State of Rhode Island 

Department of Environmental Management 

Office of Air Resources 

In re: Proposed revisions to Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 8 "Sulfur Content of 

Fuels" and Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 20 "Burning of Alternative Fuels. 

DECISION 

Introduction 

On 14 March 2014 a notice was posted on the websites of the Rhode Island Department of 

Environmental Management (RI DEM) and the Rhode Island Office of Secretary of State and 

was mailed to interested parties announcing a public hearing and public comment period to 

accept comments on the adoption of proposed revisions to Air Pollution Control Regulation Nos. 

8 and 20. A public hearing was held on 11 April 2014 at 10:00 AM in Room 230 of the 

Department of Environmental Management. The public comment period ended at 4:00 PM on 14 

April 2014. 

The Department is proposing to revise Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 8 to lower the 

allowable limits on the sulfur content of petroleum-based distillate and residual fuel oils and 

remove some outdated provisions of the regulation. 

In 2009, Rhode Island adopted its Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision, 

committing to various control measures representing Rhode Island's "fair share" contribution 

towards achieving the reasonable progess visibility goals in the Mid-Atlantic Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANE-VU) region by 2018. (EPA established 5 regional planning 

organizations to coordinate regional haze efforts. Rhode Island is a member of one of these 

regional organizations, MANE-VU). These measures included a two-phased reduction in the 

sulfur content of fuel oils. The specific commitment was to reduce the sulfur content (by weight) 

of: 

• Distillate oil to 0.05 percent (560 ppm) by no later than 2014 (Phase I); 

• Distillate oil to 0.0015 percent (15 ppm) by no later than 2018 (Phase II); 

• Residual oil to 0.5 percent (5000 ppm) by no later than 2018. 

APC Regulation No. 8 is being revised to incorporate the control measures committed to in the 

Regional Haze Plan. Limitations on the sulfur content of fuel oils consistent with what RI is 

proposing have been adopted in the states of Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts and proposed 

for adoption in Connecticut. New York and New Jersey have adopted the same limitations, but 

they become effective sooner. 
The outdated provisions that are proposed to be removed are subsections 8.3.2 "Emission 

Bubbling", 8.3.3 "Conversion and Conservation Incentive", 8.3.4 "Large Fuel Burning Devices 

Using Coal" and 8.4.2 "Residual Fuel Oil Shipments to Marine Terminals. 

Additionally, DEM is proposing a revision to APC Regulation No. 20 to revise the sulfur content 

limitation of alternative fuels so that they are consistent with the proposed amendments to APC 

Regulation No. 8. 

Written and/or oral comments were received from the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Capital Terminal Company, Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc., The Oil Heat 

Institute of Rhode Island, The National Biodiesel Board, Kenyon Industries and the Sprague 

Energy. Some of the comments below have been paraphrased. Similar comments have been 

grouped together. The following is the Office of Air Resources' responses to the comments 

received: 

Response to Comments 

Comment: Section 8.2.1 states "Unless the Director declares in writing after a hearing that a 

shortage of fuel oil meeting the requirements of the regulation exists, no person 

shall store for sale, offer for sale, sell or deliver for use in Rhode Island and no 

person shall use any fuel oil having a sulfur content in excess of that in Table 1." 

The rule should not include such an open-ended exemption from the required 

emission limits. EPA, however, recognizes that in certain limited emergency 

situations, a temporary exemption might be appropriate. Therefore, Section 8.2.1 

should be revised to require EPA approval of exemptions and include the criteria 

by which such a determination will be made, as well as the maximum period of 

time for which an exemption would be granted. (USEPA) 

The proposed amendments in Section 8.2.1 will be overly cumbersome and 

difficult to manage should there actually be a supply shortage of product meeting 

the specifications of Table 1. The time it takes to have a public hearing, including 

proper notification, conduct the hearing and then have the director make a 

declaration that a waiver will be allowed, will be far too long to avoid a product 

outage. We suggest that the regulations resemble language being proposed by the 

State of Connecticut to address fuel shortage emergencies. (Capital Terminal 

Company) 

An emergency waiver system that would allow for an exemption of the sulfur-infuel limits and the use of alternative supplies during situations where supplies of 

low-sulfur fuels become constrained would be prudent fro electric generating 

facilities, assuming alternative fuels can even be sourced from outside of the 

region. For this reason, the department should include such a waiver in its 

regulation. (Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc.) 

