter plugging problems in cold weather. While problems have mainly occurred in cold climates or during cold periods of the year, filter plugging has also been observed in warmer climates during the summertime when high cloud point types of FAME have been used. The existing CFPP specifications in EN590 provide overnight cool-down protection against filter blocking from wax precipitation, but do not protect against the longer-term issue of SMG precipitation that takes place over a number of days when the fuel is stored just above the cloud point. The need for careful blending practices and control of the FAME quality became more pressing with the use of FAME types with vastly different cold-flow properties compared with FAMEs from the more commonly used feedstocks in Europe.

Auto manufacturers were aware of the problem, and raised this issue during Hart Energy’s World Refining & Fuels Conferences in 2009 and 2010. In 2009, a presentation from Renault Powertrain described filter blocking instances observed in France. Although acknowledged as multivariant, the main cause was believed to be SMG content, a component of the incomplete biodiesel chemical reaction. Renault noted that filter blocking issues were further compounded by improper blending practices that saw FAME with high SMG content blended into EN590 diesel fuel at a level of 14 vol%, which is in excess of the 7 vol% limit. In the following year, Peugeot PSA described similar diesel vehicle filter blocking problems. In summary, SMGs were found to be the main component of the wax cake blocking filters, which needed to be controlled.

http://www.ifqc.org/InfoByCountryDetails.aspx?CountryId=163&RegionId=3&CountryName=EU&RegionName=Europe&Type=FUEL%20SPECIFICATIONS&Sites=IFQC&hid=4&Title=CONVENTIONAL%20FUELS%20SPECIFICATIONS#table%205:%20diesel



Variation in FAME-Saturated Components

With the appearance of varied FAME types such as used cooking oil methyl ester, tallow methyl ester and palm methyl ester, the blending situation has become more challenging in the EU. The feedstocks for these FAME types have different physical and chemical properties than those most commonly used in Europe. Most notable is the difference in pour point, with some fats being solid at room temperature. Materials such as palm oil or tallow (animal fat) contain a much higher percentage of saturated fats than vegetable oils such as rapeseed or sunflower oil. The resulting methyl esters made from such feedstocks have comparatively high percentages of saturated material (i.e., C14:0 and C16:0 fatty acids) as shown in Table III.19.

Table III.19: Sample FAME C14:0 & C16:0 Content

FAME Feedstock Type C14:0 Content C16:0 Content

Canola oil 0.0% 4.6%

Palm oil 1.1% 41.9%

Soybean oil 0.1% 10.5%

Sunflower 0.0% 4.5%

Tallow 2.1% 23.8%

Source: Moser, (2008), Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (2009)

The saturated component of FAME is considered important in relation to diesel fuel filters because during biodiesel production, not all of the vegetable oil or fat is completely converted into biodiesel; a small percentage remains, most significantly as monoglyceride. What has become apparent in real-life instances of fuel filter blockings is that SMGs have been found to be present in the fuel filter, sometimes in considerable amounts. Although experts know that SMGs are not the only cause of filter blocking, they are in agreement that within the FAME part of the equation, they typically play a critical role and therefore must be controlled.

So while two biodiesels may have the same total monoglyceride (TMG) content – depending on their feedstock – their SMG content can be considerably different. Limiting the SMG content in the blended diesel fuel and thus reducing the chance that SMGs could build up in the fuel filter is the key aim of European fuel experts in their current efforts.

CEN Solution for Filter Blocking Problem

Summary of the Approach: The aim of CEN’s work is to limit the amount of SMGs present in diesel fuel, thus reducing the possibility of their buildup and subsequent blocking of diesel fuel filters. This is achieved by:

• Estimating the volume of SMGs in B100; • Calculating the approximate volume of SMGs in the diesel fuel when B100 is blended at the desired

rate (e.g., 7 vol% in EN590 diesel); and • Comparing this value with the recommended SMG limits for EN590 for a particular region and time of

year.

Estimating B100 SMG Content: Accurately measuring SMG content in B100 at the low levels required is currently unfeasible. It is possible, however, to estimate the approximate SMG level in B100 FAME using either the cloud point and the TMG content of the FAME, or by using the TMG content along with the FAME’s saturated methyl ester content, obtained from test method EN14103:2011 (determination of ester and linolenic acid methyl ester contents).



Calculate Approximate SMG Content in the FAME/Diesel Blend: The next step in establishing the appropriate climate grades is to consider the SMG content of the B100 FAME when it is blended into the diesel fuel. For example, a B100 FAME with an estimated SMG content of 1,000 mg/kg, blended at 5 vol% into diesel fuel, will result in the diesel fuel containing approximately 50 mg/kg of SMG. Note that this value will need to be converted into mg/l for the next step of the process.

Consider the Recommended Maximum SMG Content in EN590: CEN amended EN14214 with a table listing the recommended maximum levels of SMG permitted in the final EN590 diesel/FAME blend. These recommended SMG limits have been established by industry experts and are principally based on oil industry experience on what works well in the European market. Once the SMG content of the intended fuel blend is below the recommended limits, it is, in theory, suitable for use. The suggested SMG limits in EN590 diesel are shown in Table III.20.

Table III.20: Recommended Maximum SMG Levels

Suggested Region Sweden Summer & Winter

Nordic Winter

Nordic Summer

Northern Europe Winter

Northern Europe

Summer

Southern Europe Winter

Southern Europe

Summer

Saturated monoglyceride content, mg/l, max

20 30 70 55 90 70 90

Source: EN14214: 2012

Member State Choice of Appropriate FAME Grade(s): To ensure the FAME blended into EN590 diesel reasonably follows the recommended SMG limits as shown in Table III.20, CEN indicates that MS define the grade(s) of FAME they will allow for blending into diesel fuel throughout the year. To assist in this, CEN prepared two sets of requirements, one defining the FAME by its cloud point and cold filter plugging point, and a second defining the TMG level of the FAME (see Table III.21 and Table III.22).

Table III.21: Cold Flow Property Choices

Property Unit Limits Test Method Grade A Grade B Grade C Grade D Grade E Grade F

Cloud Point oC, max 16 13 9 5 0 -3 EN 23015 CFPP oC, max 13 10 5 0 -5 -10 EN 116

Source: EN14214: 2012

Table III.22: Monoglyceride Content Choices

Property Unit Limits Test Method Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6

Monoglyceride content

% (m/m), max

0.15 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 EN 14105

Source: EN14214: 2012

Combinations of Table III.21 and Table III.22 will have to be selected by MS Standardization Body experts and included in the EN 14214 National Annex to ensure good low-temperature operation throughout the year. These combinations have to be varied according to the FAME blending level to ensure that high levels of SMGs are avoided in the finished EN590 blend.



Hart Energy Research & Consulting expects MS to base their choices of FAME climate grades largely on their experience of what works well within their markets. While some territories have been completely successful in using higher CFPP FAMEs without issue, other markets, where FAMEs with lower CFPPs have been typically used, are likely to choose climate classes that generally reflect these FAME types.

Finally, CEN introduced max limits in wt% for monoglycerides, diglycerides and triglycerides, as indicated in Table III.18 and their test method EN 14105.

After amending EN 14214, CEN continued work on finding an accurate method for sterol glycosides measurement in FAME, which may result in a limitation of these materials at a future stage.

As compared to the EU, Australia does not regulate glycerides content in biodiesel.

III.5.6 Iodine Number

The iodine number is a measurement of the content of unsaturated fatty acids in fats and oils, including biodiesel. The iodine value varies with the type of feedstock used. Biodiesel with a high iodine value is less stable against oxidation than more-saturated FAMEs. EN 14214 sets iodine number at 120 g/100g max using test method EN 14111 since the first publication of the standard. This requirement was intended as an additional safeguard to protect against unstable FAME. However, CEN members have addressed that it is perceived as a barrier to some oils from feedstocks other than rapeseed, and they have called to relax the number or remove this parameter. CEN members decided not to change the number until other safeguard measures are developed and proved.

As compared to the EU, Australia does not regulate iodine number in biodiesel.

III.6 E85

From 2011, the CEN regulates E85 parameters through standard recommendation CEN/TS 15293:2011. Before that, E85 was regulated by the CEN workshop agreement EN 15293:2005. The EU legislation does not regulate E85 specifications. Table III.23 reflects on the EU’s parameters for E85.



Table III.23: E85 Specifications in the EU

Country/Region EU Spec Name CEN/TS 15293/2011 Grade E85 Year of implementation Feb. 2011 Property RON, min 104(1) MON, min 88(1) Sulfur, ppm, max 10 RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, min-max 35-60 (s) / 50-80 (w)(2) Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 760-800 Oxygenates Methanol, vol%, max 1.0 Ethanol, vol%, min-max 70-85 (s) / 50-75 (w)(2) Ethers (5 or more C atoms), vol%, max 11 C3-C5 alcohols, ppm, max 6 Phosphorus, g/l, max 0.00015 Oxidation stability (Induction period), minutes, min 360 Water, vol%, max 0.4 Existent gum (solvent washed), mg/100ml, max 5 Chloride, inorganic, ppm, max 1.2 Copper, ppm, max 0.10 Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C, merit (class), max No. 1 Color Clear & bright pH, min-max 6.5-9.0(3) Acidity, wt%, max 0.005(4) Electrical Conductivity, µS/m, max 1.5 Sulfate, ppm, max 4

Notes:

(1) Recommended value.

(2) Summer: Class A May 1 - Sept. 30, Winter: CEN notes that each country must choose which climate classes to use for other periods of the year.

(3) Measured as pHe.

(4) As acetic acid.

Source: CEN/TS 15293:2011

III.6.1 Octane

CEN/TS 15293:2011 notes that RON is targeted at a minimum of 104 and MON should be a minimum of 88.0. These limits are not mandated since the test method is still being assessed. These limits are recommended also because they are used for the engine calibration. The EU uses EN ISO 5163 test method.

CEN is currently working on octane requirements for E85 blends. There is an opinion that it is important to keep octane requirements because blenders do not always use EN 228 to produce E85 since they might use cheap naphtha as well.

As compared to the EU, Australia sets mandatory limits for RON at 100 and MON at 87.



III.6.2 Sulfur

A limit on sulfur is required to protect against engine wear, deterioration of engine oil, corrosion of exhaust system parts, and exhaust catalyst deactivation, and to reduce emissions of particulates and sulfur dioxide, which leads to acid rain12 (refer to EU’s Gasoline section).

CEN/TS 15293:2011 limits sulfur content (10 ppm max), which is aligned with the Directive 98/70/EC as amended and EN 228:2012, because blenders in the EU use gasoline compliant with these documents as a base fuel for E85. The EU applies test methods EN 15485 and EN 15486 for sulfur assessment in E85.

Australia permits max 70 ppm of sulfur in E85 and relies on the ASTM D 5453 test method.

III.6.3 Acidity

Very dilute aqueous solutions of low molecular weight organic acids, such as acetic acid, are highly corrosive to a wide range of metals and alloys. It is therefore necessary to keep such acids at a very low level13.

CEN/TS 15293:2011 set a total acidity (expressed as acetic acid) maximum limit of 0.005 wt%, and specifies the test method as EN 1549114. Australia permits a slightly higher content of acidity at 0.006 wt% max and relies on the ASTM D 1613 test method. On the other hand, the EU applies the EN 15491 test method.

III.7 Fuel Quality Monitoring and Enforcement

In the EU, Directive 98/70/EC requires Member States to establish a fuel quality monitoring system (FQMS) at national level, perform fuel quality monitoring and report to the European Commission on the results.

If a MS does not implement EU law (including Directive 98/70/EC) or does not implement it properly, the infringement procedure might be launched against this country. This procedure is complicated and very long. It starts with an informal proceeding where the European Commission, together with the MS concerned, looks to bring the case to a conclusion. If it is not possible, the Commission brings the MS to the Court of Justice. The Court gives its ruling, and if it decides that the country breached EU law, it forces the country to implement this law. If the country still does not implement the law, the Court may impose financial penalties.

According to Directive 98/70/EC as amended (Article 8), Member States should monitor compliance with the requirements of the Directive’s rulings on gasoline and diesel specifications on the basis of the analytical methods referred to in European Standard EN 228 for gasoline and EN 590 for diesel.

12 Department of the Environment and Heritage, Setting national fuel quality standards – Paper 2 Proposed standards for fuel parameters (petrol and diesel), Canberra, 2000.

13 Impact Assessment accompanying the document “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources,” European Commission, Oct. 17, 2012.

14 JRC/CONCAWE/EUCAR Well to wheel GHG assessment

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/fuel/docs/swd_2012_343_en.pdf



Since 2001, Directive 98/70/EC has required Member States to establish a FQMS in accordance with the requirements of the relevant standard. The Directive permits using an alternative FQMS, provided that such system ensures results of equivalent confidence and the EU has approved this system. Countries such as Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg and Latvia are using national systems.

Each year by June 30, the Member States should submit a report to the European Commission of national fuel quality data for the preceding calendar year. The following minimum information should be reported:

• Compilation of the samples taken and an analysis of the results; • Detail about quantities of each grade of gasoline and diesel sold in the country; and • Description of the national fuel quality monitoring system.

The European Commission has to collect the information, analyze and publish the EU monitoring report on an annual basis. The report should be publically available.

In 2003, CEN drafted standard EN 14274, Automotive fuels. Assessment of petrol and diesel quality. Fuel quality monitoring system. The standard is based on the Directive 98/70/EC as amended, which establishes fuel quality requirements relevant from the environmental perspective. Consequently, according to the directive, MS are required to regularly monitor and report environmental fuel parameters according to EN 14274. In addition, for sampling purposes, Member States may use standard EN14275, Automotive Fuels – Petrol and diesel – Sampling from retail site pumps and commercial site fuel.

Some key aspects of the fuel quality monitoring in the EU Member States are indicated in Table III.24.

Table III.24: Key Aspects of Fuel Quality Monitoring in the EU Member States

Key Feature Detail

Fuel properties for analysis Environmental properties specified in the Directive 98/70/EC (but other properties can be tested if individual MS decides so)

Number of fuel samples for analysis 50-100 per period winter/summer (100-200 per year) depending on the size of the country

Sampling technique, sampling locations, etc. – overall process of carrying out FQMS

Sampling procedures and FQM process: Procedures described in details in EN 14274 and EN14275 ensuring safety and precision

Sampling locations: strategic locations throughout the country, but the key point is that fuels must be taken at the point of sale (station)


Usually, MS decide to run the FQMS program via government departments and their own test laboratory, rather than delegating the responsibility to industry, largely because they want to have a tight control of suspected fraud in the blending and selling of fuel, and the power to eradicate it.

Overall, the most important fuel quality parameters in Europe are rarely noncompliant because refiners are not only solely responsible or working closely with government officials on fuel quality monitoring, but they are also made liable for fuel quality from the refinery to the pump at the fueling station.



III.7.1 Case Studies: Belgium, the U.K. and Poland

In order to present different fuel quality monitoring programs with different organizational schemes and financial resources, this report discusses FQMS in the three MS of Belgium, Poland and the U.K. against the EU legislative background, referring to the FQMS scheme. Table III.25 indicates the main reasons these countries were chosen to emphasize the differences between certain elements of FQMS in the EU.

Table III.25: Basis for Member State Selection

Country Belgium Poland U.K.

Size and location of the country

Small and “old” EU country, small petroleum market

Midsized country and petroleum market, eastern border of the EU,

“new” EU country, intensively developing economy

Big country and developed petroleum market, “old” EU

country

Organization of the system

Centralized (run by government)

Centralized with decentralized elements (run by government and

local authorities)

Government not involved, run by industry only on a voluntary basis

Financial sources of the system and inspections

Special FUND, financed by taxes paid by industry

State budget Industry’s own resources

FQMS roots 1980s – to prevent fuel adulteration (and as of 2001 for monitoring purposes as

required by the EU)

2003 – to protect environment and consumer interests and for

monitoring purposes (required by the EU)

1999 (for monitoring purposes required by the EU) and prior to

this date (as a part of industry policy)

Law Royal Decree establishing FAPETRO

Law on Fuel Quality Monitoring System

Directive 98/70/EC as amended by Directive 2003/17/EC is applicable

directly as far as fuel quality monitoring is concerned

Number of samples taken

8,269 (in 2006) samples taken at filling stations

3,656 (in 2007) samples taken at different points of fuel

distribution; different fuel grades

4,051 (in 2006) samples taken before the fuel was placed on the

market

Authority responsible for sampling

Inspectors from the Division of Petroleum Products from the Department of Energy of

the Ministry of Economic Affairs

Trade Inspection (responsible for consumer products’ controls on the market) subordinated to the

Office of Competition and Consumer Protection

Industry (refineries’ qualified staff)

Number of inspectors 4-5 starting 2009 (dealing only with fuel sampling)

120 (dealing not only with fuel sampling, but also with other

products’ controls)

0 inspectors




Belgium

Belgium has one of the most extensive fuel quality monitoring programs in Europe, relying mostly on a sampling program as a monitoring method. In 1995, Belgium created a fund under the Royal Act of Feb. 8, 1995, establishing the modalities for the functioning of the Petroleum Products Analysis Fund (referred to as FAPETRO). The managing committee that runs FAPETRO includes representatives of the government and industry (distributors, oil companies and refueling stations). Figure III.4 indicates FQMS structure in Belgium.

Figure III.4: Structure of FAPETRO and Entities Engaged in FQMS in Belgium



Note: MEA – Ministry of Economic Affairs


Fuel Quality Monitoring in Belgium: Step-by-Step

1. The arbitrary selection of two communes (municipalities), one per province, to be sampled occurs every day before 17:00 hours in the IT (information technology) system in the Division of Petroleum Products. Ten points of sale are chosen for sampling by one inspector and their bonus/malus15 status is evaluated at this time. The focus is on making sure that five samples are taken for gasoline and five samples are taken for diesel. If the chosen communes do not have five fueling stations on their territory, the IT system will continue with its search of stations in adjacent communes so as to have a total of five points of sale at all times. In addition, two points of sale are put on the reserve list. Daily sampling always covers minimum 40 fueling stations (minimum 10 fueling stations [five for diesel and five for gasoline] are checked by one inspector). As a result, inspectors collect weekly approximately 270 samples.

2. The compiled list for daily sampling is forwarded to the inspector and to the Director of the Economic Inspection of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MEA). The list determines the product to be sampled for each point of sale and the type of analysis requested. This data is also given to the laboratory that will carry out the analysis of the samples.

3. The inspector arriving at the station must introduce himself and verify whether the information about the fueling station is correct.

4. A single product (only one sample of gasoline or one sample of diesel) is sampled from each point of sale, according to the European standard EN 14275. Prior to drawing the samples, at least 4 liters of

15 Each point of sale starts with a neutral position of zero (0) malus (or minus) points. If, however, during the monitoring of a point of sale, one or several abnormalities are detected, that point of sale will receive malus (minus) points that are calculated accordingly.



the product are run through the nozzle. Then, the inspector takes three 3-liter samples (in 4-liter containers); the three samples are then distributed in the following manner:

• The first sample goes to the laboratory for analysis; • The second sample stays with the official in charge and will serve as a counteranalysis if

necessary; and • The third sample stays with the owner of the fueling station or private pump. If the samples

are taken from an automated point of sale, then the government keeps the third sample and the relevant owner of the point of sale is informed.

5. The inspector prepares a report from the sampling, which has to be undersigned by the owner of the fueling station or his eligible representative.

6. After the control is finished, the inspector goes to the next point, according to the list he received from the Division of Petroleum Products. The head of this division may follow the inspector thanks to the GPS (global positioning system) system installed on the vehicle that is connected with the IT (information technology) system in the Division.

7. The inspector takes all samples to the accredited laboratory by 17:00 at the latest every day, and sends all documents to the Division of Petroleum Products. The control samples must also be sent to a separate accredited laboratory by 21:00 on the same day.

8. The laboratory has 24 hours to analyze the samples and send the report with the test results to the Division of Petroleum Products of the Department of Energy of the MEA.

9. If the sample is off spec, the inspector orders a control analysis that must be carried out within the next 48 hours.

10. If the result of the control sample confirms the same irregularities, then the fueling station owner has 24 hours to rectify the situation and get rid of the off-spec product. The owner has to inform the Division of Petroleum Products of the steps undertaken in order to improve the quality of the fuel. This information is then passed to the Economic Inspection, who can act in two ways:

• If the fueling station has no malus points, the Economic Inspection writes a report with a first warning; or

• If the fueling station already has malus points, the Economic Inspection launches the formal proceeding.

11. If fuel is still noncompliant 24 hours following the actions undertaken by the MEA, then the station is closed down for as long as necessary and the Ministry launches the legal proceeding (if the proceeding was not been launched earlier).

12. If the fuel is noncompliant with quality specifications, the costs of the purchase of three samples and their analysis in the laboratory are covered by the owner of the service station.

13. If the laboratory tests show that the fuel contains Euromarker – Solvent Yellow 124, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Customs and Excise Duties) is immediately informed and always launches a formal proceeding (bonus/malus point are irrelevant in this case).

The Belgian government, through the MEA, supplements its sampling program with enforcement action where necessary. Enforcement mechanisms include civil actions, such as infringement proceedings. When an infringement of the law is found, the fueling station receives a warning to rectify the situation within three weeks, noting that a case will be opened against it if it does not. If further infringements are detected, a second warning is sent, and the government can shut the station down until the fuel is compliant with the law. If the infringement is considered an action contrary to fair trade practices, the regulated party might be punished with a fine of €250 to €10,000 (US$262 to $10,481), or with a fine of €26 to €20,000 (US$27.25 to $20,962) and/or imprisonment from one month to five years.

In 2001, 612 infringement warnings were sent. During 2000-2007, the government shut down more than 20 fueling stations, generally for a short period of time. In addition, any motorist caught by the scam would face



the double penalty of paying inflated prices for an illegally trafficked product and a possible €500 (US$524) fine from customs and excise.

The oil industry has been very cooperative with the government, especially since the late 1990s, when it threatened to publicly “name and blame” all companies that sold “off spec” fuel in a monthly report.

U.K.

In the U.K., the monitoring and sampling system is voluntary in nature and therefore different than the European model envisaged in EU legislation and standards implemented by the majority of MS. The reasons are the following:

• This system has not been set up to address adulteration issues or fraudulent behavior. Since excise duties in the U.K. are very high, the U.K. customs and excise authority (HM Revenue & Customs, described further in the text) monitors fraudulent activities closely and performs spot checks regularly at all levels of the fuel chain. It is the U.K. customs and excise authority that issue penalties for noncompliance with the fuel quality specifications, as there have been no known cases of noncompliance in meeting the fuel quality specifications by a producer, transporter or distributor from an environmental perspective. However, there has been noncompliance due to attempts to avert excise duty payments via fuel adulteration (e.g. several attempts by motorists in Wales to blend cooking oil in diesel so as to decrease excise duty costs). Therefore, the government places emphasis on the fiscal aspects related to the production/import and distribution of petroleum products

• The domestic petroleum market is dominated by domestically produced petroleum products manufactured in nine refineries operated in the country. Their joint output meets about 90% of U.K. demand, while the gap is met by petroleum products from the global trade market (mainly imports from Russia and the Middle East). This market structure enables efficient and cost-effective control of petroleum products in the U.K. in different aspects, including compliance with environmental quality specifications.

• All of the U.K.’s nine refineries are united under the umbrella of the UKPIA. Independent companies involved with import, wholesale, distribution and retail of petroleum products are gathered in the Association of U.K. Oil Independents (AUKOI). UKPIA and AUKOI unite and represent all British oil companies involved with the distribution of oil products on the market. It gives the U.K. government certainty that whenever it cooperates with these associations, the interests of the entire U.K. oil market are represented.

• The U.K. is a country with a strong tradition of voluntary codes of conducts and voluntary commitments from industry. Fuel quality issues are and always were a very important part of the industry policy and mark picture. Refineries made significant efforts to deliver products of best quality to the market, including extensive internal quality controls.

Taking into account the abovementioned circumstances, the U.K. government decided to use the existing model, the petroleum industry’s extensive experience in fuel quality control and the good relationship with the industry to implement the Directive 98/70/EC in British legislation. As a result, the Directive was implemented by Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) Regulations 1999, which refer exclusively to the quality of gasoline and diesel as defined in the Directive, obligating fuel distributors to meet these quality requirements. Regulations do not cover the issue of fuel quality monitoring. Controls are conducted on a voluntary basis by refineries and importers.

In the U.K., all controls are financed by private companies, according to their independent budgets and applied financial strategy.



The entities engaged in fuel quality monitoring in the UK are:

1. One officer from the Energy Group of the U.K. Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) (since October 2008, the Energy Group of this department together with the Group of Climate Change of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs form the Department of Energy and Climate Change);

2. UKPIA; 3. AUKOI; 4. Producers and importers; and 5. Accredited laboratories.

Figure III.5 presents the scheme of fuel quality monitoring activities of the entities engaged.

Figure III.5: Entities Engaged in Fuel Quality Monitoring Activities in the U.K.




Fuel Quality Monitoring in the UK: Step-by-Step

1. Each U.K. refinery tests every batch of fuel manufactured in the refinery for consumption within the U.K. Similarly, each U.K. importer tests all fuels prior to release into the market at import terminals. In addition to this, to confirm that the fuel is not contaminated as it passes through the supply chain, retail sites are checked via a competitive survey run by the oil industry. These surveys consist of sampling their inland terminals, plus their own and competitors’ retail networks. All costs related the sampling and laboratory tests are borne by the industry.

2. Samples are tested in laboratories with accreditations for fuel property test methods envisaged in the Directive 98/70/EC (and consequently in European standards EN 228 and EN 590). Accreditation is given by the U.K. Accreditation Service (UKAS)16 and laboratories must fulfill the quality management system standards - ISO 9000. All U.K. refineries have their own laboratories fulfilling these criteria. Only some of the smaller traders use external commercialized laboratories, which must fulfill the criteria as well.

3. The individual companies collect all results from laboratories and calculate their statistical data. These test results are basis for reports prepared once a year and sent to respective trade associations (UKPIA or AUKOI). The procedure is coordinated by UKPIA. According to information from UKPIA, approximately 90% of fuel test results represent the quality of fuels tested in the refinery, and the remaining 10% represents the quality of fuels sampled at filling stations. Each refinery conducts periodical surveys on the market according to individual schedule – UKPIA only summarizes them. All samples are taken and tested according to European standards (EN 228 and EN 590).

4. UKPIA and AUKOI collect the data on behalf of the U.K. government from each of their members. AUKOI prepares one summary report covering all results provided by association members and sends it to UKPIA. UKPIA aggregates their data and that from AUKOI and sends a compiled report to the Energy Group of the U.K. Department for BERR (as of October 2008 to the Energy Group of the U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change).

5. One officer in the Energy Group compiles both reports and prepares one report on fuel quality in the U.K. according to the template in EN 14274. This report is sent to the European Commission.

In addition to the control system, the U.K. has introduced penalties for fuel adulteration that is managed by the HM Revenue & Customs.

Poland

The FQMS in Poland, initially designed in 2002, reflected the example of FQMS in the then proposal for EN 14274. Before the legislation was finished, the government, taking drivers’ complaints about the fuels into account, decided to conduct extensive fuel quality controls. Results of these controls were alarming: almost 30% of fuel sold at Polish fueling stations did not meet quality requirements. Therefore, it was decided that the FQMS in Poland would be more extensive than the one envisaged under EN 14274.

The first law referring to the fuel quality and FQMS was released in 2004 and covered the quality of gasoline and diesel and their monitoring. This legislation was replaced by the Law of Aug. 25, 2006, on Fuel Quality

16 UKAS is the sole national accreditation body recognized by the government to assess, against internationally agreed standards, organizations that provide certification, testing, inspection and calibration services. UKAS operates under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the government through the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills.



Monitoring Systems. The new law resulted in significant expansion of the FQMS. Controls embraced all fuel grades, road fuels (including LPG and biofuels) and the entire distribution chain, from the producer through wholesale and transportation to fueling stations. This law entered into force at the end of 2006, so the first full year of implementation of FQMS in the new extensive form was 2007.

It is important to note that the Polish FQMS is designed to fulfill EU requirements (mainly EN 14274) referring to monitoring, but also to supervise the market in case of any infringements (prevention and repressiveness). Because of this dualism, the controls are organized in two different ways – according to EN 14274 and according to national rules (such as selection of sites to be sampled, fuel grades to be tested, number of parameters tested, etc.). All FQMS results are presented in the annual report for the Polish Council of Ministers. In addition to this, a part of FQMS results, which are limited to those in compliance with the EU FQMS, are presented in the annual report for the European Commission. FQMS are financed by the state budget.

The entities engaged in FQMS in Poland are:

Fuel Quality Monitoring Unit (nine officers) in the Market Surveillance Department of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (OCCP);

Sixteen local offices of the Trade Inspection (120 inspectors) (TI);17

Three accredited laboratories, not related to any fuel producer or distributor;

Prosecutors; and

Courts.

Figure III.6 reflects the FQMS in Poland.

17 Until the end of 2008, the structure of TI is the following: Chief Inspectorate of Trade Inspection (subordinated to the OCCP) and 16 local offices of TI. Starting in 2009, reform of the TI took place where its aim was to liquidate the Chief Inspectorate of TI. All tasks (including those related to the fuel quality scrutiny) of this institution were taken over by the OCCP. As a result, the flow of information between all entities within the FQMS is presented in line with the changes introduced starting January 2009; these changes made the system more transparent and simpler.



Figure III.6: Entities Engaged in FQMS in Poland


Fuel Quality Monitoring in Poland: Step-by-Step

1. The list of sites to be sampled within the next monitoring period (summer or winter) is selected at

random by the IT system in the OCCP. Based on these selected addresses, a list of all sites to be controlled the next day is prepared. This list includes also sites where there have been complaints by drivers, which had negative control results in the past, and where fuel distributors delivered noncompliant fuel to other fueling stations previously as well as other fuel suppliers if there is suspicion that they may be distributing the off-spec fuel. The officer from the OCCP informs the chief of the local TI that the next day the control will be conducted in the region of this local office. This prompts the preparation of all equipment as well as inspectors in the local TI for the next morning – this information is important for the local offices of TI, because inspectors are not only engaged in fuel quality monitoring but also control of other products’ and therefore have to plan their work accordingly. The Fuel Quality Division prepares the list of sites to be sampled in each of the 16 regions. In one day, usually four to five inspecting groups (two inspectors per car) may perform control, which means that four to five regions may be covered by the control on the same day. These regions may be located in different parts of the country – north, south, east or west. The main factor of region selection is the availability of the cars – it is important to organize the inspection logistically and efficiently so that cars do not have too long of distances to travel between stations and laboratories. This is why it is very important to have updated map with all stations on it. However, sometimes it is difficult to avoid long distances.



2. Two trade inspectors, who jointly conduct the control, are informed by the OCCP by phone of the first address of the control. Only when the inspectors finish the control at the fueling station (or at another distribution point), they call back the OCCP, which releases the address of the next control point.

3. Trade inspectors arriving at the station must introduce themselves. They take samples of fuels, one or all available fuel grades, depending on whether the control is conducted according to European or national rules. Sampling procedures are described in the Regulation of the Minister of Economy. Trade inspectors take two samples – the first (basic) sample goes to the laboratory for analysis and the second goes to another laboratory and will serve as a counter sample. During the control, trade inspectors verify whether the information about the controlled entrepreneur is correct. Trade inspectors prepare a report from the sampling, which has to be signed by the entrepreneur or his eligible representative.

4. Samples collected on the day (or maximum two) are delivered to the laboratory. Samples are labeled with a specific number that cannot reveal the site where they were taken.

5. The laboratory sends the tests results to the respective TI local office and to the OCCP. 6. If the test result states that the sample of fuel is in compliance with the quality requirements, the trade

inspectors return to the site where the sample was taken and prepare the report from the inspection. The report has to be signed by the entrepreneur or his eligible representative.

7. If the test result states that the sample of fuel is not in compliance with the quality requirements, the trade inspectors return to the site where the sample was taken and inform the entrepreneur or his eligible representative about the results. The entrepreneur has seven days to ask for the analysis of the counter sample and has to pay on account for this analysis.

8. If the test result states the second sample of fuel is in compliance with the quality requirements, the trade inspectors return to the site where the sample was taken and prepare the report from the inspection. The report has to be signed by the entrepreneur or his eligible representative. If the test result states that the second sample of fuel was not in compliance with the quality requirements, the trade inspectors return to the site where the sample was taken and informs the entrepreneur or his eligible representative of the results. The trade inspector prepares the report, which should be signed by the entrepreneur or his eligible representative. If the entrepreneur does not sign it, the trade inspector makes a note in the report. The inspection is finished. The entrepreneur is obligated to reimburse the costs of the laboratory tests. The trade inspector then informs the prosecutor office about the negative result of the fuel quality control. The prosecutor investigates the case and decides if the case should be further analyzed by the court. Penalties in Poland are imposed by courts. All test results are collected in the local offices of TI and also in the OCCP. In addition, every two weeks a complete list of all sites that have been controlled within these two weeks is sent by local offices of TI to the OCCP. Moreover, every month local offices of TI send in-depth analysis of all controls and analyses of the samples results to the OCCP. OCCP publishes the list of entrepreneurs scrutinized in the current year with all results of the controls on its Web site.

9. OCCP, based on the controls results, prepares two annual reports on fuel quality in Poland – one is aimed at the European Commission, the second more extensive one is aimed at the Polish Council of Ministers.

In addition to the FQMS, the Polish court may impose penalties for offences related to breaking any rules concerning the production, import and/or distribution of rebated fuels or any other illegal activity.



III.8 Alternative Fuels and Niche Fuels

In the past years, the EU has developed legislative documents to promote deployment of alternative fuels in the EU. Figure III.7 reflects on the major EU documents.

Figure III.7: EU Documents Promoting Alternative Fuels


The EU legislation does not specify quality parameters for alternative fuels. However, CEN is continuously working on new standards, including alternative fuels, initiated by the industry or the European Commission. These standards have an important role in promoting alternative fuels and setting the basis for harmonized fuel specifications EU-wide in accordance with the EU Single Market principles.

•Requires member states to adopt national action

plans with target to promote alternative energy for transport sector in partticular

CNG , electricity and hydrogen

•Favourable taxation to biofuels, CNG, LPG

•Required the EU to establish a sustainable alternative fuels strategy, including appropriate infrastrcture

•10% renwable energy target in transport sector by 2020 (by energy content)

Renewable Energy

Directive, 2009

White Paper on Transport, 2011

Alternative Fuels Directive,

2014 Energy Taxation Directive, 2003



III.8.1 CEN Specifications for Alternative Fuels

Currently, only auto LPG (EN 589) is regulated at the CEN level. E85 (CEN/TS 15293:2011) and paraffinic diesel (CEN/TS 15940:2012) are regulated through technical standards18.

The CEN is working on standardizing the following alternative fuel standards:

• CNG for use in vehicles; o Main issue: methane number (60-80).

• Biomethane (use currently not specified); o Main issues: sulfur and oxygen limit, dust particles, oil content.

• B30 (29.9 %) for captive fleets; o Main issue: relaxation of density, NOx emissions.

• Pyrolysis oil as a replacement of heavy and light fuel oil for burners and gas engines; and o Main issues: acidity, contamination, variable quality depending on feedstock, sapling. CEN

work on this standard was initiated by the European Commission. • Paraffinic diesel fuel (described below).

CEN has approved a number of workshop agreements (CWA19) which suggest quality specifications for certain alternative fuels:

• CWA 15145:2010 Automotive fuels - Water in diesel fuel emulsions for use in internal combustion engines - Requirements and test methods: It was initiated by emulsion fuel industry association and is being used by dedicated fleets.

• CWA 16379:2011 Fuels and biofuels - Pure plant oil (PPO) fuel for diesel engine concepts - Requirements and test methods: It is accepted by the European Commission and being used in Austria, France and Germany. The agreement on PPO still lacks parameters such as upper and lower heating value, iodine value, stability, viscosity, acid and water limits, etc.

