executive)committee)meeting) boca)raton,fl) november)29,2012) · executive)committee)meeting)...

Executive Committee Meeting Boca Raton, FL

November 29, 2012

EComm Winter Mtg 2012 Slide# 1

2012 Executive Committee Meeting Itinerary

Wednesday, November 28 – Arrival •  Golf -‐ 1:00 PM – Resort Course •  Check – In – 3:00 PM •  Dinner

–  6:30 PM – Lucca – on site Thursday, November 29 -‐ Mee<ng •  ConGnental Breakfast

–  7:30 AM – Boardroom

November 29 – cont’d •  MeeGng – 8:00 AM – 12:00 PM – Boardroom •  Golf – 1:00 PM – Country Club Course

–  Meet in lobby 12:30 pm

•  Dinner 6:30 PM – Cielo – on site

•  Friday November 30 -‐ Departure –  11:00AM -‐ Checkout


Agenda


Anti-‐Trust Guidelines 1. The purpose of RFGSA is to conduct compliance surveys. Discussions at RFGSA meeGngs should be limited to issues that are germane to this purpose. 2. There should be no discussion of compeGGvely sensiGve maSers at RFGSA meeGngs. In parGcular, there should be no discussion of member companies’ (a) prices, (b) costs, or (c) confidenGal business informaGon, including markeGng plans. 3. Company representaGves should not discuss their company’s strategies and plans for complying with regulatory requirements. 4. Members generally may discuss whether RFGSA should support or oppose proposals for government regulaGon or legislaGon. 5. If anyone has a concern that a parGcular topic of discussion may present an anGtrust issue, they should raise their concern with RFGSA. Mr. Lenski can consult with RFGSA’s anGtrust counsel as needed. In addiGon, members are always free to consult with their own company counsel.


Association Operations

•  Efficient/EffecGve – Business Model – Leverages Resources/Low Cost

•  46 RFG Member Companies – 2 new (2 NoGce) – ULSD – 26 Companies – E15 – 91 Companies

•  5 Programs – Federal, Ethanol, AZ, ULSD, E15 – Pay to parGcipate – Minimum RFGSA/ULSD dues -‐ $5K/1.3K/yr.


Association Highlights

•  E15 Program Development/Start-‐up – $100k RFA/GE start-‐up – E15 Agreement – Survey Design Approval – PNC – Non-‐Compliance clarified – Website – Upgrades/IntegraGon/Management – Credit Card Processing – Financial AccounGng System -‐ database


Association Highlights

•  ULSD Program Revision – <$600K> budget – >60% sample reducGon/maintain benefits – 5.4% reducGon – Label Issues – Label Ast. Pgm

•  STR costs – 2013 – flat •  Key Personnel Changes – SWRI/EC •  Program Efficiencies/Improvements/Proposals

– Cap/Plug – D3606 – full prep – D2622 – new equipment – D6550 – Olefins proposal


Technical Committee

•  E15 •  Quality Control •  ULSD •  RFG/Etoh/AZ


E15 Program

•  Current Program Status •  Survey Requirements •  Survey OperaGon •  Design, TesGng, ReporGng •  RegistraGon -‐ Non-‐E15 ParGcipant •  Program OperaGons/Issues


Current Program Status

•  RFA/GE – NaGonal -‐ E15 Program – 04/23/12 •  EPA Approves:

– Survey Design Plan – NaGonwide -‐ 05/24/12 – Misfueling MiGgaGon Plan – 6/15/12

•  Survey commences -‐ 6/16/12 – OperaGons ongoing

•  Pending liGgaGon – 8/17/12 – “Dismissed” -‐ •  10/01 -‐ API et al. filed peGGon – En Banc


Survey Purpose

•  Survey designed to demonstrate compliance with labeling, ethanol content and related requirements.

•  Summer Gme RVP – E15 only •  Deter violaGons


E15 Commerce

•  IniGally -‐ Refiners, Blenders – restrict E15 •  E15 Blending – Site Blenders •  E15 transiGon – site blender(s) – fuel terminal(s) over Gme

•  CompeGGve pressure – likely to induce addiGonal E15 acGvity

•  Possible Result -‐ Retail tank/splash/ off-‐site blending may occur

•  Reg’s require E15 survey process to closely monitor -‐ miGgate mis-‐fueling


Survey Participants •  Any gasoline refiner/importer, ethanol blender, ethanol producer/importer who manufactures, introduces into commerce, sells or offers for sale E15, gasoline, blendstock for oxygenate blending, ethanol, or gasoline ethanol blend that is “intended” for use in or as E15 shall comply with the survey program requirements

•  In all areas which may be “reasonably” expected to be supplied with their gasoline, blendstock for oxygenate blending, ethanol, or gasoline-‐ethanol blend if these may be used to manufacture E15 or as E15 at “any Gme during the year”.


E15 Survey Requirements

•  Prior to introducGon of E15 into commerce •  EPA approved -‐ Misfueling MiGgaGon & Survey Design plans

•  Meet requirements of § 80.1502 •  TesGng E15 , Oxy Vol%, RVP (summer E15 labeled), Oxy content/Correct labeling/retests

•  ReporGng – EPA/Industry – PNC’s (24 hrs.) •  Escrow$$/contracts – prior “each” survey start


Survey Design

•  OpGons: Geographic, NaGonwide* •  3 Strata, DPA/TCA/RSA

– DPA Substrata •  Minimum sample size 7500/yr.*

– Clusters – Approx. 3100/sub-‐cluster/size •  IniGally, SB Registered – sampled/certainty/Qtr.

