ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 28, 1986
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
)
R85—21
35 ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE
)
Docket A
CODE 211 AND 215
)
PROPOSED RULE.
FIRST NOTICE.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by RC.
Flemal):
This matter
comes before the Board upon
a proposal of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)
to amend
certain portions
of
35 111. Adm.
Code 211 and 215.
The Agency
filed
its proposal on September 23,
1985,
and subsequently
amended
it on December
12,
1985,
and March
5,
l986,~ The ~gency’s
proposal
is occasioned by the proposed disapprova1~of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”)
of some of the
regulations adopted by the Board
on December
30, 1982,
in the
RACT
II proceeding
(R80—5).
It
is the Agency’s position that the
amendments as offered in its proposal would satisfy the
objections raised by USEPA.
Hearings were held on December
12 and
13,
1985,
in
Springfield, Illinois, and on March
6 and 7, 1986,
in Chicago,
Illinois.
On June
1?,
1986,
the Department
of Energy and Natural
Resources (“Department”) determined that an economic impact study
(“EcIS”) would be prepared
for only one
of the sections contained
in the Agency proposal.
That section,
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 215.245,
deals with graphic arts (flexographic and rotogravure printing)
operations.
Regarding the other amendments proposed by the
Agency,
the Department found that the cost of making
a formal
study would be economically unreasonable in relation
to the value
of the study
to the Board
in determining
the adverse economic
impact of those proposed regulations.
The Economic and Technical
Advisory Committee
(“ETAC”) concurred
in the Department’s
determination on June
20, 1986.
Due to the decision of both the Department and ETAC that an
EcIS need be prepared for only a portion of this proceeding,
the
Board has determined that this docket should be split
into two
dockets so that the Board might proceed to decision on those
portions
0E
the Agency proposal for which no EcIS
is being
prepared.
Therefore,
the Board hereby splits R85—2l into
Dockets, A and B.
Docket A,
the subject of this Opinion and
1Notice of the proposed disapproval was published at
50 Fed.
Reg.
28224
(proposed July 11, 1985).
72-110
—2—
Order, will
be the docket
in which
all portions of the Agency
proposal other than S215.245 will be considered.
Docket
B,
in
addition to being
the docket in which §215.245 will be
considered, will of course also be the docket in which economic
impact hearings will be held once the EcIS pertaining to S2l5.245
is prepared.
HISTORY OF RACT II
Th2 origin of this proceeding
is rooted
in the requirements
of the Clean Air Act
(“CAA”)
(42 U.S.C.A.
§7401 et.
seq.).
Pursuant
to
§109
of the CAA, USEPA adopted
a National Ambient Air
Quality Standard
(“NAAQS”) for ozone.
Attainment
of this NAAQS
was
to have been demonstrated
for all areas of the state by
December 31,
1982, according to the provisions
of S172(a)(l) of
the CAA.
However,
Illinois was unable
to make such
a
demonstration.
It therefore applied for and
received an
extension of this deadline until December
31, 1987
(pursuant to
the provisions of
S172(a)(2)
of the CAA).
As
a prerequisite to
obtaining this extension,
Illinois was required in the interim to
include in its State Implementation Plan
(“SIP”) for areas which
are nonattainment for ozone
“such reduction
in emissions from
existing sources
in the area as may be obtained through the
adoption, at
a minimum,
of reasonably available control
technology”
(S172(b)(3)
of CAA).
“Reasonably available control technology”
(“RACT”)
is not
defined
in the CAA.
However, USEPA has promulgated industry—
specific “Control Technology Guidelines”
(“CTGs”)
that are
intended
to describe RACT for
a given industry and assist states
in determining RACT.
USEPA has published three groups of CTG5.
The RACT
II proceeding
(In the Matter
of RACT
II Rules, R80—5)
was intended
to satis~ythe PACT requirements
as outlined by the
second group of CTGs.
USEPA disapproved certain of the rules
adopted
by the Board
in PACT
II
(discussed specifically,
below)
because,
in general,
it found t~oserules to
be “inconsistent
with the requirements of
RACT”.
The present Agency proposal
represents, therefore,
another attempt by the Agency to have
enacted regulations representing PACT for those source categories
included
in the second group of CTGs.
2The second group of CTGs covered
the following source
categories:
factory surface coating
of flatwood paneling;
petroleum refinery fugitive emissions; pharmaceutical
manufacturing; rubber tire manufacturing; surface coating of
miscellaneous metal parts and products; graphic arts (printing);
dry cleaning perchloroethylene;
leak prevention from gasoline
tank trucks
and vapor collection systems; petroleum liquid
storage in external floating roof tanks.
3Exhibit
(“Ex.”)
3,
p.
28225.
72-111
—3—
USEPA PROPOSED DISAPPROVAL OF PACT
II
Specifically,
the USEPA on July
11,
1985, proposed to
disapprove all
or portions of the following rules adopted by the
Board
in RACT II:
1.
the definition of
(now found in S21l.l22)
“Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products”
contained in Rule
201
2.
Rule
205
(s)(2)
(now S2l5.402; provides
an
exemption to the limitations
of Subpart P for any facility
whose aggregate uncontrolled
rotogravure and/or
flexographic printing press
emissions of volatile organic
material are 1,000 tons/year
or less
in the absence
of air
pollution control equipment,
or whose similar emissions
would be less than 1,000
tons/year when averaged over
the preceeding three calendar
years)
3.
Rule
205 (s)(l)(D)(ii)
(now S2l5.40l(d)(2);
applies
to the packaging rotogravure
process and provides that a
capture system used
in
conjunction with an emission
control system must1
in
combination, provide
an
overall reduction
in volatile
organic emissions of
at least
65
or
the maximum reduction
achievable using good
engineering design)
4.
Rule 205
(n)(l)(K)
(now §215.204(k); deals with
emissions limitations for the
painting of Heavy Off—Highway
Vehicle Products during
manufacture,
and allows 43
lbs VOM/gallon of coating for
an extreme performance top
coat and 4.8 lbs VOM/gallon
of coating for final repair
coating)
72.112
—4—
5.
Rule 205 (o)(3)(D)(iv)
(now §2l5.l24(b)(4); exempts
stationary storage tanks
equipped with an external
floating roof which are used
to store crude oil from the
§215.124(a)
requirement of
use of
a secondary seal)
Also in the July
11, 1985, proposed disapproval, USEPA found
the Board’s
regulations deficient in the CTG categories
of
synthetic pharmaceutical manufacturing and leak prçvention from
gasoline tank trucks
and vapor collection systems.’*
The Agency
has not proposed regulations
in this proceeding dealing with
synthetic pharmaceutical manufacturing~,nor with the coating of
heavy, off—highway vehicle products.
Therefore regulations
pertaining
to those CTG categories will not be addressed
in this
proceeding.
Also,
since
the Board has now split R85—2l into two
dockets, USEPA’s disapproval
of Rules 205(s)(2)
(s215.402)
and
205(s)(1)(D)(ii)
(S2l5.40l(d)(2)) will
be addressed at a later
date in Docket
B.
This Opinion and Order will address,
therefore,
USEPA’s disapproval
of Illinois regulations pertaining
to the CTG source categories
of miscellaneous metal
parts and
products, petroleum liquid storage in external floating roof
tanks, and leak prevention from gasoline tank trucks
and vapor
collection systems.
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS
The Agency proposes to amend
the definition of
“Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products”
found at
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 211.122
so
as
to delete
the exemption currently found
there
for the exterior
of airplanes and marine propulsion equipment.
These amendments
are
in response to USEPA’s proposed
disapproval of
the exemption for the exteriors of airplanes and
marine propulsion equipment.
USEPA’s disapproval
of these
exemptions is based on that agency’s belief that “the Group II
CTG’s are intended
to apply to marine propulsion equipment and
the exteriors of airplanes
(if the airplane exteriors are coated
as
a separate manufacturing operation).”
Ex.
3,
p.
28226.
41n PACT II, R80—5,
49 PCB 67
(1982)
the Board did not adopt
rules pertaining
to either
of these categories.