If a workshop agreement becomes widely used by the MS, CEN may develop a technical standard and then a standard – for example, a standard for paraffinic diesel.

In 2009, CEN published workshop agreement CWA 15940 on paraffinic diesel. In 2012, CEN approved technical standard TS 15940:2012, Automotive fuels – Paraffinic diesel fuel from synthesis or hydrotreatment – Requirements and Test methods. It describes requirements and test methods for marketed and delivered paraffinic diesel fuel (HVO, GTL, and BTL) blended with FAME up to a level of 7 vol% for use in diesel-engine vehicles. CEN continues work and it is planned that CEN could publish a standard for paraffinic diesel in 2016.

18 TS is adopted by CEN if various alternatives (which prevent the creation of a standard) need to coexist in anticipation of future full standardization or under experimental circumstances or due to evolving technologies that need to be tested. It does not have the status of the European standard; however, it can be adopted as a national standard without precluding any other national standards on the same matter.

19 CWA is an agreement developed and approved in a CEN workshop open to anyone interested in the development of the agreement. It does not have the status of the European standard.



III.8.2 National Specifications for Alternative Fuels

The EU MS can develop and publish national fuel quality standards for alternative fuels, e.g.:

• In 2013, Dutch standardization body NEN published a standard NTA 8115 for hydrous ethanol (hE15). It specifies requirements and test methods for marketed and delivered hydrous ethanol to be used as an extender for automotive gasoline according to EN 228 at levels above 10 % (V/V).

• Since 1999, Sweden applies standard SS 155437 for motor fuels – high alcohols for high-speed diesel engines. This ethanol is used for production of ED95, which is ethanol-based fuel for adapted diesel engines. It consists of 95% pure ethanol with the addition of ignition improver, lubricant and corrosion protection.

• In 2008, Germany adopted a technical standard DIN 51624:2008-02 setting quality parameters for CNG and biogas.

However, aforementioned standards have legal power at the level of the MS, which have accepted it. Other EU MS are not obliged to accept them and permit sales of these fuels.

III.8.3 Racing Fuels

While vehicle fuels in Europe are governed by the Directive 98/70/EC as amended, this directive does not cover racing fuels. Controls on the use or otherwise of leaded fuels tends to be described within the Technical Regulations governing the different racing series.

Directive 98/70/EC prohibits the marketing of leaded gasoline within MS. However, MS may continue to permit the marketing of small quantities of leaded gasoline, with a lead content not exceeding 0.15 g/l, to a maximum of 0.03% of total sales, which are to be used by ”old vehicles of a characteristic nature” and to be distributed through special interest groups.

Information on what lead levels are allowed follows below:

• Formula 1: According to Article 19.3 of the Federation Internationale de l' Automobile (FIA) Technical Regulations governing Formula 1 racing, the lead content of Formula 1 race fuel is limited to 0.005 g/l.

• World Rally Championship (Group N – Production cars): Article 9.1 of the Technical Regulations states that the fuel must be commercial gasoline that comes from a service station pump. However, it also dictates in the same section the allowable RON 102 and MON 95 for both unleaded and leaded fuel.

• British Rally Championship: The Nomenclature and Definitions section of the U.K.’s Motor Sports Association (MSA) 2012 Yearbook section “Pump Fuel” states that fuel should be used that is of the same type available to the general public (i.e., from filling station pumps). Leaded fuel (according to British Standard BS4040) is allowed subject to possession of a valid permit for use. Otherwise, it states that lead in excess of the 98/70/EC Directive is illegal.

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/8700/fia.html

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/8700/fia.html

http://www.msauk.org/uploadedfiles/msa_forms/bluebooks/12/53_66_Nomenclature_and_Definitions_%28B%29.pdf

http://www.msauk.org/uploadedfiles/msa_forms/bluebooks/12/53_66_Nomenclature_and_Definitions_%28B%29.pdf



IV. U.S.

In the U.S., ASTM International defines the consensus on specification-setting in the country. The responsibility for setting fuel quality standards lies in ASTM Committee D02 on Petroleum Products and Lubricants, which is composed of fuel producers, engine equipment manufacturers and third-party interests (users, government agencies and consultants). ASTM fuel standards are the minimum accepted values for properties of the fuel to provide adequate customer satisfaction and/or protection. ASTM focuses its specification work on ensuring fuels are “fit for purpose” and is concerned with the finished fuel.

What typically occurs is that once a fuel quality standard is agreed upon within ASTM, many state legislatures then adopt that standard by reference and the standard becomes law in a particular state. Sometimes state executive branches adopt ASTM standards by regulation. State authorities, in many cases weights and measures agencies, monitor and enforce the law. However, not all states monitor and enforce the quality of fuels, and some states only monitor and enforce for certain parameters, such as octane.

The federal government, through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), also sets fuel standards and programs that are tailored to protect public health and the environment and it derives its authority from the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 211 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 provides EPA legal authority to regulate fuels. Specifically, Section 211(c)(1) provides that EPA may establish a fuel control if at least one of the following two criteria is met:

• the emission products of the fuel cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare; or

• the emission products of the fuel will impair to a significant degree the performance of any emissions control device or system which is either in general use or which the Administrator finds has been developed to a point where in a reasonable time it will be in general use were the fuel control to be adopted.

For the fuel programs EPA has set, the agency has been able to meet both criteria. In addition, Section 202(l) of the CAA requires the EPA to set standards to control hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles, motor vehicle fuels or both.

Specifications and requirements that EPA sets in these programs supersede state requirements, except in the case of California, which has been granted latitude under the CAA to set its own fuel requirements. This is because California has a much longer history than the federal government in environmental regulation setting, including for fuels.

The grounding in federal fuel programs is the protection of public health and environment by reducing air pollution, specifically pollution from the criteria pollutants that have been established. Those are: ozone, PM, SO2, lead, NOx and CO. Each fuel program the EPA has implemented has been directly connected to reducing air pollution from these criteria pollutants.



IV.1 Gasoline

The primary specification governing gasoline in the U.S. is ASTM D 4814-14, Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, which has been implemented in 40 of the 50 states and is summarized in Table IV.1.20 The specification incorporates standards that have been implemented nationwide by the federal government.

Table IV.1: ASTM D 4814-14 Specifications for Gasoline

Country U.S. Spec Name ASTM D 4814-14 Grade Unleaded Year of implementation May 2014 Property Antiknock index (MON+RON)/2, calculated, min (1)

Sulfur, ppm, max 80(2) Lead, g/l, max 0.013(3) Benzene, vol%, max 0.62 RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, max 103(4) VLI, calculated, max (5)

Distillation DI=569 - 597(6) T10, °C, max 70(7) T50, °C, min-max 77-121(7)(8)(9) T90, °C, max 190(7) FBP, °C, max 225 Residue, vol%, max 2 Phosphorus, g/l, max 0.0013(3) Oxidation stability (Induction period), minutes, min 240 Existent gum (solvent washed), mg/100ml, max 5 Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C, merit (class), max No. 1 Silver corrosion, merit (class), max 1 Use of additives (10)

Notes:

(1) Octane limits are set and regulated at the state level; the industry (R+M)/2 standard is generally 87/89/91+ for regular, midgrade and premium. Certification and posting of octane ratings regulated by Federal Trade Commission under 16 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 306.

20 ASTM D 4814-14, Standard Specification for Gasoline. See also Marilyn Herman, Fuel Regulations, Specifications, and Historical Perspective on Unleaded Phase-In, SAE High Octane Fuels Symposium, Jan. 21, 2014. Some states adopt earlier versions of ASTM D 4814, simply because legislatures may not meet every year to adopt newer versions of the standard. Some states do not have a fuel quality specification in place at all. Others have adopted fuel programs that have required approval from EPA. These programs are used as part of the state’s strategy to combat mobile source air pollution. These states include Arizona and California. Some states adopt the National Conference of Weights and Measure’s Uniform Laws and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology and Engine Fuel Quality which produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which essentially incorporates ASTM D 4814 by reference.



(2) Per-gallon cap per EPA regulation (65 FR 6698; 2/10/00). The refinery average is 30 ppm.

(3) Leaded gasoline has been banned in the U.S. by EPA since 1996. Per EPA regulation (59 FR 7716; 2/16/94), no intentional addition of heavy metals allowed. While ASTM has no limit, EPA limits the phosphorus content of gasoline to a maximum of 0.0013 g/L. The regulations do not prohibit lead additives in aircraft, racing cars, and off-road farm and marine engines.

(4) ASTM advises to consult EPA for approved test methods for compliance with vapor pressure regulations. RVP varies by season and region. See EPA regulation (54 FR 11868; 3/22/89).

(5) This specification requires that gasoline have a maximum Vapor-Liquid Ratio of 20 per ASTM D 2533. The test temperature varies between 35°C and 60°C depending on the vapor lock protection class.

(6) Drivability Index limits are applicable at the refinery or import facility per 40 CFR 80.2 and are not subject to correction for precision of the test method.

(7) Volatility requirements vary by season and region.

(8) Gasolines that may be blended with 1 to 10 vol% ethanol or all other gasolines whose disposition with ethanol blending is not known shall meet a minimum T50 of 77°C (170°F) prior to blending with ethanol. Gasolines that contain 1 to 10 vol% ethanol shall meet a minimum T50 of 66°C (150°F) after blending.

(9) Gasolines known from the origin to retail that will not be blended with ethanol may meet a minimum T50 of 66°C (150°F) for volatility classes D and E only. Gasolines meeting these limits are not suitable for blending with ethanol.

(10) All gasoline sold in the U.S. must contain a deposit control additive.

Source: ASTM International

Table IV.2 provides a summary of federal fuel programs for gasoline, the criteria pollutants they are meant to reduce or control, their current status, and specifications that have been set under those programs. From a gasoline fuel specification standpoint, the focus has been on lead, RVP, sulfur and benzene. It becomes more complicated for the federal reformulated gasoline program, which is a performance-based program with no straightforward specification (except for benzene, which has now been supplanted by the Mobile Source Air Toxics 2 or MSAT2 program).



Table IV.2: Summary of Federal Fuel Programs and Specifications

Federal Program

Brief Summary Criteria

Pollutants Targeted

Current Status Specifications Set

Lead Phase-Out

Phase-out of lead in gasoline Pb Completed in 1996 Lead: 0.013 g/l

Volatility Two-phase reduction in summertime (June 1-Sept. 15) gasoline volatility established in 1989.

Ozone Program continues

nationwide

RVP: Depending on the state and month, gasoline RVP may not exceed 9.0

psi or 7.8 psi.21

Wintertime Oxygenated Fuel Program

Gasoline sold in the winter in specified metropolitan areas has been required to contain a minimum of 2.7 wt% oxygen; ethanol is generally used as the oxygenate.

CO

Implemented in 1992 for specific areas of the country not in

attainment with CO; several metropolitan

areas still in the program, generally to

ensure compliance with CO standards

Oxygen: 2.7 wt%

RFG

Applies to gasoline sold year-round in counties classified as “severe” and “extreme” nonattainment under the ozone standard. Overall emission performance standards for RFG called for at least 15% HC and toxic emission reductions by 1995; and, 20% to 25% beginning in the year 2000. NOx performance standards also applied in Phase I complex model gasoline with reductions of 1.5% and in Phase II gasoline (2000) with a 6.8% reduction.

NOx, Ozone

Implemented in areas in 17 states and the

District of Columbia, comprising about

30% of U.S. gasoline

Benzene: 1 vol%

Heavy metal additives: prohibited

Note: Oxygen was required under the

program, but was removed in 2006. The MSAT

program superseded the benzene requirement in

RFG.

Low Sulfur Gasoline (Tier 2)

Required a reduction in gasoline sulfur that would correspond with the introduction of stricter tailpipe emission standards

Ozone, NOx, PM

Implemented nationwide in 2005

Sulfur: 30 ppm annual average; 80 ppm per

gallon cap

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT)

Established toxics emissions performance standards for gasoline refiners

Ozone, PM Implemented in 2011 Benzene: 0.62 vol%

Tier 3

Will require a further reduction in gasoline sulfur to correspond with even stricter tailpipe emission standards and fuel efficiency standards

Ozone, PM Jan. 1, 2017 set as

implementation date Sulfur: 10 ppm; 80 ppm

per gallon cap

Source: Hart Energy Research & Consulting, September 2014

21 EPA provides a 1.0 psi RVP allowance for gasoline containing ethanol at 9 vol% to 10 vol%, however, some state regulations do not allow this waiver. There are a few areas of the country with RVP summertime standards of 7.2 psi, approved by EPA.



Note that there are both content specifications and performance standards under the RFG program. These performance standards, known as the Complex Model, are a set of specifications and equations developed by EPA that predict VOCs, NOx, and air toxics reductions based on the following parameters: aromatics, benzene, olefins, sulfur, oxygenate type and content, percent evaporated at 200 ⁰F (93⁰C), percent evaporated at 300 ⁰F (149⁰C) and RVP. Table IV.3 summarizes the performance standards under the Complex Model.

Table IV.3: EPA Complex Model Standards for RFG

Notes:

(A) VOC reductions apply to VOC control period only. In addition, under the Complex Model, RFG Covered Areas are subject, during VOC control periods, to reduction requirements as well as Federal Phase II volatility standards.

(B) Effective July 17, 2001, EPA promulgated a Final Rule adjusting the VOC performance standard under Phase II of the RFG program for ethanol RFG blends containing 3.5 wt% oxygen (10 vol% ethanol) sold in the Chicago and Milwaukee RFG areas. In order for ‘‘adjusted VOC gasoline’’ to qualify for the regulatory treatment specified in § 80.41(e) and (f), reformulated gasoline must contain denatured, anhydrous ethanol. The concentration of the ethanol, excluding the required denaturing agent, must be at least 9% and no more than 10 vol% of the gasoline. See Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 137, July 17, 2001, pages 37156-37165.

(C) Under Phase II of the complex model, the minimum per-gallon VOC emissions performance reduction standards are 25.0% and 23.4% for RFG used in VOC Control Regions 1 and 2 respectively. As a matter of enforcement discretion, EPA is recognizing an enforcement tolerance of 2% for these VOC emissions performance standards in the case of gasoline found at locations downstream of the refinery level. Beginning with the year 2000, EPA considers gasoline downstream of the refinery to have met the applicable VOC emissions performance standard if the emissions performance is 23.0% or 21.4% used in VOC Control Regions 1 and 2, respectively.

Source: Committee D02 on Petroleum Products and Lubricants, Research Report D02:1347, Research Report on U.S. Reformulated Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel and the U.S. Renewable Fuels Standard, June 2014

IV.1.1 Octane

In the U.S., the octane rating for gasoline is displayed as AKI on the dispenser pump system. AKI is reported based on the calculated average of RON and MON, and generally shown as (R+M)/2. This posting is required



by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission22, but the commission does not regulate the octane level of the fuel – it only regulates the labeling for consumer information.

EPA also does not regulate octane ratings for gasoline at the national level. The octane rating of gasoline is a function of marketplace fungibility that provides proper engine performance within the design parameters set by auto/engine manufacturers. EPA requires that fuel producers, when registering their gasoline under applicable Clean Air Act provisions, report the octane rating (RON and MON) of the fuel. There is a requirement in the law that any fuel provider must sell at least one grade of gasoline that has a minimum AKI of 87, except where adjusted for altitude.

As shown in Table IV.4, motor gasoline is generally marketed in three grades: regular grade with AKI of 87 minimum, mid-grade with AKI of 89 and premium grade with AKI ranging between 91 and 93.

Table IV.4: Market Quality for Antiknock Performance of Gasoline in the U.S.

Parameter Regular Mid-grade Premium Test Method

RON - - - ASTM D 2699*, ASTM D 2885

MON - - - ASTM D 2700*, ASTM D 2885

AKI 87 89 93 (91#) Calculated (R+M)/2)

Note: * Referee test method to be used in the event of a dispute. # California allows premium gasoline to have 91 AKI.

Sources: U.S. EPA, ASTM International

The first market specification for octane rating in the U.S. was ASTM 439 (Specification for Automotive Gasoline), adopted in 1937. That specification set the minimum MON for regular grade gasoline at 70, and minimum MON of 77 for premium gasoline. In 1952, ASTM 439 was modified to increase the MON ratings to 78 for regular grade and 85 for premium grade. In 1978, ASTM began to address various technical aspects of the gasoline specification (including the blending of ethanol). In 1988, the specification number was changed to ASTM D 4814 – Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel (currently, designated as ASTM D 4814-14a). This specification established the reporting of AKI using the standard methods referenced (e.g., ASTM D 2885).

Studies conducted over the decades by automobile manufacturers, in coordination with fuel producers, found that, on balance, gasoline antiknock performance was best related to the average of the octane values. Optimum performance and fuel economy are achieved when the AKI of a fuel is adequate for the engine in which it is designed and combusted. The AKI was chosen as the posted value in the U.S. because it was shown to be the best indicator of antiknock performance of gasoline in the majority of U.S. vehicles. The minimum AKI of 87 for regular grade gasoline is prescribed by definition in the CAA, but the minimum AKI for premium grade gasoline is not directly established by law (except in California) but rather by marketplace convention and promotion.

22 Fuel for Automotive Fuel Ratings Certification and Posting, 16 C.F.R. Part 306, amended May 31, 2011 available at http://ftc.gov/os/2010/02/R811005fuelratings.pdf.

http://ftc.gov/os/2010/02/R811005fuelratings.pdf



Some gasoline providers/marketers also provide a “super” premium grade that can have AKI up to 95. For stations that sell E85 (ethanol-based fuel containing between 51 vol% and 85 vol% ethanol), the maximum AKI would be 105.

There is a deviation to these marketplace grades in the Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. At higher elevations, a minimum AKI of 85 (90 RON) and maximum AKI of 91 (95 RON) is allowed, based on the compensation for reduced atmospheric density and cylinder compression that occurs with naturally aspirated engines. However, newer vehicles using electronic controls are able to use gasoline with the same antiknock number irrespective of the altitude or ambient air temperature. The new sophisticated technology was first implemented around 1984. Other environmental variables that could require adjustment in MON are humidity and ambient temperature, with older vehicles being more sensitive to the latter.

In the U.S., ethanol blending required under the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program has resulted in a market penetration for ethanol to almost 10% of the gasoline pool, and today this is the most dominant gasoline type sold in the country. E10 gasoline (ethanol at 10 vol% blended with 90 vol% gasoline blendstock) is produced to meet the minimum AKI. Consequently, the gasoline blendstock produced by refiners (or imported into the country) has a lower octane rating that is adjusted with the blended ethanol to meet final product specifications. The blendstocks are referred to as Conventional Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending (CBOB) and Reformulated Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending (RBOB).

Marketplace specifications for gasoline use test methods and product specifications defined by ASTM. Gasoline producers, importers, blenders and marketers use these ASTM methods for reporting octane. D2699 and D2700 are two common test methods used to test octane. An additional method, D2885, was approved by the Federal Trade Commission under the automotive fuel ratings rule as an accepted alternative.

IV.1.2 Sulfur

As noted above, sulfur content in gasoline has been reduced to 30 ppm (on an annual average basis) and will be reduced again to 10 ppm beginning Jan. 1, 2017, to combat mobile-source air pollution – specifically, the criteria pollutants ozone and PM. For both the Tier 2 and Tier 3 programs, stringent tailpipe emission standards were (and will be) introduced. Reducing sulfur was critical to enable ever more advanced emission controls that automakers will be deploying to meet the tailpipe standards, such as gasoline direct-injection engines employing lean NOX adsorbers/traps as aftertreatment devices.

In the Tier 3 regulation, EPA projected that 60% to 100% of vehicles could move to GDI except gasoline-powered trucks over 14,000 gross vehicle weight (GVW). In the case of lean NOx catalysts, it is easier to be influenced by sulfur than 3-way stoichiometric catalysts. Because of this tendency, lean NOx catalyst systems have not been applied to gasoline engines because the previous sulfur limit was too high. However, lean-burn engines have shown good performance for fuel economy improvement and with the introduction of 10 ppm sulfur, this technology could now be introduced to the U.S. market.

Lower sulfur was critical to the proper operation of the catalytic converter and corrosion of other exhaust system parts, and EPA noted in the Tier 3 regulation that reducing sulfur further would improve the functioning of the catalytic converter in existing vehicles. EPA’s position was that lowering sulfur to 10 ppm would not impact the refining industry adversely, and it built into the program flexibilities for small refiners, which is something the agency has typically done in fuel programs to facilitate compliance without placing an undue burden on this group.

EPA not only introduced the fuel program to correspond with the emission standards it was concurrently setting, but the agency also wanted to capture additional air quality and climate change benefits by aligning



standards with California LEVIII (low-emission vehicle) standards and the fuel efficiency standards that had already been promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is the government agency charged with that responsibility. EPA noted in an announcement:

Together, the Tier 3 and GHG programs provide significant environmental benefits and energy security to the nation, by maximizing reductions in GHGs, criteria pollutants and air toxics from motor vehicles, reducing costs to consumers, and providing automakers regulatory certainty and streamlined compliance. The standards will work together with California’s clean cars and fuels program to create a harmonized nationwide vehicle emissions program that enables automakers to sell the same vehicles in all 50 states.23

Estimated air quality reductions for the Tier 3 program are shown in Table IV.5.

Table IV.5: Estimated Emission Reductions from the Final Tier 3 Standards

(Annual U.S. short tons)

Source: EPA, March 2014

In the Tier 2 program, a corporate average per-gallon cap and annual average sulfur limit was set along with a downstream sulfur standard, summarized in table IV.6.

23 U.S. EPA, EPA Sets Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards, Strengthens Clean Cars Program, EPA-420-F-14-010, March 2014.



Table IV.6: Summary of Tier 2 Sulfur Standards

Regulated Entity Refinery Average and Per-gallon Cap by Year (ppm)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011+

Federal Large Refiners / Importers a 120b / 300c 30 / 90b / 300 30 / 80 30 / 80 30 / 80 30 / 80 30 / 80 30 / 80

GPA Refiners d, e 150 / 300c 150 / 300 150 / 300 30 / 80 30 / 80 30 / 80 30 / 80 30 / 80

Small Refiners f, g, h k k k k 30 / 80 30 / 80 30 / 80 30 / 80

Downstream Standards i, j 378 326 95 95 95 95 95 95

Notes:

(a) Standards effective January 1 at the refinery gate.

(b) No Refinery Average Standard applies in 2004; Corporate Average Standard applies in 2004 (120 ppm) and 2005 (90 ppm).

(c) Cap exceedances up to 50 ppm in 2004 must be made up in 2005.

(d) Geographic Phase-in Area (GPA) refiners must also comply with the corporate average standards in 2004 and 2005 if less than 50% of the refiner’s gasoline is designated as GPA gasoline in a given compliance period.

(e) GPA refiners may receive an additional two years (i.e., through 2008) to comply with the 30 / 80 ppm gasoline sulfur standards in exchange for producing 95% of their highway diesel fuel at the 15 ppm sulfur standard by June 1, 2006.

(f) Small refiners may receive an additional two years (i.e., through 2009) to comply with the 30 / 80 ppm gasoline sulfur standards via a hardship demonstration.

(g) Small refiners may receive an additional three years (i.e., through 2010) to comply with the 30 / 80 ppm gasoline sulfur standards in exchange for producing 95% of their highway diesel fuel at the 15 ppm sulfur standard by June 1, 2006.

(h) Small refiners may receive a 20% increase in their annual average and per-gallon cap standards in exchange for producing 95% of their highway, nonroad, locomotive, and marine diesel fuel at the 15 ppm sulfur standard by June 1, 2006.

(i) Downstream standards are effective February 1 at any downstream location other than at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer (e.g., pipelines and terminals) and March 1 at any downstream location.

(j) Downstream standards for gasoline that is not blended with small refiner gasoline are shown. Refer to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the downstream standards that apply when a gasoline blend includes small refiner gasoline.

(k) Refinery baselines were developed for each small refiner to facilitate compliance with the program and transition to the 30 ppm annual refinery average and 80 ppm per-gallon cap.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Beginning in 2004, every gallon of gasoline produced in the U.S. has been limited by a per-gallon maximum, or ‘‘cap.’’ The cap standard became effective Jan. 1, 2004 (and Jan. 1 of subsequent years as the cap standard changes). Also, beginning in 2004 and 2005, each refiner and gasoline importer had to meet an annual-average standard for its entire corporate gasoline pool. Finally, each individual refinery was subject to a refinery average standard, beginning in 2005. All of these standards are important and had to be met by refiners and importers of gasoline. Why didn’t EPA simply set a 30 ppm annual refinery average with no additional standards? Why is there such complexity? The per-gallon cap and annual refinery average standards were put into place to allow the industry some degree of flexibility while still ensuring compatibility with vehicles that would have to meet the Tier 2 emission standards.

For example, there may be times when the refinery does a turnaround (a temporary shut-down for routine maintenance) or repairs need to be made. There may be a short period of time when higher-sulfur gasoline may be produced that could be higher than 30 ppm. Under this scenario, that would be permissible as long as the



per-gallon cap and annual refinery average standards were met. It would also mean that the refiner would have had to balance out its production over the year. In other words, if the refinery produced several batches of 80 ppm sulfur gasoline, it would have to produce batches much lower than this to meet the refinery average. In effect, when refineries invested in desulfurization technologies to meet Tier 2 standards, a number invested heavily and proactively to enable production of very low-sulfur gasoline (10 ppm and below) to account for these kinds of situations, to ensure compliance and, in some cases, to take advantage of the averaging, banking and trading (ABT) program, discussed below.

Other flexibility was built into the early years of the program, shown in the table above. Exemptions in the years 2004-2007 were provided to qualifying small refiners to enable them more time to make the necessary investments to upgrade their refineries. EPA defined “small refiners” as those that:

• Produced gasoline at a refinery by processing crude oil through refinery processing units; • Employed an average of no more than 1,500 people, based on the average number of employees for all

pay periods from Jan. 1, 1998, to Jan. 1, 1999; and • Had an average crude capacity less than or equal to 155,000 barrels.

EPA also created a “geographic phase-in area” (GPA) for select states in the country: North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Alaska. Such flexibility was provided because by and large these states did not have air quality issues (ozone and PM), and because these states are in more remote areas or sparsely populates areas of the country. Thus, the Agency wanted to ensure there were no supply disruptions or gasoline price impacts for consumers at the pump. As shown in the table above, refiners in the GPA had several transition years between the years 2004-2006 to phase in the Tier 2 standards.

The ABT program was included under the standard to facilitate compliance. Baseline sulfur levels were established based on the 1997-1998 average. Early credits could be generated in the years 2000-2003, but the annual average sulfur level had to be less than 0.90 of the baseline. Beginning in 2004, credits could be generated if the annual average sulfur levels were less than 30 ppm. Generated credits could be “banked” and used by the refiner at a later date for compliance, or traded to other refiners who needed them for compliance.

Note that a downstream standard was created under the Tier 2 program as well. The reason for this was to ensure that the sulfur level of gasoline remains below the cap level when dispensed for use in motor vehicles and avoid adverse emissions consequences that would be caused by the use of gasoline having a sulfur content above the cap level. EPA proposed more lenient downstream standards so that refiners and importers can produce gasoline that equals the refinery-level cap standard. It was EPA’s experience that if a refiner produces gasoline that equals, or almost equals a standard, it may actually violate the standard when subsequently tested at a location downstream of the refinery due to testing variability.

As a result, parties downstream of the refinery (primarily pipelines) tended to set commercial specifications for the quality of the gasoline they will accept that was more stringent than the standard that applied to the downstream party. This, in effect, forced refiners to produce gasoline that is ‘‘cleaner’’ than the refinery-level standard. This trend continued under the Tier 2 program. The difference between the 80 ppm refinery-level sulfur cap and the downstream maximum standard of 95 ppm reflected the test reproducibility established by ASTM.

Finally, hardship provisions were established under the Tier 2 program allowing on case-by-case basis for refiners to petition for delayed compliance. This has been continued under the Tier 3 program. As part of the hardship provisions, refiners can carry a deficit up to three years during the transition to Tier 3 compliance, based on demonstrated need.



The Tier 3 program has continued the 80 ppm per-gallon and 95 ppm downstream sulfur cap, though the per-gallon cap may not be significant since the annual average (10 ppm) is so much lower. The reality is production of batches at this cap level means the refinery would then have to produce other batches well below 10 ppm to achieve the annual average – difficult for some refiners to do. But the EPA included the flexibility to allow refineries to continue producing and distributing gasoline during turnarounds (regular maintenance) and upsets and avoid full shutdowns.

Compliance flexibilities similar to Tier 2 have been built into the final Tier 3 regulation, including:

• Small refineries: Small refineries and small volume refineries are given three additional years to comply, their start date is Jan. 1, 2020.

• ABT program: EPA set additional flexibility for credit ABT to transition from Tier 2 to Tier 3 standards.

o Allows generation of early credits for Tier 3 beginning in 2014. o Allows carry over credits from Tier 2 to Tier 3 (not previously proposed), thereby maintaining

the full 5-year life of Tier 2 credits (i.e., can be used after Jan. 1, 2017).

D4814 provides numerous test methods for sulfur D1266, D2622, D3120, D5453, D6920, D7039, while the current Australian limit only provides one test method (D5453).

IV.1.3 Lead

While leaded gasoline has been eliminated from the U.S. market, an “allowable limit” has been set at 0.013 g/l max. This was set by EPA as a contamination limit for "incidental contact" with leaded fuels during distribution, should it occur. D4814 provides an additional test method beyond what is provided by the Australian standard: D 5059.

IV.1.4 Benzene

As noted above, EPA implemented in 2011 nationwide benzene standard of 0.62 vol%, which is a significant difference from the 1 vol% implemented by Australia (and many other nations, for that matter). Benzene levels in the U.S. had averaged about 1.0 vol%, particularly for those areas in the RFG program. However, EPA found that the benzene range in the gasoline pool was between 0.34 to 4.04 vol%, and there was a wide variation around the country due to differences in crude oil quality, use of low-benzene blendstocks, benzene control technology and refinery operating procedures.

Why did EPA set the benzene standard at this particular level? First, average benzene levels in RFG had already been at this level for several years; RFG represented about 30% of U.S. gasoline. Second, the EPA noted in the final rulemaking that “as proposed, 0.62 vol% is the appropriate level for the average standard, because it achieves the greatest achievable emission reductions through the application of technology that will be available, considering cost, energy, safety, and lead time.”24 In undertaking a feasibility analysis during the rulemaking process, the agency found that most refineries could achieve the standard and could do so without

24 EPA, Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources, 72 Fed. Reg. 8480, Feb. 26, 2007.



relying on the ABTABT program that accompanied the regulation. The EPA found that setting a standard lower than 0.62 vol% would not be achievable on a cost-effective basis for the refining industry, but setting it higher would not capture the emissions reductions sought both for benzene and other air toxics.

The EPA also wanted one national standard that would apply to both conventional gasoline (CG) and RFG, and allowed the agency to streamline its toxics regulations for both pools of gasoline such that the benzene standard became the regulatory mechanism used to implement the RFG and CG annual average toxics performance requirements and the annual average benzene content requirement for RFG. Finally, the EPA found the benzene standard was necessary to satisfy the conditions on overall RFG toxics performance and avoid the requirement for updated individual refinery baselines under the Complex Model. That simplified the administration of the RFG program both for EPA and the refining industry.

ASTM D 3606-07 is the designated test method for benzene under the program.

IV.1.5 Aromatics and Olefins

Neither aromatics nor olefins are regulated by EPA or specified under D4814, unlike in Australia, Europe and other parts of the world. However, test methods are used for both for certification under the Complex Model of the RFG program. For aromatics, the EPA-approved test method is D5769-04; for olefins, D6550-05 or D1319-03.

As EPA prepared to promulgate the MSAT2 program with the 0.62 vol% benzene standard, some stakeholders pushed hard for tighter aromatics control, but the agency wasn’t swayed. The increasing use of ethanol and its propensity to dilute aromatics was the primary reason cited by the agency for not taking action. In the final regulation, the agency discussed its reasoning, reproduced here:

We note first that regardless of specific regulatory action to control aromatics, the increased use of ethanol in response to current market forces and state and federal policies (including the RFS program) will contribute to lower aromatics levels. This will occur for two reasons. First, ethanol has historically been blended downstream of refineries, either as a ‘‘splash blend’’ or as a ‘‘match blend.’’ In a splash blend, the ethanol is mixed with finished gasoline.

In a match blend, refiners prepare a special subgrade of gasoline that, when blended with ethanol, becomes finished gasoline. In recent years, match blending has increased as refiners have been producing RFG with ethanol, and it is expected to increase even more as ethanol use expands. A splash blend will reduce aromatics by about 3 vol% by simple dilution. A match blend will reduce aromatics by about 5 vol%. With ethanol use expected to more than double, we expect a significant reduction in aromatics levels. Second, with all of this ethanol there will be excess octane in the gasoline pool. Thus, not only will increased ethanol use decrease aromatics concentrations through dilution, but refiners will make the economic decision to use ethanol to reduce or avoid producing aromatics for the purpose of increasing octane.

Because of differences in how refiners will respond to the rapid increase in ethanol use, it would be difficult to determine an appropriate level for an aromatics standard at this time. The gasoline market is going through an historic transition now due to the removal of MTBE, conversion of some portion of the MTBE production volume to other high-octane blendstock production, growth of ethanol use, and the rise in crude oil prices. Consequently, it is difficult to reliably project a baseline level of aromatics for the gasoline pool with any confidence.



This is compounded by a great deal of uncertainty in knowing how much of the market ethanol will capture. Projections by EIA are significantly higher now than just a few months ago, and Presidential and Congressional proposals could easily result in 100% of gasoline being blended with ethanol. Second, aromatics levels vary dramatically across refineries based on a number of factors, including refinery configuration and complexity, access to other high-octane feedstocks, access to the chemicals market, crude sources, and premium grade versus regular grade production volumes. Third, without knowing with some certainty the range of aromatics contents of refineries’ gasoline, we cannot determine the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable, and also cannot make reasonable estimates regarding cost, lead time, safety, energy impacts, etc. As a result, at this time we would not be able to determine an appropriate or meaningful aromatics standard.25

We estimate that current average aromatics levels in U.S. gasoline are at about 29 vol%. The last date for which we have nationwide olefins data is 2005; average levels tended to be about 12 vol%.

IV.1.6 Vapor Pressure and Vapor Lock

D4814 incorporates the volatility regulations implemented by EPA. Six vapor pressure/distillation classes and six vapor lock protection (vapor-liquid ratio) classes of fuel are provided to satisfy vehicle performance requirements under different climatic conditions and to comply with federal vapor pressure limits for the control period of May 1 through Sept. 15. Class A and Class AA specify the EPA maximum vapor pressure limits of 9.0 psi and 7.8 psi, respectively. Volatility of fuel is specified by an alphanumeric designation. The letter specifies the vapor pressure/distillation class and the number specifies the vapor lock protection class.

The vapor pressure/distillation classes are needed in the U.S. to comply with the EPA vapor pressure regulations and are not based on vehicle performance during the EPA control period. The separate vapor lock protection classes are provided because under most ambient conditions, federal regulations specify a lower vapor pressure than would be required to prevent hot fuel handling problems. If the corresponding and unnecessarily more restrictive vapor-liquid ratios were specified when the EPA regulations are in effect, it could result in reduced fuel production, manufacturing hardships, and increased fuel costs. The schedule for seasonal and geographical distribution indicates the appropriate alphanumeric volatility requirement or requirements for each month in all areas of the United States, based on altitude and expected air temperatures, and on EPA vapor pressure regulations. Volatility limits are established in terms of vapor-liquid (V/L) ratio, vapor pressure, and distillation properties.

Finally, D4814 requires gasoline to have a maximum V/L ratio of 20 per ASTM D 2533. V/L is the ratio of the volume of vapor formed at atmospheric pressure to the volume of fuel. The V/L increases with temperature for a given fuel. ASTM D 5188 is an evacuated chamber test method for determining temperatures for vapor-liquid ratios between 8 to 1 and 75 to 1, and is applicable to both gasoline and gasoline-oxygenate blends.