•  Sampling -‐ Focus of E15/E10 *NaGonwide OpGon -‐ 2012


Survey – Sampling, Testing •  Procure and Ship samples next day •  Photos -‐ E15 sampled dispenser/info others •  EPA approved laboratory •  Test samples – per regulaGons

– Analysis – 10 days •  D5599 – (RFGSA recommended)

– Oxygenate, RVP (E15 – only, summer) •  Retest – PotenGal Non-‐Compliance (PNC)

–  Content/Label mismatch


Survey Reporting

•  ReporGng/noGficaGons/resoluGon -‐ RFGSA website

•  PNC’s -‐ Expedited – Label-‐Content issues/RVP/Refusals/No labels – 24 hours – analysis (10 b-‐days/receipt) – NoGce to EPA/Registered ParGcipants

•  Non-‐parGcipants – call out/mail – Retests – Content/Label mismatch

•  Aggregate – Dynamic •  Quarterly – EOQ + 60 days


Reporting – PNC’s

Updated 10/03/12


Aggregate Report -‐ Example


RFGSA -‐ Website

•  RFGSA.ORG •  Register •  Manage

– Co. space – Data/Results

•  AcGons •  Resolve •  Report

EComm Winter Mtg 2012 Slide 21

Registration – Overview

•  RegistraGon – Enroll – Current Qtr./2013 •  Bi-‐monthly (15th, 30th) •  Billing – Close/Next business day •  Payment received/escrow – Eligible for E15 •  Survey registraGons to EPA •  Survey ConfirmaGon – CredenGals Issued •  Eligible for Survey ParGcipaGon •  Register addiGonal areas


Survey Registration -‐ Info

•  RFGSA Website – E15 Program – Company/Billing InformaGon – MMP – submission status – Agree Terms & CondiGons –  IdenGfy Survey Role(s)/Provide Info

•  Ethanol Producer – FaciliGes •  Refiner – Blendstock Volume •  TradiGonal Blenders – Ethanol Blend volumes •  Site Blender – locaGon count(s) •  Non-‐E15 ParGcipant


Registration – Cont’d – Survey Area descripGon – ST/county/zip

•  Owned or controlled Brands •  StaGon list

•  Down/Up/load info for registraGon •  Submit RegistraGon to RFGSA •  RFGSA billing email

– Payment terms – immediate – ACH or CC billing – RFGSA site

•  No Survey ParGcipaGon – unGl payment cleared


Registration -‐ Confirmation

•  RFGSA noGce •  Emails/InformaGon

– 1) Log in credenGals/Images/website link – 2) Access -‐ web downloads

•  Basic website funcGons video •  More advanced features – Manage users/Problem resoluGon -‐ AcGons


Non-‐E15 Participant

•  Surveys provide Etoh data to EPA •  Only ParGcipants – Data access •  Refiners – interested in branded data •  Enroll E15 Pgm as “Non-‐E15 ParGcipant” •  Dues based on % Refiner Total US Gasoline Prod/Imp(CG+RFG) to Total US Gasoline producGon * Refiner share of budget

•  Access to only Company E15 Pgm data


Program Issues

•  Summary Results •  Program CommunicaGon

•  Field Issues – Label/Pump

•  Other


Summary E15 Results as of 11/15/12

•  NaGonwide sampling started 6/16/12 •  Samples Analyzed – 80% (3205/4004)

– EmpGes -‐ 20% (799/4004) •  Closed perm -‐ 61%

– Refusals -‐ 3% – Revisits – 1.0% -‐ 60% pickup (2nd visit)


E15 Program PNCs as of 11/15/12

•  E0/E10 – 5% PNC •  E15 – EtOH/RVP -‐ 64% PNC •  Refusals – 3% • Overall – 7% PNC


Program Communication

•  RFGSA reach out to all Trade AssociaGons – Conference Call/Webinars/presentaGons/mtg’s

•  General lack of Program Understanding – Program/Products to be sampled/Process

•  Retailers – Site Blend(SB)/Non-‐SB •  States unaware of E15 Program

–  EPA noGfied –  Recommend EPA communicaGon

•  Regional EPA – in some cases

•  PNC noGces – dealer quesGons/concerns


Field Issues

•  Training 378 IC’s + •  Program communicaGon/Understanding •  Grade SelecGon/Priority •  Pump labeling – blender pumps

– E15 Label Guide -‐ modificaGons – FOR modificaGons


E15 Label Guide

•  Two Page Guide 1.  RFGSA Info LeSer 2.  Photos that show

labeling opGons


E15 Labeling Guidelines

EComm Winter Mtg 2012 33

E15 4 Gallon Minimum

•  MMP requires minimum volume label when E10 is dispensed through same hose as E15+

•  E15 → E10 → 4 Gal. = E10.4 •  E85 → E10 → 4 Gal. = E16.3


E15 Pump Photos -‐ Correct

Minimum Volume Label Proper E15

Label


E15 Pump Photo Issues

E10 thru Flex Hose –

Min purchase?


E15 Pump Photo – Conflicting Labels

Flex Only

Non-‐Flex

Non-‐RegulaDon Label

E20?


E15 Pump Photos -‐ Incorrect

25% E85 = 21% 25% E70 = 18%

Up to10% ?