The Board
indicated at that time that
it believed application of PACT
technology to the relevant synthetic pharmaceutical plants
in
Illinois would not be economically reasonable
(pps.
27—28),
and
that the gasoline tank truck category was addressed by existing
Board
rules
(p.
2).
5The Agency has
a pending proposal
on this topic
in the P86—iD
docket.
72.113
—5—
Regarding the latter,
the Agency has concluded that no operations
for coating the exterior
of airplanes exist
in the State
and
therefore proposes the exemption for this category be deleted.
The Board has received no
information on the record indicating
that any operations of this nature do exist
in Illinois.
Given
this circumstance,
the board
is at
a loss to understand USEPA’s
insistence on enactment of
a rule for which there are no
applicable facilities.
However,
the Board
is aware that failure
to gain USEPA approval on this matter could jeopardize Illinois’
ability to gain approval
of its
SIP.
Since approval
of the SIP
is vital to the public interest and promulgation of the rule
would be
at
no cost to the State,
the Board will concede to the
USEPA on this matter and delete
the exemption for the exterior of
airplanes from the definition of “Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and
Products”.
The Agency proposes to delete the exemption for marine
propulsion devices based on USEPA’s proposed disapproval
of that
exemption,
as well
as on
its belief that compliance coatings are
or
in the near future will be available for use with marine
propulsion equipment
(Tr.
2 at
29).
In fact,
the Agency states
that the Wisconsin manufacturing facility of Outboard Marine
Corporation (“OMC”),
the same corporation
for which
the marine
propulsion exception was made
in Illinois)
has used extreme
performance coatings which meet the limit of
3.5 lbs VOM/gallon
(Ex.
2,
p.
3)
found at
35 Ill. Adm. Code 215204(j)(3).
The Agency notes
that OMC’s Waukegan, Illinois, facilities
are the only emission sources that woul~be affected by a
deletion of the exemption
(Tr.
2 at
27)
.
The VOM emissions from
the facilities
occur
as a result of painting the following items:
—
Outboard motors,
70 horsepower
and above
—
Miscellaneous small parts
—
Outboard motor exhaust component parts
Tr.
3 at 194—199;
P.C.
#8, Attachment
C.
6uearings
in this proceeding were conducted over four days,
and a
separate bound transcript was developed for each day.
Unfortunately, the four transcripts are not paginated
consecutively.
Consequently,
the transcripts of
the first two
days of hearing must be referred
to
individually, as
follows:
The transcript of the December
12,
1985, hearing will be referred
to
as
“Tr.
1”; similarly,
the transcript
of the December
13,
1985,
hearing will be “Tr.
2”.
The transcripts
of the March
5
and 6,
1986,
hearings are numbered consecutively
(pps.
1—570).
These two transcripts can therefore be referred to together as
“Pr.
3”.
72-114
—6—
OMC testified at hearing
in R80—5 that it was unable to meet
the 3.5 lbs VOM/gallon emission limit due to the unavailability
of
a compliance coating which could meet the company’s
performance standards, and also because of the expense and
infeasibility of
installing control equipment at the Waukegan
facilities
(Ex.
31).
Nevertheless, USEPA determined that OMC’s
testimony did
“riot adequately document their inability to install
add—on controls or explain why
a time extension would not
constitute sufficient
relief”
(Ex.
4,
p.
3).
The Agency presented testimony at the December
13, 1985
hearing
in support of
its proposal
to delete the marine
propulsion equipment exemption.
Dr. John Reed, Supervisor
of the
Technical Support Unit of the Agency’s Air Quality Planning
Section, testified that OMC’s Milwaukee, Wisconsin facility also
produces outboard motors and has tested
a high solids coating
which meets the 3.5 lbs VOM/gallon limitation and satisfies OMC’s
performance standards (May 22, 1985,
letter from Thomas C.
Sweet,
Corporate Environmental Engineer,
OMC,
to Wolf Klassen, Director,
Southeast Air Region, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources;
this letter
is part
of group Exhibit
23).
The Agency has also
made reference to correspondence between the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources
(“DNR”) and the USEPA Region V office
regarding the marine propulsion device exemption in Illinois.
DNR strongly objected
to the existence of this exemption due
to
that agency’s own efforts
to enforce the adopted limits on the
outboard marine engine
industry located
in Wisconsin
(Pr.
2 at
28—29;
Ex.
20).
OMC agreed
to
a p~anin 1981 to bring
its
Milwaukee facility into compliance
by the end of 1985
(Id.
at
29;
Ex.
23).
OMC
is apparently behind schedule
in meeting that
plan and needs more time to design spray equipment
to use with
the compliance coatings, but has indicated to DNR that
it still
intends to come into compliance
(Tr.
2 at
29;
Ex.
23).
J.
Roger Crawford, Corporate Director
of Environmental
Control
for OMC testified on behalf
of OMC at the March
5,
1986,
hearing in opposition to the Agency’s proposed deletion of the
marine propulsion equipment exemption.
Mr. Crawford indicated
that OMC finds the proposed deletion is “unjustified
economically” due to the differences between OMC’s Milwaukee and
Waukegan facilities.
Those differences, OMC contends, make
utilization of high solids coatings at the Waukegan facility
“extremely expensive,
in fact more expensive than even add—on
technology”
(Tr.
3 at
180).
OMC insists that before high solids coatings could be used
at the Waukegan plant, substantial modifications would have to be
made
to its parts washing and air handling systems and additional
7Wisconsin has the same emission limitation for extreme
performance coating
as does Illinois:
3.5 lbs. VOC/gallon
(Tr.
2
at
28).
72-115
—7—
equipment would need to be installed.
At the Milwaukee facility,
according
to DM0,
the plant layout did not have to be modified to
accommodate the use
of compliance coatings,
nor did as much new
equipment need to be
installed.
The capital cost associated with
the changes at the Waukegan plant is estimated by OMC
to be in
excess of
$1 million,
and would entail an estimated annual cost
of $371,000
(Tr.
3
at 186—187; P.C.
#8, Attachment C).
The
Agency assumes that utilization of compliance coatings at the
Waukegan plant would reduce emissions by an average of 30
(Pr.
2
at
29—30), while OMC calculates the emissions reduction would
be
about 19
(P.C.
#8, Attachment C).
Utilization of high solids
coatings
at the Waukegan facility would therefore reduce
the VOM
emissions from that plant by 6—9
tons/year.
Using OMC’s cost
estimates for the plant modifications necessary in order
to use
compliance coatings,
the eliminated emi9ions would
be achieved
at
a cost of between $41,000 and $62,000
per ton.
OMC estimates that add—on controls could be installed at the
Waukegan plant at lesser
cost, but still contends the cost
involved would
be unjustified.
OMC submitted written cost
estimates obtained from vendors
of incineration and solvent
concentrator systems.
Installation of either of
these systems
would reduce plant emissions by 90
from the current level,
and
would require annual capital costs of $504,000 and $438,000,
respectively.
The cost per ton of VOM removed by these systems
would be $18,500 and $16,100, respectively
(P.C.
#8, Attachment
B).
OMC noted
that if the marine propulsion equipment exemption
is deleted,
it would be “highly unlikely” that OMC would continue
any assembly or surface coating operations
at the Waukegan
facility
(Tr.
3 at
181).
Discontinuing those operations would
result
in the loss of approximately 300
jobs at the Waukegan
plant
(Tr.
at 261).
Much
of the detailed economic information on the cost for
OMC to comply was provided after hearing (OMC Comments, July 9,
1986).
The Agency objected
to this late filing and pointed out
that they had requested detailed information much earlier
in the
proceeding.
However,
the Agency specifically rejected additional
hearings to probe
the validity of this information, and failed to
provide a rationale for
rejecting it or data
to refute
it.
8This number appears
as $41,000 on page
1 of Attachment C to
OMC’s comments filed on July 9, 1986
(referred to as PC.
#8).
This seems
to have been an error
in OMC’s calculations.
