S anta Barbara County APCD 6

- 1

Public Comments and Responses to Comments

– Rules 102 & 316 

### ATTACHMENT 6

PUBLI C COMMENTS AND RESPONSE S

Comment Submitted by

V andenberg Air Force Base, March 10, 2008

[COMMENT 1]

[. . . ]

f. Rule 316 exemption for captured fleets with ORVR. VAFB requested the APCD consider a Rule 202 exemption from the require ments to install enhanced vapor recovery Phase II on gas dispensing facilities fueling captured fleets with on board vapor recovery (ORVR) systems. Please refer to Attachment 2. Attachment 2 provides CARB guidance to local California Districts encouraging them to revise vapor recovery rules requiring fleets.

[ RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1 ]

This request requires a revision to Rule 316, Storage and Transfer of Gasoline. It cannot be accomplished through a revision of Rule 202. We have received the

request to re vise the Rule 316 consistent with the ARB guidance and we are looking into it

.

Comment s Submitted by the

California Air Resources Board

October 15 , 2008

[ COMMENT 2 ] 1

Rule 101 Definitions

1. Gasoline: Air Resources Board’s (ARB) test

method for Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) found in Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 5, Article 4, section

2297 should be listed to be consistent with ARB’s regulations. The test procedure found in section 2297 is deemed equivalent to American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM ) Test Method

D

- 323.

_____________________ 1 For brevity, the District is handling all of these

comments as one comment. Rule 316_Storage and Transfer of Gasoline

2. Section F. Requirements

– Gasoline Delivery Vessels: Cargo tanks, or delivery vesse ls, shall be certified (deemed vapor tight) using ARB Test Method 204.1 and shall meet the year round requirements of ARB Test Methods 204.2 and

204.3

3. Section H. Test Methods: The test method required by ARB for the annual certification of cargo tank s is ARB Test Procedure 204.1. Cargo tanks operating in the State of California MUST meet the requirements of ARB Test Procedure

204.1 in order to receive an annual ARB

certification. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 27 is required by U.S. Dep artment of Transportation to meet annual testing requirements found in Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations.

[ RESPONSE TO COMMENT 2 ]

The APCD incorporated the ARB suggestions into the rules. The two agencies worked together to :

1) re

- draft the Sect ion F text

,

2) confirm the correct CFR title and section for referencing the Department of Transportation cargo tank testing provisions, and

3) clarify federal cargo tank testing requirements (now found in proposed amended Rule 316, Section H.4)

.

The A RB indicated that c argo tank owners and operators are unable to comply with the federal cargo tank testing requirements by submitting the

ARB Test Procedure 204.1 testing results . The federal provisions in EPA Method 27 require 1) repeated pressure tests

, and 2) that the arithmetic average of the two results is within the allowable pressure change

. However, the ARB Test Procedure 204.1 requires only on e pressure test. Thus, complying with the ARB testing requirements and

standards does not satisfy the f ederal requirements.Santa Barbara County APCD 6

- 2

Public Comments and Responses to Comments

– Rules 102 & 316

Comment Submitted by the

California Air Resources Board

December 22 , 2008

[ COMMENT 3 ]

ARB Staff Rule Review Results

[. . .]

The following rules, which are scheduled for a public hearing to be held by your District Board on Januar y 15, 2009, were received by us on November 5, 2008,

for our review:

Rule 102 Definitions

Rule 316 Storage and Transfer of Gasoline

The Air Resources Board staff has reviewed the rules and, based on the information available to us at this time, we have n o comment. The rules were examined by the Monitoring and Laboratory Division, and by the Stationary Source Division.

[. . .]

[ RESPONSE TO COMMENT 3 ]

The District appreciates the input from the Air

Resources Board.

Comments Submitted by

Southern Califo rnia Gas Company

December 23 , 2008

[COMMENT 4 ] 1

Southern California Gas Company Comments on Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Proposed Amended Rule 316 Storage and Transfer of Gasoline, dated

November 20, 2008

December 23, 2008

SCG is asking that SBCAPCD consider revising PAR Rule 316 I.7.(a) to require only 95% of the vehicles to have ORVR systems installed. The provision would then be similar to the recently proposed Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) and the Ve ntura County Air Pollution

___________________ __ 1 For brevity, the District is handling all of these

comments as one comment. Control District amendments, as well as the amendments already adopted by other California air districts (Monterey, San Diego, Bay Area). Such a revision would provide regulatory flexibility for non

retail fleet fueling when a designated percentage of the vehicles are equipped with ORVR. SCG believes this language is more in line with EPA and CARB understanding of Clean Air Act 20 2 a(6).

Unlike many other organizations, SCG is a regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). As a CPUC regulated utility, SCG is subject to customer service requirements and emergency services requirements. Many of our crews and

tech nicians must be able to respond in a timely fashion to service calls and respond to emergencies during natural or manmade disasters. As discussed, SCG cannot simply “lockout” non ORVR vehicles from our GDFs as suggested. The potential penalties

and recrimi nations from the CPUC would not allow the locking out of non ORVR SCG vehicles.

By adopting the 100% ORVR requirement, SBCAPCD might create an unintended consequence. Jurisdictions around SBCAPCD are adopting a 95% ORVR level. Since this is easily attain able, some organizations will transfer their older and non ORVR vehicles into SBCAPCD, and place the newer ORVR vehicles into the other jurisdictions in order to utilize the ORVR exemption. Since older vehicles pollute more, and SBCAPCD does not have regul atory control over motor vehicles, setting the ORVR level at 100% could create more air pollution in

SBCAPCD.