E15 Pump Photos -‐ Incorrect


Other

•  Field Issues -‐ PNC •  Photo Management Process

– Pump labeling – DisposiGon codes – Website – Filtering Enhancements

•  ReporGng Error •  E15 2013 Program modificaGon


Field Issues -‐ PNC

•  Sampling process ? – How sampling is done – Minimum fills

•  Blender pumps – Varied blend stocks – Target blend ranges – Cost associated with maintenance

•  FrustraGon – Right thing •  RFGSA involvement

Slide# 41 EComm Winter Mtg 2012

Photo Management System

•  IC assigned work/sample id’s •  Samples procured -‐ shipped •  IC uploads photos to system •  Soxware – key FOR data/photo -‐ label verificaGon/pump type

•  Discrepancies noted FOR* -‐ 11/08/12 •  PNC idenGfied -‐ communicated •  No photo – unable to upload to website


Reporting Error

•  10/12 -‐ Iowa RFA – sent leSer to RFGSA & EPA management (GM, CG), RFA and GE – PNC noGce sent to locaGon (09/01) – indicated RVP issue and correct E15 label

– PNC in error – noGfy EPA and sampling personnel E15 FFV is permiSed to be sold

•  Review sampling procedures and correct any other PNC noGces involving E15 FFV’s

•  False alarm, dampens Pgm enthusiasm


Reporting Error -‐ Issues •  E10 and an E15 samples (plus info sample) were collected from this staGon and a

picture was taken of the pump. •  IC error: IC incorrectly sampled the E15 Flex fuel in spite of clear instrucGons on

Field Origin Report (FOR) and in training advising NOT to collect samples of Flex fuels.

•  IC Error: IC incorrectly indicated on the FOR that the orange E15 label was present on the pump.

•  IC emailed pump photo to Lab along with photos from several other staGons. •  Lab error: This photo did not get moved from email to website. (Other photos

were moved. This one was missed for some unexplainable reason. New web-‐based photo upload process solves this problem.)

•  Photo review system emailed IC about the missing photo. •  Lab error: Sample was posted to website idenGfied as PNC without the photo

verificaGon of non-‐flex E15 product type. (At this Gme we were thinking we could rely on FOR informaGon alone. New procedures will solve this problem.)

•  Lab error: Insufficient follow-‐up axer the email was sent to IC about missing photo. (New process: Sample will not be reported unGl photo is obtained, re-‐sampled or deemed error. Stays on our radar screen unGl resolved.)


Reporting Error – Procedural changes

•  Photos are absolutely required for all samples •  IC will use website to upload photos (implemented 9/11/12)

•  ReporGng system will be modified to simply not allow reporGng without a photo (implemented 9/24/12)

•  ICs must agree to provide a photo when accepGng each assignment

•  IC will not be paid if photo is not provided / Lab will request photo or resample the staGon if necessary

•  Lab will enhance the IC training regarding proper E15 labeling


Reporting Error – Corrective Actions

•  Subject PNC’s withdrawn -‐ total 7 samples •  DisposiGon Code will be changed to “Lab Error” •  Comments have been placed on each sample on the website to explain that the PNC was withdrawn

•  All procedural changes discussed have been implemented

•  EPA/respecGve retailers noGfied of issue and acGons taken


Reporting Error -‐ Summary

•  Discussed response with EPA •  Responded IRFA -‐ 10/22/12 •  Discussed with J. BraeuGgam •  Concern – Purpose ?


E15 2013 Survey Modification

•  RFA contacted EPA -‐ 11/16/12 •  Reduce scope of MMP (i.e. survey)

–  lower cost •  Slow commercializaGon •  Lack of Oil industry parGcipaGon •  Challenging economic condiGons •  RFGSA – noGfied of pending leSer


E15 2013 Survey Modification

•  RFGSA E15 Survey Design Revision – 11/21/12 •  Move to primarily geographic focus

– No sample size minimum – Known/likely areas E15 – New areas – added – Program costs reduced – Compliance sensiGvity maintained

•  EPA response -‐ pending


Quality Control Process

•  Field & Lab Performance – SWRI

•  Internal –  Field Audits/Paperwork – (ExcepGon) –  Lab Quality Reports – (CAR)

•  External –  Lab Audits -‐ TMC

»  Field Audits/Paperwork –  Inter Lab Cross Checks


•  Field & Lab Performance – SWRI

•  Internal –  Field Audits/Paperwork – (ExcepGon) –  Lab Quality Reports – (CAR)

•  External –  Lab Audits -‐ TMC

»  Field Audits/Paperwork –  Inter Lab Cross Checks

Quality Control Process


2012 Sample Distribution

as of 10/5/2012

E15, 2945,22%

RFG, 3,805, 28%ETOH,

2,303, 17%

ETOH-AZ,75, 1%

RFAZ, 404, 3%

ULSD, 3924,29%

2012 Sample Percentages

RFG, 4,635, 34%

ETOH, 3,337, 24%

ETOH-AZ, 125, 1%

RFAZ, 404, 3%

ULSD, 5,289, 38%

Last Year's Sample Percentages


Document Exceptions – All Programs

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

Rec

eipt

FOR

Tag

Invo

ice

Airb

ill

No

Rec

eipt

No

FOR

No

Tag

No

Invo

ice

No

Airb

ill

Nea

tnes

s pr

oble

ms

Han

dwrit

ing

prob

lem

s

Lette

r to

cont

ract

or

Phon

e ca

ll to

cont

ract

or

Doc

k

Varia

ble

Doc

k

Sam

ples

Affe

cted

Document Exceptions

E15RFGRFAZETOHULSD20112010


Procurement Exceptions – All Programs

0.00%

0.02%

0.04%

0.06%

0.08%

0.10%

0.12%

0.14%

0.16%

0.18%Plugging

Volume

Nozzle

extension

Leak ch

ecking

Safety

Organiza

tion

Flush

Lette

r of

Introd

uctio

n

Wrong Station

Wrong Grade

Sample No

t Procured

Sampled

Outsid

e of

Sample Pe

riod

%Samples Affe

cted

Procurement Exceptions

E15

RFG

RFAZ

ETOH

ULSD

2011

2010


Overall Exceptions

CI Target = 75% of previous two-‐year average

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

Document Exceptions Procurement Exceptions Overall Exceptions

201020112012CI Target


Project CAR summary

•  IC sampled during VOC season w/o nozzle extension -‐ resampled

•  SwRI failed to mail nozzle extension – training •  Cold box – call out -‐ monitoring system failed – dedicated computer

