ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 15, 1990
IN THE MATTER OF:
LIMITS TO VOLATILITY OF
)
R88-30(A)
GASOLINE
)
(Rulemaking)
ADOPTED RULE.
FINAL ORDER.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D.
Durnelle):
The Board today proceeds to final adoption of subdocket
(A)
of
this rule, which
sets
a standard of 9.5 pounds per square inch
(“psi”) Reid vapor pressure
(“RVP”)
for gasoline sold
in Illinois
during the months of July and August.
First notice of this
proposal was adopted by the Board on September
13,
1989, based
upon
a proposal
filed by
the Chicago Lung Association
(“CLA”)
on
April
4,
1989.
The proposal was published
in the Illinois
Register
on September 29,
1989,
at
13
Ill.
Reg.
15249.
Second
notice was adopted by the Board on January
11,
1990, and the
proposal was thereafter submitted to
the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules
(“JCAR”).
JCAR reviewed the proposed
amendments
at its February
9,
1990 Meeting,
and issued
a
Certificate
of No Objection.
The Board notes
that certain non—
substantive language clarifications were made
in response to JCAR
staff suggestions.
Those language changes are discussed below.
As
is the Board’s custom,
this final opinion will set forth
the Board’s discussion of
the issues
that were
included in the
first and second notice opinions.
In this way,
the final opinion
will constitute
a single document providing the complete history
and enunciation of the
issues involved
in this
rulemaking
proceeding.
However,
the Board notes that the first notice
opinion
in this proceeding split
the docket
into
two
subdockets,
subdocket
(A)
to proceed with a 9.5 psi RVP standard and
subdocket
(B)
to proceed with
a 9.0 psi RVP standard.
The
reasons
for separating
the docket are fully
set forth
in the
first
notice opinion.
Because
the first notice opinion does not
address
the subdocket
(A) and
(B)
issues independently,
the Board
will
reproduce the first
notice opinion here
in
its entirety.
The Board notes,
finally, that
the subdocket
(B) proposal
is
currently undergoing an economic impact analysis.
When the
Economic
Impact Study
(“EcIS”)
is completed and submitted to the
Board,
hearings will
be scheduled,
and further action will
be
taken at
that time.
103—1
S~
—2—
BACKGROUND
Ozone pollution
is one
of the nation’s most
serious and
complex
air pollution problems.
Ozone
is a photochemical oxidant
and the major component
of
smog.
Unlike other pollutants,
ozone
is not emitted directly into the atmosphere
but
is formed through
chemical reactions among precursor emissions
(volatile organic
compounds or VOCs, nitrogen oxide~, carbon monoxide and other
compounds)
in the presence of sunI~ght.
The rate of ozone
production
is increased when atmospheric temperatures are warmer.
The hot summers of 1987 and 1988 resulted
in high levels of
ozone
in the Chicago and Metro East
non-attainment
areas.
Readings as high as
0.22 ppm by volume were
recorded, which
is
some 83
above
the federal and Illinois air quality standard of
0.12 ppm by volume.
However,
the ozone problem
is not specific
to Illinois.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA)
estimates
that there are more than 80 urban areas where
the ozone air quality standard
is being exceeded.
New and emerging scientific data
is shedding more light
on
the effect
high levels of ozone have on the general public.
Ozone
severely affects individuals with chronic heart,
lung,
and
circulatory system diseases.
Otherwise healthy individuals who
exercise while ozone levels are high can experience
reduced
functioning of the
lungs, leading
to chest pains, coughing,
wheezing,
and pulmonary congestion.
In addition
to the health
effects, ozone has been estimated
to cause two
to three billion
dollars worth of crop damage nationally each year.
Also,
because
the Chicago area has exceeded the ozone standard repeatedly,
USEPA has imposed
a construction ban on the Chicago non-
attainment area which prohibits
the construction
or modification
of major air pollution sources and thus restricts the economic
development of
the Chicagoland area.
In its comments
(P.C.
23),
the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(Agency) noted
that
in the early 1970’s,
the
average summertime RVP of gasoline was approximately 9.0 psi.
However, with the phasing out
of leaded gasoline,
refiners began
adding butane
to meet octane requirements which increased the RVP
levels.
The Agency noted that
it was not aware
that the typical
summer
RVP of gasoline
in Illinois was well above 9.0 psi
until
late
in
1987.
As a result,
Agency estimates of VOC emissions
during the 1970’s and 1980’s from both stationary and mobile
gasoline—related
sources have been made using an RVP
approximately 20—25
lower than actual RVP.
Accordingly,
those
emissions have been underestimated by apprOximately 20—25.
Thus,
during this period that
the Agency had been actively
engaged
in imposing reasonably available control
technologies
(RACT)
on major
sources
of air pollution,
the increase
in
gasoline RVP was causing a significant
increase
in the emission
of ozone precursors.
Much
of the benefit of
the RACT regulations
—3—
was lost as a result.
Reducing the summertime volatility of
gasoline to 1970 levels
is expected
to correct
this situation.
To cure all of these ozone related problems,
federal, state,
and local governments have attempted
to limit the emission of
ozone precursors.
One method of limiting such emissions
is
to
reduce the volatility of gasoline.
Volatility,
generally
speaking,
is the rate at which
a substance evaporates into the
atmosphere
——
the higher the volatility,
the faster the
evaporation.
As will be discussed below,
reducing the volatility
of
gasoline sold
in Illinois,
and ultimately
the country,
is
believed
to be
a giant
step forward
in solving
the ozone problem.
On August
19,
1987 the United States Environmental
Protection Agency
(USEPA) published
a notice of proposed
rulemaking
(52 Fed.
Reg.
31274) proposing
to require gasoline
refineries
to reduce the volatility of
their summertime
commercial
fuels and
to require manufacturers
of most gasoline
fueled vehicles
to make minor
improvements
in the design of their
existing evaporative emission control systems.
The purpose of
USEPA’s action was
to control
the emission of organic materials
which are precursors
to the formation of
ozone.
USEPA held a
public hearing on October
27,
1987,
on both
the proposed
volatility and refueling control programs and accepted public
comment until February
11,
1988.
It has been estimated
that
reducing gasoline RVP
to 9.0 psi
in Illinois could result
in summertime weekday emissions
reductions of
103,000 kg/day or 41,000 tons/year.
Such a
reduction may reduce ozone levels by 10—15.
Although this alone
may not solve
the ozone problem,
it would be significant step
forward.
However,
by December
of
1988, well over one year
from the
date of USEPA’S proposed rulemaking,
the date
for the final
adoption of
a national gasoline volatility
limit remained
uncertain.
This uncertainty,
coupled with
a desire
to avoid
further ozone excursions,
prompted the Board on January
5,
1989
to adopt an order requesting written public comment on various
aspects of the gasoline volatility issue,
i.e.,
the feasibility
of
reducing the RVP of gasoline
to 9.0 pounds per square inch
(psi)
by the summer of
1989,
the anticipated costs of reducing
the gasoline volatility,
the status
of
the USEPA’s rulemaking
to
reduce gasoline volatility,
etc.
Written public comments were
received through March
1,
1989.
Twenty—one
(21) written public
comments were submitted
into
this docket by March
1,
1989,
by
various members of
the public and of the regulated community.
An
additional
five
(5) public comments were
received by March
8,
1989.
On March
9,
1989,
the Board adopted
an order stating
its
intent
to proceed with a proposal for
rulemaking.
The Board
1
r~
3—1~7
—4—
noted that
the written public comment would require careful
review and that the pending USEPA action was uncertain~ thus,
further action would be forthcoming.
On March
22,
1989, USEPA published at
54
Fed. Reg.
11868
“Phase
I of
a two—phase reduction in summertime commercial
gasoline volatility”. The federal regulation limits the
volatility
of gasoline in Illinois
to
10.5 psi north of 40°
Latitude and 9.5 psi
south of 40° Latitude.
The 40° Latitude
line
is an east-west line south of Beardstown,
Champaign and
Danville and north of Quincy,
Springfield and Georgetown.
PROPOSAL
On April
4,
1989,
the Chicago Lung Association
(CLA)
submitted a proposed rule,
a statement of reasons, and a motion
to waive
the 200 signature requirement of Section
28 of the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act) and Section 102.121(a)
of the
Board’s procedural
rules,
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 102.121(a).
Noting that
it was pleased USEPA acted on the gasoline
volatility issue
for the summer of
1989,
the Chicago Lung
Association
(CLA)
stated that
it believes
that
the rule
“does
not
provide adequate control
of gasoline
(VOC)
emissions
for
Northeast
Illinois.”
See Statement
of Reasons,
p.1.
“In light
of the immediate need for more
stringent controls on gasoline
volatility
to improve
the air quality
in Northeast Illinois,”
CLA proposed the following
rule:
1.
Prohibited
Activity.