2 
Should something catastrophic occur and ultra low sulfur heating oil is 

unavailable, time will be of the essence. We recommend that the Governor, after 

consultation with the Director of the Department of Environmental Management 

and the RI Emergency Management Agency, be given the authority to issue and 

Emergency Declaration suspending the requirement until the emergency has 

passed, similar to the authority the Governor has to suspend the Federal Hours of 

Service regulations. (The Oil Heat Institute of Rhode Island) 

Response: The commenters discuss fuel supply shortages that could be due to either a 

catastrophic event/natural disaster or limited availability of supply for other 

reasons. 

For catastrophic events/natural disasters, the current air pollution law contains the 

following provision: 

§23-23-15(d) Notwithstanding the limitations of this section, the director 

may, upon application, defer compliance with the whole or any part of this 

chapter or of any rule or regulation promulgated under this chapter where 

compliance is not possible because of breakdowns or malfunction of 

equipment, acts of God, or other unavoidable casualties; provided that 

this order shall not defer compliance for more than three (3) months. 

The Department believes this authority is adequate to address fuel supply 

shortages due to catastrophic events/natural disasters and includes a maximum 

period of time for the exemption. The Office of Air Resources will add the 

following provision to Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 8: 

8.7 Fuel Supply Shortages 

8.7.1 The Director may, upon application, defer compliance with 

subsection 8.2.1 of this regulation where compliance is not 

possible because of breakdowns or malfunction of equipment, acts 

of God, other unavoidable casualties or for good cause shown; 

provided that the order shall not defer compliance for more than 

three (3) months. 

8.7.2 The Director shall notin) the Administrator within five (5) business 

days after issuing an order deferring compliance with subsection 

8.2.1. 

Comment: In Section 8.4.1, compliance with the applicable limitations set forth in the 

regulation can be shown by emission testing by the owner or operator of the 

source, the owner or operator of the stationary source receiving certification from 

3 
the fuel supplier, or "Laboratory analysis of fuel oils by the owner or operator of 

the stationary source or by the supplier. Sampling and analysis shall be conducted 

after each new shipment of fuel oil is received by the source." The rule should 

also explicitly state the compliance requirements for supplies to non-stationary 

sources, specifically, the compliance requirements for home heating oil. (USEPA) 

Response: The Department believes the only practical method for addressing compliance 

with the sulfur content requirements for home heating oil is to have compliance 

requirements at the distribution rack. Therefore a definition of fuel oil terminal 

and the following requirement has been added to the regulation as follows: 

"Fuel oil terminal" means a fuel oil storage and distribution facility that is 

supplied by pipeline or waterborne vessel, and from which fuel oil may be 

distributed at a loading rack into a truck, trailer, or railroad car. Fuel oil 

terminals may be supplied by additional means such as tank trucks or railroad 

cars. 

8.4.2 Fuel Oil Terminals 

The owner or operator of a fuel oil terminal shall determine the sulfur 

content of any fuel oil sold that is subject to the sulfur content limitations in 

Table I of this regulation and provide certification of the sulfur content of 

the fuel oil to each purchaser of the fuel. Certifications shall meet the 

requirements of subsection 8.4.1(b)(1)-(3). All fuel oil must be sampled and 

analyzed in accordance with applicable ASTM methods or another method 

which has the prior approval of or are required by the Director. 

Comment: The proposed amendments to the regulations limit a terminal operator and 

supplier from blending "out of spec" petroleum products with other ultra low 

sulfur grade products to produce a product meeting the specification in Table 1 of 

the regulations. This is common practice even today in the 3000 ppm sulfur 

market where "out of spec" product may be delivered to the aboveground storage 

facility and blended in tanks at the facility prior to sale at the rack for delivery to 

the end user, within the required specifications. 

The following proposed language, we believe, would meet your goals and would 

be acceptable to facility operators handling distillate products: 

8.3.4 A fuel oil storage facility having a total storage capacity in excess 

of 100,000 barrels which is engaged in the storage and 

distribution at wholesale of fuel oil may receive and store, but not 

distribute or sell, non-conforming product if it meets the following 

conditions: 

4 
Notifies the Director of its intention to store nonconforming fuel oil prior to the initial receipt and storage 

thereof and 

Tests at the point of distribution of such product not less 

than once every three months to determine that the fuel oil 

being distributed meets the requirements of this regulation 

for sale and use, and maintains the results of such tests as 

part of its business records for not less than three (3) years 

and provides the results of such tests to the Director at his 

request. 