•  Samples reported axer due date – E15 -‐


Total RFG Project CARs

CI Target=75% of previous two-‐year average

8 2 3 4

65

4

2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

2009 2010 2011 2012

SwRI CARs CI Target


Project CAR Categories

2012201120102009

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Cal

cula

tion

Com

mun

icat

ion

Com

pute

r

Con

tam

inat

ion

Equi

pmen

t

Met

hodo

logy

Mis

iden

tific

atio

n

Obs

erva

tion

Pape

rwor

k

Proc

edur

al

Res

ourc

es

Sam

ple

Prop

erty

Stat

istic

al

Trai

ning

Unk

now

n

In P

rogr

ess

0.51.0

2.5

2012201120102009


Technical Committee

•  QA Summary •  Lab Audits •  Other AcGon Items

– Sample can Issue – D6550 Proposal – D3606 – Lab OpGmizaGon – EtOH Rerun Criteria


QA Summary


Test Method CAR Summary

SwRI •  D 86 E300

–  2012-‐CAR-‐0197 Multiple results rejected from Atlantic Regional CC program •  D 7039 Sindie Sulfur

–  2012-‐CAR-‐0188 Incorrect data reported on 2 different ASTM NEG samples •  D 3606 Benzene

–  2012-‐CAR-‐0196 Benzene result did not repeat on proprietary CC program –  2012-‐CAR-‐0239 Samples prepped by technician without certification

•  D 5769 GCMS Aromatics –  2012-‐CAR-‐0188 Incorrect data reported for proprietary CC program

•  D 4052 Density/SG –  2012-‐CAR-‐0137 Density results on 2 proprietary programs did not repeat

SGS •  D 1319 FIA

–  61J-‐0147 Lab personnel not familiar with size verifications process of FIA rods •  General Lab

–  61J-‐0148 Several points on control charts were above or below the mean


SGS CAR -‐ 61J-‐0148 •  Non-‐conformance

–  Auditors noted that there were several QC checks that were above or below the mean of the test standard

•  Root Cause –  Due to repeated openings, QC samples had lost light ends

contributing to high and low biases –  QC sample containers found to be less than half full –  Proper sample handling procedures were not being followed on QC

samples •  Corrective Action

–  QC samples replaced with new, full containers –  Container size reduced significantly –  QC samples will be placed back in chiller when not in use

•  Status –  Closed

•  Source –  TM Audit


•  2011 – D86 Glassware temp

•  2012 – 2 SwRI / 1 SGS Lab Audit –  June Findings – FIA syringe temperature – Sept Findings – Control Chart – Field Findings – Nozzle Extension issues+minor – Financial Audit – in progress / receipt copies

Lab Audits


•  D86 – Glassware Temperature – Last TMC audit comment on D86 Glassware Temperature

– Logically shouldn’t affect the test –  It is a method requirement – SoluGon: Use and Ice Chest with cool packs

•  D1319 Syringe Temperature – Chilled at start of test – Chilled by rinsing with sample for subsequent tests – EvaluaGng use of cool packs

Audit Corrective Actions


•  Implemented July 2012 •  Issues with ImplementaGon

– Required new test definiGon – Required change to Split, Prep, Sequencing programs

•  Mainly affected repreps

– Large volume of glassware cleaning •  Designed a siphon cleaner (Similar to a pipeSe bath)

– Trend appears posiGve

D3606 Prep Change


•  Does Benzene QC contain Ethanol? – We run two QC’s (one E10, one E0) – E10 is the one charted

•  Has the Bias been Masked on the Control Chart? – SQCPack Soxware – random temporary limits? – Lab acGon item to invesGgate/recommend

•  TC members provide feedback – QA/QC pkgs.

– PPRD Director – champion project

Other Benzene Action Items


•  Add old D86 r & R calculaGons as a Footnote in the ILCCP Report – RecommendaGon – no value added

•  Use FIA Control sample for D6550 – Did not perform well due to the large volume of an α-‐olefin (1-‐Hexene)

– 1-‐Hexene sGcks to column, requires long run Gmes

Other Action Items


•  Permeability of LDPE plugs – Possible ethanol factor –  Issues – Shipping/Sample Integrity?

•  Studied Problem •  CorrecGve AcGon: New Can Closure

– Teflon-‐Lined Cap / No Plug •  ImplementaGon: Mid December

Sample Can Issue


D6550 Proposal

•  Developments – AlternaGve to Refinery Specific CorrelaGon developed

•  Olefins -‐ similar / EPA difference measurement •  ILCCP – reasonable conversion •  Review proposal with TechComm

– Discussed with EPA (AA) shared with DC in May/April •  Ann Arbor (asserGon?) deferred to DC •  No Response from DC •  Follow-‐up email 6/5/12 (no response)

– Need EPA’s buy in.

