ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 13,
1989
IN THE MATTER OF:
LIMITS TO VOLATILITY OF
)
R88-30(A),
(B)
GASOLINE
)
)
PROPOSED RULE.
FIRST NOTICE.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D. Dumelle):
SUMMARY
OF BOARD ACTION
The Board
today creates
two separate Dockets within the
original Docket R88-30 and adopts an Order sending both subdocket
proposals
to first
notice.
Docket A proposes a new section to
the Illinois Administrative Code which will limit
the volatility
of gasoline sold throughout Illinois
to 9.5 pounds per square
inch
(psi)
Reid vapor pressure
(RVP)
beginning with the summer of
1990.
Docket B proposes a similar section which further limits
the volatility of gasoline sold in Illinois
to 9.0 psi RVP
beginning with the summer of
1991.
The Board has determined
that
an economic impact study
(EcIS) need not be conducted on the
Docket
A proposal; however,
the Board has determined
that an EcIS
should be conducted on certain limited aspects of the Docket B
proposal.
Because of the importance of controlling the formation
of ozone and because of the significant reduction of ozone
precursors resulting
from a 9.0 psi RVP limitation,
the Board
requests that
the Department
of Energy and Natural Resources
(DENR)
conduct EcIS,
but only
if
it can be submitted
to the Board
on or before June 30,
1990.
The Board deems
it essential
to have
the EcIS by that date so that
it can
consider enactment
of
the
rule in time for implementation during the summer of
1991 and
so
that the regulated community will have ample forewarning.
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 oxides,
carbon monoxide and other
compounds)
in the presence of sunlight.
The rate of ozone
production
is increased when atmospheric temperatures are warmer.
103—153
—2—
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 yolume.
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
was lost as a result.
Reducing the summertime volatility of
gasoline
to 1970
levels
is expected
to correct this situation.
i-See.,
e.g.,
Ecko Glaco Corp.
v.
EPA,
PCB 87—41
(December
17,
1987), wherein the Board found
“frequent, pervasive and
substantial violations of ambient air quality standards for ozo~~
in Northern Illinois”.
(pp.4—5)
103—154
—3—
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
noted
that the written public comment would require careful
review and that the pending USEPA action was uncertain;
thus,
further action would be forthcoming.
103—155
—4—
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
1989
10.5
10.5
9.5
9.5
10.5
1990 and beyond
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
103—156
—5—
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 determines 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.
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.
1~03—157
—6—
CLA’s motion is hereby 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, USEPA 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
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
103—153
—7—
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 90 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 of regulators,
state and
federal alike.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Board’s Order of June
22,
1989
in this docket addresses
the
issue of whether an economic impact study
(EcIS) would be
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
103—159
—8—
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,
if 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
cornrnenters, 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 be
prepared, and that the impact will
be reasonable.
In support of
their argument, these commenters note that the Chicago area
is
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
1’)3—160
—9—
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
result
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,
CLA
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.
fhus,
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
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
103—161
—10—
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 the consumer.
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 gas volatility reduction to 9.0
psi was $982
—
1,129 per ton of VOC controlled.
CLA’s own
estimates put the costs of control
at approximately $1,000 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
cominenters 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,
Wisconsin, 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 ot 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.
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
1~3—l62
—11—
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 cornmenters 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 commenters 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.
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).
103—163
—12—
In Docket
(A),
the Board proposes a 9.5 psi RVP limitation
statewide, and determines that an EcIS need not be conducted.
Because the southern portion of Illinois,
i.e., south of
40
degrees Latitude,
is currently operating 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 of 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).
In Docket
(B), however, the Board proposes the 9.0 psi RVP
limitation statewide and determines that an EcIS need only be
conducted on the issues discussed above, namely whether
a 9.0
standard
in Illinois would be economically or technically
unreasonable or pose
an economic hardship in terms of supplying
gasoline
to Illinois and the other midwestern states; whether
a
9.0 standard in Illinois would impose economic hardship in events
of spot shortages and an economic analysis of granting the 1.0
psi exemption for ethanol blenders.
As will bediscussed below,
the Board also requests that the EcIS
review the impact
if the
proposed subsection
(i)
requirement that retail outlets and other
facilities meintain records regarding each delivery of
gasoline.
The Board specifically requests
that
the Department of
Energy and Natural Resources
(DENR) prepare and submit this EcIS
to the Board
on or before June
30,
1989.
The Board makes
this
request
so that
it will have time
to adopt
the rule
if found
to
be
feasible in time
for
1991 implementation.
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
103—164
—13—
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 1970’s,
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.
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 comrnenters 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
comrnenters 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 of
itself, despositive
of this
issue.
The Board
is aware of the existence 9f potential storage
facilities
that are apparently being unused.
The Board
2For example,
the Board notes
the existence of potential
storage facilities
for butane at the former Texaco Refinery
in
Lemont,
Illinois.
103—165
—14—
specifically requests 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/Driveability
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
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
(MVMA)
for support of
its position.
At hearing,
the Board received testimony from a
103—166
—15—
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
tl’.-
effective date
of 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
requires 9.5 psi gasoline at the retail outlet during July and
August.
The Board does not believe
it likely 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 dces 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?