The temperature of the fuel system and the V/L that can be tolerated without vapor lock or hot fuel-handling problems vary from vehicle to vehicle and with operating conditions. The tendency of a fuel to cause vapor lock or hot fuel handling problems, as evidenced by loss of power during full-throttle accelerations or hot starting

25 Id. at 8479.



and idling problems, is indicated by the gasoline temperature at a V/L of approximately 20. A similar relationship for gasoline-oxygenate blend has also been determined.

The minimum temperature at which V/L = 20 is specified for each gasoline volatility class is based on the ambient temperatures and the altitude associated with the use of the class.

The test temperature varies between 35°C and 60°C depending on the vapor lock protection class. Six vapor pressure/distillation classes and six vapor lock protection (vapor-liquid ratio) classes of fuel are provided to satisfy vehicle performance requirements under different climatic conditions and to comply with U.S. EPA vapor pressure limits for the control period of May 1 through Sept. 15.

D4953, D5191, D5482 and D6378 are the test methods used to measure RVP. V/L is measured by D5188. We note there are no test methods specified for RVP or V/L in the Australian standard.

IV.1.7 Distillation and Residue

Volatility is also specified in D4814 with distillation limits, and ASTM D 86 is the test method specified. No such specifications or test methods are required, except for FBP under the Australian standard. There is no test method specified for FBP. Distillation characteristics, along with vapor pressure and V/L characteristics, affect the following vehicle performance characteristics: starting, drivability, vapor lock, dilution of the engine oil, fuel economy, and carburetor icing.

The 10% evaporated temperature of fuel should be low enough to ensure starting under normal temperatures. Fuels having the same 10% and 90% evaporated temperatures can vary considerably in drivability performance because of differences in the boiling temperatures of the intermediate components, or fractions. Drivability and idling quality are affected by the 50% evaporated temperature. The 90% evaporated and endpoint temperatures should be low enough to minimize dilution of the engine oil.

A typical distillation curve of gasoline containing only hydrocarbon molecules has a smooth and steady upward slope between the 10% and 90% evaporated temperatures. Gasoline containing 5 to 10 vol% ethanol will display a distillation curve with a much-decreased slope between the 30% and 50% evaporated temperatures that rejoins the expected slope once all the ethanol has distilled off. The lower the ethanol content, the sooner this part of the distillation curve rejoins the expected slope. Addition of certain hydrocarbon components or streams in large quantities to gasoline can cause a hump in the part of the distillation range where the hydrocarbons boil.

For example, high levels of certain blending components (such as reformate) can cause the distillation curve to have a hump between the 50% and 90% evaporated temperatures that is centered at the 70% evaporated temperature. In some cases, the lack of material boiling in this temperature range can result in a distillation curve that resembles a dumbbell. Elevated distillation temperatures result in a less volatile fuel, which can affect vehicle drivability while it is in open loop operation. For vehicles calibrated to the latest emissions standards, excess fuel is injected during startup to ensure a quick start, but as soon as the engine engages, fueling is cut back quickly to minimize emissions while the catalyst warms up.

If the volatility of the fuel is lower than expected, the cut-back in fuel can be too extreme, resulting in a lean air-fuel mixture delivered to the cylinders. A misfire can result that is manifested as a drivability problem. During open loop operation, a vehicle relies on the electronic control module (ECM) for a standard fueling strategy, and it cannot adjust the air-fuel mixture until closed loop operation begins, which is about 30 s after startup for the newest vehicles, and up to several minutes for older vehicles.



The extent of a fuel’s deviation from a normal distillation slope can be quantified by determining the difference between the measured 70% evaporated temperatures and a calculated value, which is approximated by the arithmetic average of the 50% and 90% evaporated temperatures. Vehicle testing has shown if the difference between the measured and calculated 70% evaporated temperature is less than 12 °C (22 °F), average vehicle drivability, as measured by trained raters is comparable to fuel with a standards distillation curve. When the difference is greater than 12 °C (22 °F), average vehicle drivability is degraded.

IV.1.8 Oxygen, Ethanol and Tert-Butyl Alcohol

Oxygen is not specified under ASTM D 4814, and the oxygenate requirement was removed from the RFG program by the U.S. Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005). This was the compromise reached in lieu of an outright ban on MTBE, pressed by the ethanol industry, some environmental and consumer groups and others, and the refining industry, which wanted legal liability protection from the government.

Discussions to ban MTBE arose at both the state and federal levels in the late 1990s for two reasons. First, the ethanol industry had hoped that its market would grow with the inclusion of the oxygen standard in the federal RFG program, and that this would facilitate the product’s growth and expansion into the conventional gasoline market. However, it was the MTBE market that ended up growing because it was cheaper and helped refiners achieve the standards under the RFG program, particularly for RVP. Ethanol was effectively shut out of the RFG program.

Second, instances of groundwater contamination began to appear in the late 1990s in areas of the country using MTBE in the RFG program; for example, Santa Monica in California and Long Island in New York. This occurred because of leaking underground storage tanks (UST), which is still a huge, but largely unattended problem in the U.S. even today. Though MTBE posed no threat to human health (as opposed to benzene, which is a known human carcinogen), it does foul the taste of water and is odorous, which made water supplies unusable. Remediating water supplies were expensive and time consuming. Angry consumers called for a ban on MTBE in California, and that touched off what ultimately resulted in a ban on MTBE in the state. This soon spread to other states. The ethanol industry capitalized on the issue and joined other consumer groups in lobbying for MTBE bans. These efforts were largely successful. Today 26 states have banned or severely limited the use of MTBE and in some cases, ethers as well.

In 2004-2005, as Congress considered whether or not to ban MTBE under the EPAct 2005, refiners’ took the position was that they were essentially mandated to use MTBE to meet the oxygenate requirement in the RFG program since ethanol was not widely available or a cost-effective option at that time. They also highlighted the fact that RVP restrictions at that time made it difficult to use ethanol. This was also a legal defense used in litigation that had been brought by plaintiffs as a result of water contamination with gasoline containing MTBE in California and New York. These lawsuits were why the refining industry pressed for liability protection from the federal government. Defending these lawsuits and others were costly and time consuming, and they wanted to prevent further actions from other potential plaintiffs.

With the passage and implementation of the RFS program under EPAct 2005, U.S. gasoline is effectively at 10 vol% ethanol and MTBE was “deselected” out of the U.S. market without the need for a federal ban. The ethanol industry grew rapidly as a result growing a whopping 400% from 2003 to 2007, from just over a billion gallons (5.6 billion liters) to more than 7.5 billion gallons (28 billion liters) in production.

TBA is simply not blended in U.S. gasoline. Ethanol is not specified under D4814.



IV.1.9 Other Parameters

The oxidation stability specification under ASTM D 4814 is 240 minutes, minimum, and according to D02 committee members, which are responsible for setting the specification, experience indicates that fuels with an induction period equal to or greater than generally have acceptable short-term storage stability. Both D4814 and the Australian standard use the same test method, ASTM D 525.

A silver corrosion specification was added several years ago. The reason is that reactive sulfur compounds present in automotive spark-ignition engine fuel under some circumstances can corrode or tarnish silver alloy fuel gauge in-tank sender units. To minimize failures of these gauges, fuels must pass a silver strip corrosion test, D 7671 or D7667.

In 1997, EPA implemented a rule requiring that all gasoline (RFG and CG) must contain a fuel detergent additive to prevent the accumulation of deposits in engines or fuel supply systems, and this requirement is incorporated into D4814. Additives are required to be registered with EPA. The rule is applicable to all parties selling or dispensing gasoline to an ultimate consumer in the U.S. The detergent additive must be added in concentration equal to or exceeding the level specified by the additive manufacturer as being effective in preventing deposits.

IV.2 Diesel

The primary specification governing gasoline in the U.S. is ASTM D 975, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, which incorporates the ULSD program that has been implemented nationwide by EPA, and has been implemented in 40 of 50 states. The specification covers seven grades of diesel fuels as follows:

• Grade No. 1-D S15—A special-purpose, light middle distillate fuel for use in diesel engine applications requiring a fuel with 15 ppm sulfur (maximum) and higher volatility than that provided by Grade No. 2-D S15 fuel.

• Grade No. 1-D S500—A special-purpose, light middle distillate fuel for use in diesel engine applications requiring a fuel with 500 ppm sulfur (maximum) and higher volatility than that provided by Grade No. 2-D S500 fuel.

• Grade No. 1-D S5000—A special-purpose, light middle distillate fuel for use in diesel engine applications requiring a fuel with 5000 ppm sulfur (maximum) and higher volatility than that provided by Grade No. 2-D S5000 fuels.

• Grade No. 2-D S15—A general purpose, middle distillate fuel for use in diesel engine applications requiring a fuel with 15 ppm sulfur (maximum). It is especially suitable for use in applications with conditions of varying speed and load.

• Grade No. 2-D S500—A general-purpose, middle distillate fuel for use in diesel engine applications requiring a fuel with 500 ppm sulfur (maximum). It is especially suitable for use in applications with conditions of varying speed and load.

• Grade No. 2-D S5000—A general-purpose, middle distillate fuel for use in diesel engine applications requiring a fuel with 5000 ppm sulfur (maximum), especially in conditions of varying speed and load.



• Grade No. 4-D—A heavy distillate fuel, or a blend of distillate and residual oil, for use in low- and medium-speed diesel engines in applications involving predominantly constant speed and load.26

For purposes of this discussion, we will focus on Grade No. 2-DS15, which is the diesel fuel required to be used in on-road diesel engines in the U.S. and summarized in Table IV.7.

Table IV.7: ASTM D 975-14 Specifications for On-Road Diesel

Country U.S. Spec Name ASTM D 975-14 Grade No.2-D S15 Year of implementation Feb. 2014 Property Cetane number, min 40 Cetane index, min 40(1) Sulfur, ppm, max 15(2) Total aromatics, vol%, max 35(1) Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt, min-max 1.9-4.1(3) Distillation T90, °C, min-max 282-338(3) Flash Point, °C, min 52(3) Carbon residue 10%, wt%, max 0.35 Water and sediment, vol%, max 0.05 Ash, wt%, max 0.01 Lubricity, HFRR wear scar diam @ 60°C, micron, max 520 Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C, merit (class), max No. 3 Conductivity @ ambient temp, pS/m, min 25(4)(5) FAME content, vol%, max 5(6)

Notes:

(1) Either the specification for minimum cetane index or that for maximum total aromatics must be met.

(2) Other limits may apply to selected areas.

(3) When a cloud point is less than -12°C is specified, it is permitted and normal blending practice to combine Grades No.1-D and No.2-D to meet the low temperature requirements. In that case, the minimum flash point shall be 38°C, the minimum viscosity at 40°C shall be 1.77 cSt, and the minimum 90% recovered temperature shall be waived.

(4) The conductivity specification becomes effective on Nov. 12, 2008.

(5) The electrical conductivity of the diesel fuel is measured at the time and temperature of the fuel at delivery. The 25 pS/m minimum conductivity requirement applies at all instances of high velocity transfer (7 m/s) but sometimes lower velocities (see 8.2 of ASTM D 975 for detailed requirements) into mobile transport (for example, tanker trucks, rail cars and barges).

(6) Biodiesel blendstock must meet ASTM D 6751.


Sulfur, cetane and aromatics in diesel are the only parameters that are regulated by EPA in a federal fuel program. Sulfur has been reduced in the last 15 years in two stages; first, to 500 ppm in 1993 and then to 15

26 ASTM D 975-14, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils.



ppm in 2006. The 1993 regulation also required that refiners meet either a minimum cetane index of 40 or a maximum aromatics content of 35 vol%, and this has been incorporated into D975. Diesel consumption in the U.S. is half that of gasoline, which contributes more to mobile source air pollution than diesel. Nevertheless, diesel PM and NOx are critical concerns to the agency and this has been the driver behind the two regulations to reduce sulfur and control aromatics and cetane.

In the second regulation, EPA found that introducing strict emission controls for on-road diesel engines (applying to light-, medium- and heavy-duty applications) and reducing sulfur, treating the two as a system (i.e., the “systems approach,” also applied in the Tier 2 and 3 programs), would produce the greatest air quality improvements at the lowest cost. The agency estimated that heavy-duty trucks and buses today account for about one-third of NOx emissions and a quarter of PM emissions from mobile sources. In some urban areas, the contribution was even greater. EPA noted following the implementation of the program in 2006 that:

By addressing diesel fuel and engines together as a single system, this program will provide annual emission reductions equivalent to removing the pollution from more than 90 percent of today’s trucks and buses, or about 13 million trucks and buses, when the current heavy-duty vehicle fleet has been completely replaced in 2030. This is the greatest reduction in harmful emissions of soot, or particulate matter (PM), ever achieved from cars and trucks.27

The agency estimated that 110,000 tons of PM and 2.6 million tons of NOx per year would be eliminated as a result of the program. Reducing NOx from diesel emissions was also an important goal of the ULSD program.

Many countries, including Australia, have limited sulfur in on-road diesel fuel to 10 ppm. Why didn’t the U.S. simply implement a 10 ppm limit as well? EPA built in a degree of flexibility in the program to account for situations such as contamination that could occur in a pipeline shipment where sulfur from other fuels (e.g., jet fuel) could be picked up by ULSD. In fact, the refinery ULSD sulfur average is about 7 ppm, as estimated by EPA. EPA could still achieve the emissions reductions for PM and NOx sought under the ULSD program, and analyses showed no adverse impact on advanced emission controls for diesel engines for 10 ppm vs. 15 ppm ULSD.

IV.2.1 Cetane

Many governments around the world, including Australia, set higher cetane index or cetane number standards – as high as 50 or 51. Why is the U.S. minimum requirement so low? The specification notes, “Increase in cetane number over values actually required does not materially improve engine performance. Accordingly, the cetane number specified should be as low as possible to assure maximum fuel availability.” It is important to understand that U.S. refineries are generally designed to produce as much gasoline as possible, and therefore most have a high degree of cracking operations. This means that there are low cetane blend components for absorption into the diesel fuel pool.

Some engine and auto manufacturers have pressed for a higher standard both at EPA and within ASTM, but to date those efforts have not been successful. Another piece of the puzzle is the U.S. diesel fleet composition,

27 EPA, Introduction of Cleaner-Burning Diesel Fuel Enables Advanced Pollution Control for Cars, Trucks and Buses, EPA420-F-06-064, October 2006.



which is primarily heavy duty. To date, the absolute need for higher cetane to meet emissions and fuel efficiency requirements has not been shown within ASTM. The light-duty diesel market is too small to demand such a change, and manufacturers have been able to meet emissions and fuel efficiency requirements. Actual cetane in on-road diesel fuel tends to be at 46.28

Numerous test methods may be used to test cetane number, including the one used by Australia, ASTM 6890. ASTM D 613 is the referee test method for cetane number.

IV.2.2 Total Aromatics

The driver behind setting a federal aromatics limit was discussed in the foregoing section. EPA requires ASTM D 1319 as the test method to use for total aromatics. Aromatics levels in the U.S. diesel pool tend to be around 28-29 vol%.

IV.2.3 Sulfur

Sulfur has been addressed in the foregoing section, but it is worth noting here that, similar to gasoline, numerous test methods are incorporated into ASTM D 975. As Table IV.8 shows, different test methods are applicable to different grades of diesel covered under the standard. However, the federal ULSD program requires the use of ASTM D 2622. The agency considered whether to permit the use of ASTM D 5453, but concluded that it would not be capable of measuring all sulfur containing compounds, particularly sulfonates, which are found in certain diesel additives typically added at terminals and which could be a significant contributor to the overall sulfur level of the fuel.29

28 Data from DieselNet citing 2007 fuel survey data.

29 EPA, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, 66. Fed. Reg. 5122, Jan. 18, 2001.



Table IV.8: Referee Test Methods, Alternate Test Methods and Range of Application

Source: ASTM D 975-14

IV.2.4 Density and Viscosity

Density is not specified in D975, but viscosity is. Experts have noted that, “while density is a factor governing the quality of crude petroleum, it is an uncertain indication of petroleum product quality unless correlated with other properties.”30 A minimum and maximum is specified for viscosity; the minimum limit because of power loss due to injection pump and injector leakage. Maximum viscosity is limited by considerations involved in engine design and size, and the characteristics of the injection system. ASTM D 445 is the referee test method for viscosity, similar to Australia’s diesel standard, but an additional method is also permitted, ASTM D 7042.

IV.2.5 Distillation

A minimum and maximum distillation specification at T90 is specified under the standard, while the Australian diesel standard specifies T95. T90 is considered a good distillation characteristic in defining the ultimate composition and properties of a diesel fuel and that it meets the safety and performance requirements for on-road engines. The referee test method is ASTM D 86, but ASTM D 2887 and D7345 may also be used to test T90.

IV.2.6 Cold Flow

Cold-flow specifications are not specified under D975 (and nor are they in the Australian diesel standard). The reason is that the industry felt it was unrealistic to specify low-temperature properties that will ensure satisfactory operation at all ambient conditions. The specification recommends that appropriate low-

30 George E. Totten, Fuels and Lubricants Handbook: Technology, Properties, Performance and Testing, 2003, p. 117 (“Handbook”).



temperature operability properties should be agreed upon between the fuel supplier and purchaser for the intended use and expected ambient temperatures. However, test methods have been designated, with ASTM D 2500 as the referee test method for CFPP, and alternative test methods designated as ASTM D 6371 for cloud point and ASTM D 4539 for the low-temperature flow test (LTFT).

IV.2.7 Oxidation Stability

Oxidation stability is not specified in D975, but there is a discussion included, and ASTM D 2274 is referenced as an acceptable test method to use. It is noted that these tests may not correlate well with field storage stability due to varying field conditions and to fuel composition. Performance criteria for accelerated stability tests that assure satisfactory long-term storage of fuels have not been established though work has been ongoing in this area. For that reason, stability is not specified in D975.

IV.2.8 Lubricity

The lubricity specification is different between the ASTM and Australian standards, though the test method is the same. The reason it was set at 520 microns in the specification reflects the nature of the specification-setting process within ASTM. There was resistance in the U.S. about setting a lubricity specification in the 1990s when other countries were setting theirs. There were a number of reasons. First, as noted, the U.S. diesel market was targeted at older-design heavy-duty vehicles. The fuels themselves were not particularly hydrotreated, and thus had some native boundary lubricant activity. Additionally, there were no field reports of system failures due to poor lubricity, and the oil companies used this as reason not support a specification.

When the U.S. started to move to lower sulfur, it became apparent that lubricity would need to be addressed. At the same time, the California ARB was looking at ways to enable the introduction of light-duty diesel vehicles into the fleet. During a hearing on this issue, Robert Bosch sent a technical expert from Stuttgart to Sacramento to make the case that without a lubricity specification, no vehicles with sophisticated fuel injection equipment able to meet California ARB’s target would be introduced. California ARB put together a proposed lubricity specification for California ARB diesel, and the oil companies, armed with survey data showing a 520 micron average in the market and no field failures, convinced California ARB that this should be the specification. When the EPA saw the California ARB regulation, it proposed that, absent an ASTM specification, it would include lubricity in the ULSD regulation. This prompted the oil companies to bring the specification to ASTM, and lubricity consistent with California ARB was added to D975 in near record time.

Subsequent to these actions, field-testing in pipelines of diesel containing showed the potential for trail back into cargos of jet fuel. This led to installation of infrastructure to treat diesel at terminals. However, sampling and testing could not be performed at the terminals. Companies used a nomographic approach to additization of diesel to meet the lubricity target. They sampled numerous fuels from terminals and treated them to meet the 520 microns limit. They chose the 90th percentile fuel for their target treat rate. This resulted in the over-additization of most diesels in the U.S. fuel surveys after the implementation of these systems showed that the average diesel fuel has lubricity well below even the universally accepted 460 microns. In fact, a large number of them meet the aspirant WWFC target of 400 microns.


There are variations between D975 and the Australian diesel standard for the following specifications, though the referee test methods are the same:

• Flash point: The minimum is lower in D975



• Carbon residue: The maximum is slightly higher in D975 • Copper corrosion: The test strip rating is 3 in D975 • Ash: D975 sets a maximum to prevent damage to fuel injection equipment, abrasive wear and deposits • Conductivity: D975 sets a lower minimum limit; an alternative test method is permitted, ASTM D

4308 • Filter blocking: Not specified in D975 • Color: Not specified in D975

These specifications reflect the industry consensus based on market conditions, refinery structure and engine needs in the U.S.

IV.3 Autogas

The applicable specification for autogas in the U.S. is ASTM D 1835-13, Standard Specification for Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases. Only nine states have adopted this specification.31 In addition to autogas, the specification also covers commercial propane and butane as well as commercial propane-butane mixtures. These categories of LPG are defined as follows:

• Commercial Propane—This fuel type is adequate for domestic, commercial, and industrial use, particularly in geographical areas and in seasons where low ambient temperatures are common, and where uniformity of fuel is an important consideration. Commercial propane can be suitable for certain low severity internal combustion engine applications.

• Commercial PB Mixtures—This fuel type, since it covers a broad range of mixtures, permits the tailoring of fuels to specific needs. The various mixtures find application as domestic, commercial, and industrial fuel in areas and at times when low ambient temperature conditions are not encountered. This fuel type is not suitable for vapor withdrawal applications in cool or cold climates.

• Commercial Butane—This fuel type finds limited application as a domestic fuel in areas of warmer climates. It is similarly used in industrial applications where problems of fuel vaporization are not present, such as direct liquid injection.

• Special-Duty Propane—This fuel type, equivalent to HD-5 propane, is a product tailored to meet the restrictive needs of internal combustion engines operating under moderate to high engine severity (that is, normal automotive applications). Fuel products of this type will be less variable in composition and combustion characteristics than the other products covered by this specification. Special-Duty Propane can be used as a substitute for Commercial Propane.

Autogas specifications under ASTM D 1835 are summarized in Table IV.9.

31 They are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee and Wyoming.



Table IV.9: ASTM D 1835 Specifications for Autogas

Country U.S. Spec Name ASTM D 1835 Grade Special Duty Propane Year of implementation Mar. 2013 Additional Comments Specifically developed for use as fuel in spark

ignition internal combustion engines Property Sulfur, ppm, max 123(1) Vapor pressure @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, max 1434 Composition Propylene, max 5.0 vol% Butane and heavier, max 2.5 vol% Volatility T95, °C, max -38.3 Evaporative Residue, max 0.05 ml/100 ml Oil stain observation Pass(2) Moisture, ppm Pass Hydrogen sulfide, wt%, max Pass Copper corrosion, 1hr @ 40°C, merit (class), max No. 1

Notes:

(1) The total sulfur limits in these specifications do include sulfur compounds used for stenching purposes.

(2) An acceptable product shall not yield a persistent oil ring when 0.3 mL of solvent residue mixture is added to a filter paper, in 0.1-mL increments and examined in daylight after 2 min.


Comparing the Australian and U.S. autogas specifications, every parameter and most test methods are different, except for copper corrosion, moisture, hydrogen sulfide and odor. Odor is not specified in the ASTM standard; however, the federal government through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires the addition of odorant (ethyl mercaptan or thiophane) to all LPG at the same levels as what is required in the Australian standard.32 This is the only federal requirement that relates to the use of autogas in the U.S.

Below is a discussion of the remaining autogas parameters and test method differences.

IV.3.1 Octane and Propylene

The LPG by Motor Method was originally used to rate the octane number of LPG mixtures. The test method used a used a standard CRC (Coordinating Research Council) knock engine fitted with an LP-gas carburetor. It

32 40 CFR 1910.110 (2014).



was withdrawn because the octane number of the mixtures could be accurately estimated by linear blending of component octanes based on gas chromatography analysis per ASTM D 2598.33

Propylene has a low pure component octane value, and requires individual control (5% max) because it can be varied widely in commercial grade. Traces of the other olefins are effectively controlled by the maximum vapor pressure (ethylene) and maximum C4-t- content (butanes, butylenes and heavier).

The defining specification for autogas under ASTM D 1835 is the maximum 5 vol% propylene content limit, which is intended to control the minimum octane number for severe service engine applications. Propane meeting the specification would have an octane rating of 95 or greater. There are few heavy-duty LPG engines in the U.S. market, and that has led to decade-long debates within industry members of ASTM as to whether an octane limit is really necessary since the propylene limit ensures a satisfactory octane number.

IV.3.2 Composition

Propylene and butane are composition specifications that have been set in the ASTM autogas standard, while the Australia standard sets specifications for total dienes and pentane. There is no commentary in the specification on composition limits; however, the specification likely reflects the natural composition of domestic LPG produced in the U.S. which is generally more than 80% propane with small amounts of ethane and butanes and up to 10% propene. The test method used for determining composition is ASTM D 2163.

IV.3.3 Volatility and Vapor Pressure

Historically, vapor pressure was the most critical LPG specification, being responsible for most of the serious problems in the early days of the industry.34 Vapor pressure is invariably tied to pressure vessel and safety valve certification and transportation regulations, so it is generally viewed to be critical for regulatory compliance. However, modem pressure vessel standards as well as LPG production equipment and analyzers have all but eliminated vapor pressure as a significant operational problem.

While the Australian standard specifies a minimum and maximum limit, the ASTM specification specifies only a maximum limit. Committee members believe the limit is an effective limit on ethane and methane content in the propane. The test methods are different as well: ISO 8973 is the test method for the Australia standard, while ASTM D 1267 is the referee test method. ASTM D 2598 and ASTM D 68977 are acceptable alternative test methods.

The T95 and volatility specifications are included in the ASTM standard to assure that autogas will be composed chiefly of propane and propylene and that propane will be the major constituent. The referee test method is ASTM D 1837 for T95.

33 See Handbook, p. 40.

34 See Handbook, p. 41.



IV.3.4 Sulfur

The sulfur limit in the Australia standard is lower than in the ASTM standard, 50 ppm v. 123 ppm. The test methods are the same, ASTM D 6667. ASTM permits an alternative test method, ASTM D 2784. Industry consensus is that the limit is low enough to minimize SO2 emissions and limit potential corrosion by exhaust gases from combustion of autogas. The limit will likely stay at this level for now since the number of LPG vehicles in the U.S. market is very small. Consider that LPG represents 2% of U.S. demand and autogas represents 2% of that demand.35 Note that autogas could not be used with current gasoline or diesel engine emission control technologies because they will not be able to tolerate the higher sulfur. If autogas were to be used in these newer vehicles, the sulfur content limit would have to be reduced and a new warning mechanism would be needed to replace the current sulfur-containing odorants.

IV.3.5 Evaporative Residue and Oil Stain

Evaporative residue limits are very different in the Australian and U.S. specifications, using different test methods as well. The ASTM test method for residue is ASTM D 2158. The same test method is used for oil stain observation, which is not required under the Australia standard.

The specification notes that control of residue content is of importance in applications where the fuel is used in liquid or vapor feed systems (where fuel vapors are withdrawn from the top of the LPG storage container). In either case, failure to limit the permissible concentration of residue materials can result in troublesome deposits or regulating equipment can become fouled, or both. The limit reflects the industry consensus based on market conditions, refinery structure and engine needs in the U.S.

In gas processing plants, LP gas generally is produced relatively free of residues, but the product can become contaminated by heavier hydrocarbons and other organic compounds during distribution, especially in multi-product pipelines or while it is in contact with elastomers used in hoses. The specification notes that current limit on residue contamination, while generally satisfactory for many conventional uses including autogas, may not be suitable for newer applications such as fuel cells and microturbines without some form of remediation.

The oil stain observation provides insight into the nature of the residue and show the presence of oil contaminants that might not be detected visually in the first part of the test.

IV.4 Biodiesel

The applicable specification for biodiesel in the U.S. is ASTM D 6751-12, Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels, which has been adopted by 29 states. The federal ULSD specification of 15 ppm is incorporated into the standard. The specification is feedstock neutral but is designed for biodiesels produced through transesterification. In addition, the specification is designed for biodiesel blending into middle distillate fuels, and covers the following grades:

35 U.S. Department of Energy, Propane Basics, last accessed http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/propane_basics.html, Sept. 13, 2014.

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/propane_basics.html



• Grade No. 1-B S15—A special-purpose biodiesel blendstock intended for use in middle distillate fuel applications which can be sensitive to the presence of partially reacted glycerides, including those applications requiring good low temperature operability, and also requiring a fuel blend component with 15 ppm sulfur (maximum).

• Grade No. 1-B S500—A special-purpose biodiesel blendstock intended for use in middle distillate fuel applications that can be sensitive to the presence of partially reacted glycerides, including those applications requiring good low temperature operability, and also requiring a fuel blend component with 500 ppm sulfur (maximum).

• Grade No. 2-B S15—A general-purpose biodiesel blendstock intended for use in middle distillate fuel applications that require a fuel blend component with 15 ppm sulfur (maximum).

• Grade No. 2-B S500—A general-purpose biodiesel blendstock intended for use in middle distillate fuel applications that require a fuel blend component with 500 ppm sulfur (maximum).

For this discussion, we will focus the analysis on Grade No. 2-B S15. The specifications are summarized in Table IV.10.

Table IV.10: ASTM D -6751 Specifications for Grade No. 2-B S15 Biodiesel

Country U.S. Spec Name ASTM D 6751-12 Grade No. 2-B S15 Year of implementation Nov. 2012 Additional Comments Biodiesel (B100) Blend Stock for Diesel Fuel states that

biodiesel is a fatty acid alkyl (methyl or ethyl) ester (FAME/FAEE)

Property Cetane number, min 47 Sulfur, ppm, max 15(1) Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt, min-max 1.9-6 Flash Point, °C, min 93(2)/130(2) Carbon residue 100% (CCR), wt%, max 0.05 Water and sediment, vol%, max 0.05 Sulfated Ash, wt%, max 0.02 Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 100°C, merit (class), max No. 3(3) Acid value, mg KOH/g, max 0.5 Alcohol Methanol, vol%, max 0.2(2) Glycerol Free Glycerol, wt%, max 0.02 Total, wt%, max 0.24 Phosphorus, ppm, max 10 Alkali, Group I (Na, K), ppm, max 5 Metals, Group II (Ca, Mg), ppm, max 5 Distillation T90, °C, max 360 Cloud Point (CP), °C, max Report Oxidation stability @ 110°C, hour, min 3 Cold Soak Filterability, sec, max 360(4)

Notes:

(1) Other sulfur limits may apply to selected areas in the U.S. and in other countries.



(2) If methanol content is above this maximum level, this specification may still be met if the flash point meets a minimum of 130 degrees Celsius.

(3) The Copper Strip Corrosion Test is conducted for 3 hrs at 50°C.

(4) If the B100 is intended for blending into diesel fuel, for satisfactory vehicle performance at fuel temperatures at or below -12°C, the fuel shall comply with a cold- soak filterability limit of 200 seconds max..


B5 is incorporated into the ASTM D 975 standard for diesel, similar to the Australian diesel standard.

Below is a discussion of the key differences with the Australian specifications, which include:

• Cetane • Sulfur • Density • Viscosity • Flash point • Carbon residue

• Total contamination • Copper corrosion • Acid value • Cloud point • Oxidation stability • Cold-soak filterability

The discussion below focuses on why the ASTM has set specifications for these parameters the way it has, and highlights key differences with respect to test methods for these parameters.

At the outset, the discussion in the U.S. Diesel section on sulfur, cetane and copper corrosion specifications are applicable here as well, and will not be covered.

IV.4.1 Cetane

As noted in the discussion on diesel, the specified cetane number is 40 (although actual market data has shown levels are closer to 46 or 47). The ASTM biodiesel committee felt that biodiesel cetane number values should be the same as the performance limits in D975 or higher. For ASTM D 6751, the cetane number has been set at 47 minimum, a value that shows the true performance of biodiesel but does not eliminate any known biodiesel feedstock. The referee test method is D613, but alternative methods, D6890, are acceptable as well. These two methods are incorporated into the Australian standard, but also permit EN ISO 5165 and IP 498/03.

IV.4.2 Density and Viscosity

Density is not specified under the ASTM standard, though viscosity is. The ASTM biodiesel committee concluded that if the biodiesel meets the specification overall, its density will naturally fall between 860-890 kg/m3 at 15 ⁰C. Thus, a separate specification would not be needed. The density of raw oils and fats is similar to biodiesel; therefore use of density as an expedient check of fuel quality may not be as useful for biodiesel as it is for petroleum based diesel fuel. Adding a density specification for biodiesel in ASTM would first mean adding



one for D975, which does not currently have a density specification. This would require significant effort and resources and the cost/benefit is highly questionable, members concluded.36

The specification notes that for some engines, it may be advantageous to specify a minimum viscosity because of power loss due to injection pump and injector leakage. Maximum allowable viscosity, on the other hand, is limited by considerations involved in engine design and size, and the characteristics of the injection system. The upper limit for the viscosity of biodiesel (6.0 mm2/s at 40°C) is higher than the maximum allowable viscosity in D975 Grade 2-D and 2-D low sulfur (4.1 mm/s at 40°C). The specification cautions that blending biodiesel with diesel fuel close to its upper limit could result in a biodiesel blend with viscosity above the upper limits contained in D975.

In the view of ASTM biodiesel committee members, viscosity is a property that is appropriate for finished fuels, but takes on a different meaning for blendstocks; and the fact that D6751 is for blendstocks explains the difference between ASTM and Australian standard, which follows CEN. Previous attempts to harmonize D 6751 on the upper side with CEN were defeated due to lack of a technical reason for reducing the parameter and the likelihood the lower level may limit feedstocks without a solid technical reason.37

Notably, both the ASTM and Australian standards use the same test method, ASTM D 445.

IV.4.3 Flash Point

Flash point was intended to be 100°C, and typical values are over 160°C. Because of the high variability with test method (ASTM D 93) as the flash point approaches 100°C, the spec was set at 130°C to ensure an actual value of 100°C min.

IV.4.4 Carbon Residue

Both the Australian and ASTM standard specify carbon residue 100%, but only the Australian standard specifies it at 10%. ASTM D 6751 notes that while not directly correlating with engine deposits, this property is considered an approximation. “Although biodiesel is in the distillate boiling range, most biodiesels boil at approximately the same temperature and it is difficult to leave a 10% residual upon distillation. Thus, a 100% sample is used to replace the 10% residual sample, with the calculation executed as if it were the 10% residual.”38 As specified with carbon residue 100%, ASTM D 4530 is the referee test method under both the ASTM and Australia standards. The ASTM standard allows alternative test methods D189 or D524.

36 Tripartite Task Force Brazil, European Union & United States Of America, White Paper on Internationally Compatible Biofuel Standards, Dec. 31, 2007, pps. 48-49 (“Tripartite Whitepaper”).

37 Id. at 50.

38 ASTM D 6751-12, Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels, Aug. 1, 2012, p. 9.



IV.4.5 Total Contamination

There is no total contamination specification within D6751, though there is in the Australian standard, which follows CEN. Discussions have been ongoing within the biodiesel committee on developing a specification, but no consensus has been reached to date. Some experts in the committee feel that if the biodiesel meets the ash specification already in the standard, there will naturally be low levels of contamination as well.39

IV.4.6 Acid Value

The specification for acid value in the Australian standard is different than that specified in ASTM D 6751, though the test methods are the same, ASTM D 664. The ASTM standard provides an alternative test method, D3242 and D974. The U.S. industry consensus (and CEN, as its specification is the same) is that 0.5 mg KOH/g is the right level to protect against fueling system deposits and corrosion.

IV.4.7 Total Glycerin

There is a slight difference between the ASTM and Australian specification for total glycerin, though the referee standards are the same, ASTM D 6584. In the ASTM standard, AOCS Standard Procedure Ck 2-09 may also be used.

IV.4.8 Cloud Point

Cloud point is not specified in the Australian standard, though it is in D6751 where reporting is required. The lack of a specification in the Australian standard may simply be reflective of the country’s warmer climate, while in the U.S. there are varying climatic and seasonal considerations. Cloud point is a serious issue in the northern U.S., where fuel gelling has occurred in the past.