•  Limited Progress •  Primary Focus on LIMS Merger

–  IncorporaGon of the Fuel Survey rouGnes – Oils Lab Review – Began work on GC area OpGmizaGon rouGne

•  Project Champion – Management – LIMS integraGon scheduled 2/01/13

Lab Optimization Update


EtOH Rerun Criteria •  Method Precision at 10 wt%: r=0.25/R=1.7 •  SwRI Rerun rules:

–  <9.2wt% (approx. 8.6vol%) – >11.3 wt% (approx. 10.5 vol%) – >16.5wt% (approx. 15.4vol%) -‐ E15 fuels

•  2nd Rerun if Rep1-‐Rep2 difference>Lab Precision (approx. 3r / 0.75@10)

•  Exclude >R •  Implemented 11/12/12


•  Program Results •  Program Issues •  Program Restructure

ULSD Program


ULSD Program 2012 3rd Qtr and YTD

Labeling and Concentration Statistics

+Other Pump 0.5% +Other Pump 3.3%

5.4% 8.4%

LSD 0.5%

NOLABEL 4.9%

ULSD 73.9%

ULSD-Improper

20.8%

UNKNOWN0.0%

Current QuarterLabel Percentages

S<18ppm99.9%

S>=18ppm0.1%

Current QuarterConcentration Percentages

LSD 0.8%

NOLABEL 5.1%

ULSD 71.2%

ULSD-Improper

22.9%

UNKNOWN 0.1%

Program YTD Label Percentages

S<18ppm99.9%

S>=18ppm0.1%

Program YTDConcentration Percentages


Sulfur Data Summary


2012 3rd Quarter Statistics


Sulfur Trend


2012 New Equation Statistics

Target: < 5.0%

Stratum #Analyzed #PNC-‐Sulfur %PNC-‐Sulfur #PNC-‐All %PNC-‐AllDPA 1800 0 0.0% 675 37.5%

Interstate 1345 5 0.4% 494 36.7%Rural 1306 3 0.2% 555 42.5%

OVERALL: Target: ≤ 1.9%

Year #Analyzed #PNC-‐Sulfur %PNC-‐Sulfur #PNC-‐All %PNC-‐All2011 4451 8 0.2% 1724 38.7%

Annual PNC PercentagesLast Year:

Target: < 5.0%

Stratum #Analyzed #PNC-‐Sulfur %PNC-‐Sulfur #PNC-‐All %PNC-‐AllDPA 1335 1 0.1% 37 2.8%

Interstate 995 1 0.1% 45 4.5%Rural 984 0 0.0% 43 4.4%

OVERALL: Target: ≤ 1.9%

Year #Analyzed #PNC-‐Sulfur %PNC-‐Sulfur #PNC-‐All %PNC-‐All2012 3314 2 0.1% 125 3.8%

Annual PNC Percentages


2012 YTD ULSD Sulfur Averages by State and Zip Code

AvgS<18PPM: 2338AvgS>=18PPM: 2

Avg S<18PPM: 51Avg S>=18PPM: 0

AK: YesHI: Yes

PR: YesVI: No

ZIP CODES

STATES

Other Areas Tested?

2012 YTDend of 3rd Quarter 2012


•  Website – Distributor Issues •  Website Changes •  Sampling Issues •  Program ReporGng •  Program Restructure proposal •  Next TC MeeGng – March 20, 2013 – San Antonio, TX

ULSD – Program Issues


1.   Distributors NOT seeing assigned samples – Website iniGally displays PNCs –  Label Issues are no longer PNC – Must Filter to find the SampleId

2.   Distributors at WRONG Login page •  Correct link: hSps://rfgsa.swri.org/MemberLogin.aspx

Website Issues


•  SampleId Filtering – larger input box (acGon item)

•  New Filtering OpGons

Website Changes


Sampling Issues

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Temporarily Closed

Permanently Closed

Refused Sampling

Grade not sold

Grade Temporarily Unavailable


ULSD Label Guidelines •  A ULSD label issue has been

idenGfied at this locaGon. The correct ULSD label is aSached for your use.

•  The image on the right may assist you in correcGng this situaGon.

•  For more informaGon or addiGonal labels contact your fuel supplier.


•  3,927 samples requested

•  2 Sulfur PNCs -‐ both reported within 24 hours •  114 Refusal PNCs (97% reported within 24 Hours/3% within 48 hours) •  969 Label Issues (89% reported within 24 hrs/ 11% within 48 hrs) •  All samples reported within 5 days

Program Reporting – 2012 YTD

Disposition 2012Analyzed 2,345 59.7% 54.0%Pump not labeled 184 4.7% 5.0%Improper Labeling 785 20.0% 25.1%Temporarily Closed 37 0.9% 1.2%Permanently Closed 293 7.5% 7.1%Refused verbally threatened 2 0.1% 0.0%Refused sampling 112 2.9% 2.4%Closed after hours 7 0.2% 0.2%Grade not sold 82 2.1% 2.4%Lab Error 3 0.1% 0.5%Card Locked 22 0.6% 0.5%Grade Temporarily Unavailable 52 1.3% 1.2%Bad address. Sample not collected. 1 0.0% 0.0%Duplicate address. This can not used. 2 0.1% 0.3%No sample -‐ Large diameter nozzle 0 0.0% 0.0%Total 3,927

84.4%

15.6%

84.2%

15.8%

Percentage 2011


•  EPA has agreed program restructure •  Approx. 60% reducGon in sampling/costs •  EffecGve 2013 •  Regulatory process

– Proposed rule – aSached to larger issue •  Stalled -‐ elecGon

– Likely finalized early 2013

ULSD Program -‐ Restructure


•  Minimum dues $1250/yr. •  EsGmated costs $16.50 per staGon – 44% reducGon

•  Dues billing – Oct 1 •  Dues to RFGSA – December 1

Program Costs 2013


– Summary StaGsGcs

– Aggregate Results •  Non-‐Compliance/Ethanol

– Performance Measures/Trends

– Program Issues

RFG Surveys – 2012


•  Survey Requests – 118 (114Fed/4AZ) •  All RFG areas

– 55/45% Mandated vs.. Opt-‐in •  Samples Analyzed – 90%

– EmpGes (10%/11%) Fed / AZ •  Closed -‐ Perm -‐ 60%

– Refusals – 0.8% – Revisits –1.6% -‐ 60% pickup (2nd visit)