During
regulatory
control
periods
no
refiner,
importer,
distributor,
reseller,
carrier,
retailer
or
wholesale
purchaser—consumer
shall
sell,
offer
for
sale,
dispense,
supply,
offer
for
supply,
or
transport gasoline whose Reid vapor pressure
exceeds the applicable standard listed
in paragraph
3.
2.
Regulatory
Control
Period.
The
regulatory
control
period
for calendar year
1989
is June
30
to September
15
for
retail
outlets
and
wholesale
purchaser—consumer
facilities:
And
June
1
to
September
15
for
all
other
facilities.
The regulatory control
period
for calendar
year
1990
and
beyond
is
June
1
for
retail
outlets
and
wholesale
purchaser-consumer
facilities:
And May
1
to
September
15 for all other facilities.
3.
Applicable
Standard.
The applicable
standards
for
this
rule
are,
in
pounds
per
square
inch
Reid
vapor
pressure:
Year
May
June
July
August
September
—5—
1989
10.5
10.5
9.5
9.5
10.5
1990 and
beyond
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
4.
Special
Provisions
for
Alcohol
Blends.
The
Reid
vapor
pressure
of
ethanol
blend
gasolines
shall
not
exceed
the applicable standard
for gasoline by more than
one pound
per square inch.
Ethanol
blend gasolines
are
defined
as
those which
contain
at
least
9
ethanol
(by
volume)
.
The maximum ethanol
content
shall
not
exceed
any applicable requirements
of the Clean Air Act.
On April
6,
1989,
the Board adopted an order granting
the
motion
to waive the 200 signatures,
but requiring additional
information from the proponent before the proposal could
be
accepted
for hearing.
On April
13,
1989,
CLA submitted
its
response
to the Board’s more information order.
On April
27,
1989,
the Board accepted the CLA proposal and
directed the Hearing Officer
to schedule hearings.
The Board
also noted
that Section 27(a)
of the Act permits any person
to
request the Board
to determine
that an economic impact
study
(EcIS) should or should not
be prepared.
Nine public comments
were received in response to this order
(P.C.
30—38).
On June 22,
1989,
the Board adopted an order noting
the nine
comments and determining
that
an EcIS need not
be prepared at
that time.
The Board noted that the record compiled contained
a
fair amount of economic discussion.
Moreover,
the Board noted
that hearings were scheduled
for July 17 and
21,
1989, and
additional economic information was likely to be
introduced
therein.
As the Board was required
to make an EcIS
determination,
the Board determined
that,
at
that
time,
an EcIS
was not necessary.
As will be discussed below,
the Board
reaffirms
that determination with
respect
to the Docket A
proposal and will not
require an EcIS
to be done.
However, with
respect to the Docket
B proposal,
the Board determined that an
EcIS should be conducted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
On July
17 and
21,
1989,
the Board conducted public hearings
to address
the CLA proposal
to limit
the volatility of
gasoline.
Presenting testimony on July
17,
1989 were the Chicago
Lung Association,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
the Illinois Petroleum Council, Amoco Oil Company, Phillips
66,
Marathon Oil Company, and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Association
(MVMA)
Presenting
testimony on July 21,
1989,
were
Mobil Oil Corporation and the Chicago Lung Association.
103--
—6—
At hearing,
the Hearing Officer established a post-hearing
comment schedule, ordering that comments be submitted on or
before August
7, 1989.
Six post—hearing comments were submitted
in a timely fashion
(P.C.
42—47).
Mobil Oil Corporation filed
its comments on August 15,
1989.
On August
17,
1989,
CLA filed
an additional comment along with
a motion
to file instanter.
CLA’s motion was granted.
Although Mobil’s comment was not
submitted under
a motion to file,
the Board will accept the
comment into the record.
Mobil’s comment was submitted
in time
to permit adequate consideration;
no participant will be
prejudiced;
and the record will
be complete, which
is the Board’s
ultimate goal.
FEDERAL
VOLATILITY RULE
A major preliminary issue raised since the’Board originally
opened this docket
in December of 1988
is whether Illinois need
persevere in the rulemaking process
for a statewide
rule when the
federal government
is already
in the process
of adopting
a
nationwide regulation
that will accomplish the same result.
As
noted above,
tJSEPA originally proposed a gasoline volatility
rule
on August
19,
1987.
When the Board opened this docket
in
December
of
1988, USEPA had shown no movement toward the final
adoption of a regulation.
It was not until March of 1989 that
USEPA proceeded
to final adoption of
a
rule,
and at
that
it was
only an interim measure,
as USEPA adopted only “Phase
I
of
a
two
phase reduction
in summertime commercial gasoline volatility”.
54 Fed.
Reg.
11868.
Many comments note
that USEPA’s action
indicates that the Phase
II
completion of the gasoline volatility
regulation
is inevitable;
therefore,
the comments suggest
that
the Board recede
in
its attempt
to adopt
a
rule applicable only
to Illinois.
In its proposal,
CLA noted that USEPA had adopted the first
phase of
a two phase program and pointed out that USEPA had made
no commitment
as to when,
if ever,
the second phase would be
promulgated.
It was this uncertainty together with the interim
standards
of
10.5 psi for northern Illinois and 9.5 psi for
southern Illinois that prompted CLA to propose
the more stringent
limitation of 9.0 psi for all of Illinois
for the summer
of
1990
and each year thereafter.
CLA calculates
that
a gasoline
volatility
reduction from 10.5
to 9.0 psi
in northeast
Illinois
would result
in
a 199.5 ton/day reduction
in VOC emissions.
(R.
43.)
CLA also notes
that an Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency) planning document from April
1988,
though not an
official declaration of
the VOC reduction value of various
control options,
indicates
a gasoline volatility
reduction from
the then current
levels
(11.5
psi)
to 9.0 psi was thought
to be
the largest
single reduction option available in Illinois.
Id.
The Board notes
that the record contains testimony of
USEPA.
At hearing on July
17,
1989 USEPA stated “today
...
you
fl3~
-
—7—
are considering a
rule submitted by the Chicago Lung Association
which would
limit the volatility
of gasoline
in the State of
Illinois,
and USEPA supports the adoption of
this measure.”
(R.ll.
Emphasis added.)
USEPA stated further
that
its proposed
Phase
II program
is expected
to be published by early
next year,
but implementation nationwide
is not expected before 1992.
USEPA
also addressed the potential benefits
of early implementation,
stating:
According
to
our
draft
inventory,
mobile
source
VOC
emissions
account
for
roughly
50
percent
of
the
total
VOC
emissions
in
the
Chicago,
Illinois
area,
or
approximately
1086
tons
per
day
(tpd).
Reducing
the allowable
gasoline volatility
to
9.0
psi
in
1990
would
achieve
a
24 percent
reduction
in evaporative
emissions between 1990 and 1992,
or
a total
of
261
tpd.
The
costs
of
complying
with
this
program
are
offset
by
savings
for
consumers
resulting
from
an
increased
fuel
economy
due
to
the
increased
energy density
of
lower
RVP
fuel
and
as
less
fuel
is
lost
through
evaporation
and
running
losses.
Further,
it
is believed that much
if
not all of
the butane
displaced from direct use
in gasoline
in order
to
comply
with
the volatility
limits will
be
used
in
the
production
of
other
gasoline
components.
R.
14—15.
In short, USEPA supports the proposed regulation.
It believes
that Illinois can achieve
significant
emission reductions
by
requiring a summertime RVP of 9.0 psi beginning
in
1990, and
it
believes
that the severity of the Chicago ozone problem requires
Illinois
to take all reasonable actions
to protect
the health and
welfare of its citizens.
(R.
15.)
Based on the potential
reduction in VOC emissions resulting
from early implementation
of
this proposal and based on USEPA’s
express support
for the proposal,
the Board
is not inclined to
await
for implementation of USEPA’s Phase
II program.
This
Board
has
a statutory duty
to determine,
define and implement
the
environmental control standards applicable
in
Illinois, pursuant
to Section
5 of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
The
Board believes that the severity of the ozone problem requires
prompt, affirmative action on the part
oE regulators,
state and
federal alike.
ECONOMIC
IMPACT
The Board’s Order o~June
22,
1989
in this docket addresses
the issue of
whether an economic
impact study
(EcIS) would be
103—191
—8—
prepared.
As noted in that Order, Section
27(a)
of the Act
requires
that the Board make a determination within
60 days of
the acceptance
of a proposal.
Noting that the record at
that
time already contained
a fair amount of economic
information and
noting further that hearings were scheduled at which additional
economic information was expected to be submitted,
the Board
determined that an EcIS need not
be prepared.
The Board noted,
however,
that Section
27(a) permits
the Board
to determine after
the 60 days that an EcIS need be done
if new information
indicates that one need be done.
The Board here addresses
the
issue of economic impact and the need for an EcIS.
Section 27(a)
of
the Act sets forth the Criteria that the
Board
is
to consider when determining whether
an EcIS should be
conducted.