The reason only reporting is required under the specification is that the committee consensus is that it is unrealistic to specify low temperature properties of biodiesel blends that will ensure satisfactory operation at all ambient conditions in all storage situations. “Cloud point, LTFT and CFPP might be used as estimates of operating temperature limits for biodiesel blends, although precision data may not be available for biodiesel blends in all of these test methods. However, equipment design, operating conditions, and the use of flow-improver additives can allow satisfactory operation of the biodiesel blend below its cloud point.”40

IV.4.9 Oxidation Stability

The specification in the U.S. is set at 3 hours, as opposed to 6 hours under the Australian standard, which follows CEN, though the two specifications share the same referee test method, EN 15751 and alternative test method, EN 14112. The Australia standard provides an additional alternative test method, prEN14112. Oxidation stability has been studied in the U.S. by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) before

39 Tripartite Whitepaper, p. 39.

40 ASTM D 6751-12, p. 13.



the specification was set; those studies found that the 3-hour limit was sufficiently protective to ensure stability.41

IV.4.10 Cold-Soak Filterability

This is the newest requirement in the D6751 standard. It was added in 2008 in response to data indicating that some B100 could, in blends with petroleum diesel of up to 20%, form precipitates above the cloud point. B100 meeting the cold-soak filterability requirements does not form these precipitates. This, along with cloud point, is needed to predict low-temperature operability.42 The referee test method is ASTM D 7501.

IV.5 E85

The applicable specification for E85 in the U.S. is ASTM D 5798-13, Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines, which has been adopted in 23 states (see Table IV.11). The specification encompasses four classes of E85 based on vapor pressure, which is varied for seasonal and climatic changes:

• Class 1 encompasses geographical areas with 6-hour tenth percentile minimum ambient temperature of greater than 5°C (41°F).

• Class 2 encompasses geographical areas with 6-hour tenth percentile minimum ambient temperature of greater than −5°C (23°F) but less than or equal to 5°C (41°F).

• Class 3 encompasses geographical areas with 6-hour tenth percentile minimum ambient temperature greater than −13°C (9°F) but less than or equal to −5°C (23°F).

• Class 4 encompasses geographical areas with 6-hour tenth percentile minimum ambient temperature less than or equal to −13°C (9°F).

41 Robert McCormick, et al., Oxidation Stability of Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends, June 2006.

42 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide, NREL/TP-540-43672, Revised January 2009, p. 15.



Table IV.11: ASTM D -5798 Specifications for E85

Country U.S. Spec Name ASTM D 5798-13a Grade E85-Class 1 E85-Class 2 E85-Class 3 E85-Class 4 Year of implementation July 2013 Property

Sulfur, ppm, max 80 Lead, g/l, max (1)

RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, min-max 38-62 48-65 59-83 66-103 Oxygenates

Methanol, vol%, max 0.5 Ethanol, vol%, min-max 51-83 C3-C5 alcohols, ppm, max 2 vol%(2) Phosphorus, g/l, max (3)

Water, vol%, max 1 wt% Existent gum (solvent washed), mg/100ml, max 5 Existent gum (solvent unwashed), mg/100ml, max 20 Copper, ppm, max 0.07 Appearance Clear and bright pH, min-max 6.5-9.0(4) Acidity, wt%, max 0.005 Other (5)

Notes:

(1) Lead is not permitted to be added, according to Federal Regulations; the lead limit for gasoline is 0.013 g/L.

(2) C3-C8

(3) Phosphorus may not be added, according to federal regulations; the phosphorus limit in gasoline is 0.0013 g/L.

(4) Measured as pHe.

(5) The hydrocarbon blendstock may be unleaded gasoline, gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending (BOB), natural gasoline or other hydrocarbons in the gasoline boiling range.


E85 must meet federal volatility and lead requirements established by EPA for unleaded gasoline, and it must also meet the hydrocarbon blendstock specification, which is part of ASTM D 5798, summarized in Table IV.12. The blendstock may be unleaded gasoline, gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending (commonly used in the U.S. now to blend ethanol and meet RVP specifications), natural gasoline or other hydrocarbons in the gasoline boiling range. Hart Energy Research & Consulting notes that such specifications are not included in the Australian standard.



Table IV.12: ASTM D 5798 Specifications for Hydrocarbon Blendstock

Country U.S. Spec Name ASTM D 5798-13a Grade Hydrocarbon Blendstock Year of implementation July 2013 Additional Comments Requirements of hydrocarbon blendstock for ethanol fuel

blends for flexible-fuel automotive spark-ignition engines Property RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, min-max Report Distillation FBP, °C, max 225 Oxidation stability (Induction period), minutes, min 240 Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C, merit (class) No. 1 Silver corrosion, merit (class), max 1


Below is a discussion of the key differences that concern the following parameters:

• Octane • Sulfur • Benzene • RVP • Distillation • Ethanol content

• Oxidation stability • Water content • Existent gum • Copper • Acidity

The discussion below focuses on why the ASTM has set specifications for these parameters the way it has, and highlights differences with respect to test methods for these parameters. At the outset, the discussion in the U.S. Gasoline section on volatility, lead, phosphorus and octane are applicable here as well and will not be covered. A key difference discussed above is the inclusion of hydrocarbon blendstock standards to ensure quality of the overall blend.

With respect to volatility, four classes are included in the ASTM specification, while two are covered in the Australian standard. There are four classes given the geographic and climatic diversity of the U.S., in addition to summertime and wintertime designations as there exists in the Australian standard. The test method in the Australia standard is ASTM D 5191, which is also included in the ASTM standard, along with alternatives D4953 and D5190.

Distillation and oxidation stability are specified in the hydrocarbon blendstock specifications under ASTM D 5798, and there are variations between these specifications and those under the Australia standard. However, the test methods are the same. Note that these two specifications are the same as those for U.S. gasoline under ASTM D 4814. See the U.S. Gasoline section for a discussion of these two specifications.

Lastly, there is a slight difference between the acidity limit in the two standards, with Australia’s limit at 0.006 wt% max and the ASTM’s at 0.005. The ethanol committee within ASTM opted to keep the limit as low as possible since very dilute aqueous solutions of organic acids, such as acetic acid, are highly corrosive to a wide range of metals and alloys.



IV.5.1 Ethanol Content

Ethanol content in the ASTM standard was formerly aligned with Australia’s, but that changed in 2012 when the ASTM ethanol committee lowered the minimum ethanol content from 70 vol% to 51 vol%. The changes were necessary to ensure that ethanol fuel blends for flex-fuel vehicles could meet seasonal vapor pressure requirements in all regions of the U.S. Cold-start problems with E85 in certain areas led the committee to determine that the various vapor-pressure requirements for gasoline in certain areas, specifically in California and other states that have put in place low-vapor pressure regulations, were making it impossible for the final fuel blend to meet vapor pressure requirements in some areas. As a result, aside from occasional vehicle operator complaints, some terminals stopped carrying E85 because they could not guarantee the fuel would meet specifications. Notably, the specification was also renamed to reflect the fact that the fuel may no longer be close to 85 vol% ethanol, Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines.

IV.5.2 Benzene

There is no benzene limit specified in ASTM D 5798. This may be because ethanol contains less benzene than conventional gasoline to begin with and, with the national limit at 0.62 vol% for gasoline, it likely is not an issue the committee feels needs to be addressed at this time.

IV.5.3 Copper and Silver Corrosion

The copper corrosion specification is lower in the ASTM standard than it is in Australia’s, and the test methods are different as well. The test method under the ASTM standard is ASTM D 1688; Australia’s, EN 15837. The committee’s view is that copper is a very active catalyst for low-temperature oxidation of hydrocarbons. Experimental work has shown that copper concentrations higher than 0.012 mg/kg in commercial gasolines can significantly increase the rate of gum formation. Silver corrosion is adopted in this standard, similar to gasoline under D4814. See the U.S. Gasoline section for a discussion of silver corrosion.

IV.5.4 Sulfur

Sulfur content is slightly higher in the ASTM standard than in Australia’s, although the test method is the same. The committee’s view is that 80 ppm is sufficiently protective against engine wear, deterioration of engine oil, corrosion of exhaust system parts and exhaust catalyst deactivation.


Solvent unwashed existent gum is specified in addition to solvent washed existent gum in ASTM D 5798. The difference between the unwashed and solvent washed and gum content values can be used to assess the presence and amount of nonvolatile material in the fuel. Additional analytical testing is required to determine if the material is additive, carrier oil, diesel fuel, and so forth. Thus, the unwashed gum content limit is intended to limit high-boiling contaminants, like diesel fuel, that can affect engine performance, yet allow the use of appropriate levels of deposit control additives with carrier oils in ethanol fuel blends. The test methods are the same for both types of gum.

ASTM D 5798 requires ethanol to have a clear and bright appearance using ASTM D 4176-Proc. as the test method. Turbidity, phase separation or evidence of precipitation normally indicates contamination.



IV.6 Fuel Quality Monitoring and Enforcement

Both the federal government and many, but not all, states monitor and enforce fuel quality. In the U.S., the legislative/regulatory framework established by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. EPA puts most of the burden of compliance on industry. The threat of liability/penalty in the U.S. is so high that, coupled with random inspections/sampling compliance, instances of noncomplying fuel is very low. In this regard, the U.SFQMS is similar to Australia’s. In addition to random inspections and high penalties for noncompliance, EPA relies on other tools to ensure compliance, which are summarized in Table IV.13. Given the few instances of noncompliant fuels in the U.S. market over the years, EPA’s FQMS program, coupled with state FQMS program, have been very effective.

Table IV.13: General Fuel Quality Monitoring Tools in the U.S.

Monitoring Method What Is It? Recordkeeping All parties to the program must maintain and retain all records EPA requires to be kept for a

time it specifies. Reporting All parties to the program must submit specific information to the agency on a regular basis

(quarterly for the RFG program, for example). Registration Anyone who produces or imports the regulated fuel must register with EPA, including address,

contact and other information required by the agency. EPA then gives the entity a registration and facility number.

Sampling/Testing Each batch of fuel must be tested by the refiner, importer and/or other regulated entity for compliance.

Surveys All parties to the program must conduct its own program of compliance internally. See section below for a more exhaustive treatment.

Audits EPA may perform audits. Certification Requires EPA to certify that RFG meets simple or complex model standards. Requires EPA to

certify all detergents before they can be sold and used in gasoline. Attests All parties to the program must engage an independent certified public accountant to perform

an agreed-upon procedure to ensure the reliability of the underlying documentation that forms the basis to reports submitted to EPA.

Labeling Fuel pumps are to be labeled in accordance with EPA regulations.


EPA relies on a relatively small staff of about 35 to conduct enforcement activities, most of whom are EPA contractors. Additionally, there is a small number of EPA staff who oversee the implementation and monitoring requirements of specific fuel programs. The agency also relies on the civil and criminal enforcement tools to compel compliance as well when necessary. The monitoring tools, coupled with the enforcement tools, work well to ensure that industry at all levels of the distribution chain are in compliance. The low number of permanent staff needed for the monitoring is supported by the system the agency has established, as it also relies on self-monitoring and reporting by industry.

EPA takes more than 10,000 to 30,000 gasoline samples per year; fewer samples are taken of diesel. The number of samples taken per day/per week/per month/per year varies. For example, in the past, more RFG samples were taken in May and June to test for successful turnover to VOC-controlled gasoline, as well as other RFG downstream standards. In recent years, there has been an emphasis on sulfur in gasoline and diesel.

Federal fuel sampling occurs at truck loading terminals and retail outlets and fleet operator facilities (wholesale purchaser-consumers). Samples are also taken at refineries; during refinery audits, inspectors like to witness a refinery sampler taking a sample from a production tank. ASTM test sampling methods are typically used. At



terminal tanks, both all-levels samples and spot samples are taken; spot samples are particularly important when it is suspected that a particular strata of the tank may be out of spec. Retail samples are generally taken from the nozzle into a quart jar with a special cap.

Sometimes, when there may be a fuel quality problem at the retail level that does not violate any downstream standards for RFG or conventional gasoline, “unknowns” may be tested to determine if there is a violation of the “substantially similar” provisions of the CAA. Under § 211(f) of the Act, all fuels and fuel additives in commerce as of Nov. 15, 1990 must be “substantially similar” to those used in the certification of model year 1975 (and thereafter) vehicles.

Notices of violation are issued for noncompliant samples. Under federal fuels regulations, the facility where the violation is found and all facilities upstream are deemed liable (“presumptive liability”) when a violation occurs. In addition, the branded refiner whose marketing name appears at a facility is also liable (“vicarious liability”). All these parties have an opportunity to establish a defense. Generally, all noncompliant samples are sent to the laboratory.

In the U.S., because of the layout of the FQMS, the costs for the self-sampling, testing, surveys and submission of industry reports to the federal government are carried by the industry. While some funds are generated from the settlement of violations or through litigation, these funds, collected from industry violators, are not reinvested in the budget of the enforcement office. In most cases, these funds are deposited in a general fund from which money is allocated to federal agencies, and, in some cases, specific efforts or programs. The EPA enforcement division has one budget that it uses to carry out FQMS for all fuels programs.

EPA can also employ legal remedies when instances of noncompliance occur, which includes civil penalties (US$32,500 per violation per day), civil actions, injunctions and administrative penalties (these are decided not in a court, but by the EPA Administrator). While US$32,500 per violation per day seems like a small sum on its own, when multiplied by the number of gallons and days a fuel might be out of compliance, the cost adds up quickly. Moreover, the rare instances of fuel quality problems or noncompliance do tend to be publicized, which can be damaging to reputation and embarrassing for the refiner or fuel supplier involved.

IV.7 Alternative Fuels and Niche Fuels

There are generally three ways any fuel specification is developed in the U.S.: through the relevant committee at ASTM, at the state level and at the federal level. This applies to all fuels, not just alternative and niche fuels. As noted above, many states adopt ASTM into their regulations developed in the administrative/executive branch of government, or by legislative enactment by their state legislatures. Also, as discussed above, the federal government will take action if certain criteria in the CAA are met respecting the protection of public health and environment or the impairment of any emissions control device or system. Developing a specification through ASTM has been the general pathway for all fuels in the U.S., including alternative and niche fuels.

Standards development work begins when members of an ASTM technical committee identify a need or other interested parties approach a relevant committee. Generally the work on a standard begins as a fuel is being developed and prepared to be introduced into the market, such as in the case of butanol, DME, jet fuel containing synthesized hydrocarbons, and renewable-based jet fuel. New specifications have been developed for all these fuels (see sections below).

Task group members prepare a draft standard that is reviewed by its parent subcommittee through a letter ballot. After the subcommittee approves the document, it is submitted concurrently to the main committee and the entire membership of ASTM.



All negative votes cast during the balloting process, which must include a written explanation of the voters’ objections, must be fully considered before the document can be submitted to the next level in the process. In the case of the biodiesel specification, this aspect of the process took years for the industry to reach true consensus among members before final approval could be sought. Final approval of a standard depends on concurrence by the ASTM Standing Committee on Standards that proper procedures were followed and due process was achieved.

As an example, this is the specification process worked out by ASTM Subcommittee J of the D02 Committee Petroleum Products, Liquid Fuels, and Lubricants for new alternative jet fuels:

• ASTM D1655 is historically based on the use of petroleum and not all requirements for a “fit for purpose” fuel are given in that spec

• A carefully designed process worked out in ASTM Subcommittee J and the Certification group of Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI)

• Emphasis of safety of flight paramount • All stakeholders were involved with major work being done by the OEM’s to decide on criteria that new

fuels must meet • Started with SASOL’s Fischer Tropsch CTL being allowed up to a 50% blendstock. Decision made to

qualify such alternatives through a separate ASTM spec because not all requirements for “fit for purpose” aviation fuel are given in the Jet Fuel Spec ASTM D1655

• ASTM D7566 was born. “Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons”

• Along with ASTM D7566 the need for a “Drop In” fuel was considered crucial • Applicant must show a need for his product by convincing airlines of the need to the point where

airlines ask the engine and airframe suppliers for the product to be certified.43

The process emphasizes the preparation of a research report to guide the specification development process, summarized in Figure IV.1.

43 Roger Organ, Guidance on Establishing New Aviation Alternative Fuels, Dec. 2013 (“Guidance”).



Figure IV.1: Summary of the Specification Development Process in Subcommittee J44

Source: Roger Organ, 2013

Subcommittee E, which governs distillate fuels, takes a similar approach:

• Set up a working group – typically the requestor becomes the working group chair • The working group meets to prepare a ballot item – applicable data are always helpful because there

will be questions • Subcommittee E conducts a ballot – if there are negative votes (and there are always negative votes on

something new), the working group prepares a plan for the next step • The next step is either to adjudicate the negative votes or withdraw the ballot item for additional work.

This is an iterative process that helps to vet any new proposal • If the item clears subcommittee balloting, it then moves on to Committee D2 for balloting. This will

probably involve more negative votes and adjudications. • Throughout the process, concerns can be raised and addressed.45

IV.7.1 Butanol

Table IV.14 shows specifications of butanol for blending with gasoline for use as an automotive spark-ignition engine fuel.

44 The ASTM process emphasizes hard data. “Don’t come to the OEM’s or ASTM Sub Committees with half a story or suppositions. Must have good data. Getting that data can be expensive.” Roger Organ, Guidance.

45 Steve Westbrook, The Tao of Subcommittee E0: How We Approach Burner, Diesel, Non-Aviation Gas Turbine, and Marine Fuels Specifications, Dec. 2013.



Table IV.14: ASTM D 7862 Specifications for Butanol

Country U.S. Spec Name ASTM D 7862-13 Year of implementation Aug. 2013 Additional Comments Covers three butanol isomers: 1-butanol, 2-butanol, and 2-

methyl-1-propanol. This specification specifically excludes 2-methyl-2-propanol (that is, tert-butyl alcohol)

Property Alcohol Butanol, vol%, min 96 Methanol, vol%, max 0.4 Water, vol%, max 1 Gum (Solvent washed), mg/100ml, max 5 Chloride, inorganic, ppm, max 8 Acidity, wt%, max 0.007 Sulfur, ppm, max 30 Sulfate, ppm, max 4


IV.7.2 Di-Methyl Ether (DME)

Table IV.15 shows the DME specifications for fuel purposes.

Table IV.15: ASTM D 7901 Specifications for DME

Country U.S. Spec Name ASTM D 7901-14a Year of implementation July 2014 Property RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, max 758 Composition DME, wt%, min 98.5 Methanol, wt%, max 0.05 Water, wt%, max 0.03 Methyl formate, wt%, max Report Evaporative Residue, wt%, max 0.05 ml/100ml Oil stain observation Pass Sulfur, ppm, max 3 Copper corrosion, 1hr @ 40°C, merit (class), max 1 Lubricity (1)

Notes:

(1) Experience in both laboratory and full scale vehicle testing indicates pure DME has poor natural lubricity. Adequate precautions shall be taken to ensure the lubricity is sufficient to meet the needs of the end use application. At present, no industry accepted test method or limit value is available to define the lubricity of highly volatile liquid fuels such as DME. Until such a test is available, suppliers of DME intended for use as a fuel in compression ignition engines shall consult the engine or vehicle manufacturer for guidance on appropriate lubricity requirements.




IV.7.3 Racing Fuels

There is no ASTM racing fuel specification in the U.S. There are refiners such as Sunoco that produce racing fuel formulations for drivers in racing organizations such as NASCAR that they can simply select. Some driver teams can (and sometimes do) contract individually with a refiner if they want a specific fuel formulation.



V. JAPAN

Japan currently has two standards in place for fuels: the mandatory standards set by the Central Environment Council (CEC) under the Ministry of Environment and the Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS). The mandatory standards are statutory and penal regulations that fall under the Law on the Quality Control of Gasoline and Other Fuels (enforced since April 1996). They regulate the parameters that the CEC determined will adversely impact the environment, safety and human health. Currently, there are mandatory standards set for gasoline, diesel, fuel oil and kerosene. In Japan, kerosene is used widely for home heating purposes. While more parameters have been proposed to be added to the mandatory standards, most of them have already been included in JIS.

The JIS in contrast are voluntary technical standards set under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). They set limits for a comprehensive list of parameters with the aim to standardize fuel quality in Japan. Japanese standards were developed through research and customized to their national requirements. The research programs were the Japan Clean Air Program I and II (JCAPI and JCAPII) and Japan Auto-Oil Program (JATOP) implemented by the Japan Petroleum Energy Center (JPEC) for the development of JIS from 1997 to 2012. Studies on the impact of fuel parameters on vehicle emissions were conducted and completed in JCAPI and JCAPII while JATOP focused on biofuels and reducing CO2 emissions.

V.1 Gasoline

There are currently two grades of gasoline in Japan: regular and premium. The RON limit for regular gasoline is 89, while it is 96 for premium gasoline. However, the actual RON of regular and premium gasoline supplied in the market are 90 and 100, respectively. Similarly, Australia has two grades of gasoline, although there are slight differences between the Japanese and Australian RON limits. Australia has a higher RON limit for regular gasoline compared to Japan (91 vs. 89), while Japan has a higher RON limit for premium gasoline compared to Australia (96 vs. 95). In terms of test methods, Japan adopts JIS test methods, while Australia primarily uses ASTM test methods.

Currently, the gasoline specifications is JIS K 2202:2012, which was revised in March 2012 to allow for up to 10 vol% ethanol for E10 grades. Ethanol limit for conventional gasoline remains at a maximum of 3 vol%, which is equivalent to 7 vol% ETBE. No separate specifications were set for ethanol blends.

Table V.1 shows the Japanese gasoline specifications.



Table V.1: JIS K 2202 Specifications for Gasoline

Country Japan Spec Name JIS K 2202:2012 Grade Regular / Premium Regular (E) / Premium (E) Year of implementation Mar. 2012 Mar. 2012 Property

RON, min 89 / 96 Sulfur, ppm, max 10 Benzene, vol%, max 1 RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, min-max 44-65 (s) / 44-93 (w) 44-65 (s) / 55-93 (w)(1) Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, max 783 Distillation

T10, °C, max 70 T50, °C, min-max 75-110 70-105 (s) / 65-105 (w) T90, °C, max 180 FBP, °C, max 220 Residue, vol%, max 2 Oxygen, wt%, min-max 1.3 max 1.3-3.7 Oxygenates

Ethanol, vol%, max 3 10 Ethers (5 or more C atoms), vol%, max 7(2) Oxidation stability (Induction period), minutes, min 240 Existent gum (solvent washed), mg/100ml, max 5 Existent gum (solvent unwashed), mg/100ml, max 20 Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C, merit (class), max No. 1 Color Orange

Notes:

(1) If the ambient temperature is below -10°C, RVP min becomes 60 kPa

(2) MTBE

Source: Japanese Standards Association

There are 18 parameters set for gasoline in the JIS standard, while there are 10 mandatory limits set by the CEC, including:

• Sulfur • Ethers (5 or more C atoms) • Lead • Kerosene • Benzene • Existent gum • Oxygen • Color • Methanol • Ethanol

The limits set by the CEC are applicable only for conventional gasoline (not E10 grades) and are identical to the limits set by JIS. Lead and kerosene limits are not included in JIS, but are mandatory limits in the CEC gasoline standard. Lead is specified as “undetectable,” while kerosene has a limit of 4 vol% max in the CEC gasoline standard.



V.1.1 Octane

Japan’s RON specifications have come a long way since JIS was founded in 1952. Since 1986, RON specifications have been set at 89 and 96 for regular and premium grades, respectively. That is earlier than the first EU specifications for gasoline (EN 228:1993), which was implemented in October 1994. RON limits have been progressively increased since 1952 due to improvements in the efficiency of vehicle engines.

The reason for the actual market RON to be higher than the minimum RON required under JIS was the competition on RON between oil companies that started in the 1960s. Idemitsu began selling RON 100 gasoline in 1967 by adding leaded compounds, and other oil companies followed shortly. Subsequently, RON was reduced by the prohibition of leaded compounds. In 1983, Idemitsu restarted the competition with the sale of RON 98 gasoline, followed by RON 100 in 1987 without the use of leaded compounds. Once again, the other oil companies joined in the competition, which led to the higher-than-regulated RON specifications present today.

In Japan, the FCC process is imperative to convert heavy crude oil to gasoline. Gasoline that is available in the market is typically made up of 50% FCC gasoline as base feedstock. The composition of regular-grade gasoline is shown in Table V.2.46

Table V.2: Composition of Regular Grade Gasoline in Japan

Octane Number

Vapor Pressure

Aromatics Olefins Sulfur

Content Composition

- kPa @ 37.8°C Vol% Vol% Mass ppm Vol% Butene 98 400 0 <1 <10 1-10 Light naphtha 68 87 2 <1 <1* 10 FCC gasoline 92 48 20 40 <50 50 Light reformatted gasoline 80 95 <1 1 <1 20 Heavy reformatted gasoline 105 5 90 <1 <1 10

Note: *Sulfur content after hydrodesulfurization.

Source: Techniques for Octane Number Enhancement in FCC Gasoline, Cosmo Oil Co., Ltd., December 2010

As FCC gasoline makes up the majority in the composition of gasoline, changes to its properties will have major impact to the properties of the gasoline available in the market. It is of particular importance to keep the RON of FCC gasoline as high as possible to reduce the amount of high value reformate and alkylate used in the blending process.

In a study under the JCAPII program, the impact of RON on fuel efficiency of vehicles was being investigated. The study compared the effects on fuel economy using RON 90 and RON 95 gasoline with varying aromatics

46 Katsuya Watanabe, Kenji Nagai, Noriyuki Aratani, Yuji Saka, Norihito Chiyoda, Hiroshi Mizutani, Advanced Refining & Petrochemical Technology Group, Research and Development Center, Cosmo Oil Co., Ltd., ‘Techniques for Octane Number Enhancement in FCC Gasoline’ in 20th Annual Saudi-Japan Symposium – Catalysts in Petroleum Refining & Petrochemicals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, December 2010.



content and similar aromatics content. Results showed 3.21% to 4.15% improvement in fuel economy when RON is increased from RON 90 to RON 95, inclusive of the effects of differences in aromatics content.47

Currently, approximately 90% of all gasoline vehicles in Japan run on RON 90 gasoline. The Japanese automotive industry had actively proposed a higher RON specification for regular gasoline, that is, to increase the RON limit from RON 90 to RON 95 to enable higher-efficiency engines such as the boosted downsizing gasoline engines. Closely related to RON is MON, which is currently not specified under JIS K 2202:2012. Since 1961, RON limit has replaced MON limit for two reasons. This was because RON measurement was more suitable for the low speed octane number requirement (ONR) in the Japanese market at that time. The other reason was that the precision of the test method used to measure RON was higher than the test method used to measure MON.

V.1.2 Sulfur

From the regulatory point of view, Japan was concerned about the adverse environmental impact of vehicle emissions. Since requirements for refineries to reduce SOx emissions and the supply of low-sulfur heavy oil to industries between the late 1960s to mid-1970s, ambient SO2 and CO concentrations have seen dramatic reductions. However, NOx emerged as a key issue when Japan adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which called for the reduction in NOx and necessary improvements in fuel economy. Subsequently, JCAPI studied lean-burn engines and discovered the poor functionality of three-way catalysts (catalytic converters) in dealing with NOx, resulting in the use of NOx eliminating catalysts that are highly susceptible to sulfur content in the fuel. This resulted in the automobile industry calling for ultra-low-sulfur gasoline to be supplied.

More tests were conducted in 2003 and 2004 under JCAPII to investigate the impact of sulfur content in gasoline on fuel economy of vehicles using 10-15 driving cycle (replaced by the current JC08 test cycle). Sulfur reductions from 50 ppm to 10 ppm and 10 ppm to 1 ppm in gasoline were shown to improve fuel efficiency of a prototype vehicle with a 1.8 liter direct-injection lean-burn engine by around 5% and 2%, respectively. In another test, fuel economy was held constant and gasoline with 50 ppm, 10 ppm and 1 ppm sulfur content tested for NOx emissions. Increasing sulfur content of gasoline from 1 ppm to 10 ppm resulted in NOx emissions deteriorating by about 5 times, while increasing sulfur content from 1 ppm to 50 ppm resulted in NOx emissions deterioration of 25 to 35 times.48

Eventually, in January 2005, under the recommendation made by the Petroleum Association of Japan (PAJ) to the Petroleum Council of METI on Apr. 24, 2003, Japan became the first Asian country to supply 10 ppm sulfur gasoline three years ahead of legislation. Oil companies have voluntarily supplied gasoline with lower than 10 ppm sulfur content for the main purpose of environmental protection and to drive the development and implementation of advanced vehicle emissions control technology. In contrast, Australia’s sulfur limits (50 ppm max for PULP and 150 ppm max for all grades) are higher than Japan’s.

47 Japan Petroleum Energy Center (JPEC), Gasoline Working Group (WG), ‘Focusing on sulfur and octane number’ at the 4th JCAP Conference, Keidanren Hal, Keidanren Kaikan, Tokyo, Japan, June 1-2, 2005.

48 Japan Petroleum Energy Center, Gasoline Working Group (WG), ‘Focusing on sulfur and octane number’ at the 4th JCAP Conference.



Notably, as shown in Table V.2, the typical sulfur content of FCC gasoline is higher compared to all other components in the blended gasoline. It also has high olefins content, which accounts for its relatively high RON. Desulfurization of FCC gasoline is an important and effective process to Japanese refineries to ensure that production costs are kept low and the final blended gasoline is able to meet JIS specifications.

However, the traditional hydrodesulfurization (HDS) process normally causes significant RON losses due to saturation of olefins. This relates to additional costs to meet RON specifications, using methods such as additional blending of high value reformate and alkylate. The Japanese refineries have overcome this problem through the adoption of advanced desulfurization technology to preserve RON while effectively remove sulfur to ultra-low levels.49 In addition, the use of ETBE helps in boosting the RON of blended gasoline.

Currently, the Japanese refiners control the sulfur content of final blended gasoline available to around 7 to 8 ppm. This was done in consideration of possible contamination during transportation to gas stations, as an additional safeguard to ensure that when the gasoline leaves the pump and goes to the consumer, it will definitely not exceed the regulation of 10 ppm max.

V.1.3 Oxygen and Oxygenates

There are some differences in the limits of oxygen and oxygenates between the Japanese and Australian gasoline specifications. Australia allows for up to 10 vol% ethanol, but Japan allows only up to 3 vol% for conventional gasoline, although up to 10 vol% is allowed in its E10 grades. Japan sets a limit of 7 vol% max for ethers (specified as MTBE in the JIS standards, but currently it applies to ETBE, as MTBE has been voluntarily phased out), but Australia limits ethers to 1 vol% max DIPE and 1 vol% max MTBE. Consequentially, Australia’s oxygen limits are set differently from Japan’s oxygen limits, as they are set according to the ethanol limits. Australia allows up to 2.7 wt% max oxygen content in gasoline not containing ethanol, while Japan allows only up to 1.3 wt% max for its conventional gasoline. For the JE10 grades, Japan’s maximum oxygen limit is set at 3.7 wt%, which corresponds to a maximum allowable ethanol content of 10 vol%, while Australia allows up to 3.9 wt% max.

As mentioned in the previous section on sulfur, oxygenates are used to increase RON of gasoline. In Japan, the high RON of its premium-grade gasoline is largely contributed by the addition of ETBE. Prior to the introduction of ETBE, MTBE was used to raise RON of gasoline. However, due to economic reasons and concerns in the U.S. regarding groundwater pollution caused by fuel leakage from gas tanks, Japanese oil companies voluntarily abandoned the use of MTBE. Currently, JIS K 2202:2012 still specifies MTBE under the ether limit and the Japanese government has yet to place a ban on the use of MTBE even though it has been voluntarily phased out. The ether limit remains at 7 vol% max for ETBE, which is equivalent to 1.3 wt% oxygen. Among the Asian countries, Japan is the only one using ETBE that is produced from bioethanol.

49 Satoshi Takasaki, Yasuhiro Araki, Chikanori Nakaoka, Fuel Research Laboratory, Research & Development Division, JX Nippon Oil & Energy Corporation, ‘FCC Gasoline Desulfurization Reducing Octane Number Loss’ in 20th Annual Saudi-Japan Symposium – Catalysts in Petroleum Refining & Petrochemicals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, December 2010. Takashi Hagiwara, Technology Department, JPEC, ‘Gasoline Production Technology and Methods, and an Evaluation of Their Economic Viability’, 2001.



Another oxygenate available for blending is ethanol. However, it is seldom used due to concerns over high vapor pressure and hence high evaporative losses. Currently, only Okinawa province supplies gasoline with ethanol blended up to 3 vol%.

V.1.4 Lead

In Japan, gasoline has been unleaded since 1975 for regular-grade gasoline and 1987 for premium gasoline. Currently, there are no limits specified for lead in the JIS standard, while it is specified as “undetectable” in the CEC mandatory standard. In addition, it is noted in the JIS gasoline specifications that the addition of alkyl lead is not allowed. Even though lead is only specified as a note, notes in the JIS standards have been known to be highly effective in regulating the fuels quality in Japan. In contrast, Australia specifies a lead limit of 0.005 g/l, which gives consideration to possible contamination of lead in the transportation and handling of the fuel.

No testing is required for lead in Japanese gasoline, and neither the limit nor tolerance range was noted in the JIS standard. However, it is also specified in the note that there is a test method (JIS K 2255) using atomic absorption spectrometry and for the lead content not to exceed the lower limit of application division (0.001 g/L).

Imported gasoline might have a possibility of containing lead compounds, but Japan has very little imported gasoline. Hence, there is a low probability to find lead in Japanese gasoline.

V.1.5 Oxidation Stability

Oxidation stability has been well researched in Japan and is viewed as an important parameter by the automobile industry. In the past, induction period was very important to the integrity of nitrile rubber, which is commonly used in fuel systems. It is sensitive to peroxides. Subsequently, the material is changed to plastics mainly for European vehicles, and hydrotreated nitrile rubber or fluorocarbon rubber for Japanese vehicles. Since then, the resistibility of fuel systems has improved greatly. However, such improvements in material resistibility did not result in less attention paid to the oxidation stability parameter, as the Japanese noted that oxidation stability is also related to deposit formation.

Japan sets a lower minimum oxidation stability limit of 240 minutes as compared to 360 minutes for Australia. The main reason for the Japanese standard to set a minimum of 240 minutes for induction period for the measure of oxidation stability is to save time in laboratory testing. The typical oxidation stability of Japanese gasoline has an induction period greater than 480 minutes.

V.1.6 Other Parameters

Table V.3 summarizes the commentary for all other properties of Japanese gasoline.



Table V.3: Commentary for Other Parameters of Japanese Gasoline

Property Commentary

Aromatics

No limits have been set for gasoline aromatics in Japan, while Australia sets a 45 vol% cap and a 42 vol% max 6-month pool average limit. Aromatics content in Japanese gasoline is always around 25-30 vol% due to blending of gasoline (see Table V.1), much lower than the EU’s 35 vol%. In the case of premium gasoline, aromatics content is around 35 vol%, which is the same as the EU’s limit. Hence, the Japanese regulators felt that aromatics content is not a concern and no limit is required to be set.

Olefins

Compared to Australia, which sets a 18 vol% max limit for olefins content, no limits have been set for olefins for gasoline in Japan because Japanese automobile manufacturers are relatively less sensitive to olefins content of gasoline as oxidation stability is adequate and there are no issues regarding RON for the Japanese driving pattern (maximum cruising speed is 120 km/h and speed limit is 100 km/h).

RVP

Australia allows its individual states to manage their own RVP limits while Japan sets RVP limits for summer (44 – 65 kPa) and winter (44 – 93 kPa for conventional gasoline, 55 – 93 kPa for E10). For the Japanese gasoline standard, the upper limits of RVP are specified mainly by evaporative emissions and hot re-startability in the summer season. In addition, the upper limit for summer (65 kPa) is set for reduced hydrocarbons emissions while the upper limit for winter (93 kPa) is set for safety reasons. The lower limit is specified by cold startability and drivability in winter.