OMC
contends that emissions
reductions would amount
to
6 tons/year,
yet it divided the annual cost by
9 tons/year, the reduction
figure espoused by the Agency.
72-116
—8—
PETROLEUM LIQUID STORAGE
IN EXTERNAL FLOATING ROOF TANKS
The Agency proposes a new section for adoption,
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 215.341.
That section would read as follows:
Section 215.341
External Floating Roofs
The requirements of subsection
215.124(a)
shall not apply to any
stationary storage tank equipped with an external
floating roof:
a)
Exempted under Section 2l5.123(a)(2) through (a)(6)
b)
Of welded construction equipped with a metallic—type
iK~eseal having
a secondary seal from the top of the
shoe seal to the tank wall (shoe—mounted secondary
seal)
c)
Of welded construction equipped with
a metallic—type
shoe seal,
a liquid—mounted foam seal,
a liquid—mounted
liquid—filled—type
seal,
or other closure device
of
equivalent control efficiency approved by the Agency in
which
a petroleum liquid with
a true vapor ~ressure less
than 27.6 kPa (4.0 psia)
at 294.3°K(70°F) is stored;
or
d)
Used to store
crude
oil with
a pour point
of 50°For
higher
as determined by ASTM Standard D97—66.
The proposed addition of this section by the Agency is
intended
to address USEPA’s proposed disapproval
of Rule 205
(o)(3)(D)(iv)
(now S215.124 (b)(4))
in R80—5.
Section 215.124
(b)(4) exempts all external floating roof storage
tanks used to
store crude oil from the provisions of
35
Ill. Adm. Code 215.124
(a)
(which requires,
inter alia,
the use of secondary seals on
external floating roof tanks used to store volatile petroleum
liquids).
USEPA has proposed
to disapprove this exemption as
being overbroad.
Proposed section 215.341 would narrow the
exemption to “waxy, heavy pour”
crude oils, which USEPA itself
exempts from the seal requirement
(Id.).
The Agency presented testimony at the December
12,
1985,
hearing
in support of its proposal
to add S215.341.
Dr. John
Ting,
an Environmental Protection Specialist
in the Technical
Support Unit of
the Agency’s Air Quality Planning Section,
testified that §215.341
is necessary since Illinois cannot make
the required showing
to prevent USEPA from disapproving
S215.l24(b)(4)
(Pr.
1 at 95).
Such
a showing, which would allow
Illinois to continue to exempt all external floating roof storage
tanks storing crude oil from the secondary seal requirement,
would have to include evidence either that it
is unreasonable to
require the use of secondary seals
in this circumstance,
or that
the allowable emissions under Illinois’ existing regulation meet
USEPA’s
5
“equivalency” rule9
(i.e.
are within
5
of
the
72.117
—9—
USEPA’s
5
“equivalency”
rule9
(i.e.
are within
5
of
the
allowable emissions anticipated by the CTG)
(Tr.
1
at 94—95;
Ex.
3,
p.
28226).
The Agency determined there are 92 crude oil storage tanks
in the counties affected by the proposed regulation
(Tr.
1 at 98;
for
a discussion of why only certain counties would be subject to
proposal §215.341 and to proposed subpart H
in general, see page
18).
The Agency calculated that the uncontrolled
(i.e.
without
secondary seals) emissions from those tanks are 309 tons/year
(Tr.
1 at 98);
if PACT
(as defined by the CTG for this category)
was applied to these tanks, emissions would be reduced by 293
tons/year
(Id.).
The 293 ton/year figure is accurate
if none
of
the crude oil stored in the tanks
is of the waxy, heavy pour
variety;
a survey conducted by the Agency indicated that only 1
of the crude oil stored
in external floating roof storage tanks
located
in nonattainment counties
is the waxy, heavypour type
(Tr.
1 at 131).
Therefore, the “allowable” emissions from the
92
affected tanks,
after
the installation of secondary seals,
is
approximately
16 tons/year
(Id.).
The Agency performed
a “cost effectiveness” analysis of
controlling VOM emissions on
a per ton basis ~hrough the use of
secondary seals,
and concluded that the $4621
cost ton/VOM
reduced “does not appear to be unreasonable
in comparison with
the control costs
for other PACT categories”
(Tr.
1 at 101).
To
calculate this figure,
the Agency relied
on
a cost estimate for
secondary seal installation provided by Tanco Engineering Inc.
(“TANCO”).
TANCO estimated the cost of installing
a secondary
seal
to be $20/linear foot of tank circumference (for
a welded
shell
tank;
see Ex.
15).
The $20/foot cost
is significantly
lower
than an estimate for the same work provided by the Chicago
Bridge and Iron Company (“CB&I”).
CB&I provided a cost estimate
of $55/linear foot
(Tr.
3
at 412).
The CB&I estimate very
9USEPA’S
5
“equivalency” rule
is intended
to allow states
flexibility
in developing regulations which define PACT
differently than do the CTG5
(Pr.
3 at 27).
The rule
is applied
as follows:
If
a state elects to make
a showing that its
emissions from sources falling within a particular CTG category
meet this rule, the state must determine the total emissions
allowed by the CTG (i.e., after application of the control
technology prescribed there;
the resulting level
of control
is
referred
to by USEPA as
the “presumptive norm”).
This level
of
emissions
is then compared to the emissions allowed
(including
exemptions) by the state regulation.
If there
is less than a 5
difference
in allowable emissions,
USEPA will determine the state
regulation to be “equivalent” to the presumptive norm (Tr.
3 at
28;
Ex.
26(b)).
For numerical examples of the application
of
this rule,
see Tr.
1 at 14—15 and Tr.
3 at 28—29.
10For
a detailed analysis regarding how this figure was
calculated,
see Ex.
11, pps.
5,
13.
72-118
—10—
closely approximates the cost estimate for this work
found
in the
1978 CTG for this category.
That document provides the USEPA’s
estimate of a cost of $54/linear foot for installation of
secondary seals
(Tr.
1 at
109;
Ex.
12,
p.
4—7).
The Agency also evaluated whether the allowable emissions
under existing §215.l24(b)(4) are within 5
of those allowed by
the CTG,
and thus whether the 5
“equivalency” rule can be met by
S2l5.l24(b)(4).
The Agency calculated that the emissions allowed
by that section are 124
greater than those allowable under the
CTG,
so determined that the
5
“equivalency”
rule cannot be met
by the existing regulation
(Tr.
1 at 99—100;
Ex.
11,
p.
12).
Messrs. Darrell
W.
Bruckert and Joseph A.
Fisher testified
for the Illinois Petroleum Council
(“IPC”)
in opposition to
proposed §215.341.
IPC also sponsored testimony
in the R80—5
proceeding in opposition to a proposal requiring the installation
of secondary seals on crude oil tanks
(Tr.
3 at
425).
IPC
contends that such
a requirement would impose “an unnecessary and
excessive economic burden on the petroleum operations
in the
State
of Illinois”
(Id.).
IPC believes that USEPA’s proposed disapproval “gives little
or no insight” as to why USEPA found
the exemption of crude oil
storage tanks from the secondary seal requirement
to
be deficient
(Id.
at
433).
More reveajjng,
from IPC’s perspective, was
an
internal USEPA memorandum
addressing
the SIP revision material
submitted to USEPA by the Agency after
the R80—5 proceeding.
In
that memorandum its author, William M.
Vatavuk of the Economic
Analysis Branch,
stated that in his opinion the cost
effectiveness value
(i.e., cost per ton of reduced VOM emissions)
of $2,410/ton calculated by IPC was “quite reasonable”, but that
a higher cost effectiveness figure does not alone justify
excluding crude oil storage tanks from PACT
II controls.
(Tr.
3
at
434;
Ex.
5)..
IPC also questions why installing secondary seals on crude
oil storage tanks
is necessary since, according to its
calculations, due to the application of the secon~ryseal
requirement to gasoline tanks
in attainment areas
the Illinois
SIP will achieve 13
more emission reductions statewide than
anticipated by the CTG for this category (Id.
at 439—440).
