WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2842/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. New-formula fuels
Date: 1996-10-25
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU programme, air quality, hydrocarbon, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, quality label, quality of the environment













EUR-Lex - 91996E2842 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2842

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2842/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. New-formula fuels  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0079 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2842/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (25 October 1996)Subject: New-formula fuelsThe set of Commission proposals relating to the implementation of the Auto/Oil programme provides for measures to reduce the emission of pollutants by road vehicles by 60-70% by 2010. The draft Directive sets the maximum rate of aromatic compounds in fuels at 45%: the ceiling is already 70% in Finland and the USA, and 40% on average in the EU Member States. Similarly, the limit for benzene, a major carcinogenic compound, is set at 2%, while many Member States, e.g. Italy, Austria and Germany, have already reduced it to 1%.Does the Commission not feel that the measures provided for in the draft Directive are inadequate and that closer consideration should be given to the question of new-formula fuels?The use of new-formula fuels with oxygen additives would be a cost-effective means of reducing harmful emissions, since such fuels help to reduce precursors of ozone and of the various carcinogenic substances, such as benzene, thereby improving the quality of the air we breathe.Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (9 December 1996)The result of the body of proposals for laws deriving from the auto-oil programme, which achieves air quality targets that are seen to be stringent, has been to reduce pollutant emissions by 60-70% while meeting the economic criterion of cost/efficiency. That economic criterion is mentioned in Article 4 of Directive 94/12/EC ((OJ L 100, 19.4.1994. )) which has been adopted by Parliament and the Council under the joint decision-making procedure.More stringent fuel specifications were assessed during the auto-oil studies, but proved to perform less well in terms of cost versus efficiency than the alternatives that were also assessed. Those levels are not necessary in order to achieve the air quality aims set out in the auto-oil programme, since the package as a whole enables those ambitious targets to be met more cheaply.In environmental terms reducing the aromatics content may, at a certain level, generate nitrogen oxide (Nox), an ozone precursor. It should be noted that the proposed 45% standard should eliminate the higher levels noted and lead to an average in 2000 of 37% as compared with the current average of 40%. ((According to the most recent information available to the Commission on aromatic compounds in Finland and the United States, the standards are 20% (with tax incentives) and 22% (California II average) respectively. ))Likewise, an excessive incidence of the oxygenated components of petrol (the main effect of which concerns carbon monoxide (CO), which according to the auto-oil studies should no longer be a European problem by the year 2010), could have the opposite effect in respect of Nox. The oil-based oxygenated components would also play a part in forming aldehydes, which are reputed to be carcinogenic. The harmful effects of these on human health have caused Sweden to restrict them to 2% (and in California to 2.2%, as compared with the 2.7% permitted in the Clean Air Act).The auto-oil programme has shown that, as regards the air quality planned for the year 2010, the Community's benzene level would lie below the air quality standard considered to be the most stringent from 2005 onwards. The level put forward (2% by volume) is nevertheless above the market average (2.3% by volume). The current standard in Austria is 3% by volume and in Italy 1.6% (1.4% from July 1997). In Germany only super plus unleaded petrol, which only accounts for 6% of the market, meets a 1% maximum standard owing to an agreement with the oil industry.However, since it is aware of the existence of certain localized pollutant concentrations, the Commission proposes to allow those Member States wishing to tighten up the specification to require cleaner fuels and to continue to use tax incentives.