Distillation

Australian gasoline specifications do not specify limits for T10, T50 and T90, while the Japanese gasoline specifications specify them. For FBP, Australia sets a limit at 210°C max, while Japan’s FBP is set slightly higher at 220°C max. The values of T10, T50, T90 and FBP of the Japanese gasoline specifications are set based on ASTM standards and modified for increased gasoline recovery.

Phosphorus

There is no limit set for phosphorus in the Japanese standard because no phosphorus additives are currently added to gasoline. Hence, the Japanese authorities felt that there was no requirement to set a limit for phosphorus. In contrast, Australia sets a limit of 0.0013 g/l for phosphorus, which allows some flexibility for trace contaminants coming from old storage and distribution systems.


V.2 Diesel

Japan has five diesel grades that are dependent on ambient temperature and the season: Class Special 1, Class 1, Class 2, Class 3 and Class Special 3. The main difference lies in the pour points of the different grades of diesel, which are specified for the extreme climate changes in Japan. Summer temperatures could hit 40°C in Tokyo while winter temperatures could reach -40°C in Hokkaido.

In summer, Japan supplies Class Special 1, Class 1 and Class 2 grades of diesel. In winter, Class 2 grade diesel is the most commonly supplied except in northern and high altitude regions of Japan where Class 3 and Class Special 3 grades are supplied because of their extremely low pour points.

Similar to gasoline, diesel has reached 10 ppm sulfur levels since January 2005, two years ahead of legislation.

In Japan, conventional diesel is defined as having up to 0.1 wt% FAME, while B5 blends contain 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% FAME content. Specifications for Japanese diesel are shown in Table V.4. In the case of testing for the diesel parameters, Japan uses JIS test methods, while Australia primarily uses ASTM test methods.



Table V.4: JIS K 2204 Specifications for Diesel

Country Japan Spec Name JIS K 2204:2007 Grade Class Special 1 / Class 1 / Class 2 / Class 3 / Class Special 3 Year of implementation Jan. 2007 Property Cetane number, min 50 / 50 / 45 / 45 / 45(1) Cetane index, min 50 / 50 / 45 / 45 / 45(1) Sulfur, ppm, max 10 Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, max 860 Viscosity @ 40°C, cST, min 2.7 / 2.7 / 2.5 / 2(2) / 1.7 Distillation T90, °C, max 360 / 360 / 350 / 330(2) / 330 Flash Point, °C, min 50 / 50 / 50 / 45 / 45 Carbon residue 10%, wt%, max 0.1 Cold Filter Plugging Point (CFPP), °C, max - / -1/ -5 / -12 / -19 Pour Point (PP), °C, max 5/ -2.5 / -7.5 / -20 / -30

Notes:

(1) Cetane number or cetane index may be used

(2) T90 should be 350°C max if viscosity is 4.7 cSt max


Out of the 10 parameters listed in Table V.4, CEC regulates only three of them: cetane index, sulfur and T90. CEC regulates another six parameters that are currently not included in JIS K 2204 (see Table V.5) but are set separately in a B5 standard (see Table V.6).

Prior to March 2007, the CEC regulated only cetane index, sulfur and T90 for conventional fuels. After the CEC finalized the approval of B5 to be used in the country, from March 2007, six additional parameters were added to the CEC mandatory standard including:

• Oxidation stability • Methanol • Total acid number • Triglycerides • Acidity, organic • FAME content

Although the Japanese government has allowed B5 blends to be supplied in Japan from March 2007, they are not sold on the domestic market even up to today.



Table V.5: CEC Mandatory Standard for Diesel

Country Japan Spec Name CEC Year of implementation Mar. 2007 Property Cetane index, min 45 Sulfur, ppm, max 10 Distillation T90, °C, max 360 Oxidation stability, mg/100ml, max (1) Total acid number, mg KOH/g, max 0.13 Acidity, organic, wt%, max 0.003(2) Alcohol Methanol, vol%, max 0.01 Triglycerides, wt%, max 0.01 FAME content, wt%, max 5.0

Notes:

(1) 0.12 mg KOH/g as acid value growth at 16 hrs and 115°C

(2) Total of Formic, Acetic and Propionic acid

Source: Central Environment Council

Table V.6: Specifications forB5 in Japan

Country Japan Year of implementation Mar. 2007 Property Cetane index, min 45 Sulfur, ppm, max 10 Distillation T90, °C, max 360 Oxidation stability, mg/100ml, max (1)

Total acid number, mg KOH/g, max 0.13 Acidity, organic, wt%, max 0.003(2) Alcohol Methanol, vol%, max 0.01 Triglycerides, wt%, max 0.01 FAME content, wt%, max 5.0

Notes:

(1) 0.12 mg KOH/g as acid value growth at 16 hrs and 115°C

(2) Total of Formic, Acetic and Propionic acid


V.2.1 Cetane

As diesel supplied in Japan is classified into five grades according to their cold flow properties, their cetane number and cetane index limits are set differently. Generally, diesel supplied in winter or to higher-altitude areas in Japan are lighter in terms of density and will inherently have lower cetane number and index. Conversely, Australia has only one cetane number specification of 51, which is higher than Japan’s 50 and 45.



High cetane number and cetane index limits (>50) were deemed to be not required by the automobile manufacturers since a majority of the diesel vehicles are trucks and buses, which do not require high-cetane diesel to run. In Japan, diesel passenger cars have been on a steady decline since 1995, accounting for only 1.2% of the total passenger cars fleet in 2013.50 This decline could be attributed to the ban imposed on diesel cars in Tokyo due to concerns over their emissions. Since then, the Japanese people generally have a bad perception of diesel cars, even though their emissions have improved tremendously over the years.

According to the Japan Petroleum Energy Center (JPEC), typical cetane number ranges between 55 to 60, and aromatics levels are typically below 20 vol%.

The limits for cetane number and cetane index are the same because no biodiesel is allowed in conventional diesel. In addition, Japanese oil companies do not use cetane improvers. Hence, the correlation between cetane number and cetane index should be good. Currently, oil companies in Japan do not have the CFR engines for determining cetane number. Hence, only cetane index is measured.

V.2.2 Density

Japan has a relaxed specification on density of diesel, which specifies only an upper limit of 860 kg/m3

compared to Australia’s limits of 820-850 kg/m3. In Japan, market diesel density ranges from 796 kg/m3 to 856 kg/m3.

Japan specifies only the upper limit of diesel density because the heavier components of diesel are more of a concern than the lighter components, which are generally made up of kerosene. In Japan, kerosene is generally used for home heating and its demand is significant. Because of this, if there is a need to increase the supply of diesel, oil companies generally add heavier components, rather than kerosene, to diesel. Oil companies typically do not add light cycle oil as the heavier component. In this case, the quality of diesel is not significantly worsened. Hence, the regulators see the need to regulate only the upper limit of density for diesel.

V.2.3 Lubricity

For the lubricity parameter, Australia specifies it as 460 micron max, while Japan does not set a limit. There is no formal explanation for the exclusion of lubricity parameter in the Japanese diesel specifications. However, according to the Japanese diesel fuel standard JIS K 2204-2007, the inclusion of a lubricity limit is still under consideration in Japan.


Table V.7 shows the commentary for other parameters of Japanese diesel.

50 Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc. (JAMA), ‘Motor Vehicles Statistics of Japan 2014’, 2014



Table V.7: Commentary for Other Parameters of Japanese Diesel

Property Commentary

Polyaromatics

Australia sets the polyaromatics limit at 11 wt% max, but Japan does not set a limit. The exact reason for the exclusion of polyaromatics limit is unknown, though automobile manufacturers in Japan view polyaromatics as an essential parameter to be included in the diesel standard. It is understood that currently Japanese oil companies are testing for the content of polyaromatics internally, but its content is not announced publicly.

Viscosity

The viscosity limits for Australian diesel are 2.0-4.5 cSt, while Japan sets only the minimum viscosity limits for its five diesel grades that range from 1.7 cSt to 2.7 cSt. Viscosity is related to diesel density and pour point. Based on these relationships, the limits for viscosity are set accordingly in Japan.

Distillation

Japan sets T90 limits instead of the T95 limit used by Australia. T90 limits for Japanese diesel vary according to the grade of diesel. T90 and T95 are indicators of the content of heavy components in diesel. In the 1980s and 1990s, Japan had conducted many studies on the effect of heavy components on emissions, PM in particular. The studies have shown that the correlation of T90 and T95 to PM emissions is similar, but T90’s error in measurement is smaller than T95. Hence, T90 was chosen as the limit.

Flash Point Depending on the grade, Japan’s flash point limits (50°C and 45°C) are generally lower than Australia’s flash point limit of 61.5°C. Japan’s flash point limits are chosen based on safety reasons. However, the reasons why the particular values were chosen are unknown.

Carbon Residue 10% Japan sets a lower carbon residue 10% limit at 0.1 wt% than Australia’s 0.2 wt% max. The reason to why Japan sets this limit is unknown.

Water and Sediment/Water

These parameters are not specified in the Japanese standard but are specified in the Australian standard. According to Japanese oil companies, visual inspection is the best method to look for water and sediment in diesel. It is difficult to set a limit when visual inspection method is used.

Ash The Australian standard specifies its ash limit at 100 ppm max while the Japanese standard does not set a limit for ash. The reason for ash limit to be unspecified is unknown.

Copper Corrosion Australia sets a Class 1 max copper corrosion limit but Japan does not specify a limit for copper corrosion. The reason for copper corrosion limit to be unspecified is unknown.

Oxidation Stability The oxidation stability limit of Australian diesel is 2.5 mg/100ml max, while Japan does not set a limit for oxidation stability for its diesel. A limit is not required because Japan does not allow FAME to be blended to its conventional diesel.

Conductivity

Australia sets a limit on electrical conductivity of diesel but Japan does not. The reason for Japan not having a limit is because electrical conductivity was deemed to be used to prevent static charge accumulation, and Japan does not transport diesel using pipeline systems. Hence, it was determined that there was no need for a limit on electrical conductivity of diesel.

Color Japan does not apply marker dye to its diesel. Hence, the color limit is not specified.

FAME

Australia limits FAME content to 5.0 vol% for its conventional diesel, while Japan does not specify a limit for FAME in its conventional diesel standard since it does not allow FAME to be blended into its conventional diesel. Japan has separate specifications for diesel blends containing >0.1 wt% FAME (B5 standard).




V.3 Autogas

The Japanese automotive LPG market is very small and has been declining since 2004. In 2011, out of a total of approximately 75.5 million vehicles in Japan, there were only approximately 252,500 LPG vehicles (0.3% market share), out of which 207,700 were taxis (82% of all LPG vehicles).51

As the market share of LPG is skewed toward few automobile manufacturers and taxi companies, LPG automobile companies and taxi companies have strong negotiation power over the setting of parameters and limits of the LPG standard. As a result, several limits that can be found in the Australian LPG standard have not been set in Japan because of these negotiations, including MON, total dienes, pentane and heavier, evaporative residue, water, hydrogen sulfide and odor.

Table V.8 shows the Japanese auto LPG specifications. Currently, there are four grades for automotive use. They are primarily differentiated by their vapor pressure and composition for use in different climate conditions.

Table V.8: JIS K 2240 Specifications for Autogas

Country Japan Spec Name JIS K 2240:2013 Grade Class 2 No. 1 / No. 2 / No. 3 / No. 4 Additional Comments Industrial & Automotive Year of implementation Mar. 2013 Property Sulfur, ppm, max 50(1) Vapor pressure @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, max 1550 / 1550 / 1250 / 520(2) Composition Propane + Propylene, mol%, min-max 90 min / 50-90 / 50 max / 10 max Butane + Butylene, mol%, min-max 10 max / 50 max / 50-90 / 90 min(3) Butadiene (1,3-butadiene), max (4)

Copper corrosion, 1hr @ 40°C, merit (class), max No. 1 Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 500-620

Notes:

(1) Before stenching

(2) Measured at 40°C

(3) Butane + Butylene" is a mixture of isobutane, n-butane, isobutylene, 1-butylene, trans-2-butylene and cis-2-butylene

(4) In the case of automobiles, industries (as fuels and raw materials) and others, the content of butadiene shall not be detrimental to the purpose of use


Japanese LPG test methods are generally based on ISO 4257 and ISO test methods are used to test the parameters, while Australian LPG test methods are varied, including ISO, CEN, ASTM and JLPGA test methods. There are a number of identical test methods used by Japan and Australia for testing of vapor pressure and LPG composition, which are ISO 8973 and ISO 7941, respectively, though Japan has an additional

51 JAMA, ‘Motor Vehicles Statistics of Japan 2014’. Japan LP Gas Association, ‘Statistical Data in Japan’, February 2013.



test method, ISO 4256, for testing vapor pressure. It is also noted that ISO 8973 is used for calculation of vapor pressure.

Currently, the typical LPG composition is 20 mol% propane + propylene and 80 mol% butane + butylene, which correspond to approximately RON 101 and MON 94. In the northern island of Hokkaido, the propane + propylene composition may be increased up to 90 mol% in response to extreme cold winters to maintain fuel performance (see Table V.9).

Table V.9: Minimum Propane Content in LPG (mol%)

Month Hokkaido Northeast Mountain Region

Mainland Okinawa

January 70 30 20 0 February 70 30 20 0

March 70 30 20 0 April 30 30 10 0 May 30 10 10 0 June 20 10 10 0 July 20 10 10 0

August 20 10 10 0 September 20 10 10 0

October 30 30 10 0 November 30 30 20 0 December 70 30 20 0

Source: Japan LP Gas Association (JLPGA)

Table V.10 provides commentary on MON, vapor pressure, composition and density of Japanese LPG.

Table V.10: Commentary on Japanese LPG Specifications

Property Commentary

MON Australia specifies a minimum MON of 90.5 for its LPG, while Japan does not specify a limit. MON is not specified because the composition of LPG is already specified.

Vapor Pressure/ Composition

Instead of MON, Japan regulates the composition of LPG according to the changes in climatic conditions due to concerns over cold startability. In contrast, as Australia already specified MON, it does not specify the composition limits for its LPG (except for total dienes and pentane).

Japan sets only the upper limits of vapor pressure for all of the different grades of LPG, while Australia sets both upper and lower limits (800-1,530 kPa) for its LPG. Vapor pressure limits are set according to the composition of the different grades of LPG in Japan. Since propane and propylene have higher partial pressures compared to butane and butylene, LPG for winter has higher limits for vapor pressure as compared to LPG used for summer.

Density Australia does not set a limit for LPG density, but Japan limits its LPG density to 500-620 kg/m3. Density limits of Japanese LPG were set based on the compositions of propane + propylene and butane + butylene that were set for the different climatic conditions.




V.4 Biodiesel

In February 2008, the biodiesel standard (JIS K 2390:2008) was set as an industry standard. As noted previously, conventional diesel is defined as having FAME content of 0.1 wt% or lower, while B5 blends are allowed to contain 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% FAME.

Biofuels have been Japan’s focus since Japan committed to the Kyoto Protocol. In the development of a biodiesel standard for Japan, METI conducted FAME conformity tests using EU’s EN14214:2003 as a base specification to gather technical knowledge on FAME. The reason for adoption of EN14214:2003 was to shorten the time required to develop the biodiesel standard. The conformity tests focused on three properties of FAME52:

Oxidation stability; Acid value and content; and Cold-flow properties.

When the conformity tests were completed, most of the parameters in Japan’s JIS K 2390:2008 adopted the limits set in EN14214:2003.

In terms of test methods, an even mix of JIS and CEN test methods are used to test the Japanese biodiesel parameters, while a range of test methods, including ASTM, CEN, ISO and IP, are used for Australian biodiesel parameters.

Table V.11 lists the parameters of Japanese biodiesel.

52 Working Group for Standardization of Biodiesel Fuel for Vehicles in East Asia (2008), ‘Trend of Biodiesel Fuel in Japan’ in Kimura, S. (ed.), Analysis on Energy Saving Potential in East Asia Region, ERIA Research Project Report 2007-6-2, Chiba: IDE-JETRO, pp.5-24.



Table V.11: JIS K 2390 Specifications for Biodiesel

Country Japan Spec Name JIS K 2390:2008 Year of implementation Feb. 2008 Property Cetane number, min 51(1) Ester content (concentration), wt%, min 96.5 Sulfur, ppm, max 10 Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 860-900 Viscosity @ 40°C, cST, min-max 3.5-5 Flash Point, °C, min 120 Carbon residue 10%, wt%, max 0.3 Water, ppm, max 500 Sulfated Ash, wt%, max 0.02 Total contamination, ppm, max 24 Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 100°C, merit (class), max No. 1 Acid value, mg KOH/g, max 0.5 Alcohol Methanol, wt%, max 0.2 Monoglycerides, wt%, max 0.8 Diglycerides, wt%, max 0.2 Triglycerides, wt%, max 0.2 Glycerol Free, wt%, max 0.02 Total, wt%, max 0.25 Linolenic acid methyl ester, wt%, max 12 Polyunsaturated methyl esters, wt%, max 1 Iodine number, g/100g, max 120 Phosphorus, ppm, max 10 Alkali, Group I (Na, K), ppm, max 5 Metals, Group II (Ca, Mg), ppm, max 5 Cold Filter Plugging Point (CFPP), °C, max (2)

Pour Point (PP), °C, max (2)

Oxidation stability @ 110°C, hour, min (2)

Notes:

(1) Cetane index

(2) Based on mutual agreement between parties concerned


V.4.1 Oxidation Stability

In JIS K 2390:2008, the oxidation stability limit is not specified explicitly, rather as a clause “based on mutual agreement between parties concerned.” Though not specified explicitly, the industry requirement for oxidation stability is 10 hours min, significantly longer than Australia’s limit of 6 hours min. This is a result of the conformity tests performed by METI.

In the conformity tests, the test fuel used was JIS Class 2 diesel blended with 5 vol% of FAME that conformed with EN14214:2003 specifications. Results revealed corrosion on metal components of the fuel system and fuel tank. Flow losses and wear and tear of fuel injectors were also observed. Poor oxidation stability was identified as the cause for such problems. The B5 blend oxidized during the tests and formed corrosive organic and fatty



acids that attacked metal components of the fuel systems. In addition, polymer (sludge) was deposited, which caused failure in the fuel pump and injector. No other issues related to FAME were found.

In another test to prove that oxidation stability was the key issue, antioxidants were added to FAME. Its oxidation stability improved to 10 hours using the Rancimat method. It was then blended at 5 vol% to JIS Class 2 diesel and tested again. Results showed no corrosion to metal components of fuel systems. Similarly, no flow losses or wear and tear were observed. METI determined that the oxidation stability limit set by EN14214:2003 was insufficient.53

V.4.2 Acid Value

Japan adopts the same acid value set in EN14214:2003 (i.e. 0.5 mg KOH/g), which is lower than Australia’s 0.8 mg KOH/g max. The blending of FAME with acid value of 0.5 mg KOH/g to produce B5 blends results in the blend’s acid value to be 0.03 mg KOH/g. This is much lower than the limit of 0.13 mg KOH/g set for B5 blends53 (see Table V.6).

It was confirmed that problems such as a decrease in durability would not occur in the fuel filter durability test using B5 blends with an acid value of 0.13 mg KOH/g. Hence, the Japanese regulators felt that there was no need to further tighten the acid value of FAME.


Table V.12 summarizes the other parameters in Japanese biodiesel specifications.

53 Working Group for Standardization of Biodiesel Fuel for Vehicles in East Asia (2008), ‘Trend of Biodiesel Fuel in Japan’, pp.5-24.



Table V.12: Commentary on Japanese Biodiesel Specifications

Property Commentary

Density

Density of biodiesel is deemed to be an inherent property and has little impact on the integrity of vehicle fuel system or fuel tank. Hence, the Japanese regulators relaxed density limits to 860-900 kg/m3. Compared to the Australian biodiesel density limit, their lower limits are identical but the upper limit of Japanese biodiesel density is marginally higher than Australia’s 890 kg/m3.

Carbon Residue 100% Australia specifies its biodiesel carbon residue 100% limit to be 0.05 wt% max, while Japan adopts EN14214:2003, which does not specify a limit for carbon residue 100%.

Water and Sediment Japan adopts EN14214:2003, which does not specify a limit for water and sediment, but Australia specifies this limit at 0.05 vol% max.

Methanol

Australia sets the methanol limit for its biodiesel at 0.2 vol% max, while Japan sets it at 0.2 wt% max. The Japanese regulators noted that methanol, which is known to corrode metal, is used in the production process of FAME. Hence, presence of methanol in FAME is highly likely. While the ideal limit is for methanol to be “not detected,” it is impossible for biodiesel producers to meet that specification. Hence, a limit of 0.2 wt% was set and is deemed to be as good as the “not detected” limit.54

Distillation Japan adopts EN14214:2003, which does not specify a limit for T90, while Australia sets T90 at 360°C max.

CFPP/Pour Point CFPP and pour point are set based on Japan’s climate conditions, while Australia does not set limits for these parameters.


V.5 Fuel Quality Monitoring and Enforcement

Enforced since April 1, 1996, the “Act on the Quality Control of Gasoline and Other Fuels” prohibits companies from selling products not complying with the national quality specifications, and obligates them to confirm that the products meet the quality specifications. Fuel inspections are performed by the National Petroleum Association (NPA), which is an industry body consisting of oil companies in Japan. METI enforces the law on companies that do not comply with the fuel standards.

Mandatory checks by the NPA are required for all companies every 10 days at their service stations. In these mandatory checks, the NPA collects market samples of four products –regular gasoline, premium gasoline, automotive diesel and kerosene – by means of random purchases from service stations nationwide. In addition, there is an arbitrary system named the “Quality Control Plan Authorization System” that permits an annual one-time quality analysis instead of the 10-day quality checks if a service station can meet the required conditions, including a certified supply source arrangement with the authorized distributor. The samples are analyzed at NPA’s nine regional test centers, where the NPA reports to METI when samples are found not to comply with national standards so that appropriate correction measures are taken. In Japan, special additives are added to kerosene and a fuel oil grade called “Fuel Oil A” in order to identify and prevent illegal blending of kerosene and Fuel Oil A into automotive diesel for tax evasion.

54 Working Group for Standardization of Biodiesel Fuel for Vehicles in East Asia (2008), ‘Trend of Biodiesel Fuel in Japan’, pp.5-24.



Results are generally not published in detail publicly, but a minimum fine of ¥1 million (US$10,000) or 1 year of imprisonment is given to companies that do not comply with the law. In addition, the business will shut down for a period of 6 months, or business registration can be revoked.

In accordance with the “Quality Manifest System,” the petroleum products that have been confirmed to meet the quality specifications in compliance with the JIS standards are permitted to place the SQ (Standard Quality) mark at service stations. The “SQ Mark” provides a guarantee of fuel quality at as well as fuel quality information for consumers.

V.6 Alternative Fuels and Niche Fuels

V.6.1 Dimethyl Ether (DME)

Other than LPG, Japan currently sets specifications for DME as an alternative fuel. Since JATOP started, Japan has actively researched on alternative fuels and biofuels with the aim to reduce reliance on conventional fuels and also to reduce CO2 emissions.

On Mar. 21, 2013, the national standard (JIS K 2180-1:2013) for DME as fuel was implemented (see Table V.13). It states that DME can be used as fuel for diesel engines, industrial boilers, gas turbines, automobiles, as well as residential use (including city gas).

Table V.13: JIS K 2180-1 Specifications for DME

Country Japan Spec Name JIS K 2180-1:2013 Year of implementation Mar. 2013 Property DME purity, wt%, min 99.5 Methanol, wt%, max 0.05 Water content, wt%, max 0.03 Hydrocarbon (C3 and below), wt%, max 0.05 CO2, wt%, max 0.10 CO, wt%, max 0.010 Methyl formate, wt%, max 0.050 Methoxyethane, wt%, max 0.20 Evaporative residue, wt%, max 0.0070 Total sulfur, ppm, max 3.0


Before JIS K 2180-1:2013 was implemented, DME was available in two forms: high-quality DME used by the chemical industry and low-quality DME used as fuels. The JSA wanted DME to be used more safely and for a wider range of applications. Hence, it decided to develop JIS K 2180-1:2013 to ensure that the quality of DME supplied remains consistently high.

DME has not been used commercially as an automotive fuel in Japan. However, JIS K 2180-1:2013 will ensure high-quality DME fuel for automobiles in the future.

Japan is further exploring the use of woody biomass in the production of bio-DME. On May 18, 2012, bio-DME was used in a demonstration of a DME truck organized by the DME Vehicle Promotion Committee (DMEVPC). However, there is no commercial production and consumption of bio-DME in Japan. The DMEVPC is one of several associations and committees that have been established to promote the use of DME since 2001. The



DMEVPC released a DME Vehicle Promotion Roadmap up to 2025, which pushed for fuel DME to be used in 100 vehicles by 2015, and 5,000 vehicles by 2020. However, no information can be found on the number of DME vehicles in Japan.

V.6.2 Racing Fuels

Currently, racing fuels used in all categories of championship races are regulated by the Japan Automobile Federation (JAF). Additives that are prohibited in commercially available premium gasoline are similarly not allowed to be added to racing fuels.

In championship races regulated by the JAF, only one particular brand of racing fuel will be provided, and all racing teams have to use it. This involves contracts of a certain degree of complexity between the racing teams and fuel supplier. However, such regulation is relaxed for races under the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM) and Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA). Racing teams competing in FIM and FIA can use their own fuel specifications.

The JAF racing fuel (gasoline) specifications are shown in Table V.14.

Table V.14: Japan Automobile Federation’s Racing Fuel Specifications

Country Japan Property RON, min 95-102 MON, min 85-90 Lead, g/L, max 0.4 Benzene, vol%, max 5 RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, max 900 Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 720-785 Distillation E70, vol%, min-max 10-47 E100, vol%, min-max 30-70 E180, vol%, min 85 FBP, °C, max 225 Residue, vol%, max 2 Oxygen, wt%, max 2.8(1) Nitrogen, wt%, max 0.5 Nitride oxide, ppm, max 100 Hydrogen peroxide, ppm, max 100

Notes:

(1) If lead content ≤ 0.013 g/l, oxygen content is allowed up to 3.7 wt%.

Source: Japan Automobile Federation, 2014



VI. SOUTH KOREA

In South Korea, fuel quality is regulated under two laws: the Clean Air Quality Preservation Act by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and the Petroleum Product Quality Standards in the Petroleum and Alternative Fuel Business Act by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE). The former sets the requirements for properties related to the environment and the latter includes additional properties that relate to the technical properties of fuel.

Fuel quality is monitored and enforced by the Korea Petroleum Quality and Distribution Authority, which is a governmental organization commonly known as K Petro. K Petro is also involved in the development of fuel standards, which started as early as March 1984 when K Petro, formerly known as the Korea Petroleum Quality Inspection Institute, was set up. Beyond the scope of fuel standards, K Petro also actively runs emissions testing for new and imported vehicles for certification purposes.

In the past, South Korea’s fuel specifications have largely been based on EU and California ARB regulations. K Petro adopts three major principles for developing new fuel standards:

• Adoption of fuel standards from foreign countries based on their research; • Consultation with fuel experts; and • In-house research projects.

VI.1 Gasoline

South Korea currently has two grades of gasoline: regular and premium. The gasoline standards require them to have a minimum RON of 91 and 94, respectively. However, commercially available gasoline has higher quality than the required standards, including RON. This is a result of heavy penalties implemented to punish oil companies that supply fuels that are off-specifications. Oil companies feared the unforeseen contamination in the fuel distribution process, which may have resulted in lower-quality gasoline or RON being adversely lowered. This led them to supply higher-than-required RON specifications.

The test methods used for South Korea’s gasoline are KS (Korean Standard) test methods, while Australia primarily adopts ASTM test methods for its gasoline.

Table VI.1 shows South Korea’s gasoline specifications.



Table VI.1: South Korean Gasoline Specifications

Country South Korea Spec Name Petroleum and Alternative Fuels Business Act Grade Regular / Premium Year of implementation Jan. 2010 Property RON, min 91 / 94 Sulfur, ppm, max 10 Lead, g/l, max 0.013 Benzene, vol%, max 0.7 Aromatics, vol%, max 24(1) Olefins, vol%, max 16(1) RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, min-max 44-82(2) Distillation T10, °C, max 70 T50, °C, max 125 T90, °C, max 170 FBP, °C, max 225 Residue, vol%, max 2 Oxygen, wt%, max 2.3(3) Oxygenates Methanol, vol%, max 0.1 wt% Phosphorus, g/l, max 0.0013 Oxidation stability (Induction period), minutes, min 480 Water and sediment, vol%, max 0.01 Existent gum (solvent washed), mg/100ml, max 5 Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C, merit (class), max No. 1 Color Yellow / Green

Notes:

(1) Either aromatics 24 vol% max and olefins 16 vol% max, or aromatics 21 vol% max and olefins 19 vol% max

(2) Hot climate (June - August): 60 kPa; Cold climate (October - March): 96 kPa

(3) Oxygen contained in MTBE, ETBE and Bio-ethanol

Source: Korea Petroleum Quality and Distribution Authority

Out of all the parameters listed in Table VI.1 that are regulated under the Petroleum and Alternative Fuels Business Act, the following parameters are regulated under the Clean Air Quality Preservation Act:

• Aromatics • Benzene • Lead • Phosphorus • Oxygen

• Olefins • Sulfur • RVP • T90

Since 2009, the sulfur content of South Korea’s gasoline has already reached 10 ppm and below. This stringent sulfur limit has been implemented largely due to environmental concerns. South Korea is the second Asian country after Japan to implement 10 ppm sulfur gasoline and diesel at the same time, which happened concurrently with the implementation of the EU requirement. In contrast, Australia’s gasoline sulfur limit is higher at 50 ppm for PULP and 150 ppm for all grades.



VI.1.1 Aromatics

South Korea has one of the most stringent specifications for aromatics, at 24 vol% max. This was set due to environment concerns over PM emissions. Australia, on the other hand, sets a cap of 45 vol% for aromatics, which is almost double the limit set by South Korea. South Korea’s aromatics limit is proposed to be further tightened to 22 vol% max in 2015.

VI.1.2 Oxygen and Oxygenates

South Korea’s oxygen limit is set based on the MTBE that is allowed to be added to gasoline. Compared to Australia’s oxygen limit of 2.7 wt% max, South Korea’s oxygen limit is lower at 2.3 wt% max because it only accounts for MTBE and not ethanol. In South Korea, MTBE is the most popular oxygenate added to gasoline, compared to ETBE and bio-ethanol, due to pricing and availability. Although MTBE is added to South Korea’s gasoline, there are no limits set for ethers in the South Korean gasoline standard. In contrast, Australia specifies ethers limits of 1 vol% max DIPE and 1 vol% max MTBE.

South Korea will put into place a Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) that will take effect starting in July 2015. Besides increasing the use of biodiesel, the RFS will also look at using ETBE or ethanol. According to K Petro, gasoline containing levels of E3-E5 is not expected to pose problems to gasoline quality in South Korea if ethanol is used.

Methanol content has been set at 0.1 wt% for South Korean gasoline max to prevent illegal blending of methanol into gasoline. However, no methanol limit is set for Australian gasoline.

VI.2 Diesel

Similar to gasoline, the sulfur content of South Korea’s diesel has reached 10 ppm and below since 2009. The average cetane number in the market is 55.5. Table VI.2 shows South Korea’s diesel specifications.

Since January 2010, South Korea requires a B2 blend level in diesel fuel. The diesel fuel specifications currently allow up to 5 vol% biodiesel. In addition, B20 specifications have been set that is currently allowed for use in captive fleets such as large buses or trucks, as well as by construction equipment operators equipped with certified storage tanks and self-repair workshops.

Diesel vehicles are gaining popularity in South Korea. Currently, compared to the 9 million gasoline passenger cars in South Korea, diesel passenger cars have gained considerable market share. There are currently approximately 7 million diesel passenger cars on the road.



Table VI.2: South Korean Diesel Specifications

Country South Korea Spec Name Petroleum and Alternative Fuels Business Act Grade Automotive Diesel Year of implementation Jan. 2014 Property Cetane number, min 52(1) Cetane index, min 52(1) Sulfur, ppm, max 10 Polyaromatics, wt%, min-max 2-5 Total aromatics, vol%, max 30 Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 815-835 Viscosity @ 40°C, cST, min-max 1.9-5.5 Distillation T90, °C, min-max 360 max Flash Point,°C, min 40 Carbon residue 10%, wt%, max 0.15 Cold Filter Plugging Point (CFPP),°C, max -18 Pour Point (PP),°C, max -23.0 (w) / 0.0 (s) Water and sediment, vol%, max 0.02 Ash, wt%, max 0.02 Lubricity, HFRR wear scar diam @ 60°C, micron, max 400 Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 100°C, merit (class), max 1 FAME content, vol%, max 5

Notes:

(1) Winter (Nov. 15 - Feb. 18): 48


Of the parameters listed in Table VI.2, the following parameters are regulated by the Clean Air Preservation Act:

• Cetane Index • Density • Sulfur • Carbon residue 10% • Polyaromatics • Lubricity • Total aromatics

South Korea generally uses KS test methods for testing of diesel parameters, while Australia primarily uses ASTM test methods. For lubricity parameter testing, in addition to the KS test method, South Korea uses the CEC-F-06-A test method, while Australia uses the IP 450 test method. Both South Korea and Australia use EN 14078 test method for FAME.

VI.2.1 Polyaromatics

The polyaromatics specification of Korean diesel is more stringent than Australian polyaromatics specification. South Korea sets its polyaromatics limit at 5 wt% max, while Australia sets it as 11 wt% max. The reason for South Korea to have such a low polyaromatics limit is to reduce PM emissions. In 2013, K Petro carried out tests on this parameter and submitted results to the MOE; however, the results are not publicly available.



VI.2.2 Viscosity and Cold Flow

South Korea sets its viscosity limits at 1.9-5.5 cSt, which are wider than Australia’s 2.0-4.5 cSt. South Korea sets its viscosity limits relating to cold-flow properties such as CFPP and pour point, which is not the case for Australia. South Korea’s specifications are different from Australia’s specifications because of their differences in climatic conditions. South Korea has more-severe winters and milder summer temperatures than Australia. In 2010, cold-start issues were found in diesel vehicles in South Korea, which resulted in the reduction of the limits for CFPP from -16°C to -18°C in November 2011 and pour point in winter from 17.5°C to -23°C in January 2014.

VI.2.3 Density

South Korea’s density specification for diesel is notably different from Australian specifications. It specifies a narrow range of 815-835 kg/m3, which is in the lighter range of diesel compared to Australia’s 820-850 kg/m3 range.

One of the reasons behind the narrow range in the density specification of diesel is to prevent the distribution of illegal diesel that is mixed with middle distillates exempted from taxation. For example, if light middle distillates such as kerosene are mixed with diesel, its density will be much lower. In South Korea, diesel has been illegally mixed with kerosene in cases in which its fuel marker has been found to be illegally removed.

Korean researchers have also noted that diesel fuel with density from 835 to 860 kg/m3 contains higher levels of aromatics, including polyaromatics and higher T90, resulting in higher PM emissions. If heavier crudes are processed, the diesel yield should be decreased in order to meet the limits set for T90, density and aromatics. However, the Korean government would not likely relax the specifications when refineries process heavy crudes.

VI.2.4 Oxidation Stability

South Korea does not set a limit for oxidation stability even though it allows up to 5 vol% FAME. In contrast, Australia sets its oxidation stability limit at 2.5 mg/100ml max while allowing the same level of FAME to be blended. The South Korean authorities explained that there has been no issue with the oxidation stability of the current B2 blends after the addition of antioxidant additives, so a limit for oxidation stability has not been set.

VI.2.5 Electrical Conductivity

The Australian diesel specification sets a limit of 50 pS/m, while the South Korean diesel standard does not set a limit for electrical conductivity. Electrical conductivity limits have been excluded in South Korean diesel specifications because diesel is mainly transported by trucks instead of pipelines, and the South Korean authorities felt that sufficient safety measures have been in place in the distribution system of diesel.