Section
27(a)
states
in relevant
part:
The Board
shall
reach
its decision based
on
its
assessment of
the potential economic impact of
the rule,
the potential
for consideration
of the economic impact
absent such
a study,
the extent, i~any,
to which the
Board
is free under
the statute authorizing the
rule
to
modify the substance of the rule based upon the
conclusions
of such a study,
and any other
considerations the Board deems appropriate.
Many of the commenters, primarily the refineries and
gasoline distributors, specifically requested that
the Board
determine that
an EcIS be prepared.
In comments and at
hearing,
the Illinois Petroleum Council
(IPC)
strongly advocated
for
the
preparation of an EcIS, arguing
that
in declining
to
require an
EcIS,
the Board is overlooking several key considerations.
First,
IPC argues that Illinois
is
the hub of
the midwest
gasoline supply and distribution system, and asks what
impact
would limiting gasoline volatility
to 9.0 psi
in Illinois have on
both Illinois and other states supplied by Illinois based
refineries.
Second,
IPC asks how much improvement
in Illinois’
ambient air quality would volatility control produce,
especially
in light
of the large summertime natural source volatile organic
compound emissions
in the state?
Third,
what
is
the real cost
to
Illinois consumers and is this cost reasonable and commensurate
with the expected improvement
in air quality?
Fourth,
would not
a
1.0 psi waiver
for ethanol blends negate the improvement
in
Illinois’
air quality expected from a reduction
in RVP levels?
And finally,
IPC asks does the Clean Air Act allow
the state
to
adopt more restrictive environmental controls absent their
inclusion
in an approved state implementation plan
(SIP)?
Other commenters,
primarily
the proponent CLA and NESCAUM,
argue
that the economic information
in the record
is sufficient
to support
the proposed regulation,
that an EcIS need not
he
prepared,
and that
the impact will be reasonable.
In support
of
their argument,
these commenters
note that the Chicago area
is
l~)3—1
fl2.
—9—
non—attainment
for ozone.
As
a result,
Chicago
is currently
under
a construction ban,
which means that
no new construction or
modification of
a major air emission source may take place.
This
alone restricts economic development of
the Chicago area.
CLA
estimates
that adoption of
this rule will
result
in emission
reductions
of approximately 199.5 tons/day.
CLA further
estimates that this value
is nine percent
of
the estimated
1988
VOC inventory of 2,186.9
tons/day and thirteen percent of the
reductions estimated
by USEPA to be necessary
to bring the
Chicago area into attainment, and thereby
lift the construction
ban.
USEPA estimates
that early
implementation of this
rule will
reduce emissions
by
261 tons/day.
CLA also notes
that
the Agency
has noted
its belief that the emission reductions resulting
from
a gasoline volatility limit
of 9.0 psi would be the largest
single reduction option available
in Illinois.
In further support of
their position,
these commenters argue
that other benefits would
resul.t as well.
They argue
that
adoption of
this rule would go
a long way toward avoiding the
adverse health effects, noted above, associated with excessive
ozone levels.
In addition,
crop damage resulting from high ozone
levels would be minimized.
CLA argues
that Illinois crop yields
will improve,
as major crops
for the Illinois
farm economy are
sensitive
to ozone—induced yield loss even at
the relatively low
concentrations
at which ozone
is found
in the farm areas of the
state.
For Illinois
this was valued to be worth
226 million
dollars
for a ten percent reduction
in ozone levels experienced
in
1980.
As the estimated ozone reduction resulting from
implementation
of this
rule is two percent,
this calculates
to
a
potential benefit of
approximately 45 million dollars.
Also,
CLIA
and USEPA point out
that another benefit will be increased
fuel
economy due
to the increased energy density of lower
RVP fuel and
as
less fuel
is lost through evaporation and running
loss.
As a preliminary matter,
the Board notes
that the nature of
this
rulemaking
is somewhat different
from most other
rulemakings.
In this rulemaking,
the Board
is being asked
to
adopt early a rule which USEPA is
in the process of
promulgating.
In its consideration of this
rule, USEPA has
considered and addressed the economic impact upon the regulated
community.
USEPA has already adopted
the first phase of that
rule.
USEPA has stated on the record in this proceeding
that
it
expects
to publish the final phase of
its rule early next year,
with an effective date of
1992.
The final
rule
is expected to
limit
the volatility of gasoline in Illinois, and other areas,
to
9.0 psi RVP.
Thus,
a 9.0 psi RVP limitation appears inevitable,
which means
that
the economic impact will result,
whether
the
Board acts or
not.
The question,
then,
in determining whether an EcIS need be
conducted
is not necessarily what
is the economic impact of
a
gasoline volatility
rule
in Illinois; more precisely
the question
103--1~3
—10-
is what
is the economic impact of early implementation of the
federal gasoline volatility
rule
in Illinois?
The record indicates
that reducing the volatility of
gasoline from 11.5
to 9.0 psi,
taking all of the above
considerations
into account, would result
in a price increase of
gasoline
of approximately 1—3 cents per gallon.
This estimate
preceded adoption by USEPA of phase
I of
its rule.
The record
is
not clear
on what the approximate
cost per gallon would be
in
Illinois
now that
the standard
is 10.5 psi.
In other words,
the
record does not articulate what
the cost of
reducing the
volatility
of gasoline from 10.5
to 9.0 psi will be per gallon.
The Board can only assume that
it will be less
than or equal
to
1—3 cents per
gallon.
Market forces as they are,
the economic
burden of
this rule will still
be carried by theconsumer.
In
relation to the benefits derived from this rule,
however,
a 1—3
cent cost per gallon
of gasoline
is
not unreasonable.
And again,
part
of this cost
increase will
be offset
by increased fuel
economy resulting from the use
of
lower RVP gasoline.
Put another way,
the total
cost
of implementation appears
to
be less than $1000 per ton
of VOC controlled.
According
to P.C.
42, the Office of Technology Assessment has estimated the cost
to
be
in the range of
$320 —700
per ton of VOC controlled.
CLA
notes
that
the Agency has estimated
the cost effectiveness (using
the old emission inventory)
for
cas volatility reduction
to 9.0
psi was $982
—
1,129 per ton of 7OC controlled.
CLA’s
own
estimates put the costs of control
at approximately S1,000 per
ton.
CLA notes
that this cost estimate
is well within the range
of
cost effectiveness values associated with the adoption of
other Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT)
regulations.
Mobile,
however, estimates
that the cost would be
approximately $2,000/ton.
The Board notes that
these
cost estimates
include a
consideration of most
of the issues raised by the potentially
regulated community.
The Board
turns next
to one of the major
issues that has proven more difficult
to analyze.
Many
commenters have argued that
a 9.0 psi RVP limitation
in Illinois
would
set Illinois apart from the rest of
the midwest region,
making Illinois,
for all effective purposes,
a “specialty”
state
in terms
of refining and distributing gasoline.
Generally,
the
midwest
region includes Illinois,
Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Iowa,
Missouri,
Minnesota,
and Kentucky.
Of these,
Indiana,
~
Michigan,
Iowa Minnesota and Kentucky are subject
to a
10.5 psi RVP standard.
The southern portion of
Illinois,
Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee,
and Arkansas are subject
to
a 9.5
psi standard.
The commenters argue
that limiting the volatility
of gasoline
in Illinois
to
9.0 psi while many
of the other states
operate under
a 10.5 psi standard would impose
a burden upon
the
refiners and distributors
in three fundamental respects.
—11—
First,
the commenters argue
that the distribution network
is
not equipped to accommodate
a 9.0 psi RVP gasoline.
Illinois
refineries are presently producing gasolines
of 10.5
to 9.5 psi
for distribution
in Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin,
etc.
10.5 psi
gasoline
is presently being distributed
in Indiana, Wisconsin,
and the northern part of
Illinois,
i.e.,
north of
40 degrees
Latitude.
9.5 psi gasoline
is presently being distributed
in
southern Illinois and Missouri.
Most of
the gasoline supplied
in
the midwest
is provided primarily by refiners
in and around
Illinois.
In addition,
the commenters argue
that supplements
to
this supply are provided by shipments from the Gulf Coast and
from Canada.
While
the commenters note that Gulf Coast supplies
have become tight due primarily
to pipeline capacity constraints
and that
imports
from Canada have been rather sporadic,
they
argue that
it would be difficult
to supplement the midwest
region’s supply of gasoline from these sources because
it would
be difficult
for the pipeline operators
to supply only
Illinois
with 9.0 psi gasoline while
the remainder of the upper midwest
region receives 10.5 psi gasoline.
Second,
the commenters argue
that
if
they are required
to
produce and market
a
9.0
psi gasoline,
or
a “specialty”
gasoline
product,
they will be placed
in
a position
of economic
disadvantage with their out—of-state competitors who are not
required to produce 9.0 psi gasoline.
These cornmenters argue
that because their competitors will not be required
to incur the
expense of producing 9.0 psi product,
these competitors will be
able to sell their product at
a lower price.