IPC
estimates that installation
of secondary seals on crude oil
~This
memorandum was referred
to and apparently relied upon by
USEPA
in the document “Revision to TSD for Illinois PACT II
Regulations”,
arid
is attached
to that document, which has been
admitted unto the record
in this proceeding as Exhibit
5.
12The Board adopted regulations requiring
the installation of
secondary seals on gasoline storage tanks in attainment areas in
the PACT II proceeding,
R80—5.
72-119
—11—
storage tanks would reduce VOM emissions by approximately 200
tons/year
(Tr.
3 at
445;
Ex.
44).
In written comments submitted to the Board on July 23, 1986,
USEPA indicated that “a chief reason
for USEPA’s disapproval is
the fact that the cost effectiveness
(C/E) value submitted by the
IPC
is consistent with the C/E values
in the CTG and the CTG
considers secondary seals
on crude oil storage tanks to
constitute PACT”
(Id.).
In response to IPC’s concerns questioning why further
emission reductions are necessary in this category (given that
emissions have already been reduced to 13
less than those
allowed by the CTG),
USEPA answered that emission reductions in
attainment areas cannot be used
to make up for insufficient
reductions
in areas that do not attain an
NAAQS;
that is,
emission reductions
in attainment areas cannot be traded
for
required
reductions
in nonattainment areas
(Id.
at 6).
LEAK PREVENTION FROM GASOLINE TANK TRUCKS AND VAPOR
COLLECTION SYSTEMS
In the R80—5 proceeding,
the Board did not adopt new
regulations pertaining
to
leak prevention from gasoline tank
trucks and vapor collection systems.
In its October
5, 1982,
Opinion, the Board stated that it believed the category to be
covered by existing Board
rules.
However,
USEPA indicated
in the
July 11,
1985 Proposed Rulemaking that Illinois’ existing
regulations are “not adequate to satisfy the requirements of leak
tightness for gasoline tank trucks”
(Ex.
3,
p.
28226).
More
specifically, USEPA concluded that Rule
205(p)(5)
(now
S215.583(e))
is inadequate
in that it requires delivery vessels
equipped with vapor recovery control systems
to be designed and
maintained to be vapor
tight during normal operations,
yet fails
to define what
is meant by “vapor
tight”
(Ex.
3,
p.
28226).
The Agency proposes to remedy this possible deficiency by
adding a definition
for “Vapor Collection System”
to §211.122
(see p.
20),
and by amending Part 215, Subpart Y in the following
manner.
The agency proposes to amend
this potential deficiency
by amending
the three existing sections of Part
215, Subpart Y,
and by adding
a new section,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 215.584,
to that
Subpart.
The Agency proposes that these amendments and addition
apply to all counties
in which the Stage
1 vapor recovery program
applies, since they are “integral” to that program
(P.C.
#7,
p.
19).
For the sake
of brevity, the three existing sections and
the respective proposed amendments to them will not be reprinted
in the Opinion.
Rather
the amendments as proposed by the Agency
will be discussed.
These amendments would require that vapor recovery systems
operated at bulk gasoline plants, bulk gasoline terminals, and
gasoline dispensing facilities be operated as so to meet
72-120
—12—
prescribed pressure levels.
Compliance with these levels would
be shown through use of a pressure tap or
equivalent on the vapor
collection system.
These amendments would prohibit gasoline
delivery vessels from using any of the facilities described by
these sections unless those vessels display an inspection sticker
as
required by proposed S2l5.584(b)
or
(d).
The Agency also
proposes to add provisions in each section to require that repair
and retesting of equipment found not to be vapor
tight be done
within
15 days of the discovery of the leak.
Finally, the Agency
proposes
to insert “collection” in lieu of the word “balance”
in
the phrase “vapor balance system”.
The Agency proposes this
latter change
for purposes
of consistency because the CTG for
this category (admitted unto the record in this proceeding as
Ex.
9)
uses the expression
“vapor collection system”.
The Agency
suggests that
in practice,
“vapor balance system” and “vapor
collection system” have the same meaning
(Ex.
32, pps.
1—2).
The Agency also proposes to add
a new section to Subpart Y,
that would
read as follows:
Section 215.584
Gasoline Delivery Vessels
a)
Any delivery vessel equipped for vapor control by use of
vapor collection equipment:
1)
Shall have
a vapor
space connection that
is equipped
with fittings which
are vapor tight
2)
Shall have its hatches closed at all times during
loading or unloading operations, unless
a
top
loading vapor recovery system
is used
3)
Shall not internally exceed
a gauge pressure
of
18
inches of water
or
a vacuum of
6 inches of water
4)
Shall
be designed and maintained
to be vapor
tight
at all times during normal operations
5)
Shall
not
be refilled in Illinois at other
than:
A)
A bulk gasoline terminal that complies with the
requirements of Section 215.582
or
B)
A bulk gasoline plant that complies with the
requirements of Section 2l5.58l(b)(1)
and
(2).
6)
Shall
be tested annually in accordance with the
pressure—vacuum test procedure described
in EPA
450/2—78—051 Appendix A or other test method
approved by
the USEPA.
Each vessel must be
repaired
and retested within
15 days when
it fails to
sustain:
72-121
—13—
A)
A pressure drop of no more than three inches of
water
in five minutes;
and
B)
A vacuum drop of no more than three
inches of
water
in five minutes.
b)
Any delivery vessel meeting the requirements of
Subsection
(a)
shall have a sticker affixed
to the tank
adjacent
to
the tank manufacturer’s data plate which
contains
the tester’s
name,
the tank identification
number
and the date of the test.
The sticker shall be
in
a form prescribed
by the Agency.
c)
The owner or operator of
a delivery vessel shall:
1)
Maintain co~piesof any test required under
Subsection
(a)(6)
for
a period of
3 years
2)
Provide copies of these tests
to the Agency upon
~equest; and
3)
Provide annual test result certification to bulk
gasoline plants and
terminals where the delivery
vessel
is
loaded.
d)
Any delivery vessel which has undergone and passed a
test in another state which has
a USEPA—approved leak
testing and certification program will satisfy the
requirements
of that Subsection.
Delivery vessels must
display
a sticker, decal or stencil acceptable
to the
state where tested or co~plywith the requirements
of
Subsection
(b).
Section 215.584 would require,
inter alia, gasoline delivery
vessels to be tested annually in accordance with a USEPA approved
test method.
The Agency’s intention is that such vessels failing
this type of
leak—tight test would be required to undergo repair
and
retestirig within
15 days after the leak
is discovered
by the
owner, operator, or the Agency
(P.C.
#7, p.20).
The proposed amendments
to Subpart Y have been developed
in
major part by the Agency in consultation with IPC’s Environmental
Quality Committee
(Pr.
1
at
42;
Tr.
3 at 327—328).
Dr.
John Ting
testified in reference to the Agency’s proposed amendments to
Subpart Y.
Dr. Ting’s testimony indicated that these amendments
would be e;tremely cost effective,
as the value of the gasoline
recovered as
a consequence of the regulations would exceed the
cost of control
(Tr.
1 at 36—37).
Darrell Bruckert, Chairman of
IPC’s Environmental Quality Committee,
testified on behalf of IPC
at the March
6 hearing.
Mr. Bruckert testified that
in all
aspects of
the proposed amendments to Subpart Y, with the
exception of the matter of the time limit associated with repair
and retesting,
IPC supports adoption of the amendments as
proposed by the Agency and urges the Board to adopt them
72-122
—14—
“expeditiously”
(Tr.
3 at 328).
The issue of requiring that leaks associated with gasoline
tank trucks and vapor collection systems be repaired and retested
within
a specified time limit, proposed to be 15 days by the
Agency, was initially raised in the Agency’s presentation at the
March
5 hearing
in this matter.
The Agency indicated
at that
time that the 15—day time limit is prescribed in the CTG for this
category and had previously been inadvertently omitted
(P.C.
#7,
p.