VI.3 Autogas

Autogas has gained considerable popularity in the country. South Korea currently has the largest fleet of LPG vehicles in the world. In 2011, there were approximately 2.4 million LPG vehicles in South Korea. Approximately 50% of South Korea’s comes from domestic refineries, while the other half comes from natural gas byproduct. The specifications for Korean autogas are shown in Table VI.3.



Table VI.3: South Korean Autogas Specifications Country South Korea Spec Name Petroleum and Alternative Fuels Business Act Grade No.2 (Automobile, Cabinet Heater) Year of implementation Jan. 2009 Property Sulfur, ppm, max 40 Vapor pressure @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, max 1270 Composition Propane + Propylene, mol%, min-max 10 min (s) / 25-35 (w)(1)(2) Butane, mol%, min 85 mol% (s) / 60 mol% (w)(1) Butadiene (1,3-butadiene), max 0.5 mol% Evaporative Residue, max 0.05 ml Copper corrosion, 1hr @ 40°C, merit (class), max No. 1 Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 500-620

Notes:

(1) Winter standards for products and imports shall be applied from Nov. 1 to March 31 of the next year and for inspections during the distribution stage shall be applied from Nov. 1 to April 30 of the next year. During November and April, both winter and summer use shall be applied.

(2) When isobutene is 30 mol% or higher, the lowest limit for C3 hydrocarbon composition rate is 5 mol%.


All the parameters that are regulated under the Petroleum and Alternative Fuels Business Act for LPG are also regulated under the Clean Air Preservation Act, except for butane and butadiene, which are only regulated by the Petroleum and Alternative Fuels Business Act.

South Korea and Australia have a variety of test methods for testing LPG, of which some test methods are identical for a few parameters. In general, South Korea uses KS and ASTM test methods, while Australia uses a wider range of test methods, including ASTM, ISO, CEN and JLPGA.

The commentary for Korean autogas specifications is summarized in Table VI.4.



Table VI.4: Commentary on South Korean Autogas Specifications

Property Commentary

MON South Korea does not specify a limit for MON, while Australia requires a minimum MON of 90.5 for LPG. MON is not specified in South Korea because the composition of LPG is already specified.

Vapor Pressure/ Composition

Instead of MON, South Korea regulates the composition of LPG. Australia does not specify the composition limits for LPG (except total dienes and pentane), as it has already specified a MON limit. South Korea sets a high minimum butane limit to ensure that the most abundant component in LPG is butane. This was done because there has been excess butane production in South Korea over the past years, and the Korean authorities want to eliminate this excess butane supply.

Australia sets its vapor pressure limits at 800-1,530 kPa, while South Korea sets only the upper limit of vapor pressure, at 1,270 kPa. South Korea sets the vapor pressure limit according to the composition of LPG.

Butadiene

South Korea sets a limit for butadiene content in its LPG specifications, but Australia does not set a limit for butadiene. South Korean authorities noted that butadiene is a residue from the production process of LPG. It is found to be dangerous because of its reactivity and susceptibility to polymerization. Hence, the content of butadiene in LPG has been controlled by setting its limit to 0.5 mol%.

Evaporative Residue The evaporative residue limit set by South Korea is 0.05 ml max, while Australia sets it at 60 ppm max. South Korea’s limit is set based on U.S. LPG specifications.

Hydrogen Sulfide South Korea does not specify a limit for hydrogen sulfide in its LPG specifications, while Australia requires it to be negative. According to South Korean authorities, a hydrogen sulfide limit was not set since there were no issues with hydrogen sulfide in their LPG.


VI.4 Biodiesel

Biodiesel has come under the spotlight in South Korea’s energy landscape in recent years because South Korea, as the world’s seventh largest oil consumer, aims to reduce its reliance on crude imports and reduce emissions at the same time.

As mentioned, South Korea will put into place a RFS that will take effect starting July 2015. Plans under the RFS include increasing the current B2 blending level to possibly B7 by 2020, although this is yet to be determined, as well as increasing usage of higher biodiesel blends, including B20 and B85 and deploying more flexi-fuel vehicles on the road by 2020. There has been extensive research done to investigate the effects of blending biodiesel on the performance of vehicles.

Table VI.5 shows South Korea’s biodiesel specifications.



Table VI.5: South Korean Biodiesel Specifications

Country South Korea Spec Name Petroleum and Alternative Fuels Business Act Year of implementation Jan. 2006 Property Ester content (concentration), wt%, min 96.5 Sulfur, ppm, max 10 Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 860-900 Viscosity @ 40°C, cST, min-max 1.9-5 Flash Point, °C, min 120 Carbon residue 100% (CCR), wt%, max 0.1 Water, vol%, max 0.05 wt% Ash, wt%, max 0.01 Total contamination, ppm, max 24 Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 100°C, merit (class), max No. 1 Acid value, mg KOH/g, max 0.5 Alcohol Methanol, vol%, max 0.2 wt% Monoglycerides, wt%, max 0.8 Diglycerides, wt%, max 0.2 Triglycerides, wt%, max 0.2 Glycerol Free, wt%, max 0.02 Total, wt%, max 0.24 Phosphorus, ppm, max 10 Alkali, Group I (Na, K), ppm, max 5 Metals, Group II (Ca, Mg), ppm, max 5 Cold Filter Plugging Point (CFPP), °C, max 0 (w) Oxidation stability @ 110°C, hour, min 6


The following biodiesel parameters in Table VI.5 are regulated under the Clean Air Preservation Act:

• Ester content • Diglycerides • Sulfur • Triglycerides • Density • Free glycerol • Viscosity • Total glycerol • Carbon residue 100% • Phosphorus • Ash • Alkali, Group I (NA, K) • Acid value • Metals, Group II (Ca, Mg) • Methanol • Oxidation stability • Monoglycerides

South Korea’s biodiesel specifications primarily adopt EU’s biodiesel specifications. There has been plentiful in-house research performed to examine the relevance of the various biodiesel limits in the context of use in South Korea, which has resulted in some modifications made to them.

To test the biodiesel parameters, South Korea generally uses KS test methods, while Australia adopts ASTM test methods for most of the biodiesel parameters. For some parameters, CEN test methods are used by both South Korea and Australia. There are some identical test methods used, including prEN 14103 (ester content), EN 12662 (total contamination), EN 14107 (phosphorus) and pr EN 14538 (Metals, Group I).



Currently, palm RBD (refined, bleached and deodorized) accounts for 63% of the feedstocks used in producing biodiesel, while the rest comes from used cooking oil. According to K Petro, so far biodiesel produced from used cooking oil has not posed problems in South Korea, since they meet the biodiesel specifications.

There are a number of differences between the Australian biodiesel specifications and South Korea’s biodiesel specifications, including density, viscosity, carbon residue 10%, acid value and total glycerol where the limits for density and acid value follow that of the EU. However, the information for such differences is largely unavailable, according to the Korean research authorities.

VI.5 Fuel Quality Monitoring and Enforcement

Designated by the Petroleum and Alternative Fuel Business Act implemented since 2006 in South Korea, K Petro is the government’s designated petroleum and alternative fuel organization that ensures the quality and manages distribution of petroleum products and illegal products. K Petro performs regular and irregular quality inspection across all stages, including production, imports, transportation, storage, pipeline, service stations, etc.

In particular, there are two types of inspection required by the Act and inspection period is as follows:

• Regular inspection by law (article 25-1): o refinery: 1 time per month o imports: whenever petroleum products are imported o storage tanks and pipelines : 1 time per quarter

• Irregular inspection by law (article 25-2): all stages

In the case of inspections performed at gas stations, inspections can be made known to the gas stations or “mystery shopping” can be performed. K Petro also has a patented vehicle that can be used for on-site testing of the fuels. In general, such measures implemented by K Petro have been effective in minimizing the supply of illegal and off-spec products. Currently, only 1-2% of the fuels sampled could not meet the required specifications.

Since taking over the monitoring of fuel distribution (in addition to quality), K Petro has found a significant reduction in the illegal distribution of adulterated fuels, which is the result of differences in taxes levied on petroleum products. Over the years, the products are found to contain fewer and fewer adulterants like solvents because of improved monitoring, but fuel adulteration of diesel with kerosene remains.

Detailed laboratory analysis results of the fuels sampled are generally not available to the public. Warnings are first issued to companies whose samples are found to not comply with fuel quality specifications. For companies that have been issued repeated warnings, revocation and suspension of businesses is permitted, in addition to severe fines.



VI.6 Alternative Fuels and Niche Fuels

South Korea has developed LPG only as an alternative fuel for vehicles. CNG is used as an automotive fuel for downtown buses in Seoul and selected cities. However, the number of buses running on CNG is very small, and the consumption of CNG as an automotive fuel is insignificant compared to gasoline, diesel and LPG.

Currently, DME is under investigation as a fuel for use primarily in power generation and industrial boilers. However, there is little information on the development of DME in South Korea.

Specifications have yet to be set for CNG and DME in South Korea.

VI.6.1 Racing Fuels

South Korea currently does not regulate the use of niche fuels such as racing fuels. According to the Korean oil companies, racing teams are likely to import their own racing fuels. One such example would be the import of a fuel containing “biogasoline” for the 2010 South Korean Grand Prix, which was a Formula One championship race. The fuel, which was produced by Shell’s technology partner Virent at its facility in Madison, Wisconsin, U.S., was supplied to Scuderia Ferrari. It contained a biofuel component made from cellulosic ethanol, an advanced biofuel made from wheat straw. In cases where imported fuels are not available, the racing teams will likely purchase and use the premium gasoline (RON 99) produced and sold locally at the service stations.



VII. COMMENTARY ON CHANGES THAT MAY BE NEEDED

This section will provide commentary on the types of changes that may be needed (for example, to feedstocks or production processes) in order to align any parameters for which there are differences.

In Hart Energy Research & Consulting’s view, there are a number of specifications in Australian gasoline, diesel, biodiesel and E85 that may require changes. The autogas specifications are adequate for now, subject to discussions at the CEN level (e.g., sulfur). However, it is worthwhile to note that further study would be needed to assess the expected air quality improvements and enabling of advanced emission control technologies for the Australia vehicle fleet as well as the impact on the refining industry and to the fuel supply. This is recognition of the fact that the reference countries in this report (i.e., EU, U.S., Japan and South Korea) have different configurations in place for their refining industries, diverse vehicle fleets and air quality issues as well as varying political and market conditions.

Furthermore, before discussing potential impacts on Australian refineries, Hart Energy Research & Consulting would also like to point out that Australia is reliant on the import market for a significant portion of gasoline and diesel supply. Therefore, the potential impact of Australian specification changes will be dependent as well on the availability of compliant product in the international market.

VII.1 Gasoline

Hart Energy Research & Consulting suggests alignments for two gasoline parameters (sulfur and aromatics) and recommendations for two parameters (phosphorus and silver corrosion) (see Table VII.1). Table VII.2 provides short commentaries for the other parameters, where no further alignments or changes are suggested at this stage.



Table VII.1: Commentary on Changes That May Be Needed for Gasoline Parameters

Parameter Current Limit

Proposed Limit Commentary

Sulfur

150 ppm max

(all grades) 50 ppm max

(PULP)

10 ppm max (all grades)

Align with the EU, Japan and South Korea, all of which already implemented the 10 ppm sulfur limit in January 2009 except for Japan, which required the limit in 2008 and voluntarily switched to 10 ppm sulfur gasoline nationwide by January 2005, three years ahead of legislation. Germany was the first EU country to enforce the sulfur limit 6 years ahead in 2003 and six other EU countries (Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary and Sweden) implemented the limit already in 2006. U.S. will reduce this limit to 10 ppm starting Jan. 1, 2017. It is well established at this point that lower sulfur is necessary to enable advanced emission controls on the vehicles that are being produced and driven in markets such as Australia today. Reduction of gasoline sulfur will require investment in FCC gasoline desulfurization facilities. This has been the general strategy in all areas where gasoline sulfur levels were reduced to 10 ppm. For some refineries, the reduction may also be achieved by severe desulfurization of the FCC process feed. However, the gasoline desulfurization option has lower capital requirements and for most cases is likely to be the most cost effective option. The gasoline desulfurization typically results in octane loss which will require octane replacement. This is further discussed in the aromatics section of this table. If HC, CO, PM and ozone air pollution are a problem (see Australia’s emissions from the auto sector in Figure VII.1), at least in the larger cities, then air quality improvement benefits will be achieved from sulfur reduction as well. Thus, a feasibility study to assess refinery costs and a timeframe to achieve the 10 ppm limit is recommended. Note that ASTM D4814 provides numerous test methods for sulfur D1266, D2622, D3120, D5453, D6920, D7039, while the current Australian specifications only provide one test method (D5453).

Aromatics

42% pool average over

6 months with a cap of

45%

35 vol% max

Align with the EU, which implemented the 35 vol% limit in 2005. This is taking into consideration the EPEFE simulation of different aromatics content according to the driving cycle and the effect of aromatics on deposit formation. However, it is recommended to discuss aromatics reduction with fuel producers and suppliers as well as automotive industry in Australia. So far, CEN discussions found that this limit is currently sufficient and there are no further discussions to reduce it further. The current cap of 45 vol% may reflect the refining industry’s reliance on reformate to produce adequate octane for the gasoline pool. Reducing the content of aromatic hydrocarbons in gasoline has been shown to reduce NOx emissions, exhaust reactivity, and benzene emissions. Of the fuel properties tested by the Air Quality Improvement Research Program (AQIRP) in the U.S. in the 1990s,



reduced aromatic content had the largest effect on total toxics due to the lowering of exhaust benzene emissions.55 The research showed that reduction of aromatics from 45 vol% to 20 vol% lowered the total air toxic emissions from catalyst-equipped cars by 23 to 38%. Benzene comprised 74% of the toxic emissions from U.S. model cars with fuel-injected engines and new emission-control technology and 56% from older catalyst-equipped cars with carbureted engines. It is important to note that lowering benzene levels to 1 vol%, which Australia has already done, is the most effective approach in controlling benzene emissions. Based on the configurations and likely gasoline blending operations of the Australian refineries, the average gasoline aromatics content is not likely to be significantly above the recommended 35 vol% limit. However, individual batches and grades could be much higher. For those refineries which do not now have isomerization facilities (two of the Australian refineries) and blend straight run naphtha, investment in isomerization capacity will allow for some reduction in reformate octane with a concurrent reduction in aromatics. Other small octane improvements (and opportunity for reformate octane/aromatics reduction) may be accomplished by FCC operation adjustments to yield more light olefin for alkylation processing. This may require some investment to increase alkylation capacity and/or for butane isomerization. In any event, this option will not yield a large change in aromatics. Furthermore, these types of small adjustments may be required to make up octane loss from gasoline desulfurization. Aromatics reduction can be achieved by investing in aromatics extraction facilities and diverting aromatics product to the petrochemical market. This is a high cost option and would only be economically viable if refineries have access to an attractive aromatics market. Finally, refineries can reduce octane requirements (and aromatics) by shifting gasoline production to a higher portion of low octane grade and importing the higher octane grade. Note that there will be a correlation between the capability to reduce aromatics and the octane capabilities of Australian refineries. Lowering the aromatics will require reduction of reformate octane or reformate blending, thereby reducing gasoline octane. If gasoline sulfur is also reduced to 10 ppm, there will also be an impact on octane due to gasoline desulfurization octane loss. If toxic air emissions (e.g. HC, CO) and NOx are a problem in Australia (see Figure VII.1), especially in the cities, than reducing aromatics may be worth further study. A feasibility study to assess refinery costs and a time frame to achieve the 35 vol% limit is recommended.

55 Michael Walsh, et al., Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Standards and Technologies for Controlling Emissions, 1996 p. 200 (citing findings from the AQIRP in 1990, 1991 and 1993).





Phosphorus 0.0013 g/l max

Keep the limit but add a footnote:

“No intentional adding of

phosphorus to unleaded gasoline is allowed.”

The EU currently sets this limit at 0 with an accompanying footnote “In order to protect automotive catalyst systems, phosphorus containing compounds shall not be included in unleaded petrol.” The same footnote could be suggested for the Australian gasoline standards since Hart Energy Research & Consulting understands that Australia has already phased out its lead replacement petrol (LRP) grade. According to the U.S. EPA regulation (59 FR 7716; 2/16/94), no intentional addition of heavy metals is allowed. However, the current test method ASTM D 3231, used in the U.S. and Australia, cannot detect phosphorus content out of the test method’s range i.e. 0.0002 to 0.040 g/l (0.0008 to 0.15 g/gal). Therefore, the EPA decided to keep a limit for phosphorus content at 0.0013 g/l.

Silver corrosion No limit Class 1 max

If the government adopts a lower sulfur standard, then it may be advisable to consider adopting the silver corrosion specification in ASTM D 4814 to protect against reactive sulfur compounds that can corrode or tarnish silver alloy fuel gauge in-tank sender units. This parameter is not regulated in the EU, although the CEN discussed this some years ago. The problem was related to silver-plated fuel gauges (mainly BMW) and the presence, in some cases, of sulfur species. Automotive industry in the EU found that the copper corrosion test was not sensitive enough to protect against these species. Although it was debated several times, a conclusion was never came to except that the petroleum industry would monitor their fuel quality and that automotive companies would change their fuel gauges by using less sensitive metals (e.g., gold-plated).


Figure VII.1: Australia’s Contribution of Top Five Substances to Air by Source, in % (Year 2006-07)

Source: National Pollutant Inventory, Australian Department of Environment, 2014



Table VII.2: Commentary on Other Gasoline Parameters

Parameter Current Limit Commentary

RON MON

91/95 min 81/85 min

Aligned with the EU for premium grade gasoline (PULP) at RON 95/MON85. Even though regular grade gasoline (RON 91) is not regulated in the EU, MS may decide to continue to permit the marketing of gasoline with minimum MON of 81 and RON of 91. Regular grade (ULP) accounts for a large share of Australia’s gasoline market at about 73.2%(1).

Lead 0.005 g/l max Aligned with the EU

Benzene 1 vol% max Aligned with the EU and Japan. No immediate need to reduce to lower than 1 vol% unless there is a serious toxic problem like it was in the U.S.

Manganese -

Considering the EU’s difficulties with collecting information on its usage in the EU and with finding an agreement on MMT limits, it is being suggested to not introduce a limit for MMT in Australia. On the other hand, it might be useful to consult with Australia’s auto industry and inquire if they have observed vehicle performance issues because of manganese.

Olefins 18 vol% max Aligned with the EU Distillation

(final boiling point) 210°C max Aligned with the EU

Oxygen

2.7 wt% max (no ethanol)

3.9 wt% max (with ethanol)

Aligned with the EU

Ethanol 10 vol% max Aligned with the EU

Tert-butyl alcohol (TBA) 0.5 vol% max Not aligned with the EU’s 15 vol% limit where TBA is not used in the region. However, no changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

Ethers 1 vol% DIPE max and 1 vol% MTBE max

Not aligned with the EU’s 22 vol% limit where ethers such as MTBE and ETBE are used. However, no changes are suggested for Australia at this time. Should Australia decide to raise the content of oxygenates, the oxygen level should be revised accordingly after consultation with the auto industry.

Oxidation stability 360 minutes min Aligned with the EU Existent gum (solvent

washed) 5 mg/100ml max Aligned with the EU

Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C Class 1 max Aligned with the EU

Notes: (1) Gasoline 59.4%; E10 13.8%.


VII.2 Diesel

Hart Energy Research & Consulting suggests alignments for two diesel parameters (polyaromatics and carbon residue) (see Table VII.3). No alignments or changes are suggested at this stage for other parameters (see Table VII.4).



Table VII.3: Commentary on Changes That May Be Needed for Diesel Parameters



Polyaromatics 11 wt% max 8 wt% max

Align with the EU’s limit of 8 wt%. Considering that Australia has limited sulfur content in diesel to 10 ppm, it is suggested to discuss with the refining industry a feasibility to reduce the content of PAH from diesel to 8 wt%. These measures could further help reduce NOx and PM emissions in Australia. PAH content of diesel fuel is very site specific and will depend on a number of factors including feed quality and process operating conditions. The changes refineries would have to make to comply with reduced PAH limits will depend on their starting point and on the type and degree of diesel desulfurization employed. Many refineries will likely be able to meet the 8 wt% spec with no change from current operations. Refineries may be able to reduce PAH by increasing the severity of operation in existing diesel/kerosene desulfurization facilities and/or reducing on-stream run lengths on these facilities. Refineries can also reduce PAH to some extent by reducing diesel endpoint which will also reduce volume. Finally, refineries can reduce PAH by investing in high cost hydro-aromatization facilities. The recommended 8 wt% limit is not too stringent and may be achievable by Australian refineries with little or no change. Note that in the EU, the 8 wt% limit was specified considering the potentially high cost of a requirement to further reduce PAH. Analysis indicated the 8 wt% limit could be met with essentially at no cost (minimal cost) while lower limits would increase compliance cost significantly56. Hart Energy Research & Consulting anticipates that the Australian refineries will be able to meet the 8 wt% limit with minimal or no changes.

Carbon residue 10% 0.2 wt% max 0.15 wt% max

Australia’s current limit is stricter than the EU’s limit of 0.3 wt% but lower than that of Japan (0.1 wt%), South Korea and the U.S. (0.15 wt%). It is observed that Australia currently uses test method ASTM D 4530 “Standard Test Method for Determination of Carbon Residue (Micro Method),” which is different from that currently used by the U.S., ASTM D 524 “Standard Test Method for Ramsbottom Carbon Residue of Petroleum Products.” The carbon residue specification impact will be similar to the PAH limit. Hart Energy Research & Consulting does not anticipate an impact on Australian refineries. If there is some impact on specific facilities, the specification can likely be addressed with a small change in end point with a concurrent small reduction in production volume. Since carbon residue affects engine deposits, it is proposed for further reduction to 0.15 wt%, but only if it is a prevalent issue in Australia. This may also mean a switch of the test method to ASTM D 524. Further consultation with the industry is recommended.


56 Impact of a potential reduction of the Poly-Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel on the EU Refining Industry, CONCAWE, Report 7/05



Table VII.4: Commentary on Other Diesel Parameters


Cetane number 51.0 min (containing biodiesel) Aligned with the EU

Cetane index 46 min Aligned with the EU

Sulfur 10 ppm max Aligned with the EU, Japan and South Korea

Density 820-850 kg/m3

Australia’s upper density limit is not aligned with the EU’s current 845 kg/m3 limit for temperate climates. Unlike Europe, Australia does not have a large fuel oil market. It has been understood that adoption of this limit will restrict the range of crudes suitable for use in Australian refineries in order to produce more diesel and less fuel oil. Hence, no further changes are suggested at this time. However, it is important to note that in order to optimize engine performance and exhaust emissions, minimum and maximum density limits must be defined in a fairly narrow range.

Viscosity @ 40°C 2-4.5 cST Aligned with the EU

Distillation T95 360°C max Aligned with the EU

Flash point 61.5°C min Australia’s current limit is stricter than the limits set for the EU, U.S., Japan and South Korea. No further changes are suggested at this time.

Water and sediment 0.05 vol% max Aligned with the U.S.

Water 200 mg/kg max (containing biodiesel) Aligned with the EU

Ash 100 ppm max Aligned with the EU

Lubricity 460 microns max Aligned with the EU Copper corrosion, 3hr @

50°C Class 1 max Aligned with the EU

Oxidation stability 25 mg/l max Aligned with the EU

Conductivity @ ambient temperature

50 pS/m min (all diesel held by

terminal or refinery for sale or

distribution)

Australia’s current limit is stricter than the U.S. limit of 25 pS/m. Hence, no further changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

Filter blocking tendency 2.0 max Limits are not set for this parameter in the EU, U.S., Japan or South Korea. Hence, no further changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

Color 2 max

Limits are not set for this parameter in the EU, U.S., Japan or South Korea. Since this level is consistent with the Australian refining industry practice, no further changes are suggested for Australia at this time.




FAME content 5 vol% max

Aligned with the U.S. and South Korea, while Japan sets separate specifications for diesel containing up to 5 wt% biodiesel. No changes are suggested for Australia at this time as this depends on Australia’s biofuel policies on whether to mandate the use of biodiesel on a nationwide basis. However, it is important to note that increasing this limit will have an impact on Australia’s diesel vehicle fleet. In January 2014, the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA) released its position on blending biodiesel beyond B5. To close the quality gap between biodiesel and conventional diesel fuel and to ensure safe performance in all diesel vehicles, JAMA recommended that blending should not be higher than B5, regardless of feedstock, and that additives be used to enhance oxidative stability. JAMA also strongly recommended hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) or biomass-to-liquid (BTL) products as blendstocks for the production of diesel fuel containing more than 5 vol% FAME. These products have no inherent double bonds or oxidative stability issues. It is also important to note that lower diesel density generally reduces emissions, and the impacts are more significant for LDVs rather than for HDVs. Since a higher biodiesel volume will increase diesel density, and if Australia decides to increase the biodiesel blending limit beyond B5, it is recommended that petroleum diesel and biodiesel blend densities are within the same acceptable range. It is also recommended for Australia to analyze benefits and disadvantages of increasing biodiesel blending into diesel e.g. cost efficiency, capacity, implications on agriculture and its products, age of vehicles, etc.


VII.3 Autogas

In Hart Energy Research & Consulting’s view, Australia’s autogas specifications are more than adequate, and we do not believe that changes need to be considered at this time. Table VII.5 provides short commentaries for the autogas parameters, where no further alignments or changes are suggested at this stage.



Table VII.5: Commentary on Autogas Parameters


MON 90.5 min Stricter than the EU’s limit of 89. There are discussions to review this limit at the CEN level but no further information is available.

Sulfur 50 ppm max

Aligned with the EU. There are discussions at the CEN level to reduce this further to 30 ppm by end-2015 (and possibly to 10 ppm at a later stage), for which Australia could possibly consider aligning with (refer EU’s Autogas section).

Vapor pressure @ 40°C 800-1,530 kPa Shares the same lower limit with the EU even though it is not set in the EU. No further changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

Dienes 0.3 mol% max Stricter than the EU’s limit of 0.5 mol%. Hence, no further changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

Volatile residue (Pentane and heavier) 2 mol% max

Limits are not set for this parameter in the EU, U.S., Japan or South Korea. Hence, no further changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

Evaporative residue 60 mg/kg max Aligned with the EU

Water No free water at 0°C Aligned with the EU

Hydrogen sulfide Negative Aligned with the EU

Copper corrosion Class 1 max Aligned with the EU

Odor Detectable in air at

20% lower flammability limit

Aligned with the EU


VII.4 Biodiesel

Hart Energy Research & Consulting suggests alignments for three biodiesel parameters (acid value, phosphorus and oxidation stability) and recommendations for one new parameter (cold soak filterability) (see Table VII.6). Table VII.7 provides short commentaries for the other parameters, where no further alignments or changes are suggested at this stage.



Table VII.6: Commentary on Changes That May Be Needed for Biodiesel Parameters



Acid value 0.80 mg KOH/g max

0.50 mg KOH/g max

Align with the limit of 0.5 mg KOH/g shared by the EU, U.S., Japan and South Korea in order to ensure the storage of biodiesel and reduce corrosiveness. It is important to note that the presence of acids in the fuel can harm injection systems and other metallic components. The U.S. industry (and CEN) consensus is that this is the right level to protect against fueling system deposits and corrosion. The acid value or acid number of edible oils or their corresponding esters indicates the quantity of free fatty acids (FFA) and mineral acids (negligible) present. Besides the quality control of biodiesel, the acid number plays a significant role in the quality control of feedstocks. Generally, the glycerides should have an acid number less than 1 mg KOH/g57. Higher acid numbers lower the ester yields and increase sodium hydroxide consumption for neutralization. Used oils and greases used as biodiesel feedstock tend to have a high percentage of FFAs. Additionally, increasing acid numbers, when compared to the initial acid number of the biodiesel, can point to ongoing fuel degradation or the intrusion of water (hydrolysis of the FFAs). One way to deal with a high percentage of FFAs is to use an acid catalyst such as sulfuric or hydrochloric acid to convert the FFAs to esters, followed by an alkali catalyst to convert the triglycerides to esters58. One problem with this approach is that the conversion of FFAs to esters causes water formation, which can cause soaps to form during the alkali-catalyzed process. However, this problem can be overcome by using an acid pre-treatment process to reduce the FFAs of the oil or grease. An acid catalyst and alcohol are added and reacted, the mixture is allowed to reach equilibrium, and the methanol, water, and acid portion that separates is removed. Then, if necessary, more acid and alcohol are added, and the process is repeated until the FFA level is less than 1%. After this pretreatment process, the reaction is continued with alkaline-catalyzed transesterification.

57 F. Ma and M.A. Hanna, Biodiesel production: A review, Bioresource Technology, 70, 1-15 (1999). 58 Canakci, M. and J. Van Gerpen (2001). Biodiesel Production from Oils and Fats with High Free Fatty Acids, Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 44(6):1429-1436.

http://www3.me.iastate.edu/biodiesel/Technical%20Papers/More%20papers/paper1.pdf





Phosphorus 10 mg/kg max 4 mg/kg max

Align with the EU’s limit of 4 ppm, which will help improve the performance of catalytic converters and newer vehicle technologies. It is recommended to consult with the automotive industry if they have noticed any issues in relation to phosphorus. Phosphorus is present in biodiesel at trace levels from phospholipid compounds naturally found in plant oils, and larger quantities can sometimes be found as a result of the use of phosphorus‐containing fertilizer to grow the biomass feedstock and inorganic salts that may be contained in used cooking oils. Phosphorus can greatly impair the effectiveness of emission control systems. Its influence is cumulative, which means that even very low levels in the fuel may lead to premature deterioration over time, especially when an engine consumes a significant amount of contaminated fuel. If phosphoric acid is used in the process to remove catalyst, phosphorus can also originate from there. However, phosphoric acid can usually be removed from biodiesel with water.

Oxidation stability @

110°C 6 hours min 8 hours min

Aligned with South Korea but not with the EU. A stricter oxidation stability limit may help to measure FAME resistance to the oxidative process. However, it is suggested to consult with the industry on oxidation stability issues before deciding on the measures to be adopted by Australia.

Cold-soak filterability /

Cold flow No limit 200 / 360

seconds max

If precipitates have been an issue in Australia’s biodiesel, the government may want to consider adding a cold soak filterability specification in line with ASTM D6751. Similarly, if there are any instances of gelling or fuel injector fouling, the government may want to consider adding a cold-flow specification.




Table VII.7: Commentary on Other Biodiesel Parameters


Cetane number 51.0 min Aligned with the EU and Japan

Ester content 96.5 wt% min Aligned with the EU, Japan and South Korea

Sulfur 10 ppm max Aligned with the EU, Japan and South Korea

Density 860-890 kg/m3 Australia’s upper density limit is stricter than that set in the EU, Japan and South Korea (i.e., 900 kg/m3). No further changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

Viscosity @ 40°C 3.5-5.0 cST Aligned with the EU and Japan

Flash point 120°C min Aligned with Japan and South Korea. Stricter than the EU’s limit of 101°C. No further changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

Carbon residue 100% 0.05 wt% max Aligned with the U.S.

Carbon residue 10% 0.30 wt% max Aligned with the EU and Japan

Water and sediment 0.050 vol% max Aligned with the U.S. Limits are set for water in the EU, Japan and South Korea at 500 mg/kg. No further changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

Sulfated ash 0.020 wt% max Aligned with the EU, U.S. and Japan

Total contamination 24 ppm max Aligned with the EU, Japan and South Korea Copper corrosion, 3hr @

100°C Class 1 max Aligned with the EU, Japan and South Korea

Methanol 0.20 wt% max Aligned with the EU, U.S., Japan and South Korea

Free glycerol 0.020 wt% max Aligned with the EU, U.S., Japan and South Korea

Total glycerol 0.250 wt% max Aligned with the EU and Japan

Alkali, Group I (Na, K) 5 mg/kg max Aligned with the EU, U.S., Japan and South Korea

Metals, Group II (Ca, Mg) 5 mg/kg max Aligned with the EU, U.S., Japan and South Korea

Distillation T90 360°C max Aligned with the U.S.


VII.5 E85

Hart Energy Research & Consulting suggests alignments for two E85 parameters (sulfur and acidity) and recommendations for two new parameters (silver corrosion and existent gum solvent unwashed) (see Table VII.8). Table VII.9 provides short commentaries for the other parameters, where no further alignments or changes are suggested at this stage.

Australia could also possibly consider setting specifications for the hydrocarbon blendstock, similar to ASTM D 5798 in the U.S.



Table VII.8: Commentary on Changes That May Be Needed for E85 Parameters



Sulfur 70 ppm max 10 ppm max Align with the proposed reduction of the gasoline sulfur limit to 10 ppm (see Gasoline section).

Acidity (as acetic acid)

0.006 wt% max

0.005 wt% max

Align with the EU and U.S. It is important to note that acidity can increase corrosion. This can be restricted with the use of corrosion inhibitors.

Existent gum (solvent

unwashed) No limit 20 mg/100ml

max If gums are an issue in Australia’s E85, it may be worth considering adding a solvent unwashed existent gum specification.

Silver corrosion No limit Class 1 max

It may be advisable to consider adopting the silver corrosion specification in ASTM D 5798 to protect against reactive sulfur compounds that can corrode or tarnish silver alloy fuel gauge in-tank sender units (see Gasoline section).


Table VII.9: Commentary on Other E85 Parameters


RON MON

100 min 87 min

The U.S. does not set octane limits for E85 while limits set in the EU are recommended values and not mandatory (i.e., RON 104 / MON 88). No further changes are suggested for Australia at this time since the test method remains under assessment in the EU.

Lead 0.005 g/l max Stricter than the U.S. limit of 0.013 g/l. No further changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

Benzene 0.35 vol% max Limits are not set for this parameter in the EU and U.S. No further changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

Vapor pressure (DVPE) @ 37.8°C 38-65 kPa

Not aligned with the EU or U.S. No further changes are suggested for Australia at this time, unless volatility from ethanol and cold start with E85 have been issues in Australia. This had been a problem faced by the U.S. resulting in lowering its minimum ethanol content from 70 vol% to 51 vol% in 2012.

Distillation (Final boiling point) 210°C max Limits are not set for this parameter in the EU and U.S. No further

changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

Methanol 0.5 vol% max Aligned with the U.S and stricter than the EU’s limit of 1 vol%. No further changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

Ethanol 70-85 vol%

Not aligned with the EU or U.S. No further changes are suggested for Australia at this time, unless volatility from ethanol and cold start with E85 have been issues in Australia. This had been a problem faced by the U.S. resulting in lowering its minimum ethanol content from 70 vol% to 51 vol% in 2012.

Ethers 1.0 vol% max Not aligned with the EU’s 11 vol% limit where ethers such as MTBE and ETBE are used in European gasoline. However, no changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

C3-C8 alcohols 2.0 vol% max Aligned with the U.S.

Phosphorus 0.0013 g/l max Aligned with the U.S.

Oxidation stability 360 minutes min Aligned with the EU

Water 1.0 wt% max Aligned with the U.S. Existent gum (solvent

washed) 5 mg/100ml max Aligned with the EU and U.S.

Inorganic chloride 1 mg/kg max Aligned with the U.S and stricter than the EU’s limit of 1.2 ppm. No further changes are suggested for Australia at this time.

Copper 0.10 mg/kg max Aligned with the EU

pH 6.5-9.0 Aligned with the EU and U.S.

Sulfate 4 mg/kg max Aligned with the EU




VIII. COMMON APPROACHES USED GLOBALLY TO IMPLEMENT FUEL QUALITY STANDARDS

The most important implementation building blocks for any fuel quality strategy are sampling, monitoring and enforcement. Fuel specifications or standards, however strict they are, do not guarantee good fuel quality at the filling station. The foundation for clean fuels at the pump is based on two key elements:

• National standards; and • The ability to ensure and/or control fuel quality at the point of distribution – the filling station.