Third, the commenters argue
that limiting Illinois
to a 9.0
psi standard would impose
a burden on gasoline suppliers
in times
of spot
shortage.
For example, one of the hearing participants
(Mobil)
offered
the following testimony on this point:
Right now if we have a spot
shortage
in Chicago or
Illinois,
or somewhere
in
the State of Illinois,
some
city has a spot shortage,
we can bring product
in from
Minnesota,
we can bring
it
from Indiana, we can bring
it
in from Wisconsin.
We cover
it like that.
And
it
is
no
problem.
But
if you have
a nine pound standard
in Chicago,
and there
is
a
ten and a half pound standard
in Indiana,
we can’t do that.
Now,
where do we go for the product
to cover
that temporary disruption?
We don’t
know.
(R.
272.)
Thus,
the record indicates that
in times
of spot shortages,
Illinois,
if under
a 9.0 psi standard, would be unable
to
conveniently make up the shortage using supplies from other
states.
11)3-- 19
—12—
It
is based upon these issues and concerns that
the Board
has determined
that the appropriate course
is to split this
docket into two separate proposals,
Docket
(A) and Docket
(B).
In Docket
(A),
the Board adopts
a
9.5
psi RVP limitation
statewide, and determined
that an EcIS need not be conducted.
Because
the southern portion of
Illinois,
i.e.,
south
of
40
degrees Latitude,
is currently operat.ing under a 9.5 psi
standard,
the Board believes that much of the concern noted above
will be avoided.
In other
words, Illinois refiners are currently
producing 9.5 psi gasoline for distribution
in
Illinois,
and
Missouri.
Illinois will not
be
a
“specialty”
state;
Illinois
refiners will not
be placed
in a position cf
economic
disadvantage.
Since refiners are producing 9.5 gasoline
for
southern Illinois,
there should be little difficulty
in producing
it
for northern Illinois as well.
Further,
in times of spot
shortage in northern Illinois,
the marketers can turn
to supplies
in southern Illinois and adjoining states to make up the
difference.
According
to USEPA’s post hearing comments,
adoption
of
a
9.5 psi
limit could result
in almost 80
of the potential
benefits
to be derived from a 9.0 psi standard
(P.C.
44).
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
As previously described,
“volatility”
of a liquid
is
a
measure of
its tendency to evaporate.
Gasoline
is
a mixture of a
number of hydrocarbon components which are very volatile under
most conditions.
Certain hydrocarbons,
known
as
“light—end”
hydrocarbons, are among the most volatile components
of
gasoline.
Butane
is
a light—end hydrocarbon.
Light-end
hydrocarbons make up the largest part
of gasoline vapor.
Evaporated gasoline,
however, will also
include certain amounts
of heavier hydrocarbons.
Benzene, one of the heavier compounds,
is a known carcinogen
in addition to contributing
to ozone.
Reformulation
As a practical matter,
implementation of
this rule will be
effectuated
by the reformulation,
or alteration
of the chemical
composition,
of the gasoline distributed
in Illinois.
The
primary approach that gasoline refiners would take to
reduce the
volatility
of gasoline products would be
to add less butane
during the refining process.
Apparently,
in the early 19705,
gasoline volatility had an average RVP of approximately 9.0
psi.
With the phasing out of lead
in gasoline,
refiners
began
to
add butane
to gasoline
to meet octane requirements.
Butane was
chosen because
it
is relatively inexpensive and because
it
increases octane.
However,
it also substantially increases
volatility.
P.C.
42, p.1.
Thus,
reducing the amount of butane
will have the result
of decreasing the volatility of
the
gasoline.
I ()9~J
1)(~
-13-
Based on a review of
the record, the Board determines
that
reducing the level of butane
in gasoline products would be
technically feasible.
In most cases,
refiners simply need not
add butane
to the gasoline product.
Evidence
for this
determination
is found
in the fact that refiners
in Illinois
already produce gasoline with a volatility
of 9.5 psi RVP.
However, many participants, primarily
the refiners,
note
that by not adding the butane
to gasoline,
the refiners will
incur costs
for butane removal, butane storage, loss of butane
value,
octane value replacement,
and/or compliance testing.
One
commenter,
P.C.
6,
further notes
that
butane
is contained
in
crude oil as well as being produced
in processing units.
Processing units
like the catalytic reformer and fluid catalytic
cracker increase butane production when operating to produce
higher octane gasolines.
These commenters argue that
the surplus
butane would have no economic value
in the refinery.
Thus,
new
markets
for the butane must
be developed.
Once
these markets are
developed,
the refiner must make refining modifications
as well
as construct storage and transportation facilities.
These
commenters believe
that
the costs associated with such facilities
would be excessive.
The Board
is not persuaded by the record that
it would be
technically infeasible
for refiners to remove, store,
and/or
reuse the butane at
a later
date.
The Board can see
no reason
why the refiners cannot remove the butane during the regulatory
control period,
i.e.,
July and August, and then reuse
it during
the colder winter months when ozone formation
is not
a problem.
The commenter’s argument that storage facilities must
be
constructed
is
not,
in and
off
itself, dispositive of this
issue.
The Board
is aware of the existence
of potential storage
facilities
that are apparently being unused.
The Board
specifically
requested comment on the potential availability of
these and other facilities
for the purpose of butane storage.
Further,
the Board notes
that
the commenters’
arguments are
directed more to the merits of the gasoline volatility
rule
in
general than
to the early implementation of the
rule.
When the
federal
rule
is adopted,
the refiners will
be required to remove
the butane and do something with
it.
The Board’s consideration
of early implementation of
the rule merely requires
the refiners
to begin the search
for storage facilities or new markets sooner
than the
federal
rule would.
Safety/Driveabili ty
Many of the commenters
argue
that the Board should not
proceed with this
rulemaking because
9.0 psi RVP gasoline would
likely give noticeably degraded driveability performance
in the
early spring and late fall when product would be
in
the
distribution system
to ensure compliance with the restriction
I 0$—
I
—14—
period.
One of the commenters,
P.C.
48, submitted a study
prepared August
1,
1988
for submission
to the American Petroleum
Institute.
Results of the study are as follows:
(a)
30
of the vehicles tested showed significant
deterioration in driveability performance
(at least
two
or more have hesitation and/or stalls) with 9.0 psi RVP
fuel compared to the typical
13.5 psi RVP fuel.
(b)
There were nearly twice as many start stalls with the
9.0 psi RVP fuel compared
to the 13.5 psi RVP fuel
within the 51 vehicle
fleet
tested.
(c)
Average driveability performance with the tank
fuel
(average RVP
=
13.0 psi) was similar
to performance with
the nominal
13.5 psi RVP test fuel.
(d)
Test temperatures
for this program ranged from 21—30
degrees
F;
however,
it
is
expected that
lower
temperatures than those observed during this test could
occur
in some ASTM Class
C areas during March and
November.
Many other participants submitted similar comments.
The CLA argues that vehicle performance
will not deteriorate
as
a
result of the reduced volatility, but rather vehicle
performance and safety may
improve.
CLA points
to the state of
California
as an example where fuel volatility has been reduced
since 1971 without commensurate driveability problems.
CLA
further points
to the comments
of NESCAUM and the Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Association
(MI/MA)
for support of
its position.
At hearing,
the Board received testimony from a
representative of MVMA who stated:
Because every vehicle on the road today was designed and
built to operate
on nine pound volatility gasoline, MVMA
does not believe
that vehicle performance would suffer
from volatility control.
In fact
we believe
that
performance would be increased
in the hot summer months
due
to reduction
in vapor
lock and stalling on those hot
days when ozone
is
a problem.
However,
the concern
remains regarding vehicle performance
in very cold
weather.
This should be addressed by adjusting the
effective date
off the control
period.
It
is not
a
reason to abandon volatility controls.
(R.2l4—2l5)
Based on
the record,
the Board
is not persuaded
that
implementation of
this rule will
result
in safety or driveability
problems.
The study submitted
in P.C.
48 was conducted under
temperatures
of
21
—
30 degrees
F.
The Docket
(A) proposal
I 1)3-1 ~1)
—15-
requires 9.5 psi gasoline at
the retail outlet during July and
August.
It
is unrealistic
that northern Illinois will
be subject
to temperatures as cold as
that during those months.
The Docket
(B) proposal would require
9.0 psi gasoline at the retail outlet
from June
1 to September
15.
The Board does not believe
it
likely that northern Illinois will be subject
to temperatures
below 30 degrees during this period also.
As a result,
the Board
is not persuaded that gasoline with a volatility
of
9.5
psi,
or
9.0 psi for that matter, will pose a safety/driveability problem
in Illinois during the regulatory
control period here proposed.
In colder climates,
lower volatility gasoline may pose problems,
but
the Board believes
that those problems should not
be present
during the implementation of either of these proposals.