20).
Darrell Bruckert testified at the March
6 hearing
in support
of a differing proposal regarding the time limit
for repair and
retesting of this equipment.
This alternative proposal was
formulated by the Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association
(“IPMA”), and would essentially expand the deadline for repair
and retesting
to 30 days
(Tr.
3 at 328; P.C.
#10).
IPMA believes
the proposed 15—day
limit does not provide adequate time to set
up
a repair and retesting schedule, but that the 30—day
limitation could
be met without undue hardship
(P.C.
#1, pp.
1—
2).
IPMA bases
this conclusion on the results from an informal
survey
it conducted of facilities in Illinois which do repair and
retesting work on gasoline tank trucks.
This survey indicated
that these facilities believe
15 days
to be an insufficient time
within which to accomplish
the required work
(P.C.
#1,
p.
1).
Rather,
the facilities suggested that the Agency pattern its
proposal
after
the policy of the Illinois Department of
Transportation, Hazardous Materials Division, on this issue.
IPMA characterized the Hazardous Materials Division’s policy as
allowing owners or operators 15 days after discovery of
a leak to
contact
a repair
and retesting facility
in order
to receive
a
work order specifying
the date the work
is to take place.
The
policy further requires that the date be within
30 days
of the
time the leak was discovered
(P.C.
#1,
p.
1).
IPMA also takes issue with the Agency’s rationale behind
comparing Illinois with
its bordering states on the issue of the
reasonableless of the
15 day rule.
William R.
Deutsch, Executive
Vice President of
IPMA,
noted
in a July 29, 1986 letter
to the
Board that
Illinois has, by far,
the largest population and the
greatest number
of automobiles.
Illinois has the most
petroleum marketers owning their own transports.
Additionally, Illinois has more miles of roads, which
means more gasoline consumption, which means more
transports
to deliver the product, which means the
greater likelihood
for repairs and
retestirig, which
means more time is needed to service these transports
given the limited number
of repair facilities
(P.C.
#10,
p.
1).
72-123
—15—
The Agency has indicated at hearing and
in its written
comments that it would interpret and implement the 15—day rule,
if adopted by the Board, as follows.
The period would begin on
the date the leak is first detected, and would consist of 15
calendar
(rather
than business)
days within which the repair and
retesting must take place
(Tr.
3 at
335; P.C.
#7,
p.
20).
The
Agency did suggest at hearing that
it would also allow a seven to
ten—day period, immediately after the 15—day period had expired,
for the results
of the retesting to travel by mail to the Agency
offices before any enforcement action would
be initiated
(Tr.
3
at
335—336).
CONCLUSIONS
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
The Board
today proposes to delete the marine propulsion
equipment exemption from §211.122.
USEPA has indicated that the
CTG for this category
is intended to apply to marine propulsion
equipment,
and the Board believes
it appropriate that Illinois’
general regulations reflect this intention.
That position notwithstanding,
the Board concludes
that OMC
has adequately demonstrated the economic unreasonableness that
would result if its Waukegan facilities were required
to utilize
add—on control equipment or high solids coatings
in order
to meet
the limitations of §215.204(j).
As previously discussed, the
cost per ton of VOM removed by these approaches would range from
$16,000 to $62,000.
(Agency Responsive Comment).
The Board
believes that level
of expenditure
is economically unreasonable,
particularly given
the volume of emissions that would be
recovered through either of the two compliance approaches.
For
that reason,
the Board
today
also proposes for first notice
publication amendments to
35
Ill. Adm. Code 215.206, which would
create a site—specific exemption from S2l5.204(j)
for OMC’s
Waukegan facilities.
Petroleum Liquid Storage
in External Floating Roof Tanks
The Board believes that
it is technically feasible to
require the installation of secondary seals on external
floating
roof crude oil storage
tanks
(other than those used
to store
waxy,
heavy pour crude
oils).
The Board will,
therefore, propose
§215.241 for first notice publication.
The Board realizes that
in the prior PACT II proceeding,
in
exempting all external floating roof crude oil storage tanks from
the secondary seal requirement, the Board concluded that “the low
cost—effectiveness, coupled with the small quantity of emissions
at stake,
indicate that secondary seals should not be considered
PACT for crude oil tanks”
(R80—5,
49 PCB 67,
90, October
5,
1982).
There are two principal reasons why the Board today
72-124
—16—
alters its former position.
First,
the information received on the record
in this matter
indicates the use of secondary seals on crude oil storage tanks
to be cost—effective.
The Agency and IPC have submitted varying
estimates of the cost per ton of recovering VOM emissions through
the use of secondary seals.
The Agency testified that this cost
is $462 ton
if crude oil is valued at $29.60/barrel
(Pr.
1 at
101).
Using
a crude oil price of $13/barrel, which more closely
approximates the price of crude oil today, the Agency’s
calculations would render
a cost per ton of VOM recovered of $638
(see Exhibit
11,
p.
13).
IPC believes the cost per ton
of VOM
recovered to be
$2,410
arid,
as discussed above,
introduced
evidence indicating that USEPA
found that figure to be
reasonable.
Assuming arguendo that IPC’s cost estimate
is the most
accurate,
this cost—effectiveness value
is consistent with that
envisioned by the CTG for this category (P.C.
#9,
p.
5).
Moreover,
the $2,410 per ton figure cannot be evaluated
in
isolation.
The CTG for this category describes secondary seals
as PACT for external floating roof tanks, and does not make any
distinctions based on the contents of the tanks
(except for those
containing waxy,
heavy pour crudes).
This would indicate that
USEPA’s determination as
to what technology constitutes PACT for
this category considered VOM emissions from external floating
roof petroleum liquid storage tanks in the aggregate (i.e.,
both
those storing gasoline and those storing crude oil).
Thus the
net savings enjoyed
by facilities installing secondary seals on
gasoline storage
tanks should be used to offset the cost incurred
by installing such seals on crude oil storage tanks.
The record
indicates that the major sources affected by §215.241 have both
gasoline and crude oil storage tanks
(Tr.
3 at 462, 469).
The
cost—effectiveness value
for reducing VOM emissions from crude
oil storage tanks therefore becomes even more reasonable when
offset by the net credit
(or reduction in costs) brought about by
the secondary seal requirement on gasoline storage tanks.
Second, all other Region V states and those non—Region V
states bordering Illinois with ozone nonattainment areas have
either promulgated USEPA approved regulations pertaining
to the
secondary seal requirement for crude oil storage tanks,
or are
not required to have PACT regulations due to having achieved
attainment status
(Ex.
34).
That reality works to preclude the
Board from determining that requiring secondary seals on crude
oil storage tanks
in Illinois might be economically unreasonable;
it is difficult to ascertain what might make such
a requirement
unreasonable in this State but reasonable
(and PACT) virtually
everywhere else;
nor does the Record provide any justification
for such a distinction.
72-125
—17—
Leak
Prevention from Gasoline Tank Trucks
and Vapor Collection
Systems
The Board also determines that the Agency’s proposed
amendments and addition to Subpart Y are technically feasible and
economically reasonable, and proposes them, with two slight
modifications,
for first notice publication.
As noted above,
these proposed changes to Subpart Y have
been formulated by the Agency
in cooperation with IPC’s
Environmental Quality Committee.
This effort represents
a
notable example of the regulating and regulated communities
working
together to bring
about results which are both
environmentally beneficial
and economically reasonable.
There
has been one point of contention, however, between the Agency and
IPC, and that is the time frame within which leaking gasoline
tank trucks and vapor collection systems must be
repaired and
retested.
The Board believes that
a 15—day period
for repair
and
retesting after
a leak has been discovered,
though not allowing
a
great
deal of leeway
to an owner
or operator, should provide
ample
time
for
the
required
repair
and
retesting
work
to
take
place.
Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and Wisconsin also require
an owner
to repair and retest within 15 days (P.C.
#7,
p.
20).
However,
the Board concludes
it
is appropriate to provide
that those 15 days be “business”, and not “calendar”,
days.