Nothing herein shall prevent a fuel oil storage facility from 

transferring previously stored non-conforming fuel oil to a ship, 

barge or rail fro transportation out of State. 

Response: The Department agrees with the commenter that the regulation should allow for 

fuel blending. The Department will add a section to the regulation that allows 

"fuel oil terminals" to blend product. The proposed language is similar to what 

the commenter proposed. 

8.6 Blending of Fuel Oils 

8.6.1 A fuel oil terminal may receive and store, but not offer for sale, sell 

or deliver for use in Rhode Island, fuel oil that does not meet the 

sulfur content limitations in Table 1 of this regulation, if it meets 

the following conditions: 

(a) The higher sulfur fuel will be blended with lower sulfur fuel 

to meet the sulfur content limitations in Table I of this 

regulation; and, 

(b) Notifies the Director, in writing, of its intention to store 

and blend fuel oil that does not meet the sulfur content 

limitations in Table I of this regulation prior to the initial 

receipt and storage thereof and 

8.6.2 Nothing herein shall relieve a fuel oil terminal from compliance 

with the requirements of subsection 8.4.2 of this regulation. 

8.6.3 Nothing herein shall prohibit a fuel oil terminal from receiving 

and storing fuel oil in the state of Rhode Island for shipment, sale 

5 
and use outside of the state of Rhode Island. 

Comment: We agree with the proposed provision under 8.3.2 that allows for fuel oil stored in 

Rhode Island that met the applicable sulfur-in-fuel requirements at the time the 

fuel was stored to be continued to be stored or used after the effective date of the 

revised sulfur-in-fuel limits. This exemption for stored fuel will appropriately 

allow sources to use up existing supplies of stored fuel and eliminate the need to 

remove existing inventories. (Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc.) 

We have a concern with section 8.3.2 of the proposed regulation. Because the 

date of inception is only about ten weeks from now and because heating oil sales 

fall dramatically between April and July 1, we are concerned about those 

companies who have their own storage facilities and their ability to deplete that 

storage in time for the new requirements. The inability to sell off the product 

could have serious impact on those companies. (The Oil Heat Institute of Rhode 

Island) 

Response: The Department believes the concerns raised by The Oil Heat Institute of Rhode 

Island are reasonable and therefore will revise subsection 8.3.2 in response to this 

comment to read: 

8.3.2 Fuel oil stored in Rhode Island that met the applicable requirements of 

subsection 8.2.1 at the time the fuel oil was received for storage in Rhode 

Island may be stored for sale, offered for sale, sold or delivered for use or 

used after the effective date in subsection 8.2.1. 

Comment: The Oil Heat Institute wholeheartedly endorses the lowering of the sulfur content 

in heating oil as proposed. Not only will it help the environment and the air we all 

breathe, it will also benefit oil heating, soon to be bio-heating, consumers in our 

state. Even if there is a price discrepancy between the two products, research has 

shown that the systems will run more efficiently-reducing consumption and 

service-related issues, including the annual tune-up, which will be done less 

frequently. Once we get to 15 ppm, systems will only need a tune-up once every 

five years. (The Oil Heat Institute of Rhode Island) 

The National Biodiesel Board commends the RIDEM for proposing lower 

allowable sulfur limits for No. 2 and No. 6 heating oil. Recent testing at 

Brookhaven National Laboratory has shown that sulfur-based compounds usually 

comprise the majority share of particulate emissions from oil-fired heating 

systems. Lower sulfur in heating oils thus leads directly to reduced PM-2.5 

concentrations in the air that we breathe. 

The new sulfur standards will also lead to greater efficiency of oil-fired heating 

6 
equipment by helping to keep heat exchanger surfaces cleaner over the long term. 

The customer can thus achieve both fuel savings as well as reduced maintenance 

costs. These factors can more than offset any additional base cost of the fuel due 

to sulfur removal. (The National Biodiesel Board) 

Response: 

Comment: 

These comments support the regulation as proposed and no revision to the 

regulation is necessary in response to the comments. 

The state's proposal to lower the allowable sulfur content of residual fuel oil from 

the current 1% to 0.5% will have a significant financial impact on our business. 