ENFORCEABILITY
At hearing,
the IPC raised
a valid question regarding
whether
the Clean Air Act allows
the state to adopt more
restrictive environmental controls absent their
inclusion
in an
approved state implementation
Plan
(SIP).
After noting the
recent case of American Petroleum Institute
v. New York State
Department of
Environmental Conservation,
29 ERC 1457
(D.N.Y.
April
4,
1989),
IPC asks:
Since Illinois currently does
not have an approved SIP
and
is bound from developing one until after
the FIP has
been promulgated or settled, which should be sometime
in
1990, how can the Pollution Control Board possibly act
on the Chicago Lung Association’s proposal?
(R.
81.)
The Board does not believe
it
is precluded from promulgating
this regulation
based on the decision
in the API case.
In fact,
the Board believes
it has every
right and power granted under
the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act),
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1987,
ch.
111—1/2, pars.
1001 et
seq.,
to proceed with this proposal.
The
Board
is aware, however,
that
under
the API decision
a final
adopted rule will not be enforceable until
it
is approved
as
a
revision to the SIP.
As USEPA has appeared
in this rulemaking
proceeding and has articulated its support
for the rule,
the
Board believes
that USEPA will work expeditiously
to approve the
rule as a revision to the SIP.
Thus,
the Board does not agree
with IPC that the State must have an
“approved SIP”
before
it can
proceed with this
rule;
rather,
the State must
submit the adopted
rule
to USEPA as
a revision to the SIP, and once approved as
such,
the rule can be enforced.
ETHANOL EXEMPTION
Many commenters specifically stated that
if the Board
proceeds with the proposal to limit
the volatility of
gasoline,
then the Board should not include
the 1.0 psi exemption
for
ethanol blended gasoline, as CLA proposed.
These commenters
10~—19fl
—16—
argue
that including a 1.0 psi exemption for blended gasolines
directly contradicts the intent of limiting the volatility
of
gasoline,
i.e.,
to reduce the formation of
ozone.
CLA states
in its submissions
to the Board
that
it
has
included the 1.0 psi exemption for
the following
reasons.
First,
the USEPA rule allows a one pound exemption for gasohol
(ethanol
blends).
To be
as parallel as possible with the federal
rule and
to avoid confusing the regulated community,
CLA retained the
gasohol exemption.
Second, gasohol
is typically made by “splash
blending”
in which a certain amount of ethanol
is put into
a tank
and to
it
is added a certain amount of
finished gasoline,
or vice
versa.
For example,
in an area where 10.5 psi gasoline
is sold,
the ethanol blends will use that as a base and end up with
a
gasohol with a volatility about one psi higher than the base
gasoline,
or 12.5 psi.
CLA argues
that
if gasohol
is required
to
meet the same volatility
limit as gasoline,
i.e.,
9.0 psi,
gasohol blenders would require
a special blending grade gasoline
of 8.0 psi,
which
is not available.
Finally, CLA states that
both gasoline and gasohol will have their volatility reduced by
1.5 psi under
the proposed rule.
Thus,
a significant reduction
in the emissions from both fuels will result.
Additional
emission reductions could be made by further reducing the
volatility of both gasoline and gasohol and that option may
be
appropriate for the Board to consider
in
the future along with
other VOC reduction measures.
The Board has incorporated
the ethanol exemption
in both
Dockets
(A)
and
(B); however, certain revisions have been made.
The Board has retained the 1.0 psi exemption to insure that
this
rulemaking
is as parallel
to the federal rule as possible.
Again,
the Board notes
that the proper focus
for
this rulemaking
is early
implementation of the forthcoming federal
rule.
Consistent with this intent,
the Board believes that
it
would not
be feasible
to require ethanol blends
to meet
the same standard
when the gasoline that
it
is blended with
is already at
that
level.
The record indicates that when ethanol
is blended with
gasoline,
the ethanol raises the RVP approximately 0.7 psi.
For
this
reason the Board has added
the additional language
to
proposed Section 215.585(c), below.
This language states that
if
after blending the RVP
is raised 0.7 psi,
nothing else
shall be
added so as
to use up the remaining 0.3 psi exemption.
The
intent of
this language
is
to insure that only ethanol
is added
to the gasoline,
resulting
in the increased RVP.
BOARD REVISIONS TO
PROPOSAL
Docket A
The Board’s adopted regulation in Docket A
is similar
to
that proposed
by CLA.
However,
certain additions and revisions
have been made beyond that already discussed
in this Opinion.
1
1)3_21~(~
-17—
The Board has drafted the proposed text
in the form required
under
the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)
and
regulations adopted thereunder.
Certain definitions have been
proposed (“Ethanol blend gasoline”,
“Reid vapor pressure”,
“Retail outlet”, and “Wholesale purchaser—consumer”), and those
materials
that appear
to be incorporated into the text of the
rule have been put
into the form proper for incorporations by
reference in Section 215.105.
Subsection
(a)
sets forth
the
general prohibitions of selling, dispensing,
etc.,
gasoline which
exceeds
the limitations set forth
in subsequent subsections.
The
Board has revised this language
to clarify
that
it
is
only
gasoline sold
in Illinois that
is
regulated.
Also the Board has shortened
the regulatory control period
in Section 2l5.585(a)(l) and
(2)
to cover July
1 to August
31 of
each summer.
As
a practical matter the Board has left
it
to the
discretion
of the refiners and wholesalers as
to when they will
begin the production and distribution
of lower
volatility
gasoline
for
it
to be available at
retail outlets
by July
1.
Note that
this applies only
for the Docket
A
proposal.
Subsections
(d)
through
(g) address
the methods by which testing
and sampling are
to take place.
The Board has attempted
to
remain as close to the federal rule as possible.
Finally,
the
Board has added Subsection
(h),
a requirement
that
refiners and
suppliers maintain records of
the gasoline produced and shipped
by them.
FIRST NOTICE COMMENT
The subdocket
(A) proposal was published
in the Illinois
on September
29,
1989,
at
13
Ill.
Reg.
15249,
thereby
beginning
a
45 day public comment period.
Public hearing was
scheduled
for November
29,
1989 and November
30,
if necessary
to
carry over from the previous day.
Nine
(9) public comments were
submitted prior
to hearing.
Hearing was conducted on November
29,
1989,
at which
ten
(10)
individuals presented testimony.
After all testimony was presented,
the hearing adjourned;
there
was
no need for hearing
to continue on November
30,
1989.
Eight
post—hearing comments were filed.
Public Comment
Two of
the public comments are procedural
in nature.
Public
Comment
(“P.C.”)
50 was filed on October
20,
1989 by
the
Secretary of State’s Office,
Administrative Code Division.
These
comments suggested typographical changes
to conform the proposal
to the Illinois Administrative Code format.
P.C.
56 was filed on
November
14,
1989
by the Department of Commerce and Community
Affairs
(DOCA),
Small Business Assistance
Bureau.
DCCA’s Impact
analysis states
that
the proposed rule will
have no economic
impact on small businesses.
—18—
The remainder
of the public comment and testimony can be
divided into
three general categories:
(1)
the comments of the
proponent, Chicago Lung Association
(CLA),
and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
(2)
the comments of the
ethanol producers, and
(3)
the comments of the Illinois petroleum
industry.
(1) Comments of the CLA and USEPA
The Chicago Lung Association appeared at hearing
to restate
its position that its comments filed on March
1,
July
17, July
21, and August
2,
1989 support the adoption of
the 9.0 psi
RI/P
rule originally proposed and the adoption of
the 9.5 psi rule
which
is
the subject of
this subdocket.
CLA stated that while
it
was pleased that the Board was proceeding with the subdocket
(A)
proposal,
it believes that Illinois should continue and adopt the
9.0 psi
RI/P rule earlier than the
1992 date expected for adoption
by USEPA.
USEPA also appeared at hearing and submitted post—hearing
comments
(P.C.
63).
USEPA reiterated its position that
in light
of the serious ozone non—attainment problem
in the Chicago area
it supports the gasoline volatility control measures proposed
in
subdocket
A.
USEPA stated that the potential benefits of early
implementation of
RI/P control
in the Chicago area are
significant.
According
to MOBILE4 computer modeling analysis,
reducing
the allowable gasoline volatility
to 9.5 Psi
in 1990
would achieve
a 19 percent reduction
in evaporative emissions,
or
a total of 206 tons per day between
1990 and
1992.
(R.
at 424).
(2) Comments of Ethanol Industry
The comments of the ethanol
industry were submitted as
follows:
P.C.
58 by Pekin Energy Company and P.C.
59 by the
Renewable Fuels Association.
At
hearing,
the Board received
testimony from the Pekin Energy Company, Martin Oil Company,
and
National and Illinois Corn Growers Associations.
These
commenters noted
their support
for the 1.0 psi
RI/P exemption
granted for ethanol blend gasolines.
Further,
as Martin Oil
is
an owner
and operator of many service stations
in Illinois,
it
shares some of the concerns,
noted below,
of
the petroleum
industry.