Depending
on the day the leak
is discovered,
as many as five days
of the
15 day period may consist of Saturdays and Sundays, days
on which repairs may be difficult to obtain.
The effective time
for repairs and retesting in that instance would be reduced
to
10
days,
which places an unreasonable burden on owners and operators
of this equipment.
This slight alteration of the Agency’s
proposal
is intended
to balance the necessity of getting repair
and retesting work done
in a timely fashion with the difficulty,
as expressed by IPMA, of accomplishing these tasks within
15
days.
Consequently,
the Board will
insert “business”
after
the
number
“15” and before the word “days” in SS2l5.58l(e)(6),
215.582(d)(3), 2l5.583(d)(5), and 2l5584(a)(6).
Also,
to
clarify the issue of responsibility for discovering leaks, the
Board
will add the words
“after discovery of the leak by the
owner, operator,
or the Agency” after
the word “days” in the same
sections
as
noted
above.
This
change,
which
is
supported
by
the
Agency
(P.C.
#7,
p.
21), specifies that the time period for
repair and retesting begins
to run when an owner or operator
discovers a leak in its own equipment,
as opposed to being
initiated only by those instances when the leak
is discovered as
a result of an Agency check.
72-126
—18—
OTHER DETERMINATIONS
The Agency has also proposed several other amendments, none
of which have generated any appreciable amount of controversy.
To 35
Ill. Adm. Code 215.105, the Agency proposes to add
reference to a document which contains the test methods
to be
used
in establishing that gasoline dispensing facilities are
leak—tight.
The source
is referred to
in several of the Agency’s
proposed amendments to Subpart
Y.
In addition, the Agency proposes
to add a new section,
215.107, in order
to clarify certain language used
in 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 215.245,
215.402, 2l5.58l(f)(2), and 2l5.58l(g)(l).
Section 215.107
is intended to clarify the applicability of those
regulations,
all of which are qualified by the words
“when
averaged over the preceeding three calendar years”.
Finally, as part of
the proposed new Subpart H, the Agency
proposes the adoption of two sections,
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 215.240
and 215.249,
in addition to §215.241.
Section 215.240 would
specify the counties
in which affected sources must comply with
the requirements of Subpart
H.
The Agency lists
those counties
as Cook,
DuPage, Kane, Lake, Macoupin, Madison, McHenry, Monroe,
St.Clair,
and Will.
All except Mdflenry and Will
are officially
designated as ozone nonattainment areas.
Section 172
of the CAA
requires sources
in nonattainment areas only
to apply
PACT.
The
Agency proposes that McHenry and Will counties also be
included
within the scope
of Subpart H
(even though both are in attainment
for ozone)
for several reasons.
First, they have traditionally
been included in the calculations pertaining
to the Chicago urban
area for purposes of developing
the SIP for ozone.
Second, the
emissions from sources within those counties are thought to
substantially impact the ozone
air quality of the Chicago urban
area.
Finally,
the emission reductions from currently adopted
and proposed PACT regulations
to sources
in these counties have
already been included
in SIP analyses and are necessary to
demonstrate and achieve attainment of the ozone standard
in the
Chicago urban area
(P.C.
#7,
p.
7).
The Board received no
testimony or written comments
in opposition to §215.240 from
sources in the affected counties.
Section 215.249 specifies that sources subject to Subpart H
must comply with the applicable limitations within one year of
the effective date
of the section or by December
31,
1987,
whichever occurs
first.
The Board finds proposed SS2l5.105,
215.107,
215.240, and
215.249
to be reasonable and necessary,
and will propose all of
them for first notice publication.
72-127
—19—
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The Agency has made two motions to correct transcripts, one
pertaining
to the transcript of the December
12 hearing and
a
portion of the transcript of the December
13 hearing, and the
other
to the transcripts of the December
13 and March
5 and
6
hearings.
Those motions are granted.
The Agency has also made several motions involving requests
to admit certain materials as exhibits.
The Agency submitted
with
its Comment on July
9,
1986,
a series of five attachments
intended as responsive to requests for information made at the
March
6 hearing.
At that time an Agency witness was asked
whether the other USEPA Region V states possess approved (i.e.,
by USEPA)
rules
for the Group
II CTG categories.
Being unable to
accurately answer the questions at that time, the Agency agreed
to submit written materials
in response, and
a number on the
Exhibit List
(No.
35)
was reserved by the Hearing Officer
for
these materials specifically.
Having now been received,
these
materials are hereby admitted onto the record
as Exhibit
35.
The Agency,
in its July
9 Comment, also requests that the
Board admit as exhibits documents that had been numbered 26(a)—
(C)
at hearing.
This motion
is denied
as unnecessary.
The
Hearing Officer admitted Exhibits 26(a) and
(b)
onto the record
at the March
5 hearing
(Pr.
3 at 126), and, as discussed at that
time, the document that had been labeled
26(c)
in fact had
already been admitted onto the record as Exhibit
5.
72-128
—20—
ORDER
The Board hereby proposes the following amendments
for first
notice publication.
The Clerk shall cause first notice
publication of these proposed amendments
in the Illinois
Register:
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
B:
AIR POLLUTION
CHAPTER
1:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 211
DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
SUBPART B:
DEFINITIONS
Section 211.122
Definitions
“Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products”:
for the purposes of
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 215.204(j), miscellaneous metal
parts
and products
shall include farm machinery,
garden machinery,
small appliances,
commercial machinery,
industrial machinery,
fabricated metal
products and any other industrial category which coats
metal
parts or products under the Standard Industrial Classification
Code
for Major Groups
33,
34,
35,
36,
37,
38,
or
39 with the
exception of the following:
coating lines subject
to
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 215.204(a)—(i) and
(k),
~‘te
ex~er~4e~
e?
a4~p~rtes,
automobile or light—duty truck
refinishing,
the exterior of
marine vessels 4~e~4~gm8f4~ep~’e 3~s4~erte
4~mer~and the
customized top coating of automobiles
and trucks
if production is
less than thirty—five vehicles per day.
“Vapor Collection System”:
all piping,
seals,
hoses,
connections, pressure—vacuum vents,
and other possible sources
between
the gasoline delivery vessel
and the vapor processing
unit and/or
the storage tanks and vapor holder.
SUBCHAPTER C:
EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 215
ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
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
72-129
—21--
2)
ASTM D 1475—60
3)
ASTM D 2369—73
4)
ASTM D 97—66
b)
Federal Standard 141a, 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.
e)
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington,
D.C., EPA—450/2—78—05l Appendix A and
Ap~pendixB.
(Source:
Added and codified at
7
Ill. Reg.
13601)
Section 215.107
Determination of Applicability
a)
In determining
the applicability of regulations
in this
Part which
are qualified by “when averaged over the
preceding
three calendar years”
the “preceding three
calendar years”
shall mean:
1)
The three years preceding the date by which
compliance is required for purposes of determining
initial applicability to existing sources
2)
Any consecutive three year period for purposes of
determining applicability to sources not subject
to
the regulation on the date by which compliance is
required.
b)
Sources to which the regulation has been applicable at
any time shall continue
to be subject
to the applicable
limitations even
if operations change
so as
to result in
an average which is below the qualifying average.
SUBPART F:
COATING OPERATIONS
Section 215.206
Exemptions from Emission Limitations
a)
The limitations of this Subpart shall not apply to:
el) Coating plants whose emissions of volatile organic
material as limited by the operating permit will not
exceed 22.7 Mg/year
(25 T/year),
in the absence of
air pollution control equipment;
or
72-130
—22—
~2) Sources used exclusively for chemical or physical
analysis or determination of product quality and
commercial acceptance provided that:
~A) The operation of the source
is not an integral
part of the production process;
~B) The emissions from the source do not exceed 363
kg
(800 lbs)
in any calendar month; and
~C) The exemption is approved in writing by the
Agency.
b)
The limitations
of Section 215.204(i)
shall not apply to
the Waukegan, Illinois, facilities of the Outboard
Marine Corporation, so long as the emissions
of volatile
organic material
from those facilities do not exceed
35
tons per year.
