ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
20,
1980
IN THE MATTER
OF:
EMISSIONS
OF VOLATILE
)
R78—3,4
ORGANIC MATERIAL
SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Durnelle):
On January
14,
1980 the Board received a letter from
the Illinois members of
the Independent Liquid Terminals
Association
(ILTA) requesting
a clarification
of portions of
the
Order
adopted
by
the
Board
in
this
proceeding
on
July
12,
1979.
ILTA
feels
that
the
Agency
has
misconstrued
the
Board~s intent
in
adopting
Rule
205(o)(3)(A)
of
Chapter
2.
This
rule
lists
the
sources
which
are
not
required
to
comply
with the
vapor
recovery
requirements
in Rule 205(o)(3)(B),
ILTA contends that the Board had no intention of requiring
vapor recovery on all organic liquids with vapor
pressures
over i,5 pounds per square inch absolute
(psia), at standard
conditions but instead was concerned only with gasoline type
products.
On February
4,
1980 the Agency filed
its response.
The
Agency contends that the record in this proceeding
does not
support ILTA~sposition.
The rule at issue was first proposed to the Board on
July
18,
1978.
At that time the only petroleum liquid
storage tanks (PLST~s)which were proposed for an exemption
from vapor recovery were those which were equipped with an
external floating roof before January
1,
1979 or which had
a
capacity
of
less than 416,000 gallons.
Petroleum liquid was
defined as crude oil,
condensate,
or any finished or
intermediate product manufactured or extracted at
a
petroleum refinery.
The term
~petroleum
refinery~’had been
defined
in
a proposal
filed on May 19, 1978
as any facility
engaged
in producing gasoline, kerosene,
distillate fuel
oils,
residual fuel oils,
lubricants,
or other products
through distillation, cracking,
extraction,
or reforming of
unfinished petroleum derivatives.
On August
28,
1978 the Board received testimony
from
Robert F. MacNally on behalf of ILTA.
He asked that the
definition
of petroleum liquids be changed to exclude Nos,
2
through
6 fuel oils,
gas turbine fuel oils,
and diesel
fuel
oils
to make the definition consistent with
the USEPA New
Source Performance Standard for Storage Vessels for
Petroleum Liquids
(40 C.F,R.
60K)(R,418),
He also asked that
a definition be added for
volatile
petroleum liquid as any
petroleum liquid with a vapor pressure
in
excess
of
1,52
—2—
psia at standard conditons
(R.419).
This change was proposed
for consistency with USEPA SIP revision guidelines
(R.419),
At the same hearing the Board received Exhibit
21 into
evidence.
Exhibit 21
is
a USEPA document entitled Control
of
y~~ti1g~rc’aruic
Emissions from Storage ofPetroleum Liquids
in
Fixed Roof Tanks.
Exhibit 21 formed the basis
for the proposed
Rule 205
(o)(3).
In the Introduction at page 1-2 of Exhibit 21,
it stated that the magnitude
of the emissions from storage tanks
indicated the need for broader application of the New Source
Performance Standard requirements to existing tanks.
At a subsequent hearing on September 25,
1978 the Agency
submitted revisions to the proposed definitions
in Rule 201
which incorporated the proposals made by ILTA (Ex,60),
In
addition the Agency asked that vapor recovery not he required
for PLST~swhich were equipped before January
1, 1979 with one
of the vapor
loss control devices specified
in Rule 205(a)(2)
or had a capacity of
less than 40,000 gallons or had a capacity
of
less than 422,675 gallons and were used
to store produced
crude oil a~dcondensate prior to custody transfer or were
subject to the Federal new source performance standards at 40
C.F.R.
60K,
or which did not contain volatile petroleum liquid.
On March
5,
1979 the Board received an amended proposal
from the Agency which added another exempt category of
storage
tanks with a capacity of
less than 378,000 gallons
if used to
store produced crude oil
or condensate in crude oil gathering.
By this point in the record, the Agencyvs proposed
exemptions were approaching word for word correlation with
the requirements of
40 C.F,R.
60K.
On March
29,
1979 the Board adopted a Proposed Order
which provided for new definitions and exempt categories
precisely
as the Agency had proposed them.
On July
12,
1979 the Board adopted a Final Order which
adopted the revisions
at issue without change.
in an Opinion adopted on August
23,
1979 the Board noted
that the definition of volatile organic material, which had been
the subject
of extensive testimony,
no longer made reference to
Rule 205(o).
The reason for this was simply that Rule
205(o)
concerned gasoline and volatile petroleum liquids which were
defined elsewhere.