The Board will address
those concerns below.
As the Board has noted
its desire
to remain
as parallel
to
the federal
rule as possible,
and as the federal rule permits
a
1.0 psi exemption
for ethanol blends,
the Board will
retain the
exemption
in its rule.
(3) Comments of Petroleum Industry
The comments of the petroleum industry were submitted as
follows:
P.C.
51, on November
13,
1989 by the Illinois Petroleum
in
—19—
Council, P.C.
52 on November
13,
1989 by Mobil Oil Corporation,
P.C.
53 on November
13,
1989
by Marathon Petroleum Company,
P.C.
54 on November
13, 1989
by Three Rivers Manufacturer’s
Association and P.C.
57 filed November
14, 1989 by Clark Oil and
Refining Corporation.
Of these,
the Illinois Petroleum Council,
Marathon, and Clark appeared
at hearing
to offer
testimony.
Generally the testimony of these participants was a summation of
their written comments.
Post hearing comments were submitted as
follows:
P.C.
60
by the Illinois Petroleum Marketers
Association,
P.C.
61
by Texaco
Inc.,
P.C.
65 by Clark Oil and
P.C.
67 by Marathon Oil.
The primary comment of these participants
is a reiteration
of comments previously submitted.
While the commenters
note that
the proposed
9.5
standard
is not
as stringent
as
the 9.0
standard,
they maintain
that gasoline marketing
is based upon
a
national network and believe
that a national standard works best
in this type of situation.
Thus,
they request
that
the Board
await adoption by
the USEPA of
the 9.0 nationwide gasoline
RI/P
rule expected
to be finalized
in early 1991
for implementation
in
the summer
of
1992.
In support of
this
position, Marathon notes
that
the
difficulty
it faces lies
in the fact that its terminals
in
Hammond and Griffith,
Indiana serve as a hub for supplying not
only northern Illinois but also Wisconsin,
Michigan and
Indiana.
Marathon assesses its ability
to comply with the
proposed regulation will hinge on two factors:
(1)
its ability
to
gain access
to additional tankerage
in the Hammond—Griffith area,
or
(2)
its ability
to receive on exchange from other Chicago area
sources that produce
9.5 psi RVP gasoline.
Clark also states that
for
it
to comply with a lower
volatility rule,
it must construct additional storage
facilities.
Clark states that
it
is in the process of preparing
to construct
such facilities
at a cost of 1.5 million dollars,
but that completion of the facility
is
not scheduled
for at least
18 months.
With respect
to this preliminary argument,
the Board notes
that
it has already taken the position not
to await federal
action
in this area.
Despite USEPA’s best intentions,
there
is
no guarantee that USEPA will adopt
the rule
for
implementation
in
1992.
Further,
the Board believes that substantial emission
reductions
can be
realized by early implementation
in
1990.
The
Board believes that
a statewide 9.5 Psi RVP rule
is economically
reasonable and technically feasible.
While
the Board appreciates
the situations
of Marathon and Clark,
and others similarly
situated,
the Board
is not persuaded
to alter that belief.
The
Board notes
that facilities unable
to obtain exchanges from
Chicago area producers of 9.5 psi
RI/P gasoline or unable
to
obtain additional
tankerage,
or
storage facilities,
have the
103— 103
—20—
variance
proceeding available
to them
in which they can
specifically make their cases of arbitrary or
unreasonable
hardship.
Amoco Oil Company also appeared at hearing on November
19,
1989,
and announced that
it supports the subdocket
(A) proposal
for
a statewide 9.5 psi
RI/P standard.
In
fact,
Amoco stated that
it intends
to sell
9.5
psi RVP gasoline from its service stations
in the Chicago Metropolitan area,
most of northern Illinois, and
parts of northwest Indiana during the months
of July and August
of
1990
to help those areas reduce their ozone problems.
Amoco’s
lower volatility gasoline will be produced at
its Whiting,
Indiana refinery where
it has invested approximately
$1 million
to enable
it
to produce
the lower volatility product.
Amoco joins, however, with the other gasoline producers who
state
that
if the Board decides
to proceed with the rule,
certain
revisions should be made
to the enforcement provisions of the
proposal
to ease compliance and
to conform with the federal
regulation.
(a) Test Methods
The first
of these suggested revisions concerns the test
methods referenced
in proposed Section 215.585(e).
As proposed
at First Notice, Section 215.585(e) states that:
The Reid vapor pressure shall
be measured
in
accordance with test method ASTM ll23 or
in
the case of gasoline—oxygenate blends which
contains water-extractable oxygenates,
a
modification of ASTM D323 as set forth
in
40
CFR 80, Appendix
E,
incorporated
by
reference
in Section 215.105.
However,
at hearing, Marathon and other participants pointed out
that
the test method for water—extractable oxygenates, also known
as the “dry method”,
is the only
RI/P test method recognized and
approved by the USEPA in its national volatility reduction
program.
These commenters point out that the dry method,
now
known as ASTM D-4953,
is appropriate for both oxygenated and non-
oxygenated gasolines.
The commenters contend
that,
as written,
the rule would
require refiners of non—oxycenated
gasolines
to
test batches
twice, once using ASTM D—323
to satisfy Illinois’
rule and once using ASTM D-4953
to satisfy
the federal
rule.
To
eliminate
the duplicate testing requirement,
the commenters
recommended
that subsection
(e)
be revised
to allow
the option
of
using either D—323
or D—4953
to demonstrate compliance.
-
The Board agrees and has revised Section 215.585(e)
to
permit
the use of either ASTM test method D—323 or
D—4953.
Also,
the Board notes that
it has added ASTM D-4953
to
the
Incorporations
by Reference section, Section
2l5.105(a)(l5).
11)3—2114
—21—
(b) Reference To USEPA Regulation
In post—hearing comments, Marathon
(P.C.
67) suggested that:
In the proposed regulation,
several references
are made
to various appendices
to U.S.
EPA’s
gasoline volatility
regulation published on
March 22,
1989
(54 Fed.
Reg.
11868).
Sections
215.105(1) and 2l5.585(d)(3),
(e) and
(if)
all
refer
to the federal regulation as “40 CFR
80.”
Though the federal volatility regulation
will
be codified at
40 CFR 80, our
understanding
is that the codification has not
yet occurred.
Therefore,
any reference to “40
CFR 80, Appendix
“
is not fully
descriptive.
We recommend that references
to
the federal volatility
regulation be clarified
by using
the designation
“54 Fed.
Reg.
11868,
Appendix
.“
For two reasons,
the Board declines to cite
the Federal
Register each time the appendices
in the Code of
Federal
Regulation
(CFR) are referred to.
First,
in the incorporation by
reference section, Section 215.105(i), a specific citation
is
provided
to the Federal Register where Appendices
D,
E, and F are
adopted.
Section 215.105(i)
specifically refers the reader
to
54
Fed.
Reg.
11897, March 22,
1989.
The Board believes
that during
the pendency of
the codification
this will satisfy Marathon’s
concern.
Second,
the Board believe
that once the appendices are
codified, citation
to the CFR will be the most direct and
convenient
form of citation.
Thus,
the Board will
retain the
citations as proposed at First Notice.
(C)
Record Keeping
The
third requested change relates
to the documentation
required
in Section 2l5.585(h)(l) and
(2).
These sections
require that refiners and suppliers clearly designate on shipping
documents
the
RI/P of gasoline shipped from refiners and
distribution facilities.
The commenters argue
that this section
imposes an unnecessarily burdensome requirement and suggest that
a
less stringent procedure be applied.
In support
of this
position, Marathon stated:
While most
refiners test the
RI/P of gasoline
prior
to shipment,
the specifically measu~ed RI/P,
the value
that
is determined
is not currently
disclosed on pipeline meter tickets.
And
at most
terminals, unlike refineries,
RI/P
test equipment
is
not even available on—site.
103—205
—22—
A regulatory
requirement
to disclose gasoline
RVP on bills of lading would force terminal
operators
to
take storage tanks out of service
after each receipt,
draw a sample,
send
it
to a
qualified laboratory and •await results.
This would likely keep the tank out
of service
for at
least one or
two days, possibly longer, and
could create significant supply disruptions.
(R.
328)
The commenters’
suggest
that
a more
reasonable,
yet
effective method of documentation would be
to
require shipping
documents
to state whether
the gasoline
in question is suitable
for sale in Illinois during
the regulatory control period.
The
commenters believe that
a requirement specifying whether gasoline
complies or does not comply with the Illinois standard,
rather
than specifying
the RVP of each batch of gasoline,
essentially
mirrors the documentation requirements imposed by USEPA’s
volatility regulation.
The Board received as post—hearing comment suggested
language
for clarification
•of Section 215.585(h).
In
P.C.
67,
Marathon suggested minor
amendments which would apply
to gasoline
refiners and ethanol blenders.