2012 RFG Program Review Summary Statistics

thru 9/13/12


RFG Survey Aggregate Results 2012 as of 9/13/12

Target Values <= 1.00 /0.625 >=0.0 >=5.5 >=20.0Survey Area Date Oxygen, wt% Benzene, vol% NOx(w) Red. NOx(s) Red. VOC Red. VOC Std. Toxics Red.Atlantic City, NJ YTD 3.6 0.640 13.3 12.4 28.3 25.9 30.9Baltimore, MD YTD 3.7 0.460 15.5 14.9 29.9 27.5 36.0Boston-Worchester, MA YTD 3.7 0.590 15.8 12.8 28.2 25.9 32.8Chicago-Lake Co., IL, Gary, IN YTD 3.6 0.600 16.3 15.4 27.0 23.9 36.6Covington, KY YTD 3.7 0.360 18.1 16.2 28.4 25.9 35.5CT - remainder YTD 3.6 0.690 14.5 13.2 27.4 25.9 36.0Dallas-Fort Worth, TX YTD 3.7 0.470 15.5 15.2 30.5 27.5 35.0Hartford, CT YTD 3.6 0.700 14.6 13.4 28.0 25.9 34.9Houston-Galveston, TX YTD 3.6 0.490 14.3 13.9 30.0 27.5 35.9Louisville, KY YTD 3.7 0.280 17.2 16.0 28.5 25.9 36.9Manchester, NH YTD 3.6 0.620 15.2 13.0 27.7 25.9 33.0Milwaukee-Racine, WI YTD 3.7 0.700 16.3 14.3 27.0 23.9 35.3Norfolk-Virginia Beach, VA YTD 3.7 0.430 16.4 13.7 30.0 27.5 34.8NY-NJ-Long Is.-CT YTD 3.7 0.570 13.2 11.7 27.7 25.9 34.9Phila.-Wilm, DE-Trenton, NJ YTD 3.6 0.660 14.0 10.8 28.3 25.9 33.5Portsmouth-Dover, NH YTD 3.6 0.640 14.7 13.4 27.8 25.9 33.6Poughkeepsie, NY YTD 3.7 0.680 12.7 11.0 27.8 25.9 32.2Queen Anne Co.-Kent Co., MD YTD 3.7 0.490 15.9 14.2 30.0 25.9 34.4Rhode Island YTD 3.6 0.630 15.2 14.7 27.6 25.9 33.9Richmond, VA YTD 3.7 0.410 15.0 13.9 30.3 27.5 36.0Springfield, MA YTD 3.6 0.680 14.6 13.8 27.9 25.9 35.7St. Louis, MO YTD 3.7 0.490 14.6 14.3 29.7 27.5 34.1Sussex County, DE YTD 3.6 0.570 14.7 11.7 28.3 25.9 33.5Warren County, NJ YTD 3.7 0.560 13.9 11.7 27.8 25.9 32.9Washington, D.C.-area YTD 3.7 0.420 15.8 14.6 30.3 27.5 35.0Grand YTD Averages: YTD 3.6 0.570 15.2 13.5 28.4 26.0 35.9

Phoenix, AZ YTD 3.6 14.2 29.8 27.5


Ethanol Survey Aggregate Results 2012 as of 9/13/12

Target Values #Samples EtOHVol (avg) % in Compliance # < 8.95 # > 10.5 MTBEVol (avg)Survey Area DateAtlantic City, NJ YTD 21 9.9 90 - 2 0.0Baltimore, MD YTD 125 10 100 - - 0.0Boston-Worchester, MA YTD 269 9.7 100 1 - 0.0Chicago-Lake Co., IL, Gary, IN YTD 316 9.8 99 2 2 0.0Covington, KY YTD 27 9.8 100 - - 0.0CT - remainder YTD 12 9.7 100 - - 0.0Dallas-Fort Worth, TX YTD 295 9.9 98 - 7 0.0Hartford, CT YTD 119 9.8 100 - - 0.0Houston-Galveston, TX YTD 296 9.9 100 1 - 0.0Louisville, KY YTD 50 9.9 100 - - 0.0Manchester, NH YTD 27 9.8 100 - - 0.0Milwaukee-Racine, WI YTD 95 9.9 99 - 1 0.0Norfolk-Virginia Beach, VA YTD 91 9.9 99 1 - 0.0NY-NJ-Long Is.-CT YTD 754 9.9 99 - 7 0.0Phila.-Wilm, DE-Trenton, NJ YTD 291 9.9 99 1 1 0.0Portsmouth-Dover, NH YTD 16 9.7 100 - - 0.0Poughkeepsie, NY YTD 24 9.9 100 - - 0.0Queen Anne Co.-Kent Co., MD YTD 9 9.9 100 - - 0.0Rhode Island YTD 52 9.7 100 - - 0.0Richmond, VA YTD 58 9.9 97 1 1 0.0Springfield, MA YTD 38 9.7 100 - - 0.0St. Louis, MO YTD 136 9.9 99 - 1 0.0Sussex County, DE YTD 8 9.8 100 - - 0.0Warren County, NJ YTD 8 9.7 100 - - 0.0Washington, D.C.-area YTD 207 9.9 100 - - 0.0Grand YTD Totals: YTD 3344 9.9 99 7 22 0.0