The controversy presently before the Board centers
on
the types
of liquids which are to be included in the defini-
tion of volatile petroleum liquid.
While there is practically
no evidence
in this record to ex~1ainthe definitions of volatile
petroleum
liquid, petroleum liquid,
and petroleum refinery,
a
review of the record before the
—3—
USEPA when it adopted 40 C.F.R.
60K sheds considerable
light.
On June
11,
1973 USEPA proposed New Source Performance
Standards for seven categories of
sources including petroleum
refineries
(40 C,F.R,
60J)
and storage vessels
(40 C.F,R.
60K)
(38 F,R.
15406).
At that time a definition of petroleum liquids
was proposed as “crude petroleum or any derivative
thereof”.
Petroleum refineries were not defined
in 40 C,F,R,
60K but were
described in 40 C.F.R~ Subpart J as “any facility in which crude
petroleum is
refined, processed,
or otherwise undergoes
a
chemical or physical change”.
Proposed 40 C.F,R.
60K was limited
to the control
of petroleum liquids with a vapor pressure in
excess of 1.52 psia.
TJSEPA was criticized for making these
definitions too broad.
A three volume document entitled
~oun~Jnform~tion
~rNSPS:AshaltConcretePlants,PetroleumRefineries,Stora~
‘Jessels, Secondary Lead Smelters ann Refineries,
Brass
and
Bronze
ingot Production Plants,
Iron and Steel Plants, and Sewage
Treatment
Plants
(APTD—1352
a-c)
chronicles
the
history
of these
standards
from
initial
technical
reports
to
final
promulgation,
In
Volume
3:
Promulgated
Standards
(EPA
450/2—74—003),
Appendix
E,
all
of
the
comments
are
listed
along
with
USEPA~s response.
Comment
No.
K—5
concerned
the
scope
of
the
proposed
definition
of
petroleum
liquids.
It
stated that the proposed wording could be considered
as encompassing any
products
made
from petroleum,
including petro-
chemicals which were not studied by USEPA,
The response stated that
the
definition was amended
in
the final rule to clarify its
apr)licahllity.
Comment
No.
J—2
concerned
the
definition
of
petro-
leum
refineries.
It
stated
that
the
proposed wording could be
interpreted
as
including
oil
production,
facilities,
gas
plants,
and
natural
gasoline
plants.
The response stated that the
definition
would
he
made
more
specific
to
prevent
misinterpre-
tation.
In
both
cases
USEPA
adopted
definitions
which
are
virtually
identical
to
the
ones adopted by the Board,
Volume
I
of
the
three
volume
set
(the
Main Text) contains
the
information which USEPA used to develop the proposed standards.
Technical Report No,
9 concerned 40 C,F.R.
60K (Storage Vessels).
That report reveals that USEPA was primarily concerned with jet
fuels, volatile crude oils,
and gasolines.
At page 35, the report
states that vapor recovery was considered
as
a possible means
to
control emissions from
the
storage
of all liquids with high
true
vapor pressures but was rejected because it was not deemed
reliable
in all parts of
the country.
The record which USEPA used
in its deliberations does
not provide all the answers,
but
it
does
provide
some
guidance.
Rule
205(o)(3)
is limited in its coverage to those
volatile
petroleum
liquids
listed
in
the
definitions
which
are produced at a petroleum refinery.
A petroleum refinery
is a facility which starts with unfinished petroleum
derivatives and uses distillation, cracking,
extracting,
or
reforming to produce gasoline, kerosene,
distillate fuel
—4—
oils, residual fuel oils,
lubricants or other products.
These definitions were promulgated after reviewing a record
based on an analysis of operations at facilities which
are
generally considered to be refineries.
USEPA was not
reviewing
operations
of
petrochemical
plants
or
other
internediaries.
Through
the
course
of
its
rulemaking,
USEPA
decided to rewrite its definitions to avoid the sort of
controversy the Board faces here.
Unless and until the
Board
is
convinced
in
subsequent
rulemaking
that
different
definitions
are necessary to protect air quality, USEPA’s
guidance will be followed.
That guidance will be narrowed
to specific instances in the context of permit denial
appeals, should they be filed.
This Supplementary Opinion
and
the Supplementary
Opinion dated October 18, 1979 and the Opinion dated August
23,
1979 constitute the Board’s Opinion in this proceeding.
Mr. Werner dissents.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby cfirtify the above S pplementary Opinion
was adopted on the ólb~~
day
of
,
1980
byavoteof3-’I
Christan L. Moff
Clerk
Illinois Pollutio
ontrol Board