(IL
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
103—167
—16—
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
untiTit
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 comrnenters 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
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 retained 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.
103—168
—17—
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 proposed 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.
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 215.585(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.
Docket B
In addition to the changes discussed above,
the Board has
proposed
in this Section 215.585(b)
a 9.0 psi RVP limitation.
The regulatory control period beginning 1992 and each year
thereafter has also been extended to June
1
to September 15.
103—169
—18—
This is to parallel the federal rule as much as possible.
Also,
the Board has added subsection
(i) which will require
retail
outlets and other similar facilities
to maintain records
regarding each delivery of gasoline so as to aid in the
enforcement of the rule.
The Board requests that-the EcIS review
the impact of this proposed language as well.
R88—30
(A)
ORDER
The Board hereby proposes for First Notice the following
amendments
to the Illinois Administrative Code to be published in
the Illinois Register.
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
Section
215.100
215.101
215.102
215.103
215.104
215.105
215.106
215.107
Section
215 .581
215.582
215.583
215.584
215.585
Introduction
Clean—up and Disposal Operations
Testing Methods
Abbreviations and Conversion Factors
Definitions
Incorporations by Reference
Afterburners
Determination of Applicability
SUBPART
Y:
GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION
Bulk Gasoline Plants
Bulk Gasoline Terminals
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
Gasoline Delivery Vessels
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
103—170
—19—
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 liters) owned and controlled by that person.
Section 215.105
Incorporation 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).
E 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
11)
ASTM D 2504—83
12)
ASTM D 2382—83
j~j ASTM
D 4057—81
(Approved 1981)
~j
ASTM D 4177—82
(Approved 1982)
b)
Federal Standard l4la, Method 4082.1.
c)
National Fire Codes, National Fire Prevention
103—17 1
—20—
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—450/2-78-05l 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—04l.
~j
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
~j
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 rear
1990 shall
be July
1
to August
31 for retail
outlets, wholesale purchaser—consumer facilities,
and all other facilities.
j)
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.
~j
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.
~j
The Reid vapor pressure of ethanol blend gasolines shall
103—172
—21--
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.
~j
All
sampling of gasoline required pursuant to the
pr~~~isions
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.
II
For manual sampling, ASTM D4057
~
For automatic sampling, ASTM D4177
~
Sampling Procedures
for Fuel Volatility,
40
CFP.
80
Appendix
D.
e)
The Reid vapor pressure shall be measured
in accordance
with test method ASTM D323 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.
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
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:
II
During the regulatory control period,
document and
clearly designate the Reid vapor pressure of all
gasoline or ethanol blends leaving the
refinery or
distribution facility for use
in Illinois.
Any
facility receiving this gasoline shall be provided
with
a copy of the accompanying document specifying
the Reid vapor pressure.
103—17 3
—22—
2.
Maintain records for a period of two years 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 be provided with copies
of such records,
if requested.
R38—30
(B)
The Board hereby proposes
for First Notice the following
amendments
to the Illinois Administrative Code
to be published
in
the Illinois Register.
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
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 1:
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.
103—174
—23—
“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
Incorporation 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),
E 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
11)
ASTM D 2504—83
12)
ASTM D 2382—83
~ll
ASTM D 4057-81
(Approved 1981)
14)
ASTM D 4177—82
(Approved 1982)
b)
Federal Standard l4la, Method 4082.1.
103—175
—24—
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—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 sub~ections (b)
and
(c)
during
the regulatory control periods set forth as
follows:
fl
The regulatory control period for calendar year
1991 shall
be July
1 to August
31
for
retail
outlets, wholesale purchaser—consumer facilities,
and all other facilities.
~J
The regulatory control period for calendar year
1992 and each calendar year thereafter
shall be
June
1
to September
15 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 9.0 psi
(62.1 kPa) during
the regulatory control period
in 1991 and each year
thereafter.
103—176
—25—
LI
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.
~j
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.
II
For manual sampling, ASTM D4057
2)
For automatic sampling, ASTM D4l77
3)
Sampling Procedures for Fuel Volatility,
40 CFR
80
Appendix
D.
e)
The Reid vapor pressure shall
be measured
in accordance
with
test method ASTM D323 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.
~J
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
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.
~fl
Each refiner
or supplier
that distributes gasoline
or
ethanol blends
shall:
II
During
the regulatory control period, document and
clearly designate the Reid vapor pressure of all
gasoline or ethanol blends leaving the refinery or
distribution facility for use
in Illinois.
Any
facility receiving this gasoline shall
be provided
with a copy of the accompanying document specifying
the Reid vapor pressure.
103—17 7
—26—
j),
Maintain records for
a period of two years on the
Reid vapor pressure, guantity shipped and date of
delivery 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.
~j
Each retail outlet and facility operated by a wholesale
purchaser—consumer shall,
for
a period of
at least two
y~ars during the regulatory control period, maintain
records regarding each delivery of gasoline, which shall
include Reid vapor pressure, quantity received and date
received.
The Agency shall
be provided 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 Opin~ion~pd Order was
adopted on the
~
day of
~
1989 by a vote
of
_________________.
~
)~2
Dorothy M. ,~inn,Clerk
Illinois P&~.lutionControl Board
103—17 8