Phoenix, AZ YTD 69 9.9 93 - 5 0.0


Oxygen Trend

0.04%

0.13%

0.41% 0.39%

0.59%

0.93%

0.47%

0.37%

0.26%

0.39%

0.29%

5

16

52 49

82

118

39

31

22

33

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.9%

1.0%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

#Samples

%An

alyz

ed S

ampl

es

Survey Year

Total Oxygen wt% > 4.0%

RFG Data thru 9/13/12


Gasoline Program PNCs -‐ 2012


Program RFG EtOH EtOH-AZ Arizona Grand TotalBegin 01/27/12 01/13/12 01/13/12 06/08/12

End 09/13/12 09/06/12 03/08/12 09/06/12Samples Requested 3,805 3,376 75 404 7,660

Empty 383 363 6 44 796 Analyzed 3,422 3,013 69 360 6,864

PNC 38 52 5 7 98

VOCReduction 22 - - 4 26 EtOH<8.95 vol% 2 2 - - 3 EtOH>10.5 vol% 10 16 5 3 29

Oxygen>4.0 wt% 5 13 1 1 19 RVP>7.3psi (AZ) - - - 3 3

Benzene>1.51 vol% - - - - - MTBE>0.5 vol% - - - - -

Refusals 26 29 - 6 61

NOTEPNC count may not equal row and column totals due to cases w here sample is used for multiple programs or w here there are multiple issues per sample.

4 Samples are counted under both RFG and EtOH.


0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

2009 2010 2011 2012

MU

%OfTotalSx

%OfPNC

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

2009 2010 2011 2012

PU

%OfTotalSx

%OfPNC

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%100.0%

2009 2010 2011 2012

RU

%OfTotalSx

%OfPNC

Non-‐Compliance By Grade These charts compare total program grade percentages to PNC grade percentages over Gme. Blue Line = % of Total Samples Red Line = % of PNCs



0.9800.9600.9400.9200.9000.880 -0.860 -0.840 -0.820 -0.800 -0.780 -0.760 -0.740 -0.720 -0.700 -0.680 -0.660 -0.640 -0.620 -0.600 -0.580 -0.560 -0.540 -0.520 -0.500 -0.480 -0.460 -0.440 -0.420 -0.400 -0.3800.3600.3400.3200.3000.2800.2600.2400.220

2010

2011

BEN

ZEN

E - S

urve

y A

rea

Ave

rage

s

2009

2012

•  Regulatory requirement – Ok •  Benzene – OK (YTD Avg ranges from 0.28 to 0.70 16 below 0.625, 9 above) •  Emissions calculaGons -‐ Ok •  Sulfur – Ok

•  Individual fuel parameters – Targets Ok –  StdErr/VariaGon Issues:

•  ARO -‐ 19 areas /OLE -‐ 16 areas •  Not affected: Cov/Dal/Lou/Norf/Phoen/Rich •  T50 – None •  T90 – None

•  Grade reports – Overall OK – MU (7 Mkts<80%) / PU 8 Mkt<80%) •  Low Procurement% -‐ 10<80% /7 just 1sx low-‐Atl/Dal/Lou-‐2/Phil/Pough/RI/Sussex

(Annually all above 80%)

2012 RFG Survey Precision



Fuel Parameter Changes since 2011 All %Change values = [(2012 value – 2011 value)/2011 value]*100%

-10.00%

-8.00%

-6.00%

-4.00%

-2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

Column 1 -8.60% -0.60% 0.70% 0.40% -1.50% -7.00%

Benzene Oxygen RVP Sulfur Aromatics Olefins

VOC Reduction-0.8%

NOxReduction

4.8%

ToxicsReduction11.9%

Based on 2012 surveys thru 9/13/12


Fuel Parameter Changes since 1995 All %Change values = [(2012 value – 1995 value)/1995 value]*100%

-90.00%

-70.00%

-50.00%

-30.00%

-10.00%

10.00%

30.00%

50.00%

70.00%

Column 1 -8.50% 64.50% -7.30% -83.00% -37.40% -17.10%Benzene Oxygen RVP Sulfur Aromatics Olefins

VOCReduction6%

NOxReduction140%

ToxicsReduction33%

Based on 2012 surveys thru 9/13/12



Sulfur by Grade


2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012RU 126 90 76 43 34 29 29 35 34 36MU 112 83 68 42 32 28 25 33 31 32PU 76 57 47 36 25 22 19 27 25 26

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Avg.

Sul

fur,

ppm

Year


•  ICs Trained: –  374 RFG-‐E15 –  417 ULSD –  338 trained for both –  66 new since 1/1/12

•  Low Procurement/Ipsos file checks •  Photo Upload/Review •  InvesGgaGng -‐ Electronic FOR Entry/FOR Scanning •  2012 Audits

–  41 Audits conducted (20 SwRI, 21TMC, 10 diff survey areas, one area overlap) –  1 Major issue (terminaGon) / 6 minor issues

Field Issues -‐ Sampling


•  Can filling procedure changed to eliminate measuring bar

•  Spacer not shipped with every shipment

Procedural Change – Sample Procurement


Field Issues – Shipping

•  Gasoline: 95% on-‐Gme •  Diesel: 96% on-‐Gme •  No issues


•  Survey Designs •  EPA/AZ Annual MeeGngs •  Website Changes •  Next MeeGng-‐ TC – March 20, 2013

Other Survey Issues


•  RFGSA – SubmiSed – 9/01 –  4/12-‐ Baton Rouge – reclassified Non-‐RFG

•  ULSD – SubmiSed 10/26 – Update sample sizes – approx.. 2000/yr. –  Reg. Update not complete – OECA/DC – vehicle – pending reg. change