Today the actual price differential between 0.5% sulfur residual fuel oil and 1% 

sulfur residual fuel oil is 28.6 cents per gallon. If the allowable sulfur content of 

residual fuel oil took effect today, our annual cost for fuel oil would increase more 

than $250,000. 

If the state is unable or unwilling to delay imposing the restriction on fuel oil 

sulfur content, we would ask for two things: 

1. We would ask that the proposed regulation be modified so that large industrial 

users who are currently permitted to burn 1% sulfur residual fuel oil and who 

do not have the option to switch to natural gas be allowed to continue to burn 

1% sulfur residual fuel oil after July 1, 2018. 

2. We would ask that the state assist large residual fuel oil users, who do not 

have the option to switch to natural gas, to have a natural gas pipeline 

extended to their facility. (Kenyon Industries) 

Response: It is extremely difficult, if not impossible to accurately predict what the price of 

0.5% sulfur residual fuel oil is going to be in 2018 relative to 1% sulfur residual 

fuel oil. The commenter suggested the same in his testimony. The commenter 

discussed the price differential today of the two products and the financial burden 

that would impose on their company. The commenter did not discuss the savings 

that would result as well. Lower sulfur fuel oil will result in less boiler scale and 

therefore reduced maintenance costs and improved combustion efficiency. 

The Department does not believe that the commenter provided sufficient adverse 

comment on the proposed revisions to warrant delaying implementation of the 

regulation. The commenter requested that if the Department did not delay 

implementation of the revised regulation that the Department either: 

1. Allow large users who are currently permitted to burn 1% sulfur residual fuel 

oil and do not have the option to switch to natural gas be allowed to continue 

to burn 1% sulfur residual fuel oil after July 1, 2018; or, 

7 
2. The state assist large residual fuel oil users, who do not have the option to 

switch to natural gas, to have a natural gas pipeline extended to their facility. 

The commenter (Kenyon Industries) currently has the capability of burning an 

alternative fuel (propane). The Department does not think it is warranted to revise 

the regulation to continue to allow the use of the higher sulfur fuel oil if a facility 

has an option for an alternative fuel. With respect to the commenter's second 

request, the Department will, if requested by the company, meet to discuss how it 

can assist the company with its effort to have a natural gas pipeline extended to 

their facility. 

If in 2018, when the lower sulfur requirements go into effect, the price differential 

between 1% sulfur residual fuel oil and 0.5% sulfur residual fuel oil is significant 

and the commenter believes there will be a significant financial burden on their 

company, the current air pollution law does contain the following provision: 

§ 23-23-15 Variances. — (a) Upon application and after a hearing, the 

director may suspend the enforcement of the whole or any part of this 

chapter or of any rule or regulation promulgated under this chapter in the 

case of any person who shall show that the enforcement of this chapter 

would constitute undue hardship on that person without a corresponding 

benefit or advantage obtained by it; provided, that no suspension shall be 

entered deferring compliance with a requirement of this chapter or the 

rules and regulations promulgated under this chapter, unless that deferral 

is consistent with the provisions and procedures of the federal Clean Air 

Act, 42 US.C. § 7401 et seq. 

(b)In determining under what conditions and to what extent the variance 

may be granted, the director shall give due recognition to the progress 

which the person requesting the variance shall have made in eliminating 

or preventing air pollution. In this case, the director shall consider the 

reasonableness of granting a variance conditioned on the person's 

effecting a partial abatement of the pollution or a progressive abatement 

of the pollution or any other circumstances that the director may deem 

reasonable. No variance shall be granted to an), person applying for it 

who is causing air pollution which creates a danger to public health or 

safety. 

(c)Any variance granted under this chapter shall be granted for any 

period of time, not exceeding one year, as the director shall spec0), but 

any variance may be continued from year to year. No variance shall be 

construed as to relieve the person receiving it from any liability imposed 
Douglas McVay 

Hearing Officer 

by law for the commission or maintenance of a nuisance nor shall there be 

any appeal from a denial of a variance. 

Therefore a variance request is an option for the commenter. 

No revision to the regulation will be made in response to this comment. 

Decision 

It is the decision of the Office of Air Resources to amend the draft Air Pollution Control 

Regulation Nos. 8 and 20 as indicated in the response to comments above. The final amended 

regulation is appended to this Decision. 

Date 

Approved: 

Date Janet Coit, Director 

Department of Environmental Management 

9