SUBPART
H:
SPECIAL LIMITATIONS FOR SOURCES
IN MAJOR
URBANIZED AREAS
WHICH ARE NONATTAINMENT FOR
OZONE
Section 215.240
Applicability
Nothwithstanding any other limitations
or exceptions
in this Part
215,
the special requirements of
this Subpart shall apply to the
affected sources
in the following counties:
Cook,
DuPage, Kane,
Lake,
Macoupin, Madison, McHenry, Monroe,
St.
Clair, and Will.
Section 215.241
External Floating Roofs
The requirements of subsection
215.124(a)
shall not apply to any
stationary storage tank equipped with an external floating roof:
a)
Exempted under Section 215.l23(a)(2) through (a)(6)
~j
Of welded construction equipped with
a metallic—type
shoe seal having
a secondary seal from the top of the
shoe seal to the tank wall (shoe—mounted secondary
seal)
~j
Of welded construction equipped with a metallic type
shoe seal,
a liquid—mounted foam seal,
a liquid—mounted
liquid—filled—type
seal,
or other closure device of
equivalent control efficiency approved by the Agency
in
which
a petroleum liquid with a true vapor pressure less
than 27.6 kPa (4.0 psia)
at 294.3°K(70°F) is stored;
or
72.131
—23—
d)
Used to store crude oil with
a pour point of 50°For
higher
as determined
by ASTM Standard D97—66.
Section 215.249
Compliance Dates
Sources subject
to this Subpart
H shall comply with the
applicable limitations within one year of the effective date of
the section
or by December
31, 1987, whichever
is sooner.
SUBPART Y: GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION
Section 215.581
Bulk Gasoline Plants
a)
Subject
to subsection
(f), no person may cause or
allow
the transfer of gasoline from
a delivery vessel into
a
stationary storage tank located at
a bulk gasoline plant
unless:
1)
The delivery vessel
and the stationary storage tank
are each equipped with
a vapor ~e~e~ee collection
system that meets
the requirements of subsection
+e+(e) (4)
2)
Each vapor ~er~ee
collection system is operating;
3)
Be~4vef~yvesse’ ~~ie~ehe~e~’ee~esede~e~4
~ftr~g i~eed~rtge~efe er~s-T ~i~ese e ~ep ~ea&~r~
vepe~~eeevery system ~
~eeê~ The delivery vessel
displays the appropriate sticker pursuant to the
requirements of Section 215.584(b)
or
(d).
4)
The pressure relief valve(s) on the stationary
storage tank
arid the delivery vessel are set
to
release at no less than 0.7 psi
or the highest
pressure allowed by state or local
fire codes
or the
guidelines of the National Fire Prevention
Association; and
5)
The stationary storage tank is equipped with
a
submerged loading pipe.
b)
Subject
to subsection
(g), no person may cause
or allow
the transfer
of gasoline from a stationary storage tank
located
at
a bulk gasoline plant into a delivery vessel
unless:
1)
The requirements set forth
in subsections
(a)(l)
through
(a)(4)
are met; and
2)
Equipment
is available at the bulk gasoline plant
to
provide for
the submerged filling
of the delivery
72-132
—24—
vessel
or the delivery vessel
is equipped for bottom
loading.
c)
?~vepef bei~er~eeeys~em&~eH~4rte~&e
~1’~e
33~ew4i’~g
eempene~s~
A vepe~ep~eeee
ee~4er~
ei~ ~e
e~4er~e~y
e~erege
~er~kt~e~4~e~4ppe~wi~l~
~
w~e1’te~evaper~
A een~ee~r~g
p4pe e~~eee ~ie~b
4~e
eq~t4pe~w~1’t
~~4~ngsw~e1’~e~eveper
~
ertd
A vepe~epeee ee~ee~4en
ei’~~e
de~4veryveese3~~e~b
ts
e1t~ppedwi~
~~4~ngsw~eI’te~eveper ~
~~pe a
1
d)
Subject to subsection
(f), each owner
of
a stationary
storage tank located at a bulk gasoline plant shall:
1)
Equip each stationary storage tank with
a vapor
control system that meets the requirements of
subsection
(a)
or
(b), whichever
is applicable;
2)
Provide instructions to the operator of the bulk
gasoline plant describing necessary maintenance
operations and procedures for prompt notification of
the owner
in case of any malfunction of
a vapor
control system; and
3)
Repair, replace or modify any worn out or
malfunctioning component or element of design.
e)
Subject
to subsection
(f), each operator
of
a bulk
gasoline plant shall:
1)
Maintain and operate each vapor control system in
accordance with the owner’s instructions;
2)
Promptly notify the owner of any scheduled
maintenance
or malfunction requiring replacement or
repair of
a major component of a vapor control
system; and
3)
Maintain gauges, meters or other specified testing
devices
in proper working orderT;
4)
Operate the bulk plant vapor collection system and
gasoline loading equipment in
a manner that
prevents:
72-133
—25—
A)
Gauge pressure from exceeding 18 inches of water
and vacuum from exceeding
6 inches of water,
as
measured
as close as possible to the vapor hose
connection; and
B)
A reading equal
to
or greater than 100 percent
of the lower
explosive limit
(LEL measured as
propane)
when tested
in accordance with the
procedure described in EPA 45012—78—051 Appendix
B; and
C)
Avoidable leaks of liquid during loading or
unloading operations.
5)
Provide
a pressure tap or equivalent on the bulk
plant vapor collection system in order
to allow the
determination of compliance with 215. 58l(e)(4)(A);
and
6)
Within 15 business days after discovery of the leak
by the owner, operator, or the Agency,
repair and
retest a vapor collection system which exceeds the
limits
of subsection
(4)(A)
or
(B).
f)
The requirements of subsections
(a),
(d)
and
(e) shall
not apply to:
1)
Any stationary storage tank with a capacity of less
than 575 gallons;
or
2)
Any bulk gasoline plant whose annual gasoline
throughput is less than 350,000 gallons as averaged
over the preceding three calendar years.
g)
The requirements of subsection
(b) shall only apply to
bulk gasoline plants:
1)
That have an annual gasoline throughput greater than
or equal
to 1,000,000 gallons, as averaged over the
preceding three calendar years; and
2)
That either distribute gasoline to gasoline
dispensing facilities subject
to the requirements of
section 2l5.583(a)(2)
or that are located in the
following counties:
Boone,
Cook,
DuPage, Kane,
Lake,
Madison,
McHenry, Peoria, Rock Island,
St.
Clair, Tazewell, Will,
or Winnebago.
h)
Bulk gasoline plants were required to take certain
actions
to achieve compliance which are summarized
in
Appendix C.
72-134
—26—
Section
215.582 Bulk Gasoline Terminals
a)
No person may cause or allow the transfer
of gasoline
into any delivery vessel from any bulk gasoline terminal
unless:
1)
The bulk gasoline terminal
is equipped with
a vapor
control system that limits emission of volatile
organic material
to 80 mg/l
(0.00067 lbs/gal)
of
gasoline loaded;
2)
The vapor control system is operating and all vapors
displaced in the loading of gasoline
to the delivery
vessel are vented only
to the vapor control system;
3)
There
is no liquid drainage from the loading device
when it
is not in use; en~
4)
All loading and vapor return lines are equipped with
fittings which are vapor tightr; and
5)
The delivery vessel displays the appropriate sticker
pursuant to the requirements of Section 215.584(b)
or
(d);
or,
if the terminal
is driver—loaded, the
terminal owner
or operator
shall be deemed
to be
in
compliance with this section when terminal
access
authorization
is limited
to those owners and/or
operators of delivery vessels who have provided
a
current certification as required by Section
215. 584(c) (3).
b)
Emissions of organic material from bulk gasoline
terminals shall be determined by the procedure described
in EPA—450/2—77—026,
Appendix A, as revised from time
to time, or by any other equivalent procedure approved
by the Agency.
c)
Bulk gasoline terminals were required to take certain
actions to achieve compliance which are summarized in
Appendix C.
d)
The operator of
a bulk gasoline terminal shall:
1)
Operate the terminal vapor
collection system and
gasoline loading equipment in
a manner that
prevents:
~j
Gauge pressure from exceedin~18 inches of water
and vacuum from exceeding
6 inches of water
as
measured as close as possible to the vapor hose
connection; and
B)
A reading equal
to or greater
than 100 percent
of the lower explosive limit
(LEL measured
as
72-135
—27—
propane)
when tested
in accordance with the
procedure described
in EPA 450/2—78—051 Appendix
B; and
C)
Avoidable leaks of liquid during loading
or
unloadin~goperations.
