ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 11,
1990
IN THE MATTER OF:
LIMITS TO THE
)
R88-30(A)
VOLATILIT~~OF GASOLINE
)
(Rulemaking)
PROPOSED RULE.
SECOND N0T:cE.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D.
Dumelle):
On September
13,
1989 the Board proposed
for
First Notice
two separate proposals
to
limit
the volatility
of
gasoline sold
in Illinois.
The R88—30 subdocket
(A) proposal would
limit
gasoline sold
in Illinois during tne months of July and August
of
1990 and each year thereafter
to 9.5 pounds per square inch
(psi)
Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP)
.
The Board found that
no economic
impact
study
(EcIS)
was required for the subdocket
(A)
proposal.
The R88—30 subdocket
(B)
proposal,
for which an EcIS
was requested
by the Board, would further
limit gasoline sold
in
Illinois
to 9.0 psi RVP during the regulatory control period of
July
1
to
AUgus-:
31
in
1991,
and June
1
to September
15
in 1992
and each year
thereafter.
As
the Department
of Energy and
Natural Resources
(DENR)
is
n the process
of preparing an EcIS
on the subdocket
(B) proposa.,
the Board takes
no action on
subdocket
(B)
at this
time.
The Board today adopts the subdocket
(A)
proposal,
with modificatIons noted below,
for Second Notice
and directs
its submission
to the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules
(JCAR)
The subdocket
(A) proposal was published
in the Illinois
Register on September
29,
1989,
at
13 :ll.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
107—163
—2—
Affairs
(DCCA),
Small Business Assistance Bureau.
DCCA’s Impact
analysis states that the proposed rule will have no economic
impact on small businesses.
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 RVP
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 RVP rule earlier
than the 1992 date expected for adoption
by USEPA.
USEPP~also appeared at hearing and submitted post—hearing
comments
(P.C.
63).
USEPA reiterated
its position that
in light
of
the serious ozone nonattainment problem
in the Chicago area
it
supports the gasoline volatility control measures proposed in
subdocket
~.
USEPA stated that the potential benefits of early
implementation of RVP 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 RVP 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 blend~, the Board will retain the
exemption
in its rule.
lOT -~64
—3—
(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
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 RVP
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 huh 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 nas 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
107—165
—4—
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 RVP gasoline or unable
to
obtain additional
tankerage,
or storage facilities, have the
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
9,
1989,
and announced that
it
supports the subdocket
(A) proposal
for
a statewide 9.5 psi RVP 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
ioins, 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 D323
or
in
the case of gasoline-oxygenat~eblends 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 RVP 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 Qasolines.
The commenters contend
that,
as written,
the rule would require refiners of
non—oxygenated 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.
107—166
—5—
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.l05(a)(l5)
(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
TJ•~•
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
(f) all
refer
to the federal
regulation as
“40 CFR
80.”
Though the federal volatility regulation
will
be codified at
43 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.
:1868,
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
tc
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 RVP 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 RVP of gasoline
prior
to shipment,
the specifically measured RVP,
the value
that
is determined
is not currently
107—167
—6—
disclosed on pipeline meter tickets.
And at most
terminals, unlike
refineries, RVP test equipment
is not even available on—site.
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
ccnplies 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 215.585(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 RVP 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
10 7—168
—7—
same statement.
Further, this requirement
should provide
incentive to ethanol blenders
to ensure that their ultimate
product does not exceed the 1.0 psi RVP exemption
set
forth
in
Section 215.585(c).
In Section 2l5.585(h)(2), many cornmenters suggested that
the
two year requirement for the maintenance of
records
is
unreasonably burdensome and beyond that which
is necessary
to
ensure compliance.
The commenters 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 rue
as
similar
in substance
to the federal
rule
as possible,
the Board
will grant
the commenters’
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
regulated parties
will
be expected
to meet
applicable RVP 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 RVP
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 RVP test results,
the Agency has found
that
the
repeatability of testing conducted with the dry
Herzog method
is approximately 0.30 psi.