Essentially,
refiners and
suppliers would be required
to state on invoices,
bills
of
lading,
or other documents
used
in normal business practice that
the product
meets applicable
state Reid vapor pressure
standards.
In P.C.
66, the Renewable Fuels Association
(RFA)
suggested amendments more substantive
in nature.
The RFA’s
suggested language would require
a certification such as that
suggested
by Marathon,
but only
for gasoline refiners and not for
ethanol blenders.
-The RFA’s suggested language would require
only that
a facility receiving an ethanol
blend be provided with
a copy of documentation stating
to the ethanol
blender that the
gasoline
to which ethanol was added was
in compliance with
applicable
state standards.
The RFA’s
language would
not require
ethanol
blenders to state
that the product, after blending,
meets
applicable state standards.
The Board has amended Section 2l5.585(h)(l)
to require
that
each refiner
or supplier
that distributes gasoline or
ethanol
blends state on
invoices,
bills of
lading,
or other documentation
normally used that the product complies with the state Reid vapor
pressure standard.
As the 1.0 psi
RI/P exemption for ethanol
blends
is maintained
in Section 215.585(c),
the Board sees
no
reason to treat ethanol
blenders different
from gasoline refiners
in this context and will
require ethanol blenders
to provide
the
same statement.
Further,
this
requirement should provide
incentive
to ethanol blenders to ensure that
their
ultimate
product
does not exceed the 1.0 psi
RI/P exemption set forth
in
Section 215.585(c).
I
ñ$—21)
—23—
In Section 2l5.585(h)(2),
many commenters suggested that
the
two year requirement
for the maintenance of records
is
unreasonably burdensome and beyond that which
is necessary
to
ensure compliance.
The comraenters propose
to
reduce the time
period to one year.
The Board notes
that the federal
rule
apparently requires that the records be
retained for
at least one
year.
As the Board has stated
its intent
to adopt a rule as
similar
in substance
to the federal
rule as possible,
the Board
will grant the comrnenters’
request.
Section 215.585(h)(2) has
been revised
to require
that records be kept for
at
least one
year.
(d) Testing Tolerance
At hearing and
in comments, many commenters proposed that
the Board recognize variablility inherent
in test methods used
to
measure Reid vapor pressure by adding
a provision regarding RVP
enforcement tolerance.
Testing
tolerances of
0.3,
0.4,
and 0.5
psi were recommended.
Specific language was suggested by P.C.
67.
The Board notes
that this
issue,
too, has been addressed
in
the federal rulemaking.
In USEPA’s Notice of
Final Rulemaking,
54 Fed.
Reg.
11868, USEPA stated:
EPA has determined
that gasoline refiners and
other regulatedparties
will be expected to meet
applicable
RI/P standards
in use.
In other words,
they must take test variability
into account
in
producing
(and marketing)
gasoline and cannot
rely
on the Agency to automatically provide an
enforcement tolerance
in addition
to the
RI/P
standard.
For example,
if the applicable RVP
standard
is 10.5 psi and the Agency finds a sample
of gasoline to exceed this standard (e.g.,
10.6
psi),
this will be considered
a violation of
the
regulatory standard that could subject
liable
parties
to an enforcement action.
This
is the same
manner
in which the Agency’s motor vehicle emission
control standards are enforced.
EPA’s experience
in
its RVP testing program
has been
that consistent results can
be obtained
with careful testing procedures.
In its analysis
of
RI/P test
results,
the Agency has found that the
repeatability of testing conducted with the dry
Herzog method
is approximately 0.30 psi.
EPA
expects future precision
to be as good as,
or
better
than,
this value.
In order
to ensure
quality results,
the Agency lab conducts daily
RI/P
tests of
“pure” components with known
RI/P values
(e.g., cyclopentane).
11)3—21)7
—24—
The final regulations
provide a partial
defense
to certain parties who can demonstrate test
results evidencing that gasoline found
to be
in
violation was
in compliance with the applicable
RI/P
standard when
it left that party’s hands.
See,
for
example,
40 CFR 80.28(g)(4)(i).
In administering
this provision,
the Agency will look
at
the quality
of
a party’s testing program to determine how much
weight will be given to
test results
in
a
particular
case.
For example, EPA will place a
higher value on test
results
if
(1) multiple
samples
(rather than a single sample) have been
taken from a batch and tested;
(2)
the party’s
laboratory has run correlation tests with EPA’s
laboratory, an independent
laboratory,
or
a
national exchange program; and/or
(3)
a party’s
testing program includes regular verification
using
a component of known RVP.
The Board agrees with USEPA’s assessment
of
this issue;
consistent testing results can be obtained with careful
testing
procedures.
Therefore,
a numerical testing
tolerance will not be
written
into the rule.
However,
the Board has stated that it
wishes
its
rule to parallel
the federal
rule
as closely as
possible.
Thus,
the Board notes that
it intends
to include
in
a
decision in any enforcement proceeding brought pursuant
to this
proposed section an analysis
of the quality of
the party’s
testing program to determine how much weight will be given to
test
results
in
a particular
case.
The Board,
like USEPA, will
place
a higher value on test results
if:
(1) multiple samples
(rather than
a single sample)
have been taken from a batch and
tested;
(2)
the party’s laboratory has run correlation tests with
USEPA’s laboratory,
an independent
laboratory,
or a national
exchange program; and/or
(3) a party’s testing program includes
regular verification using a component of
known
RI/P.
The Board notes,
finally,
that
it has not incorporated this
intent into the language of
the proposed text because none of
USEPA’s enforcement provisions
have been proposed therein,
nor
has the issue
of including such language been aired at hearing.
The Board has explicitly stated its intent to adopt
a rule that
parallels
the federal
rule as
closely as possible consistent with
the more stringent RVP standard.
The Board believes that
this
articulated intent and the specificity
of USEPA’s enforcement
procedures should suffice
to guide
the Agency’s administration
of
the gasoline volatility
rules.
If
it appears later
that proper
administration
of this
rule requires specific enforcement
regulations,
the Board will consider such rules
at that
time.
(e)
Lead Time
—25—
Many of the commenters
contend
that
refiners and suppliers
will require adequate lead time
to produce and distribute
sufficient quantities of compliant gasoline.
They point out that
as USEPA must approve the rule as a revision
to the State
Implementation Plan
(SIP) and as
the time period in which USEPA
will take
its official action
is uncertain that
it
is critical
that
refiners and suppliers be assured adequate lead time prior
to enforcement of
the rule.
In general,
the commenters
recommend
a
3
to
4 month lead time provision.
P.C.
67 recommends a lead
time of
90 days and offers suggested language.
The Board does not dispute that
it may well require
approximately 90 days for refiners and suppliers
to produce and
distribute compliant product.
However,
the Board stated
in its
First Notice Opinion
that
it desired
to have these rules
applicable and enforceable
for
the regulatory control period,
i.e., July and August,
of
1990
so as
to obtain
the benefits of
early implementation.
The Board continues to believe
that
it
is
possible and reasonable
to require compliance during July and
August of this year.
The Board notes
that with final adoption of
these
rules
today, February 15,
1990, approximately four
and one—
half months lead time
is being offered which
is more
time than
that
requested.
The Board recognizes
that the enforceability of this rule
is
subject
to USEPA approval.
However,
the Board notes that the
rule itself becomes official and effective under the APA upon
filing with the Secretary of State.
As the Board intends
to file
the rule with the Secretary of State soon after
the March
8,
1990
meeting,
the Board expects
the rule
to be effective sometime
in
mid-March,
which
is
3-1/2 months before the beginning of the
regulatory
control period.
Particularly given the USEPA’s
support of
this regulatory initiative,
the Board believes that
the effectiveness of the rule flowing from
its filing with the
Secretary of State provides sufficient basis upon which the
refiners and suppliers can rely to begin the process
of preparing
a compliant product.
Thus,
the Board believes that
under the schedule discussed
above,
refiners and suppliers will have the lead time that they
request
from the date that the rule becomes effective
in
Illinois.
The Board
is not persuaded
by the commenters apparent
position that the lead time should begin
to run from the date of
final action by USEPA.
As the
rule will
be effective
in mid—
March,
the Board sees no reason why •the
lead time cannot
run
concurrently with USEPA’s action on the SIP submittal.
Finally,
the USEPA’s action on the SIP submittal
is beyond
the jurisdiction
off the Board.
The Board can only hope
that
USEPA will complete
its action on the SIP submittal prior
to the
start of
the regulatory
control period.
Although specifically
asked
at hearing, USEPA declined
to hazard
a guess as
to how long
11)3—209
—26—
its process would or could take,
except
to state
that
it intended
to expedite
the process
as much as possible and that USEPA’s
headquarters was already aware of the Board’s initiative and that
it had indicated
a willingness,
pending the technical aspects,
to
approve
the rule
as
a SIP revision.
(R.
at
430).
Thus,
the
Board is confident that the
rule will
be approved as
a SIP
revision consistent
with the Board’s desire
that the rule
be
enforceable on or
before the July
1,
1990 beginning date of the
regulatory control period.