The latter can only be achieved through implementation and commitment to an effective fuel quality monitoring program. Without the effective monitoring of cleaner fuels at the pump, there is no basis for a national standard for cleaner fuel specifications. Experience in the U.S., EU and Japan has shown this to be the potential weak link in many fuel programs and an area that must be strengthened.

Failure to establish a FQMS and enforcement policy could render clean fuel specifications irrelevant, as it is the enforcement policy that provides the incentive to comply with the regulations, especially if there are appropriate penalties acting as a deterrent (criminal or civil actions, administrative penalties, injunctions, penalties, warnings and closure of noncompliant businesses).

Table VIII.1 shows a comparison of fuel quality monitoring programs and enforcement schemes in 11 countries including Australia’s. Most countries and regions agree that there are two distinct parts to a fuel quality monitoring program:

• Monitoring fuel quality to ensure that fuel sold at the pump is in compliance with the specifications set under national and/or regional fuel quality legislation. This includes industry reporting and sampling requirements; and

• Policing and enforcing fuel quality requirements to ensure compliance, and sanctioning those not in compliance.

However, depending on various factors such as a country’s economic situation, culture and traditions, the legal obligation is either put on the industry to report fuel quality, as is the case in the U.K. (see EU’s U.K. section), or on the legislature, as in the case of most of the countries shown in Table VIII.1. These countries include Brazil, most countries in the EU, Hong Kong, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and the U.S. On the other hand, developing countries do not always have the same financial or human resources as developed countries, and therefore cannot invest in as extensive a system, nor in many cases is it necessary to do so. A good example shown in Table VIII.1 is China, which currently only has a voluntary program in place to monitor fuel quality and is in the process of setting up a fuel quality monitoring legislation and system by the end of 2014.

Comparing all of the fuel quality monitoring programs, it appears that Brazil, New Zealand, South Korea and the U.S. have common compliance and enforcement regimes to that of Australia’s, with the exception that the U.S. enforces FQMS also at the state level. Australia undertakes quality testing across all areas of the fuel supply chain, while countries in the EU, Hong Kong and Japan undertake testing only at the service stations. Similarly to Australia, monetary penalties and fines are a common approach taken by most countries in enforcing their fuel quality monitoring legislation.



Table VIII.1: Comparison of Fuel Quality Monitoring Programs and Enforcement Schemes

Country FQMS Type Enforcement Scheme Overall Noncompliance Rates/

No. of Samples(1)

Australia By law: Sampling program; record keeping/reporting; industry self-monitoring; information sharing with consumer and other groups; certification.

The Australian Department of the Environment undertakes fuels testing across all areas of the national fuel supply chain. Samples may be taken from importers, refineries, distributors and service stations.

Yes: Severe fines may be levied for off-spec/noncompliant fuel; injunctions.

Approximately 1.3% or 67 out of 5,275 samples taken (2011-12 and 2012-13)

Brazil By law: Sampling program; record keeping/registration of producers, distributors, retailers. Monitoring of gasoline, hydrous ethanol and diesel is carried out by the Brazilian government’s National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP).

Yes: Severe fines may be levied for off-spec/noncompliant fuel; injunctions.

Approximately 1.5% (270) out of 17,500 samples taken (September 2014)

China Voluntary: Sampling program at service stations carried out by the Chinese government’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ). Regional quality and technical supervision bureaus conduct regular inspections in their provinces or cities except for the inner provinces or remote areas which seldom carry out inspections. Test results are not revealed in details except for the no. of samples taken, location of service stations from which the samples were collected from, and the fuel parameters tested.

No: However, for consumer awareness, the company names and locations of the service stations supplying off-spec fuels are published. The service stations are typically ordered to stop selling the off-spec product and sealed for further investigations or required to rectify the problem until the product meets its specifications.

15 (12.5%) out of 120 gasoline samples and 5 (8.3%) out of 60 diesel samples taken in November 2012 – January 2013 did not comply.

EU By law: Through Directive 98/70/EC which shall be transposed by Member States. Member States are responsible for setting up a fuel quality monitoring system and they are responsible for annual reporting to the European Commission. Member States are free to organize their fuel quality monitoring system as long as they annual report information to the European Commission according to established standard.

Yes: Member States assign entities which undertake testing of fuels at service stations. Member States may impose fines on fuel distributors.

Noncompliance rate is 1.5% to 2% on average in all MS. The number of samples tested may differ, but on average 267.



Country FQMS Type Enforcement Scheme Overall Noncompliance Rates/

No. of Samples(1)

Hong Kong By law: Sampling 4 gas stations per month for all fuels; testing by government laboratory.

Yes: fine of HK$25,000-50,000 (US$3,200-6,500) for noncompliance.

The government reports no cases of noncompliance.

India By law: Sampling program carried out by the government’s Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MOPNG).

Yes: Government can close a noncompliant business, levy penalties and imprison violators for up to one year.

Difficult to determine based on conflicting data. MOPNG reported a 2.4% noncompliance rate out of 618 samples taken in 2001.

Japan By law: Sampling/testing by industry only at the service stations; reporting to the government’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI); certification schemes.

Yes: minimum ¥1 million (US$10,000) or 1 year of imprisonment; business shut down for 6 months or business registration revoked.

The government reports no cases of noncompliance.

New Zealand

By law: Sampling program applying to fuel importers, wholesale suppliers or retailers, and producers, and undertaken by the government’s Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment.

Yes: Penalties can be assessed against parties for noncompliance. Fines not exceeding NZ$10,000 (US$8,000) are imposed.

Approximately 40-50 samples are tested each month. Government reports only very few cases of noncompliance.

Singapore Voluntary: Sampling through an assigned contractor by the government’s National Environment Agency (NEA) at gas stations 2 times a year; testing by external laboratories.

No. The government reports no cases of noncompliance.

South Korea

By law: Sampling program by the government’s Korea Petroleum Quality & Distribution Authority (K Petro) at all stages: refineries, terminal, fueling stations, etc. Regular and irregular (ad hoc) inspections.

Yes: warnings, business permit revocations, suspension of business, severe fines.

On average, 1-2% of samples collected do not comply.

U.S. By law: Sampling/testing; record keeping/reporting; auditing; certification; registration; surveys; attest; labeling;

Testing of fuels is undertaken by the U.S. EPA across all areas of the national fuel supply chain. Samples may be taken from importers, refineries, distributors and service stations.

Yes, state and federal: Civil, criminal, administrative prosecution and penalties; injunctions.

Very few instances of noncompliance generally. Public information is currently not available on the instances/rates of noncompliance.

Note: (1) As reported by the government.




IX. POLICY INITIATIVES IN FUEL QUALITY Tables XIII.11-15 in the Appendix shows expected changes in fuel specifications by region and country from 2014 to 2025. Besides gasoline and diesel, spec changes are also expected for other fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel and separate biofuel blends like B5. These changes are made to align with spec changes in gasoline and diesel as well as new biofuel mandates coming into effect.

Gasoline and diesel sulfur reductions to 50 ppm and below are expected for several countries in the next 10 years, although reduction to 350 ppm and above is ongoing for diesel fuel in a number of countries in Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Russia & CIS. Looking at the top three gasoline markets – the U.S., China and Japan, in that order – the U.S. will move to 10 ppm sulfur gasoline by 2017 and China nationwide by 2018. In 2005, Japan already achieved 10 ppm sulfur fuels, two and three years ahead of legislation for diesel and gasoline, respectively.

Notably, many countries are leapfrogging (i.e., skipping interim decreases in sulfur reduction) since it may be more cost-effective for refiners when they make investment decisions on refinery upgrades. For example, Peru plans to leapfrog from a sulfur limit as high as 5,000 ppm to one as low as 15 ppm in its diesel fuel in 2016. On the other hand, there are also countries that will still go the traditional route of reducing first to 350 ppm, then 50 ppm and eventually 10 ppm. These typically apply to the larger countries such as China and India, as well as Russia and Ukraine.

The tables also show that plans to reduce sulfur or improve fuel specs will only proceed depending on the progress of refinery upgrades, bringing about the timely distribution of the upgraded products through local production or imports, and fuel pricing.



X. POLICY INITIATIVES IN VEHICLE FUEL EFFICIENCY

A number of countries are setting stricter targets for vehicle fuel efficiency between 2015 and 2022 (see Table X.1). Developed regions and countries such as the U.S., the EU, Japan and South Korea have stringent mandatory targets, primarily set in line with overall CO2-reduction targets. Developing countries such as China and Mexico aim to follow in their footsteps to reduce dependence on fuel consumption further. Mexico became the first country in Latin America to institute fuel-economy requirements, which will be implemented progressively from 2014 to 2016.

Similarly with Australia, others such as India and Vietnam are still in the process of setting up mandatory fuel-efficiency targets and standards, while Taiwan looks to improve its vehicle fuel efficiency further. Although Middle Eastern countries have yet to set fuel-economy standards, in 2012, Saudi Arabia was the first in the region to establish an energy-efficiency program covering buildings, transportation and industry. Under the program, the Saudi Standards, Metrology and Quality Organization (SASO) requested mandatory fuel-economy reporting on the Model Certificate of Conformity from the GCC Standardization Organization (GSO) for model-year 2015 LDVs imported into the country.

To incentivize the introduction of highly efficient technologies to meet fuel efficiency standards and targets, countries around the world have granted fiscal incentives to automakers that offer hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles and more fuel-efficient conventional ones.



Table X.1: Outlook on Vehicle Fuel-Efficiency Requirements

Country/Region 2015 2016 2017 … 2020 2021 2022

ASIA PACIFIC

Australia LDVs: Target yet to be

set LDVs: Target yet

to be set China PCs: 6.9 L/100 km

PCs: 5 L/100 km

India

PCs: 18.2 km/l

PCs: 21 km/l

Japan

PCs: 16.8 km/l LD trucks: 15.2 km/l LD buses: 8.9 km/l

HD trucks: 7.09 km/l HD buses: 6.3 km/l

PCs: 20.3 km/l

New Zealand LDVs: 170 g/km

South Korea All vehicles: 17 km/l

Taiwan PCs: 25%

improvement target

Vietnam

PCs and MCs: Unknown target

EUROPE

EU PCs: 130 g/km

HDVs: monitoring of CO2 emissions

Vans: 175 g/km

Vans: 147 g/km PCs: 95 g/km

LATIN AMERICA

Mexico

LDVs: 14.9 km/l

NORTH AMERICA

U.S.(1)

PCs: 40.1 mpg LDTs: 29.4 mpg



Notes: Red – mandatory. Blue – proposed. Yellow – voluntary. HDV – heavy-duty vehicle. LDT – light-duty truck. LDV – light-duty vehicle. PC – passenger car. MC – motorcycle.

(1) Average required fleet-wide fuel economy in miles per gallon (mpg) under footprint-based CAFÉ standards that phase in in 2017 and increase through 2025.

Source: Hart Energy Research & Consulting, September 2014



XI. INFORMATION GAPS

XI.1 South Korea

Information on the reasons for setting limits is not available in South Korea. According to K Petro, the history behind the development of minor parameters is generally not recorded, and most of them have been largely forgotten.



XII. REFERENCES

40 CFR 1910.110 (2014).

Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage (May 2000), Setting National Fuel Quality Standards, Paper 2, Proposed Standards for Fuel Parameters (Petrol and Diesel).

Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage (September 2000), Setting National Fuel Quality Standards, Proposed Standards for Fuel Parameters (Petrol and Diesel), Revised Commonwealth Position.

Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources (August 2001), Setting National Fuel Quality Standards, Paper 4, Discussion Paper on Operability Fuel Parameters (Petrol and Diesel).

Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage (October 2001), Setting National Fuel Quality Standards, Paper 5, Proposed Standards for Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Autogas).

Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage (March 2003), Setting National Fuel Quality Standards, Paper 6, National Standard for Biodiesel – Discussion Paper.

Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage (August 2003), Setting National Fuel Quality Standards, Proposed Standards for Fuel Parameters (Biodiesel).

Australian Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (January 2010), Review of LPG (Autogas) Fuel Quality Standard, Draft Discussion Paper.

Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (June 2011), Setting National Fuel Quality Standards, Proposed Fuel Quality Standard – Ethanol (E85) Automotive Fuel, Position Paper.

Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (February 2012), Regulatory Impact Statement – Fuel Quality Standard: Ethanol (E85) Automotive Fuel.

Canakci, M. and J. Van Gerpen (2001), Biodiesel Production from Oils and Fats with High Free Fatty Acids, Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

CONCAWE report no. 99/51 (January 1999), “Proposal for revision of volatility classes in EN 228 specification in light of EU fuels directive.”

CONCAWE report 7/05 (August 2005), Impact of a potential reduction of the poly-aromatics content of diesel fuel on the EU refining industry

CONCAWE report (April 2008) on guidelines for blending and handling motor gasoline containing up to 1- vol% ethanol.

CONCAWE report (2009) on Ethanol/Petrol Blends: volatility characterization in the range 5-25 vol% ethanol.

CONCAWE report (2014), Impact of FAME on the performance of the three Euro 4 light duty diesel vehicles, Part 1: Fuel consumption and regulated emissions.

DieselNet 2007 fuel survey data.

European Commission, Fuel Quality Directive, impact assessment



European Commission (Oct. 17, 2012), Impact Assessment accompanying the document “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources.”

F. Ma and M.A. Hanna (1990), Biodiesel production: A review, Bioresource Technology.

Fuel for Automotive Fuel Ratings Certification and Posting, 16 C.F.R. Part 306, amended May 31, 2011.

George E. Totten (2003), Fuels and Lubricants Handbook: Technology, Properties, Performance and Testing.

Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (2014), ‘Motor Vehicles Statistics of Japan 2014’

Japan LP Gas Association (February 2013), ‘Statistical Data in Japan’.

Japan Petroleum Energy Center, Gasoline Working Group (June 1-2, 2005), ‘Focusing on sulfur and octane number’ at the 4th JCAP Conference, Keidanren Hal, Keidanren Kaikan, Tokyo, Japan.

JRC/CONCAWE report (2009) on volatility and vehicle drivability performance of ethanol/gasoline blends: literature review.

JRC/EUCAR/CONCAWE Well-to-wheel GHG assessment

Katsuya Watanabe, Kenji Nagai, Noriyuki Aratani, Yuji Saka, Norihito Chiyoda, Hiroshi Mizutani, Advanced Refining & Petrochemical Technology Group, Research and Development Center, Cosmo Oil Co., Ltd. (December 2010), ‘Techniques for Octane Number Enhancement in FCC Gasoline’ in 20th Annual Saudi-Japan Symposium – Catalysts in Petroleum Refining & Petrochemicals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Marilyn Herman, Fuel Regulations, Specifications, and Historical Perspective on Unleaded Phase-In, SAE High Octane Fuels Symposium, Jan. 21, 2014.

Michael Walsh, et al. (1996), Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Standards and Technologies for Controlling Emissions (citing findings from the AQIRP in 1990, 1991 and 1993).

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (revised January 2009), Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide, NREL/TP-540-43672.

Robert McCormick, et al. (June 2006), Oxidation Stability of Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends.

Roger Organ (December 2013), Guidance on Establishing New Aviation Alternative Fuels.

Satoshi Takasaki, Yasuhiro Araki, Chikanori Nakaoka, Fuel Research Laboratory, Research & Development Division, JX Nippon Oil & Energy Corporation (December 2010), ‘FCC Gasoline Desulfurization Reducing Octane Number Loss’ in 20th Annual Saudi-Japan Symposium – Catalysts in Petroleum Refining & Petrochemicals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Steve Westbrook (December 2013), The Tao of Subcommittee E0: How We Approach Burner, Diesel, Non-Aviation Gas Turbine, and Marine Fuels Specifications.

Takashi Hagiwara, Technology Department, Japan Petroleum Energy Center (2001), ‘Gasoline Production Technology and Methods, and an Evaluation of Their Economic Viability’.

Tripartite Task Force Brazil, European Union & United States Of America (Dec. 31, 2007), White Paper on Internationally Compatible Biofuel Standards.

U.S. Department of Energy (Sept. 13, 2014), Propane Basics.



U.S. EPA (Jan. 18, 2001), Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, 66. Fed. Reg. 5122.

U.S. EPA (October 2006), Introduction of Cleaner-Burning Diesel Fuel Enables Advanced Pollution Control for Cars, Trucks and Buses, EPA420-F-06-064.

U.S. EPA (Feb. 26, 2007), Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources, 72 Fed. Reg. 8480.

U.S. EPA (March 2014), EPA Sets Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards, Strengthens Clean Cars Program, EPA-420-F-14-010.

Working Group for Standardization of Biodiesel Fuel for Vehicles in East Asia (2008), ‘Trend of Biodiesel Fuel in Japan’ in Kimura, S. (ed.), Analysis on Energy Saving Potential in East Asia Region, ERIA Research Project Report 2007-6-2, Chiba: IDE-JETRO.

World Wide Fuel Charter, ed. 2013



XIII. APPENDIX

Table XIII.1: Comparison Between Australia and International Gasoline Standards – Specifications

Country/Region Australia EU Japan South Korea U.S.

Spec Name Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000

Dir. 98/70/EC as amended EN 228:2012 EN 228:2012 JIS K 2202:2012 JIS K 2202:2012

Petroleum and Alternative Fuels

Business Act ASTM D 4814-14

Source Department of Environment

Dir. 98/70/EC as amended EN 228:2012 EN 228:2012

Japanese Standards

Association

Japanese Standards

Association

Korea Petroleum Quality & Distribution Authority ASTM International

Grade ULP / PULP Petrol Unleaded Petrol Unleaded Petrol E10 Regular / Premium Regular (E) / Premium (E) Regular / Premium Unleaded

Year of implementation Nov 2007 / Jan 2008 May 2009 Apr 2013 Apr 2013 Mar 2012 Mar 2012 Jan 2009 May 2014 Property RON, min 91 / 95 95(1) 95(1) 95(1) 89 / 96 89 / 96 91 / 94 MON, min 81 / 85 85 85 85 Antiknock index (MON+RON)/2, calculated, min (1)

Sulfur, ppm, max 150 / 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 80(2) Lead, g/l, max 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.013 0.013(3) Manganese, g/l, max 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) Benzene, vol%, max 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.7

Aromatics, vol%, max 42% pool average

over 6 months with a cap of 45%

35 35 35 24(1)

Olefins, vol%, max 18 18 18 18 16(1) RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, min-max 60 max(3)(4)(5) 45-60 (class A) - 70-

100 (class F1)(6) 45-60 (class A) - 70-100

(class F1)(6) 44-65 (s) / 44-93

(w) 44 (s) / 55 (w)(1) 44-82(2)(3) 103 max(4)

VLI, calculated, max 1050 (class C1) -

1250 (class F1)(6) 1064 (class C1) - 1264

(class F1)(6) (5)

Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 720-775 720-775 783 max 783 max Distillation DI=569 - 597(6) T10, °C, max 70 70 70 70(7)

T50, °C, min-max 75-110 70-105 (s) / 65-105 (w) 125 max 77-121(7)(8)(9)

T90, °C, min-max 180 max 180 max 170 max 190 max(7)

E70, vol%, min-max 20-48 (class A) - 22-

50 (class F1)(6) 22-50 (class A) - 24-52

(class F1)(6) E100, vol%, min-max 46 min 46-71 46-72



Country/Region Australia EU Japan South Korea U.S. E150, vol%, min 75 75 75 FBP, °C, max 210 210 210 220 220 225 225 Residue, vol%, max 2 2 2 2 2 2

Oxygen, wt%, min-max

2.7 wt% max (no ethanol) 3.9 wt% max

(with ethanol)

3.7 max(7) 2.7 max 3.7 max 1.3 max 1.3-3.7 2.3 max(4)

Oxygenates Methanol, vol%, max 3(8) 3 3 0.1 wt% Ethanol, vol%, max 10 10(9) 5(10) 10(10) 3 10 Iso-propyl alcohol, vol%, max 12 (11) 12

Iso-butyl alcohol, vol%, max 15 (11) 15

Tert-butyl alcohol, vol%, max 0.5 15 (11) 15

Ethers (5 or more C atoms), vol%, max

1 vol% DIPE; 1 vol% MTBE 22 (11) 22 7(1) 7(1)

Others, vol%, max 15(12) (11) 15 Phosphorus, g/l, max 0.0013 0(13) 0(13) 0.0013 0.0013(3) Oxidation stability (Induction period), minutes, min

360 360 360 240 240 480 240

Water and sediment, vol%, max 0.01

Existent gum (solvent washed), mg/100ml, max 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Existent gum (solvent unwashed), mg/100ml, max

20 20

Corrosion Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C, merit (class), max

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Silver corrosion, merit (class), max 1

Color Orange Orange Yellow / Green Appearance Clear & bright Clear & bright Dye content, g/100 l, max Allowed Allowed Use of additives (14) Allowed Allowed (10)

Notes:

EU - (1) Member States may decide to continue to permit the marketing of gasoline with a minimum MON of 81 and a minimum RON of 91. (2) Effective Jan. 1, 2014. (3) Vapor pressure determined for summer period. (4) The summer period shall begin no later than May 1, and shall not end before Sept. 30. For Member States with low ambient summer temperatures the summer period shall begin no later than June 1 and shall not end before Aug 31. (5) In the case of Member States with low ambient summer temperatures, where the derogation from 60 kPa, after the assessment and permission of the European Commission, is in effect, the maximum vapor pressure shall be 70 kPa. In the case of Member States with no low ambient summer temperatures, for gasoline containing bioethanol, after the assessment and permission of the European Commission, vapor pressure shall be 60 kPa plus the waiver specified in the Directive (0-8 kPa). (6) Depends on volatility classes determined by the country's seasonal and geographical conditions. To relevant countries, volatility class A



shall apply during summer starting no later than May 1 and ending not before Sept. 30. In countries with arctic conditions class B shall apply during summer, starting no later than June 1 and ending not before Aug. 31. (7) Member States shall require suppliers to ensure the placing on the market of gasoline with a maximum oxygen content of 2.7% and a maximum ethanol content of 5% until 2013 and may require placing on the market of such gasoline for a longer period if they consider it necessary. (8) Stabilizing agents may be added. (9) Stabilizing agents may be necessary. (10) It should meet requirements of EN 15376. (11) Volume blending restricted to 2.7 % (m/m) maximum oxygen content. (12) Other mono-alcohols and ethers with a final boiling point no higher than stated in EN 228:2004. (13) In order to protect automotive catalyst systems, phosphorus containing compounds shall not be included in unleaded gasoline. (14) The European Commission assessed the risk for health and the environment from the use of metallic additives in fuel. The report was completed in 2013. The metallic additive methylcyclopentadienyl (MMT) in fuel shall be limited to 6 mg/l from Jan 1, 2011; and further to 2 mg/l from Jan 1, 2014. These limits were revised on the basis of the results of the assessment. JAPAN - (1) If the ambient temperature is below -10°C, RVP min becomes 60 kPa. (2) MTBE. SOUTH KOREA- (1) Either aromatics 24 vol% max and olefins 16 vol% max, or aromatics 21 vol% max and olefins 19 vol% max. (2) Hot climate (June - August): 60 kPa; Cold climate (October - March): 96 kPa. (3) Effective Jan. 1, 2010. (4) Oxygen contained in MTBE, ETBE and Bio-ethanol. U.S. - (1) Octane limits are set and regulated at the state level; the industry (R+M)/2 standard is generally 87/89/91+ for regular, midgrade and premium. Certification and posting of octane ratings regulated by Federal Trade Commission under 16 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 306. (2) Per-gallon cap per EPA regulation (65 FR 6698; 2/10/00). The refinery average is 30 ppm. (3) Leaded gasoline has been banned in the U.S. by EPA since 1996. Per EPA regulation (59 FR 7716; 2/16/94), no intentional addition of heavy metals allowed. While ASTM has no limit, EPA limits the phosphorus content of gasoline to a maximum of 0.0013 g/L. The regulations do not prohibit lead additives in aircraft, racing cars, and off-road farm & marine engines. (4) ASTM advises to consult EPA for approved test methods for compliance with vapor pressure regulations. RVP varies by season and region. See EPA regulation (54 FR 11868; 3/22/89). (5) This specification requires that gasoline have a maximum Vapor-Liquid Ratio of 20 per ASTM D 2533. The test temperature varies between 35°C and 60°C depending on the vapor lock protection class. (6) Drivability Index limits are applicable at the refinery or import facility per 40 CFR 80.2 and are not subject to correction for precision of the test method. (7) Volatility requirements vary by season and region. (8) Gasolines that may be blended with 1 to 10 vol% ethanol or all other gasolines whose disposition with ethanol blending is not known shall meet a minimum T50 of 77°C (170°F) prior to blending with ethanol. Gasolines that contain 1 to 10 vol% ethanol shall meet a minimum T50 of 66°C (150°F) after blending. (9) Gasolines known from the origin to retail that will not be blended with ethanol may meet a minimum T50 of 66°C (150°F) for volatility classes D and E only. Gasolines meeting these limits are not suitable for blending with ethanol. (10) All gasoline sold in the U.S. must contain a deposit control additive.




Table XIII.2: Comparison Between Australia and International Gasoline Standards – Test Methods


Spec Name Fuel Quality Standards

Act 2000 Dir. 98/70/EC as amended,

EN 228:2012 JIS K 2202:2012

Petroleum and Alternative Fuels Business Act

ASTM D 4814-14

Source Department of Environment

Dir. 98/70/EC as amended, EN 228:2012

Japanese Standards Association

Korea Petroleum Quality & Distribution Authority

ASTM International

Property

RON, min ASTM D 2699 EN ISO 5164 JIS K 2280 KS M 2039

MON, min ASTM D 2700 EN ISO 5163

Antiknock index (MON+RON)/2, calculated, min

ASTM D 2885

Sulfur, ppm, max ASTM D 5453 EN ISO 20846, EN ISO 20847, EN ISO 20884

JIS K 2541-1, JIS K 2541-2, JIS K 2541-6, JIS K

2541-7 KS M 2027

ASTM D 5453, ASTM D 4045, ASTM D 1266, ASTM D 2622, ASTM D 3120, ASTM

D 6920, ASTM D 7039, ASTM D 7220 Lead, g/l, max ASTM D 3237 EN 237

KS M 2402 ASTM D 3237, ASTM D 3341, ASTM D 5059

Benzene, vol%, max ASTM D 5580 EN 12177, EN 238, EN 14517 JIS K 2536-2, JIS K 2536-

3, JIS K 2536-4 KS M 2407, ASTM D4420 ASTM D 5580

Aromatics, vol%, max ASTM D 1319 ASTM D 1319, EN 14517, EN

15553 KS M 2407 ASTM D 5580

Olefins, vol%, max ASTM D 1319 ASTM D 1319, EN 14517, EN

15553 KS M 2455, ASTM D6296 ASTM D 6550 (modified)

RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, min-max

EN 13016-1 JIS K 2258-1, JIS K 2258-

2 KS M ISO 3007

ASTM D 323, ASTM D 4953, ASTM D 5190, ASTM D 5191, ASTM D 5482, ASTM D 6378

Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max

EN ISO 3675, EN ISO 12185 JIS K 2249-1, JIS K 2249-

2, JIS K 2249-3 Distillation

T10, °C, max

JIS K 2254 KS M ISO 3405 ASTM D 86

T50, °C, min-max


T90, °C, min-max


E70, vol%, min-max

EN ISO 3405

E100, vol%, min-max

EN ISO 3405

E150, vol%, min

EN ISO 3405

FBP, °C, max

EN ISO 3405 JIS K 2254 KS M ISO 3405 ASTM D 86

Residue, vol%, max

EN ISO 3405 JIS K 2254 KS M ISO 3405 ASTM D 86

Oxygen, wt%, min-max ASTM D 4815 EN 1601, EN 13132, EN 14517 JIS K 2536-2, JIS K 2536-

4, JIS K 2536-6 KS M 2408, ASTM D4815 ASTM D 4815

Oxygenates

ASTM D 5599, ASTM D 4815




Methanol, vol%, max

EN 1601, EN 13132, EN 14517

KS M 2408, ASTM D4815

Ethanol, vol%, max ASTM D 4815 EN 1601, EN 13132, EN 14517 JIS K 2536-2, JIS K 2536-

4, JIS K 2536-6 Iso-propyl alcohol, vol%, max

EN 1601, EN 13132, EN 14517

Iso-butyl alcohol, vol%, max

EN 1601, EN 13132, EN 14517

Tert-butyl alcohol, vol%, max ASTM D 4815 EN 1601, EN 13132, EN 14517

Ethers (5 or more C atoms), vol%, max

ASTM D 4815 EN 1601, EN 13132, EN 14517 JIS K 2536-2, JIS K 2536-

4, JIS K 2536-5, JIS K 2536-6

Others, vol%, max

EN 1601, EN 13132, EN 14517

Phosphorus, g/l, max ASTM D 3231

KS M 2403 ASTM D 3231 Oxidation stability (Induction period), minutes, min

ASTM D 525 EN ISO 7536 JIS K 2287 KS M 2043 ASTM D 525

Water and sediment, vol%, max

KS M 2115

Existent gum (solvent washed), mg/100m, max


Existent gum (solvent unwashed), mg/100m, max

JIS K 2261

Corrosion

Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C, merit (class), max


Silver corrosion, merit (class), max

ASTM D7671, ASTM D7667

Color

Visual Visual

Appearance

Visual




Table XIII.3: Comparison Between Australia and International Diesel Standards – Specifications


Spec Name Fuel Standard (Automotive Diesel) Determination 2001

Dir. 98/70/EC as amended(1) EN 590:2013 JIS K 2204:2007 Petroleum and Alternative Fuels


Source Department of the Environment

Dir. 98/70/EC as amended EN 590:2013 Japanese Standards

Association Korea Petroleum Quality &

Distribution Authority ASTM International

Grade - Diesel Diesel Class Special 1 / Class 1 / Class 2 / Class 3 /

Class Special 3 Automotive Diesel No.1-D S15 / No.2-D S15

Year of implementation Mar 2009 May 2009 July 2013 Jan 2007 Jan 2009 Feb 2014 Property Cetane number, min 51.0(1) 51 51 (temperate) / 47-49 (arctic &

severe winter)(2) 50 / 50 / 45 / 45 / 45

(1) 52(1)(2) 40

Cetane index, min 46 46 (temperate) / 43-46 (arctic &

severe winter)(2) 50 / 50 / 45 / 45 / 45

(1) 52(1)(2) 40(1)

Sulfur, ppm, max 10 10 10 10 10 15(2) Polyaromatics, wt%, max 11 8 8(3) 5(3) Total aromatics, vol%, max 30 35(1) Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 820-850 845 max 820-845 (temperate) / 800-840

(arctic & severe winter)(2) 860 max 815-835 Viscosity @ 40°C, cST, min-max 2-4.5

2.000-4.500 (temperate) / 1.200-4.000 (arctic & severe winter)(2)

2.7 / 2.7 / 2.5 / 2(2) / 1.7 (min) 1.9-5.5 1.3-2.4 / 1.9-4.1(3)

Distillation (4)(5)(6) T90, °C, min-max

360 / 360 / 350 / 330(2) / 330 (max) 360 max 288 max / 282-338(3)

T95, °C, max 360 360 360 E180, vol%, max 10 E250, vol%, max <65 E340, vol%, min 95(7) E350, vol%, min 85 Flash Point,°C, min 61.5 above 55.0 50 / 50 / 50 / 45 / 45 40 38 / 52(3) Carbon residue 10%, wt%, max 0.2 0.3(8) 0.1 0.15 0.15 / 0.35

Cold Filter Plugging Point (CFPP),°C, max

+5 (class A temperate) to -44 (class 4 arctic & severe winter)(2) - / -1/ -5 / -12 / -19 -18(2)

Pour Point (PP),°C, max 5 / -2.5 / -7.5 / -20 / -

30 -23.0 (w)(4)/ 0.0 (s) Cloud Point (CP),°C, max -10 to -34(7) Water and sediment, vol%, max 0.05 0.02 0.05

Water, vol%, max 200 ppm(1) 200 mg/kg Ash, wt%, max 100 ppm 0.01 0.02 0.01 Total contamination, ppm, max 24



Country/Region Australia EU Japan South Korea U.S. Lubricity, HFRR wear scar diam @ 60°C, micron, max 460 460 400 520

Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C, merit (class), max 1 1 3

Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 100°C, merit (class), max 1 Oxidation stability, mg/100ml, max 2.5 25g/m3(9) Conductivity @ ambient temp, pS/m, min 50 25(4)(5)

Color, max 2 Dye content, g/100 l, max Allowed Use of additives Allowed FAME content, vol%, max 5 7(11) 7(10) 5 5(6) Metal content (Zn, Cu, Mn, Ca, Na, other), g/l, max (11)

Notes:

AUSTRALIA - (1) Containing biodiesel. EU - (1) Fuel Directives set by the European Institutions complement Dir. 98/69/EC for Euro IV vehicle emission specifications. (2) Depends on climate rating. (3) For the purposes of this European standard, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are defined as the total aromatic hydrocarbon content less the mono-aromatic hydrocarbon content, both as determined by EN 12916. (4) Calculation of the Cetane Index will also require distillation values at 10%, 50% and 90% (v/v) recovery points. (5) The limits for distillation at 250°C and 350°C are included for diesel fuel in line with EU Common Customs tariff. (6) EU Common Customs Tariff definition of gas oil may not apply to the grades defined for use in arctic or severe winter climates. (7) Only applicable to countries with arctic or severe winter conditions. (8) The limiting value for the carbon residue is based on product prior to addition of ignition improver, if used. (9) When diesel fuel contains more than 2vol% FAME, oxidation stability as determined by EN 15751 is the requirement. (10) FAME shall comply with EN 14214. (11) The presence of MMT in diesel shall be limited to 2mg/l of manganese from Jan. 1, 2014. JAPAN - (1) Cetane number or cetane index may be used. (2) T90 should be 350°C max if viscosity is 4.7 cSt max. SOUTH KOREA - (1) Winter (Nov. 15 - Feb. 18): 48. (2) Effective Nov. 1, 2011. (3) Min 2 wt%. (4) Effective Jan. 1, 2014. U.S. - (1) Either the specification for minimum cetane index or that for maximum total aromatics must be met. (2) Other limits may apply to selected areas. (3) When a cloud point is less than -12°C is specified, it is permitted and normal blending practice to combine Grades No.1-D and No.2-D to meet the low temperature requirements. In that case, the minimum flash point shall be 38°C, the minimum viscosity at 40°C shall be 1.77 cSt, and the minimum 90% recovered temperature shall be waived. (4) The conductivity specification becomes effective on Nov. 12, 2008. (5) The electrical conductivity of the diesel fuel is measured at the time and temperature of the fuel at delivery. The 25 pS/m minimum conductivity requirement applies at all instances of high velocity transfer (7 m/s) but sometimes lower velocities (see 8.2 of ASTM D975 for detailed requirements) into mobile transport (for example, tanker trucks, rail cars and barges). (6) Biodiesel blendstock must meet ASTM D6751.