The adoption of the 100% ORVR requirement also makes it very unlikely that any organization would utilize the exemption. Very few organizations can make sure with 100% certainty that no non ORVR vehicles will use the exempt pumps. Unlike a 95% requirement, the 100% requirement places a huge compliance liability on GDF facilities utilizing the exemption. One mistake, and there is no mechanism

for c ompliance other than reinstalling the vapor recovery equipment. This is a significant compliance liability for any organization to adopt. This virtually assures that very few organizations will seek the Phase II exemption. The 95% ORVR requirements

will en courage many organizations to seek the exemption which can provide many advantages that Phase II system cannot achieve. Those advantages

are:

ORVR systems increase the emission reductions from 95% to approximately 97

- 98%. As cited in theSanta Barbara County APCD 6

- 3

Public Comments and Responses to Comments

– Rules 102 & 316 CARB Legal memo dated January 9, 2002 authored by Diane Johnston, CARB determined that ORVR systems with 95% are the equivalent to Phase II systems at 97% or better (Attachment 2). Currently SCG vehicle mix will approximately yield a potential

71% reduction in emissions f rom gasoline fueling.

Phase II systems require numerous pieces of equipment in order to recovery gasoline vapors. These numerous pieces of equipment have a higher probability of failure than ORVR. ORVR systems do not have any human interaction which can lead to increased equipment failures. ORVR systems are warranted for 3 years and 50,000 miles as required by California state law Title 13 Division 3 Chapter 1 Article 6. Most Phase II equipment is warranted for no more than 12 months as required by CARB

r egulations.

ORVR systems increase fuel efficiency and mileage of vehicles with an EPA estimated 78 million gallons of gasoline reduction in fuel use between 1998 and 2020 which will assist in meeting anticipated CARB greenhouse gas emissions reduction re quirements. CARB will be enacting AB 32 regulations in the near future and fuel efficiency is a great tool for reducing greenhouse gases.

EPA plans on removing the requirement for Phase II systems sometime after 2010. Detailed in the December 12, 2006 me mo from Stephen Page and Margo Oge (Attachment 3), section 202 (a)(6) requires EPA to make a widespread use determination and the requirement for Phase II or Stage II as described by EPA can be suspended. The memo details that widespread use is determined by 95% of vehicles fueled to be ORVR compliant.

Southern California Gas has two facilities with gasoline dispensers that are located in the SBCAPCD jurisdiction. The motor vehicles range from light duty autos to heavy duty trucks greater than 10,000 lbs GVWR. Since vehicles over 10,000 lbs. GVWR are not federally mandated to be equipped with ORVR, we believe following the 95% ORVR standard is appropriate. Setting the percent ORVR penetration at 95 percent would allow both operating and compliance flexibil ity for our fleet while increasing

emission reductions in the SBCAPCD.

ORVR systems are actively challenged by the onboard emissions diagnostic systems. ISD is a passive system and does not actively challenge vapor recovery systems. No external system va por recovery system can be monitored and tested as an ORVR systems can.

A GDF operating without a Phase II vapor recovery system and relying on ORVR systems to capture can lead to reduce pressure on GDFs. The July 24, 2008 by Frances Cameron of CARB (Att achment 4) clearly states that if left undisturbed by unusual “vehicle venting”, the ORVR GDF will not pressurize create emissions to the atmosphere. Current Phase II systems require EVR systems to control vapor growth in the vapor space of USTs.

ORVR GDFs do not have the problem.

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4 ]

The District considered making the r equirement “ no less than 95% of the vehicle being refueled with gasoline at nonretail gasoline dispensing facilities

shall be equipped with ORVR. ” We decided to requir e that 100% of these vehicles be equipped with

ORVR because:

1. We do not want any emission increase s from allowing vehicle refueling without controls, and

2. Determination of compliance with a less than

100% ORVR

- equipped vehicle fueling provision

wo uld be more difficult and take additional

resources.

The District understands that the SCG requires flexibility to fuel all types of vehicles and cannot limit the vehicles to only those equipped ORVR. We also understand that the Gas Company is installing the enhanced vapor recovery equipment on the Phase II vapor recovery systems at the two stations located in Santa Barbara County. In this way, SCG will comply

with the requirements of the Air Pollution Control District and the California Public Utilities

Commission.

Comment s Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency

December 23 , 2008

[COMMENT 5 ] 1

We are providing comments based on our preliminary review of the draft rule identified above. Please direct any questions about our comments to

___ _____________________________
1 For brevity, the District is handling all of these

comments as one comment.Santa Barbara County APCD 6

- 4

Public Comments and Responses to Comments

– Rules 102 & 316 me at (415) 947

- 4115 or to Alfred Petersen at (415)

947

- 4118.

316.B.4, 5 & 14: We believe the new definitions for E85, flexible fuel vehicles and onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) are approvable.

316.I.5: This subsection on exemptions for gasoline bulk plants appeared to have expired on January 1,

1992 and should be removed.

316.I.7: We believe the new exemptions from Phase II vapor contr ols for fleets (100% ORVR) and from Phase II vapor controls for E85 facilities are approvable.

316.J: This subsection on compliance schedules appears to have partially expired by 1992 and should be removed or revised and justified.

[RESPONSE TO COMMEN T 5 ]

The District is aware of outdated provisions in the Rule 316 Sections I.5 and J. The intent of the current rulemaking effort is to limit the revisions to the

add ition of the Rule 316, Section I.7 .a and b exemptions . We plan to revisit Rule 316 whe n we perform general administrative

- type rule r evision s sometime in the near future.

Thank you for your input on our new definitions and exemptions.