SECOND
NOTICE REVIEW
On January
11,
1990,
the Board adopted the proposed
amendments
for second notice and directed the Clerk to submit the
proposal
to JCAR
for
its review.
JCAR staff
reviewed the
proposal and suggested certain clarifications
to the text of
the
proposed amendments.
The Board agrees with the suggestions and
adopts the clarifying language
in the Order below.
JCAR’s
suggestions are as follows.
First, JCAR suggested that Section
215.585(a)
be revised to
delete subparagraphs
(1) and
(2)
as those two subparagraphs
stated the same
time periods.
The Board agrees with this
suggestion and has revised Subsection
(a) accordingly.
Subsection
(a) now reads
as
a single paragraph establishing the
regulatory
control period as July
1 to August
31 of each year.
Second,
JCAP. suggested the addition
in Section
215.585(g)
of
language clarifying the standard by which
the Agency shall
approve alternatives
to the sampling and testing methods.
JCAR
suggested the following sentence at
the end of subsection
(g):
If
the Agency determines
that such data
demonstrates
that the proposed alternative
will achieve results equivalent
to the
approved
test methods or procedures,
the
Agency shall approve
the proposed alternative.
The Board has added this sentence
to subsection
(g).
JCAR’s suggestions have been incorporated,
the Board hereby
adopts the following amendments
to 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
215.
The
Board directs
the Clerk
to submit
the adopted amendments
to the
Administrative Code Division of the Secretary of
State’s Office.
Further,
the Board directs the Agency
to expedite submittal
of these amendments
to the USEPA as
a SIP
revision.
With the
regulatory control period for 1990 scheduled to begin July
1,
the
Agency must file the submittal,
and USEPA must approve
the rule
as
a SIP revision before that date.
The Agency
is therefore
ordered
to submit this
rule
to USEPA on
an expedited basis.
11)8--21fl
—27—
ORDER
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
B:
AIR POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SUBCHAPTER
C:
EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR
STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 215
ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sect ion
215.100
Introduction
215.101
Clean—up and Disposal Operations
215.102
Testing Methods
215.103
Abbreviations and Conversion Factors
215.104
Definitions
215.105
Incorporations by Reference
215.106
Afterburners
215.107
Determination of Applicability
SUBPART
Y:
GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION
Section
215.581
Bulk Gasoline Plants
215.582
Bulk Gasoline Terminals
215.583
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
215.584
Gasoline Delivery Vessels
215.585
Gasoline Volatility Standards
Section 215.104
Definitions
“Ethanol blend gasoline” means a mixture of gasoline and at least
9
ethanol by volume.
“Reid vapor pressure”:
is the standardized measure of the vapor
pressure of
a
liquid
in pounds per square inch absolute
(kPa)
at
100 F (37.8 C).
“Retail Outlet”:
means any gasoline dispensing
facility
at which
gasoline
is sold or offered
for sale for use
in motor vehicles.
“Wholesale Purchaser—Consumer”:
means any person or organization
that purchases
or obtains gasoline from
a supplier
for ultimate
consumption
or use
in motor vehicles and receives delivery of
the
gasoline into
a storage
tank with
a capacity of at least
550
gallons
(2082
1)
owned and controlled by that person.
Section 215.105
Incorporations by Reference
11)3—211
—28—
The following materials are incorporated by reference:
a)
American Society for Testing and Materials,
1916 Race
Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103:
1)
ASTM D 1644—59 Method A
2)
ASTM D 1475—60
3)
ASTM
ID 2369—73
4)
ASTM D 2879—83
(Approved
1983)
5)
ASTM D 323—82
(Approved
1982)
6)
ASTM D 86—82
(Approved
1982)
7)
ASTM E 260—73
(Approved 1973),
E 168—67
(Reapproved 1977),
E 169—63
(Reapproved 1981),
E
20
(Approved
1985)
8)
ASTM
ID 97—66
9)
ASTM D 1946—67
10)
ASTM D 2382—76
11)
ASTM D 2504—83
12)
ASTM D 2382—83
13)
ASTM D 4057-81
(Approved 1981)
14)
ASTM
D
4177—82
(Approved
1982)
15)
ASTM D 4953—89
b)
Federal Standard l4la,
Method 4082.1.
c)
National Fire Codes, National Fire Prevention
Association,
Battery March Park,
Quincy, Massachusetts
02269
(1979).
d)
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington,
D.C.,
EPA—450/2—77-026, Appendix A (October
1977)
e)
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington,
D.C.,
EPA-450/2—78—051 Appendix A and
Appendix B (December 1978).
11)8—212
—29—
if)
Standard Industrial Classification Manual,
published
by
Executive Office of
the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington,
D.C.,
1972
g)
40 CFR 60, Appendix A (1986).
h)
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington D.C., EPA—450/2-78—04l.
i)
40 CFR 80, Appendices
D,
E and F,
adopted March
22,
1989
at
54
Fed. Reg.
11897.
BOARD NOTE:
The incorporations
by reference listed
above contain
no later amendments
or
editions.
Section 215.585
Gasoline Volatility Standards
a)
No person shall
sell,
offer
for sale,
dispense,
supply,
offer
for supply,
or
transport
for use
in Illinois
gasoline whose Reid vapor pressure exceeds
the
applicable limitations set forth
in subsections
(b) and
(c) during
the regulatory control
period,
which shall
be
July
1 to August
31 for retail outlets, wholesale
purchaser—consumer
facilities,
and alL other
facilities.
b)
The Reid vapor pressure
of gasoline,
a measure of
its
volatility,
shall not exceed 9.5 psi
(65.5
kPa)
during
the regulatory control period
in
1990 and each year
thereafter.
c)
The Reid vapor pressure of
ethanol blend gasolines shall
not exceed the limitations
for gasoline set forth
in
subsection
(b)
by more
than 1.0 psi
(6.9
kPa).
Notwithstanding
this
limitation,
blenders of ethanol
blend gasolines whose Reid vapor pressure
is less than
1.0 psi above the base stock gasoline immediately after
blending with ethanol are prohibited
from adding butane
or any product that will increase the Reid vapor
pressure of
the blended gasoline.
d)
All sampling of gasoline required pursuant
to the
provisions
of
this Section
shall
be conducted by one or
more
of the following approved methods or procedures
which are incorporated
by reference
in Section 215.105.
1)
For manual sampling,
ASTM D4057
2)
For automatic sampling,
ASTM D4177
~J
Sampling Procedures
for Fuel Volatility,
40 CFR 80
~ppendix
D.
11)3—213
—30—
e)
The Reid vapor pressure of gasoline shall be measured
in
accordance with either
test method ASTM D323
or
a
modification of ASTM D323 known as the
“dry method”
as
set forth in
40 CFR
80, Appendix
E,
incorporated by
reference
in Section 215.105.
For gasoline—oxygenate
blends which contain water—extractable oxygenates,
the
Reid vapor pressure shall
be measured using the dry
method test.
if)
The ethanol content
of ethanol
blend gasolines
shall be
determined by use of one
of the approved testing
methodologies specified
in
40 CFR 80, Appendix
F,
incorporated by reference
in Section 215.105.
~j
Any alternate
to the sampling
or testing methods or
procedures contained
in subsections
(d),
(e), and
(if)
must be approved by the Agency which shall consider data
comparing the performance
off
the proposed alternative
to
the performance of one
or more approved test methods
or
procedures.
Such data shall accompany any request
for
Agency approval
of
an alternate test procedure.
If the
Agency determines
that such data demonstrates that the
proposed alternative will achieve results equivalent
to
the approved test methods
or procedures,
the Agency
shall approve the proposed alternative.
h)
Each refiner
or supplier that distributes gasoline
or
ethanol blends shall:
1)
During the regulatory control period,
state
that
the Reid vapor pressure
of all gasoline or ethanol
blends
leaving the refinery or distribution
facility
for use
in Illinois complies with the Reid
vapor pressure limitations set forth
in Section
215.585(b)
and
(c).
Any facility receiving this
gasoline shall be provided with
a copy
of an
invoice,
bill
of
lading,
or other documentation
used
in normal business practice stating
that
the
Reid vapor pressure
of
the gasoline complies with
the State Reid vapor pressure
standard.
2)
Maintain
records
for
a period of one year on the
Reid vapor pressure, quantity shipped and date of
deJvery
of any gasoline
or
ethanol blends leaving
the refinery or distribution facility for use
in
Illinois.
The Agency shall
be provided with copies
of such records,
if
requested.
(Source:
Amended at
Ill.
Reg.
-_______
,
effective
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
1D9—2i~
—31-
1,
Dorothy
M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify
that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
______________
day of ~
,
1990 by a vote
of
~-c~
.
4~
4~.
~
Dorothy M
Gunn,
Clerk’
Illinois Pollution Control Board
103—215