2)
Provide a pressure tap or equivalent on the terminal
vapor collection system
in order
to allow the
determination of compliance with 2l5.582(d)(l)(A)T;
and
3)
Within
15 business days after discovery of the
leak
by the owner,
operator, or the Agency.
repair and
retest
a vapor collection system which exceeds the
limits of subsection
(d)(1)(A) or
(B)
Section 215.583 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
a)
Subject
to subsection
(b),
no person shall
cause or
allow the transfer
of gasoline from any delivery vessel
into any stationary storage tank at a gasoline
dispensing facility unless:
1)
The tank is equipped with a submerged loading pipe;
and
2)
The vapors displaced from the storage tank during
filling are processed by a vapor control system that
includes one or more of the following:
A)
A vapor ~e~e~ee collection system that meets the
requirements of subsection +?+(d)(4J;
or
B)
A refrigeration—condensation system or any other
system approved by the Agency that recovers at
least
90 percent by weight of all vaporized
organic material from the equipment being
controlled-r;
and
C)
The delivery vessel displays the appropriate
sticker pursuant to
the requirements of Section
215.584(b)
or
(d).
b)
The requirements of subsection
(a)(2) shall not apply to
transfers of gasoline to a stationary storage tank at a
gasoline dispensing facility if:
1)
The tank is equipped with
a floating roof or other
system of equal or better emission control as
approved by the Agency;
72-136
—28—
2)
The tank has a capacity of less than 2000 gallons
and
is in place and operating before January
1,
1979;
3)
The tank has a capacity of less than 575 gallons; or
4)
The tank is not located in any of the following
counties:
Boone,
Cook, DuPage, Kane,
Lake,
Madison,
McHenry,
Peoria, Rock Island,
St.
Clair, Tazewell,
Will or Winnebago.
C)
Subject to subsection
(b), each owner
of a gasoline
dispensing facility shall:
1)
Install all control systems and make all process
modifications required by subsection
(a);
2)
Provide instructions to the operator of the gasoline
dispensing
facility describing necessary maintenance
operations and procedures for prompt notification of
the owner
in case of any malfunction of
a vapor
control system; and
3)
Repair, replace or modify any worn out or
malfunctioning component or element of design.
d)
Subject to subsection
(b), each operator of
a gasoline
dispensing facility and each delivery vessel operator
shall:
1)
Maintain and operate each vapor control system in
accordance with the owner’s instructions;
2)
Promptly notify the owner
of any scheduled
maintenance or malfunction requiring replacement or
repair of a major component of
a vapor control
system; ert~
3)
Maintain gauges, meters or other specified testing
devices
in proper working orderT;
4)
Operate the vapor collection system and delivery
vessel unloading points
in
a manner that prevents:
A)
A reading equal
to or greater than 100 percent
of the lower explosive limit
(LEL measured
as
propane) when tested in accordance with the
procedure described
in EPA 450/2—78—051 Appendix
B, and
B)
Avoidable leaks of liquid during the filling
of
storage tanks;
and
72.137
—29—
5)
Within 15 business days after discovery of the leak
by the owner,
operator, or the Agency,
repair and
retest
a vapor collection system which exceeds the
limits of subsection
(d)(4)(A).
e)
A~~y
de~4vefyveaee~e~4ppe~‘et’ vapor reeevery by ~ae
e?
veper eei’~tre~system s1’tei~be des4gr~e~
ert~me4nta4rte&
to
be vapor t4~tat e~ t4me~~4t~g
rtern~e~
operat4er~
anâ
thai3~ ~ot
be
~‘e?4~ed
4i~
~4rto4s
at ether thei,~
A b~k gesei4r~eterm4rtei that eewtp3~4ea
w4th
the
req~4reme~tso?
&eet4er~2~S-~S~
or
A
b~k
gese~4r~ep~e~t
tl’tet eomp~teewtt1’~the
req
remer~t,e?
Seet#or~
&~-S8~+b+T
Repeal
f)
A vapor ba~a~eesystem
sI’~ei~i~
4r~e~~e
the
?eH~ew4r~g
eempor~et~tsi
A vapor spaee eenrteet4er~en the atet4erter’y storaqe
tank that 4s eq~4ppedw4th ?4tt4ngs
wl’t4e~’t are vapor’
A ee
eet4ng p4pe or ~ese that
4s
eq~4ppe~w4th
?4tt4ngs wl’~4e~are vapor t4gl~tand eqti4pment ti’~at
ens~*res
that
t~’tep4pe
or’ I~ese4s eoi’tneeted be?ore
gase~4neean be tra s?er’redt and
~+
A vapor spaee eenneet4on en the de~4ver’yvessei that
te eq~4ppedwtt~~4tt4ngs w~4e~iare
vapor
t4g~’tts~
Repeal
g)
Gasoline dispensing facilities were required to take
certain actions
to achieve compliance which are
summarized
in Appendix C.
Section 215.584 Gasoline Delivery Vessels
a)
Any delivery vessel equipped for vapor control by use of
vapor collection equipment:
Shall
have
a vapor
space connection that
is equipped
with fittings which are vapor tight
2)
Shall have its hatches closed at all times during
loading
or unloading operations, unless
a top
loading vapor recovery system
is used
3)
Shall not internally exceed a gauge pressure
of
18
inches of water or
a vacuum of
6 inches of water
72-138
—30—
4)
Shall
be
designed
and
maintained
to
be
vapor
tight
at all times during normal operations
~j
Shall not be refilled in Illinois
at other
than:
~j
A bulk gasoline terminal that complies with the
requirements of Section 215.582 or
B)
A bulk gasoline plant that complies with the
requirements of Section 215.58l(b)(l) and
(2).
6)
Shall
be tested annually in accordance with the
pressure—vacuum
test procedure described
in EPA
450/2—78—051 Appendix A or other test method
approval by the USEPA.
Each vessel must be repaired
and retested with 15 business days after discovery
of
the leak by the owner,
operator,
or
the Agency,
when
it fails to sustain:
A)
A pressure drop of no more
than three inches of
water
in five minutes; and
~J
A
vacuum
drop
of
no
more
than
three
inches
of
water
in five minutes.
b)
Any
delivery
vessel
meeting
the
re9uirements
of
Subsection
(a)
shall
have
a
sticker
affixed
to
the
tank
adjacent to the tank manufacturer’s data plate which
contains the tester’s name,
the tank identification
number
and the date of the test.
The sticker
shall
be
in
a form prescribed by the Agency.
c)
The owner
or operator
of
a delivery vessel shall:
1)
Maintain copies of any test required under
Subsection
(a)(6) for
a period
of
3 years
2)
Provide copies of these tests to the Agency upon
request;
and
~j
Provide annual test result certification to bulk
gasoline plants and terminals where the delivery
vessel
is
loaded.
d)
Any delivery vessel which has undergone and passed
a
test in another state which has
a USEPA—approved leak
testing and certification program will satisfy the
requirements
of
that
Subsection.
Delivery
vessels
must
display
a
sticker,
decal
or
stencil
acceptable
to
the
state where tested
or comply with the requirements
of
Subsection
(b).
72-139
—31—
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Jacob
D.
Durnelle concurred.
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
the
~
day of
______________,
1986,
by a vote of
~-c2
/
Dorothy
M. Günn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
72.140