EPA
107—169
—8—
expects future precision
to be as good as,
or
better
than,
this value.
In order
to ensure
quality results,
the Agency lab conducts daily RVP
tests of “pure” components with known RVP values
(e.g., cyclopentane).
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
RV? 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
testina 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 patty’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 RVP.
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
—9—
administration of this rule requires specific enforcement
regulations,
the Board will consider such rules at that time.
(e)
Lead
Time
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.
In
fact,
given that
the Board
today
proceeds to Second Notice and given that the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rule
(JCAR) must act within 45 days of the Board’s
Second Notice submission,
the Board expects
to proceed
to Final
Adoption
of this rule
at
its regularly scheduled Meeting
on March
8,
1990.
Shortly thereafter,
the Illinois Administrative
Procedure Act
(APA)
requirements will
be completed by
filing the
rule with the Secretary of
State’s Office, Administrative Code
Division.
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
107—17 1
—10—
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 of the Board.
The Board can only hope that
USEPA will complete
its action on the
s:P
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
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.
(P.
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.
ORDER
The proposed amendments are hereby adopted for Second
Notice,
and the Clerk
is directed
to submit the proposal
to the
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
B:
AIR POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION cONTROL BOARD
SUBCHAPTER
0:
MISSIONS STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR
STATIONARY SOURcES
PART
215
ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section
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 D:STRIBUTION
Section
215.581
Bulk Gasoline Plants
215.582
Bulk Gasoline Terminals
I
1,7—1 72
—11—
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
gaso~ine is sold or offered
for sale for use
in motor vehicles.
“Wholesale ?urchaser-Consuner”:
means any person or organization
that purchases or obtains rasoline from a supplier
for ultimate
consumption or use
10
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
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 D 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),
B 168—67
(Reapproved 1977),
E 169—63
(Reapproved 1981),
E
20
(Approved
1985)
8)
ASTM D 97-66
9)
ASTM
D 1946—67
10)
ASTM
D 2382—76
107—173
—12—
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,
Washincton,
D.C., EPA—450/2—77—026,
Appendix A
(October
1977).
e)
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington,
D.C.,
EPA—450/2—78—05l Appendix A and
Appendix
B
(December 1978).
f)
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—041.
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 periods
set
forth as
follows:
1)
The regulatory control period for calendar year
1990 shall
be July
1
to August
31 for retail
outlets, wholesale purchaser—consumer
facilities,
and all other
facilities.
107—i 74
—13—
2)
The regulatory control period for calendar year
1991 and each calendar
year thereafter 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 qasoline 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
oressure 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 sam~ling,ASTM D4l77
3)
Sampling Procedures
for Fuel Volatility,
40 CFR
80
Appendix
D.
e)
The Reid vapor pressure
of gasoline
shall be measured
in
accordance with
either
test method ASTM D323 or
+n
the
ease ef
ge
~
b~end~wh~ehe~a+n~ wa~e~—
e~rae~eb±e y~e~a~e~7
a modification
of ASTM D323
known as the “dry method”
as set forth
in
40 CFR 80,
~ppendix
B,
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.
f)
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
(f)
must
be approved
by the Agency which shall consider data
107—175
—14—
comparing the performance
of 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.
h)
Each refiner or
supplier that distributes gasoline
or
ethanol blends shall:
1)
During the regulatory control
period,
~eew~e~
~
e1ear~yde~a~e
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
the ~eeempa~y~g
~eet~me~
ee~yir~gthe Re+d ~
e~st~’e
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 ~
yea~ ~
lea~
one year
on the Reid vapor pressure, quantity
shipped and date
of delivery of any gasoline
or
ethanol blends
leaving
the refinery
or distribution
facility for use
in Illinois.
The Agency shall
he
prpvided with copies
of
such records,
if
requested.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
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
./
• Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
107—176