Table XIII.4: Comparison Between Australia and International Diesel Standards – Test Methods


Spec Name Fuel Standard (Automotive Diesel) Determination 2001

Dir. 98/70/EC as amended, EN 590:2013 JIS K 2204:2007 Petroleum and Alternative Fuels



Dir. 98/70/EC as amended, EN 590:2013



Property

Cetane number, min ASTM D 6890 EN ISO 5165, EN 15195(1), EN 16144 KS M ISO 5165 ASTM D 613(1), ASTM D 6890(2), ASTM

D 4737, ASTM D 7170(2) Cetane index, min ASTM D 4737 EN ISO 4264 JIS K 2280 KS M ISO 4264 ASTM D 976

Sulfur, ppm, max ASTM D 5453 EN ISO 20846, EN ISO

20847, EN ISO 20884, EN ISO 13032

JIS K 2541 KS M ISO 8754 ASTM D 2622 (1), ASTM D 1266, ASTM

D 129, ASTM D 3120, ASTM D 5453, ASTM D 7039, ASTM D 7220

Polyaromatics, wt% max IP 391 EN 12916 KS M 2456 ASTM D 5186(3)

Total aromatics, vol%, max KS M 2456 ASTM D 1319(4), ASTM D 5186(3) Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max ASTM D 4052 EN ISO 3675, EN ISO 12185 JIS K 2249 KS M 2002 Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt, min-max ASTM D 445 EN ISO 3104 JIS K 2283 KS M 2014 ASTM D 445(1), ASTM D 7042

Distillation T90, °C, max JIS K 2254 KS M ISO 3405, ASTM D86 ASTM D 86(1), ASTM D2887, ASTM

D7345 T95, °C, max ASTM D 86 EN ISO 3405 E180, vol%, max EN ISO 3405, EN ISO 3924 E250, vol%, max EN ISO 3405 E340, vol%, min EN ISO 3405 E350, vol%, min EN ISO 3405, EN ISO 3924 Flash Point, °C, min ASTM D 93 EN ISO 2719 JIS K 2265 KS M 2010 ASTM D 93

Carbon residue 10%, wt%, max ASTM D 4530 EN ISO 10370(2) JIS K 2270 KS M ISO 10370, KS M 2017 ASTM D 524 Cold Filter Plugging Point (CFPP), °C, max EN 116, EN 16329 JIS K 2288 KS M 2411 ASTM D 2500

Pour Point (PP), °C, max JIS K 2269 KS M 2016 Cloud Point (CP), °C, max EN 23015 ASTM D 6371 Low Temperature Flow Test (LTFT), °C, max ASTM D 4539

Water and sediment, vol%, max ASTM D 2709 KS M 2115 ASTM D 2709, ASTM D 1796

Water, vol%, max ASTM D 6304 EN ISO 12937 Ash, wt% max ASTM D482 EN ISO 6245 KS M ISO 6245 ASTM D 482

Total contamination, ppm, max EN 12662(3) Lubricity, HFRR wear scar diam @ 60°C, micron, max IP 450 EN ISO 12156-1 KS M ISO 12156-1, CEC-F-06-A ASTM D 6079(1), ASTM D 7688



Country/Region Australia EU Japan South Korea U.S. Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C, merit (class), max ASTM D 130 EN ISO 2160 ASTM D 130

Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 100°C, merit (class), max KS M 2018 Oxidation stability, mg/100ml, max ASTM D 2274 EN ISO 12205 Conductivity @ ambient temp, pS/m, min ASTM D 2624 ASTM D2624, ASTM D4308

Filter blocking tendency, max IP 387 Color, max ASTM D 1500 FAME content, vol%, max EN 14078 EN 14078 EN 14078 ASTM D7371(1), EN 14078

Notes:

EU - (1) In cases of dispute concerning cetane number EN ISO 5165 shall be used. (2) If value exceeds specified limits, use testing method EN ISO 13759. (3) Further investigation into the total contamination test method to improve the precision, particularly in the presence of FAME, is being carried out by CEN. U.S. - (1) Referee test method. (2) Test method for derived cetane number (DCN) may be used for all No. 1-D and No. 2-D grades. (3) As required by 13 CCR 2282. (4) As required by 40 CFR Part 80 for S15 and S500 grades of Types No. 1-D and No. 2-D.


Table XIII.5: Comparison Between Australia and International Autogas Standards – Specifications


Spec Name Automotive Liquefied

Petroleum Gas Fuel Standard (Autogas) Determination 2003

EN 589:2008 + A1:2012 JIS K 2240:2013 Petroleum and Alternative Fuels Business Act ASTM D 1835


European Committee for Standardization (CEN)



Grade Autogas LPG Class 2 No. 1 / No. 2 / No. 3 / No. 4

No.2 (Automobile, Cabinet Heater) Special Duty Propane

Additional Comments Industrial & Automotive

Specifically developed for use as fuel in spark ignition internal

combustion engines Year of implementation Dec 2013 Sep 2012 Mar 2013 Jan 2009 Mar 2013 Property MON, min 90.5 89 Sulfur, ppm, max 50(1) 50(1) 50(1) 40 123(1) Vapor pressure @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, min-max 800-1530 1550 max(2) 1550 / 1550 / 1250 /

520(2) (max) 1270 max 1434 max

Composition Propylene, max 5.0 vol%

Propane + Propylene, mol%, min-max 90 min / 50-90 / 50 max /

10 max 10 min (s) / 25-35 (w)(1)(2) Butane, mol%, min 85 mol% (s) / 60 mol% (w)(1)




Butane + Butylene, mol%, min-max 10 max / 50 max / 50-90 /

90 min(3) Butane and heavier, max 2.5 vol% Butadiene (1,3-butadiene), max (4) 0.5 mol% Total Dienes, mol%, max 0.3 0.5 Pentane and heavier, max 2 mol% Volatility T95, °C, max -38.3 Evaporative Residue, max 60 ppm 60 ppm 0.05 ml 0.05 ml/100 ml Oil stain observation Pass(2) Water, vol%, max No free water at 0°C None Moisture, ppm Pass Hydrogen sulfide, wt%, max Negative Negative Pass Copper corrosion, 1hr @ 40°C, merit (class), max 1 1 1 1 1

Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 500-620 500-620 Odor 20% lower flammability limit

(LFL) (3)

Notes:

AUSTRALIA - (1) After stenching. EU - (1) Autogas naturally has low sulfur content but odorants added for safety reasons contain sulfur. (2) Measured at 40°C. (3) Unpleasant and distinctive at 20% of lower flammability limit. JAPAN - (1) Before stenching. (2) @ 40°C. (3) "Butane + Butylene" is a mixture of isobutane, n-butane, isobutylene, 1-butylene, trans-2-butylene and cis-2-butylene. (4) In the case of automobiles, industries (as fuels and raw materials) and others, the content of butadiene shall not be detrimental to the purpose of use. SOUTH KOREA - (1) Winter standards for products and imports shall be applied from Nov. 1 to March 31 of the next year and for inspections during the distribution stage shall be applied from Nov. 1 to April 30 of the next year. During November and April both winter and summer use shall be applied. (2) When isobutene is 30 mol% or higher, the lowest limit for C3 hydrocarbon composition rate is 5 mol%. U.S. - (1) The total sulfur limits in these specifications do include sulfur compounds used for stenching purposes. (2) An acceptable product shall not yield a persistent oil ring when 0.3 mL of solvent residue mixture is added to a filter paper, in 0.1-mL increments and examined in daylight after 2 min.




Table XIII.6: Comparison Between Australia and International Autogas Standards – Test Methods


Spec Name Automotive Liquefied Petroleum Gas Fuel Standard (Autogas) Determination 2003 EN 589:2008 + A1:2012 JIS K 2240:2013 Petroleum and Alternative

Fuels Business Act ASTM D 1835

Source Department of the Environment European Committee for Standardization (CEN)



Property MON, min ISO 7941, EN 589 Annex B EN 589 Annex B

Sulfur, ppm, max ASTM D 6667 ASTM D 3246, ASTM D 6667 -

KS M 2150, ASTM D 4468, ASTM D 5504, ASTM D 6228,

ASTM D 6667 ASTM D 2784, ASTM D 6667

Vapor pressure @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, min-max ISO 8973 EN ISO 4256, EN ISO

8973, EN 589 Annex C ISO 4256, ISO 8973

(by calculation) KS M ISO 4256, KS M ISO

8973 ASTM D 1267(1), ASTM D 2598,

ASTM D 6897 Composition Propylene, max ASTM D 2163 Propane + Propylene, min-max ISO 7941 KS M ISO 7941 Butane, min-max ISO 7941 Butane + Butylene, min-max ISO 7941 Butane and heavier, max ASTM D 2163 Butadiene (1,3-butadiene), max ISO 7941 ASTM D 2163 Total Dienes, max ISO 7941 EN 27941 Pentane and heavier, max ISO 7941 Volatility T95, °C, max ASTM D 1837 Evaporative Residue, max JLPGA-S-03 EN 15470, EN 15471 ASTM D 2158 ASTM D 2158 Oil stain observation ASTM D 2158 Water, vol%, max EN 15469 Moisture, ppm, max EN 589:2004 ASTM D 2713 Hydrogen sulfide, wt%, max EN ISO 8819 EN ISO 8819 ASTM D 2420 Copper corrosion, 1hr @ 40°C, merit (class), max EN ISO 6251 EN ISO 6251 ISO 6251 KS M 6251 ASTM D 1838

Odor EN 589:2008 Annex A EN 589 Annex A Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max

ISO 3993, ISO 8973 (by calculation)

KS M 2150, KS M 3993, KS M ISO 8973

Notes: U.S. - (1) Referee test method.




Table XIII.7: Comparison Between Australia and International Biodiesel Standards – Specifications


Spec Name Fuel Standards (Biodiesel) Determination 2003 EN 14214:2012 JIS K 2390:2008 Petroleum and Alternative

Fuels Business Act ASTM D 6751-12(1)

Source Department of the Environment EN 14214:2012 Japanese Standards



Grade - FAME (Fatty Acid Methyl Esters) - - No. 1-B S15 / No. 2-B S15

Year of implementation Feb 2006 Aug 2012 Feb 2008 Jan 2006 Nov 2012 Property Cetane number, min 51 51 51(1) 47 Ester content (concentration), wt%, min 96.5(1) 96.5 96.5 96.5 Sulfur, ppm, max 10 10 10 10 15(2) Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 860-890 860-900(1) 860-900 860-900 Viscosity @ 40°C, cST, min-max 3.5-5 3.5-5 3.5-5 1.9-5 1.9-6 Flash Point, °C, min 120 101 120 120 93(3)/130 Carbon residue 100% (CCR), wt%, max 0.05 0.05 Carbon residue 10%, wt%, max 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 Water and sediment, vol%, max 0.05 0.05 Water, vol%, max 500 mg/kg 500 ppm 0.05 wt% Ash, wt%, max 0.01 Sulfated Ash, wt%, max 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Total contamination, ppm, max 24 24 24 24 Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 100°C, merit (class), max 1 1 (2) 1 1 3(4)

Acid value, mg KOH/g, max 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Alcohol Methanol, vol%, max 0.2 0.20 wt% 0.2 wt% 0.2 wt% 0.2(3) Ethanol, vol%, max Monoglycerides, wt%, max 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.4 / - Diglycerides, wt%, max 0.2 0.2 0.2 Triglycerides, wt%, max 0.2 0.2 0.2 Glycerol Free, wt%, max 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Total, wt%, max 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24

Linolenic acid methyl ester, wt%, max 12 12

Polyunsaturated methyl esters, wt%, max 1 1

Iodine number, g/100g, max 120 120 Phosphorus, ppm, max 10 4 10 10 10 Alkali, Group I (Na, K), ppm, max 5 5 5 5 5



Country/Region Australia EU Japan South Korea U.S. Metals, Group II (Ca, Mg), ppm, max 5 5 5 5 5 Distillation T90, °C, max 360 360

Cold Filter Plugging Point (CFPP), °C, max (2) 0 (w)

Pour Point (PP), °C, max (2) Cloud Point (CP), °C, max Report

Oxidation stability @ 110°C, hour, min 6 8 (2) 6 3

Cold Soak Filterability, sec, max 200 / 360(4) Others (use of additives etc.) (3)

Notes:

AUSTRALIA - (1) If biodiesel contains C-17 methyl esters, the ester content may be measured by using the modified procedure set out in S. Schober, I. Seidl and M. Mittelbach, “Ester content evaluation in biodiesel from animal fats and lauric oils”, European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology 108 (2006) 309-314. EU - (1) Density may be measured over a range of temperatures from 20°C to 60°C. See testing methods for details. (2) Measured at 50°C. (3) The use of dyes and markers is allowed. JAPAN - (1) Cetane index. (2) Based on mutual agreement between parties concerned. U.S. - (1) Biodiesel (B100) Blend Stock for Diesel Fuel states that biodiesel is a fatty acid alkyl (methyl or ethyl) ester (FAME/FAEE). (2) Other sulfur limits may apply to selected areas. (3) If methanol content is above this maximum level, this specification may still be met if the flash point meets a minimum of 130°C. (4) The Copper Strip Corrosion Test is conducted for 3 hrs at 50°C. (5) If the B100 is intended for blending into diesel fuel that is expected to give satisfactory vehicle performance at fuel temperatures at or below -12°C shall comply with a cold soak filterability limit of 200 seconds max.


Table XIII.8: Comparison Between Australia and International Biodiesel Standards – Test Methods


Spec Name Fuel Standards (Biodiesel) Determination 2003 EN 14214:2012 JIS K 2390:2008 Petroleum and Alternative

Fuels Business Act ASTM D 6751-12

Source Department of the Environment EN 14214:2012 Japanese Standards



Property

Cetane number, min EN ISO 5165, ASTM D 613, ASTM D 6890, IP 498/03 EN ISO 5165 JIS K 2280 KS M ISO 5165, 4264 ASTM D613(1), ASTM D6890

Ester content (concentration), wt%, min prEN 14103 EN 14103(1) EN 14103 KS M 2413, Pr EN 14103

Sulfur, ppm, max ASTM D 5453 EN ISO 20846, EN ISO 20884 JIS K 2541-1, -2, -6 or -7 KS M 2027 ASTM D5453(1), ASTM D7039

Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max ASTM D 1298, EN ISO 3675 EN ISO 3675(2), EN

ISO 12185 JIS K 2249 KS M 2002 Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt, min-max ASTM D 445 EN ISO 3104 JIS K 2283 KS M 2014 ASTM D 445

Flash Point, °C, min ASTM D 93 EN ISO 2719, EN ISO 3679 JIS K 2265 KS M 2010 ASTM D 93(1), ASTM D 3828, ASTM D 6450

Carbon residue 100% (CCR), wt%, max ASTM D 4530 KS M ISO 10370 ASTM D 4530(1), ASTM D 189, ASTM D 524



Country/Region Australia EU Japan South Korea U.S. Carbon residue 10%, wt%, max EN ISO 10370 EN ISO 10370 JIS K 2270 Water and sediment, vol%, max ASTM D 2709 ASTM D 2709(1), ASTM D 1796 Water, vol%, max EN ISO 12937 JIS K 2275 KS M ISO 12937 Ash, wt%, max KS M ISO 6245 Sulfated Ash, wt%, max ASTM D 874 ISO 3987 JIS K 2272 ASTM D 874 Total contamination, ppm, max EN 12662, ASTM D 5452 EN 12662(1) EN 12662 EN 12662 Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 100°C, merit (class), max EN ISO 2160, ASTM D 130 EN ISO 2160 JIS K 2513 KS M 2018 ASTM D 130

Acid value, mg KOH/g, max ASTM D 664 EN 14104 JIS K 2501, JIS K 0070 KS M ISO 6618 ASTM D 664(1), ASTM D 3242, ASTM D 974 Alcohol Methanol, vol%, max prEN 14110 EN 14110 EN 14110 EN 14110 EN 14110(1), AOCS Standard Procedure Ck 2-

09 Monoglycerides, wt%, max EN 14105 EN 14105 KS M 2412 Diglycerides, wt%, max EN 14105 EN 14105 KS M 2412 Triglycerides, wt%, max EN 14105(1) EN 14105 KS M 2412 Glycerol Free, wt%, max ASTM D 6584 EN 14105, EN 14106(1) EN 14105, EN 14106 KS M 2412 ASTM D 6584(1), AOCS Standard Procedure

Ck 2-09

Total, wt%, max ASTM D 6584 EN 14105 EN 14105 KS M 2412 ASTM D 6584(1), AOCS Standard Procedure Ck 2-09

Linolenic acid methyl ester, wt%, max EN 14103 EN 14103 Iodine number, g/100g, max EN 14111 JIS K 0070 Phosphorus, ppm, max ASTM D 4951, EN 14107 EN 14107 EN 14107 EN 14107 ASTM D 4951

Alkali, Group I (Na, K), ppm, max prEN 14108, prEN 14109, prEN 14538

EN 14108, EN 14109, EN 14538(1)

EN 14108, EN 14109, EN 14538 EN 14108, 14109 EN 14538(1), UOP 391

Metals, Group II (Ca, Mg), ppm, max prEN 14538 EN 14538 EN 14538 pr EN 14538 EN 14538(1), UOP 389

Distillation T90, °C, max ASTM D 1160 KS M ISO 3405 ASTM D 1160 Cold Filter Plugging Point (CFPP), °C, max KS M 2411

Cloud Point (CP), °C, max

ASTM D 2500(1)(2), ASTM D5771, ASTM D 5772, ASTM D 5773, ASTM D 7397, AOCS

Standard Procedure Ck 2-09 Oxidation stability @ 110°C, hour, min

prEN 14112, ASTM D 2274, prEN 15751 prEN 15751, EN 14112 EN 14112 EN 15751(1), EN 14112

Cold Soak Filterability, sec, max ASTM D 7501

Notes: EU - (1) Current methods do not meet the 2R requirement of EN ISO 4259 at the limit values specified in this standard. (2) Density may be measured by EN ISO 3675 over a range of temperatures from 20°C to 60°C. A factor of 0.723 kg/m3 may be used to convert observed density to density at 15°C. U.S. - (1) Referee test method. (2) ASTM D3117 may also be used because it is closely related.




Table XIII.9: Comparison Between Australia and International E85 Standards – Specifications Country/Region Australia EU U.S.

Spec Name Fuel Standard (Ethanol E85) Determination 2012 CEN/TS 15293/2011 ASTM D 5798-13a

Source Department of the Environment CEN/TS 15293 ASTM International Grade E85 E85 E85-Class 1 / Class 2 / Class 3 / Class 4 Year of implementation Nov 2012 Feb 2011 July 2013 Property RON, min 100 104(1) MON, min 87 88(1) Sulfur, ppm, max 70 10 80 Lead, g/l, max 0.005 (1) Benzene, vol%, max 0.35 RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, min-max 38-65 35-60 (s) / 50-80 (w)(2) 38-62 / 48-65 / 59-83 / 66-103 Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max 760-800 Distillation FBP, °C, max 210 Oxygenates Methanol, vol%, max 0.5 1 0.5 Ethanol, vol%, min-max 70-85 85 (s) / 75 (w) max (2)(3) 51-83

Ethers (5 or more C atoms), vol%, max 1 11 C3-C5 alcohols, ppm, max 2 vol%(1) 6 2 vol%(2) Phosphorus, g/l, max 0.0013 0.00015 (3) Oxidation stability (Induction period), minutes, min 360 360 Water, vol%, max 1 wt% 0.4 1 wt% Existent gum (solvent washed), mg/100ml, max 5 5 5 Existent gum (solvent unwashed), mg/100ml, max 20 Chloride, inorganic, ppm, max 1 1.2 1 Copper, ppm, max 0.1 0.1 0.07 mg/l Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C, merit (class), max 1 Appearance Clear and bright Clear and bright pH, min-max 6.5-9 6.5-9.0(4) 6.5-9.0(4) Acidity, wt%, max 0.006 0.005(5) 0.005 Electrical Conductivity, μS/m, max 1.5 Sulfate, ppm, max 4 4 Other (5)

Notes: AUSTRALIA – (1) C3-C8. EU - (1) Recommended value. (2) Summer: Class A May 1 - Sept. 30, Winter: CEN notes that each country must choose which climate classes to use for other periods of the year. (3) 70 vol% min in summer, 50 vol% min in winter. (4) Measured as pHe. (5) As acetic acid. U.S. - (1) Lead is not permitted to be added according to Federal Regulations; the lead limit for gasoline is 0.013 g/L. (2) C3-C8. (3) Phosphorus may not be added according to federal regulations; the phosphorus limit in gasoline is 0.0013 g/L. (4) Measured as pHe. (5) The hydrocarbon blendstock may be unleaded gasoline, gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending (BOB), natural gasoline or other hydrocarbons in the gasoline boiling range.




Table XIII.10: Comparison Between Australia and International E85 Standards – Test Methods

Country/Region Australia EU U.S.

Spec Name Fuel Standard (Ethanol E85) Determination 2012 CEN/TS 15293/2011 ASTM D 5798-13a

Source Department of the Environment CEN/TS 15293 ASTM International Property RON, min (1) EN ISO 5163 MON, min (1) EN ISO 5164 Sulfur, ppm, max ASTM D 5453 EN 15485, EN 15486 ASTM D 2622, ASTM D 3120, ASTM D 5453 Lead, g/l, max ASTM D 3237 ASTM D 3229, ASTM D 3237 Benzene, vol%, max ASTM D 5580 RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, min-max ASTM D 5191 EN 13016-1 ASTM D 4814, ASTM D 4953, ASTM D 5190, ASTM D 5191 Density @ 15°C (60°F), kg/m3, min-max EN ISO 12185 Distillation ASTM D 86 FBP, °C, max ASTM D 86 Oxygenates Methanol, vol%, max ASTM D 5501 EN 1601 ASTM D 5501 Ethanol, vol%, min-max ASTM D 5501 ASTM D 3545, ASTM D 5501 Ethers (5 or more C atoms), vol%, max ASTM D 5501 EN 1601 ASTM D 4815, ASTM D 4953 Others, vol%, max ASTM D 4815 C3-C5 alcohols, ppm, max ASTM D4815 EN 1601 Phosphorus, g/l, max ASTM D 3231 EN 15487, EN 15837 ASTM D 3231 Oxidation stability (Induction period), minutes, min ASTM D 525 EN ISO 7536 ASTM D 525 Sediment, wt%, max ASTM D 2276 Water, vol%, max ASTM E 1064 EN 15489, EN 15692 ASTM E 203, ASTM E 1064 Existent gum (solvent washed), mg/100ml, max ASTM D 381 EN ISO 6246 ASTM D 381 Existent gum (solvent unwashed), mg/100ml, max ASTM D 381 Chloride, inorganic, ppm, max ASTM D 7328 prEN 15492 ASTM D 7319, ASTM D 7328 Chloride, ppm, max ASTM D 3120, ASTM D 2988 Copper, ppm, max EN 15837 EN 15488, EN 15837 ASTM D 1688, ASTM D 4806 Copper corrosion, 3hr @ 50°C, merit (class), max EN ISO 2160 ASTM D 130 Appearance ASTM D 4176-Proc. A pH, min-max ASTM D 6423 EN 15490, ASTM D 6423 ASTM D 6423 Acidity, wt%, max ASTM D 1613 EN 15491 ASTM D7795(1), ASTM D 1613 Electrical Conductivity, μS/m, max EN 15938 Sulfate, ppm, max ASTM D 7319 prEN 15492 (modified) Notes: AUSTRALIA - (1) Testing methods are not yet available. U.S. - (1) Referee test method.




Table XIII.11: Expected Changes for Fuel Quality Specifications in Africa, EU and U.S.

Country Fuel Type Property 2014 2015 2016 2017 Likelihood of Implementation Reason for Delay, If Any

AFRICA

Cote D'Ivoire Gasoline Sulfur, ppm, max 500 50

Unlikely Reliance on imports; delays in refinery upgrading plans Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 3,500 50

East African Community

Gasoline RON, min 91 93(1) Unlikely

Reliance on imports; joint action of all Member States

needed MON, min 81 83(1)

Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 500/50 50

South Africa

Gasoline

Sulfur, ppm, max 1,500/500 10

Likely -

RON, min 91/93/95 93/95 Benzene, vol%, max 5 1

Aromatics, vol%, max 50 35 Ethanol, vol%, min-max No limit 2-10

Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 500/50 10

Cetane number, min 45 51

EUROPE

EU Gasoline Manganese, g/l, max 0.006 0.002 Implemented in January 2014 -

NORTH AMERICA

U.S. Gasoline Sulfur, ppm, max 80 10 Certain -

Notes: Red – confirmed. Blue – proposed.

(1) Currently for Tanzania, RON and MON of 93 and 83 min apply.




Table XIII.12: Expected Changes for Fuel Quality Specifications in Asia Pacific

Country Fuel Type Property 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 … 2025

Bangladesh Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 5,000 500 500 50

China

Gasoline

Sulfur, ppm, max 50 10(1) 50 10 RON, min 90/93/97 89/92/95

AKI, min 85/88/Report

84/87/90 Manganese, g/l, max 0.008 0.002

Olefins, vol%, max 28 24 RVP, kPa, min-max

40-68 (s) / 42-85 (w) 40-65 (s)(2) / 45-85 (w)

Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 350 50(1) 350 50 50 10(1) 50 10

Cetane number, min 49/46/45 51/49/47

B5 (automotive)

Sulfur, ppm, max 350 350/50/10 Viscosity @ 20°C, cSt,

min – max 3.0-8.0 2.5-8.0 FAME content, vol%, min

– max 2-5 1-5

Biodiesel

Sulfur, ppm, max 500/50 350/50/10

Ester content, wt%, min No limit 96.5 Flash Point, °C, min 130 101

Carbon residue 100% (CCR), wt%, max No limit 0.05

Methanol, wt%, max No limit 0.2 Alkali, Group I (Na, K),

ppm, max No limit 5 T90, °C, max No limit 360

Sediment, wt%, max No limit None

India Gasoline

Sulfur, ppm, max 150 50(1) 150 50 50 10 Methanol, vol%, max Nil 3 Existent gum (solvent

washed), mg/100 ml, max 4 5

Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 350 50(1) 350 50 50 10

Flash Point, °C, min 35 42 Indonesia Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 3,500 3,000(4) 3,000 2,500(4)

2,500 500(4) 500 50(4)

Malaysia

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm, max 500 50 Benzene, vol%, max 5 3.5

Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 500 50 FAME, vol%, max 5 7(5)



Country Fuel Type Property 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 … 2025

Pakistan Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 10,000 500

Philippines

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm, max 500 50 Diesel

Sulfur, ppm, max 500 50 FAME, vol%, max 2 5(5)

Ethanol & Biodiesel

Specs to be revised

Singapore

Gasoline

Sulfur, ppm, max 50 10 Benzene, vol%, max 5 1

Aromatics, vol%, max No limit 42(6) Olefins, vol%, max No limit 21(7)

RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, max No limit 60

E100, vol%, min No limit 46.0 E150, vol%, max No limit 75.0

Oxygen, wt%, max No limit 3.7 Ethers (5 or more C atoms), vol%, max No limit 22

Diesel

Cetane number, min No limit 51 Polyaromatics, wt%, max No limit 8

Density@15°C, kg/m3, min-max No limit 845(8)

T95, °C, max No limit à 360(8) Thailand Diesel FAME, vol%, max 5 7(5)

Vietnam

Gasoline

Sulfur, ppm, max 500 50 50 10 RON, min

90/92/95 92/95/98

MON, min 79/81/84

82/85/88 Lead, g/l, max 0.013 0.005

Metal content (Fe, Mn), g/l, max

0.005 non-detectable

Benzene, vol%, max 2.5 1.0 Olefins, vol%, max 38 18 T50, °C, min-max

120 max 70-120

FBP, °C, max 215 210 Oxygenates, vol%, max No limit (3)

Diesel

Sulfur, ppm, max 500 50 50 10 Cetane number, min No limit 50

Cetane index, min 46 50 Polyaromatics, wt%, max No limit 11

Density@15°C, kg/m3, min-max

820-860 820-850

T90, °C, max 360 355




(1) Select cities

(2) Summer specifications apply to Guangdong and Hainan provinces, and Guangxi region.

(3) Ethanol: 4 vol% max., Methanol: non-detectable., Iso-propyl alcohol: 10.0 vol% max., Iso-butyl alcohol: 10.0 vol% max., Tert-butyl alcohol: 7.0 vol% max., Ethers: 15.0 vol% max., Ketones: non-detectable.

(4) PSO grade

(5) Proposed

(6) 35 vol% (pool average, max). Companies have until Dec. 1, 2018, to comply with the regulations.

(7) 18 vol% (pool average, max)

(8) Companies have until Jan. 1, 2018, to comply with the regulations on density and T95.


Table XIII.13: Expected Changes for Fuel Quality Specifications in Latin America

Country Fuel Type Property 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Likelihood of

Implementation Reason for Delay, If

Any

Argentina Gasoline Sulfur, ppm, max

150/50 30/10

Nationwide unlikely. City-level

likely(1).

Refinery upgrading and timely distribution

Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 1,600/500

1,000/30 Likely -

Brazil

Gasoline

Sulfur, ppm, max 800 50 High likely -

Ethanol, vol%, max 18-25 18-27.5

Likely

Study on feasibility of the blend in vehicles

shows potential problems

Diesel

Sulfur, ppm, max 500/10 Implemented in

January 2014 -

FAME, vol%, max 5 6/7 8 9 10 12 20

Highly likely for 2014, highly

unlikely for other years

Vehicle compatibility with higher biodiesel

blends

Biodiesel

Water, vol%, max 300 200 mg/kg(2) Implemented in

August 2014 -

Monoglycerides, wt%, max 0.8 0.7

Oxidation stability @ 110°C, hour,

min 6(3)





Any

Central America Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 5,000 500

Implemented in April 2014

-

Colombia

Gasoline Ethanol, vol%, max 8 10

Unlikely Success of ethanol

projects

Diesel

Cetane number, min 45

Likely

-

Total aromatics, vol%, max 32

Polyaromatics Value to be determined

Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt, max 5

T50, °C, min-max Report

FAME, vol%, max 10

Increased biodiesel production and timely

distribution

Ecuador Gasoline

Sulfur, ppm, max 650 10

Highly unlikely Refinery upgrading and

fuel pricing

RON, min 87/92 95 Benzene, vol%,

max 2 1 Olefins, vol%, max 25 18

Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 500 10 Highly unlikely

Timely distribution, high dependence on imports

Mexico Gasoline


Likely - Benzene, vol%, max 3/2/1 0.62

Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 500 15

Paraguay

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm, max 600 300 Implemented in

March 2014 - Aromatics, vol%,

max 45 35

Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 2,500/1,500/500 1,800/500/50 1,800 1,300

Implemented for 1,800 ppm; Highly

likely for 1,300 ppm; Unlikely for

500/50 ppm

Timely distribution, high dependence on imports

Peru Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 5,000 15 Highly unlikely Refinery upgrading





Any

Uruguay

Gasoline

Sulfur, ppm, max 700 30 Likely Implementation ready

Lead, g/l, max 0.013 0.005 Implemented in May 2014

- Benzene, vol%, max 1.5 1.0

Ethanol, vol%, max 5 10

Likely Enough domestic

production

Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 500 50

Highly likely -

FAME, vol%, max 5 7 Implemented in

April 2014 -


(1) Both grades will be sold nationwide but Hart Energy Research & Consulting expects the lower-sulfur grades to be implemented in the cities first and then in the rest of the country.

(2) The variation of +150 mg/kg in the limit of max water content in biodiesel in the distribution chain.

(3) This limit would be 8 hours in case of adding 7 vol% of biodiesel to diesel or more.




Table XIII.14: Expected Changes for Fuel Quality Specifications in the Middle East

Country Fuel Type Property 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Likelihood of Implementation

Reason for Delay, If Any

Bahrain Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 500 10 Likely -

Jordan Gasoline Sulfur, ppm, max 400 50

Unlikely Refinery project

delayed, imports are possible Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 400 50

Kuwait Gasoline Sulfur, ppm, max 500 10 Unlikely, may be

delayed to 2019-2020

Refinery upgrading Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 500 10

Qatar Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 500 10 Likely -

T95, °C, max Report 360

Saudi Arabia

Gasoline

Sulfur, ppm, max 1,000 10

Likely -

Benzene, vol%, max 3 1 Aromatics, vol%, max No limit 35

Olefins, vol%, max 5/20 18 RVP, kPa, min-max

45-62 (s) / 45-69 (i) / 45-79 (w) 45-60 (s) / 45-70 (w)

Distillation End Point, ˚C, max 225 210

Diesel

Sulfur, ppm, max 500 10 Cetane number, min No limit 51

Cetane index, min 45 46 Density@15°C, kg/m3, min-

max Report 820-845 Distillation T85, ˚C, max 350 No limit Distillation T95, °C, max No limit 360

U.A.E.

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm, max 100 10

Unlikely, may be delayed to 2015-

2016

Likely to be upgraded in 2015-2016 depending on Takreer’s upgrading

project

Diesel


Implemented in July 2014 -

Cetane index, min 52 50 Distillation T95, °C, max No limit 360

CFPP, °C, max No limit 12 (s) / 5 (w)

Cloud Point, °C, max 15 Report Conductivity @ 20°C, pS/m,

min No limit 150 Notes: Red – confirmed. Blue – proposed. Source: Hart Energy Research & Consulting, 2014



Table XIII.15: Expected Changes for Fuel Quality Specifications in Russia & CIS

Country Fuel Type Property 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Likelihood of Implementation

Reason for Delay, If Any

Armenia Diesel FAME/FAEE, vol%, max 5 7 Likely (legally) -

Azerbaijan Gasoline Sulfur, ppm, max 500 150 Likely

Subject to possible delay in refinery modernization Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 500 350

Belarus Gasoline

Sulfur, ppm, max 150 50 50 10 Likely -

N-methyl aniline (NMA), vol%, max 1 not permitted

Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 350 50 50 10

Georgia Gasoline Sulfur, ppm, max 200 150(1) Likely -

Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 300 200(1)

Kazakhstan Gasoline

Sulfur, ppm, max 500 50 & 10 Likely

Initial timeline was changed due to delay

in refinery modernization

N-methyl aniline (NMA), vol%, max 1 not permitted

Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 500 50 & 10

Kyrgyzstan Gasoline Ethanol, vol%, max 5 Likely (legally) - Diesel FAME/FAEE, vol%, max 7

Russia Gasoline Sulfur, ppm, max 150 50 50 10

Likely - N-methyl aniline (NMA), vol%, max 1 not permitted


Ukraine Gasoline

Sulfur, ppm, max 50/10 150/50/10(2) 150 50 50 10

150 ppm sulfur gasoline and 350 ppm sulfur diesel permitted

since July 10, 2014 together with other spec changes. Likely from 2016 onwards.

-

RON, min 80/92/95/98

92/95/98

MON, min 76/82.5/85/88

82.5/85/88

Manganese, g/l, max Capped at 6

mg/dm3 Aromatics, vol%, max 35 42

RVP @ 37.8°C (100°F), kPa, min-max

45.0-60.0 / 50.0-80.0 45-80 (s) / 60-100

(w) / 50-90 (t)

Oxygen, wt%, max 2.7 2.7/3.7(3) Ethanol, vol%, max 5.0 5/10(3)

Diesel Sulfur, ppm, max 2,000 350(2) 350 50 50 10 -

Uzbekistan

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm, max 500 150 150 50

Likely (legally) - Ethanol, vol%, max 5


FAME/FAEE, vol%, max 7




(1) Legislative change

(2) JSC Ukrgasdobycha is permitted to sell gasoline and diesel with sulfur content 500 ppm until Jan. 10, 2015

(3) Provided that mass fraction for oxygen does not exceed 2.7 wt%, blending the following additives (in addition to ethanol at E5 or E7 levels) is permitted: methanol – 3 vol%; iso-propyl alcohol – 10 vol%; tert-butyl alcohol – 7 vol%; iso-butyl alcohol – 10 vol%; ethers (five or more C atoms) – 15 vol%; and other oxygenates (with FBP 210°C max) – 10 vol%. ** Provided that mass fraction for oxygen does not exceed 3.7 wt%, blending the following additives (in addition to ethanol at the E10 level) is permitted: methanol – 3 vol%; iso-propyl alcohol – 12 vol%; tert-butyl alcohol – 15 vol%; iso-butyl alcohol – 15 vol%; ethers (five or more C atoms) – 22 vol%; and other oxygenates (with FBP 210°C max) – 15 vol%.


Strategic Insights Across the Energy Value Chain

UPSTREAM | MIDSTREAM | PROCESSING | FUEL & TRANSPORT

About Hart Energy Research & Consulting

We provide advisory services to clients throughout the energy value chain, including the automotive, petrochemical, heavy industry, financial and government sectors. We evaluate interlinkages and macro-level factors to deliver

strategic insights to our customers, enabling them to distinguish their presence and strengthen their businesses.

1616 S. Voss Road | Suite 675 | Houston, TX | United States | +1.713.260.6423

Bogotá | Brussels | Denver | Houston | London | Melbourne | Mexico City New Delhi | New York | San Diego | São Paulo | Singapore | Washington, D.C.

RC.HartEnergy.com