•  E15 – SubmiSed 10/29 – Update on sample size/focus ? –  PNC chart

•  AZ – Due 12/31

2013 Survey Designs


•  Annual Reviews – EPA – Washington/Denver

•  Review Q &C – no issues •  E15 Program issues •  Schedule 2013 Mtg – 03/13

–  AZ •  April – New Director – Michelle Wilson •  Schedule 2013 – 04/13

– EPA AA – May 2013

EPA/AZ Annual meetings


Financial Report

•  Finance CommiSee •  Dues Update •  Investments •  2012-‐13 Budget Review


Finance Committee

•  Monthly Financial Review – SegregaGon of duGes

•  990 Review Process •  Audit Review/ParGcipaGon •  1 Yr. term (overlap)-‐ Gardner/Kamla •  Elect new commiSee member

•  Schedule review in January 2013

EComm Winter Mtg 2012

Slide# 105

Dues Update

•  Billing 10/01 •  Dues by

– 11/01 (E15), 12/01 (RFG) •  Many waiGng •  Late fees assessed


RFGSA Investment Policy

•  President is responsible •  Principles – Investment Quality/Liquidity/ST/LT •  Investment Examples:

– Gov’t backed, Deposit obligaGons – CD’s, TD – Commercial Paper/Repurchase agreements – Money Market funds – No derivaGves


Cash Management Policy

•  Annual Investment review – CIS/SB •  Principles -‐ Investment Grade/liquidity/ST •  3 types of investment pools •  OperaGon accounts – ST – Annual funding

–  (3-‐9 months) CD’s – staggered – FDIC Insured –  Insured money market account – (up to 1 yr) – RFGSA managed

•  Intermediate Term -‐ > 1 yr –  FluctuaGon in value


YTD Investment Performance

•  Total YTD $251K –  Interest Income -‐ $82K – Dividends $33K – Realized/Unrealized Gains -‐ $136K

•  Western Core Por�olio – 5.3% – Past 12 months – 6.4%

•  RecommendaGons: Add -‐ Global Bond AllocaGon – Diversify por�olio


RFG Survey Association – Federal Actual (10/31/12) vs. Budget


2012-‐2013 Budget Projections Program Issues

•  E15 Program is currently implemented as of 6/16

•  2012 and 2013 budgets do not include the impact of E15 program – due to pending legal acGvity/Proposed E15 Pgm changes

•  Impact -‐ E15/ULSD Pgms on Indirect expenses – 2012 (6 mo.) -‐ Est. $150K/NA – 2013 (full plan year) – Est. $250K ?


RFG SURVEY ASSOCIATION -‐ FEDERAL 2012-‐2013 PROJECTED


RFG SURVEY ASSOCIATION -‐ PHOENIX 2012-‐2013 PROJECTED


RFG SURVEY ASSOCIATION -‐ ULSD 2012-‐2013 PROJECTED


RFG SURVEY ASSOCIATION – E15 2012-‐2013 PROJECTED


RFG Survey Association Cost per Gallon -‐ Federal

0.0066720524 0.0073414085 0.0078259587

0.0101648551

0.0000000000

0.0020000000

0.0040000000

0.0060000000

0.0080000000

0.0100000000

0.0120000000

2011 Actual 2012 EsGmated 2012 Revised EsGmates

2013 EsGmated

Cents per Gallon


RFG Survey Association Cost per Gallon -‐ AZ

0.0052968560

0.0106716437 0.0108998543 0.0123947805

0.0000000000

0.0020000000

0.0040000000

0.0060000000

0.0080000000

0.0100000000

0.0120000000

0.0140000000

2011 Actual 2012 EsGmated 2012 Revised EsGmates

2013 EsGmated

Cents per Gallon


RFG Survey Association Cost per Unit -‐ ULSD $32.02

$28.62

$16.32

$-‐

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

2011 2012 2013

Dollars per Unit


Other Issues

•  Insurance Review •  2013 MeeGngs Schedule •  FCL Goals/Performance


Insurance Review

•  Coverage Issues – Cyber-‐Risk Policy – evaluate – request proposal

•  DO -‐ $5MM – $10M – NC – EO policy – required -‐ $13M – new applicaGon

•  Commercial coverage -‐ $10-‐15M •  Cost – 2013 -‐ $40-‐45M


Cyber Risk Policy

Risks and costs associated with unauthorized access to computer systems. RFGSA site is staGc (at Gme being), but E15 program may increase our exposure.


2013 RFGSA Meeting Schedule

•  Technical CommiSee – 2 (Mar 21., Oct. TBD) •  Board MeeGng –July 17-‐18

– HyaS, Lake Tahoe, NV •  ExecuGve CommiSee – 2

•  July 17, 2013– 1:00 PM – Lake Tahoe •  December 5, 2013 – S. Florida


FCL Goals/Performance

•  Run & Maintain – Document retenGon/Investments

•  E-‐15 – Run & Maintain – Grow -‐ Evolve

•  SWRI – Cost controls – monitor/minimize

•  Website Development – RFGSA Pgm integraGon


Meeting Summary

•  Closing Comments •  FCL Performance Discussion

– Exec Comm

•  Golf – Meet in Lobby 12:15 pm •  Non-‐Golfer – lunch cerGficate •  Dinner – Cielo – on site – 6:30 PM


Things to do

•  Insurance ? – Canadian company impact on DO? – Done -‐ No impact – no issues – FCL 12/31/12

•  New Finance CommiSee Member training – January

•  2014 – Update RFGSA operaGons plan


executive)committee)meeting) boca)raton,fl) november)29,2012) · executive)committee)meeting)...

Documents