Attachment 23

Illinois EPA Motion to Strike 

ARID Technologies, Inc.’s Public Comments

dated August 12, 2013

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 859
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 860
~I:: BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD CLe~l}S~:; DVE D 

'' OFFICE 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

VAPOR RECOVERY RULES: 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. 

CODE PARTS 201, 218, AND 219 

I'CQ ) .).._, 1 6 2£n3 

) S"fATE 0 

) R13-18 Pollution c~ ILLINOIS 

) (Rulemaking- Air) ntrol Board 

) 

NOTICE OF FILING D ORIGINAL TO: Jolm Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Richard R. McGill, Jr. 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Ted Tiberi 

ARID Technologies, Inc. 

323 S. Hale Street 

Wheaton, illinois 60187 

Thomas Davis, Bureau Chief 

Environmental Bureau 

Office of the Attorney General 

500 South Second Street 

Springfield, Illinois 62706 

Office of Legal Services 

lllinois Department of Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, IL 62702-1271 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Pollution Control 

Board the MOTION TO STRIKE ARID TECHNOLOGIES. INC.'S PUBLIC COMMENT of 

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, a copy of which is herewith served upon you. 

DATED: August 12,2013 

1 021 N. Grand A venue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

(217) 782-5544 

(217) 782-9143 (TOO) 

Respectfully submitted, 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTES"?ON AGE~; 

By: ~~.r----\., Kent E. 

Assistant Counsel 

Division of Legal Counsel 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 861
~~C!'E BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD CL.Efit(·#oDYED 

r•FJCE: sr: IN THE MATTER OF: 

VAPOR RECOVERY RULES: 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. 

CODE PARTS 201, 218, AND 219 

) .:.P 1 6 2013 

) STAT€QF 

) R13-18 Pollution c ILLINOIS Ontrol a ) (Rulemaking - Air) oard 

) 

MOTION TO STRIKE ARID TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S PUBLIC COMMENT 

NOW COMES the Proponent, the nlinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois 

EPA), by its attorney, and pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500, 101.502, 102.402, and 

102.420 moves that the Hearing Officer strike ARID Technologies, Inc.'s (ARID) public 

comment from the record. In support of its Motion, the Illinois EPA states as follows: 

1. On March 18, 2013, the Illinois EPA filed its regulatory proposal to amend the 

vapor recovery rules, which included a Motion for Expedited Review, with the Illinois Pollution 

Control Board (Board). 

2. On April 4, 2013, the Board accepted the Illinois EPA's proposal for hearing, 

granted the Illinois EPA's Motion for Expedited Review, and adopted the proposed amendments 

for first notice. 

3. Hearings were held on May 8, 2013 and June 5, 2013. No comments in 

opposition. to the proposal were received at either hearing. 

4. At the conclusion ofthe second hearing and by Order entered June 17,2013, the 

Hearing Officer set a deadline of July 8, 2013 for filing public comments. 

5. On July 16, 2013, the Hearing Officer entered an Order re-opening the public 

comment period solely for the purpose of receiving public comment from the Tilinois EPA in 

response to a public comment filed on July 8, 2013. The Hearing Officer directed the Illinois 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 862
EPA to file its public comment by July 31, 2013. The Illinois EPA timely tiled its responsive 

public comment on July 31, 2013. 

6. On September 9, 2013, ARID filed a public comment followed by an Addendum 

on September 10,2013. 

7. It is the position of the Illinois EPA that ARID's public comment should be 

stricken from the record in this matter for any one of a number of reasons as discussed below. 

8. First, ARlO's public comment should be stricken from the record because it was 

not filed or served in accordance with Board rules or the Hearing Officer's Order dated June 17, 

2013. Board rules require documents to meet certain filing requirements. One such requirement 

is that all documents filed be served in accordance with Subpart C of35 lll. Adm. Code Part 101. 

35 lll. Adm. Code 101.302(f). The Clerk of the Board is required to refuse for filing any 

document that does not comply with the minimum requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 1 01.302. 

35 lll. Adm. Code 101.302(a). Subpart C, specifically Section 101.304, among other things, 

prescribes the methods of service and the requirement for an affidavit or certificate of service. 

35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.304. [n addition, Board rules governing public comments require those 

comments to be filed with the Clerk and served in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101, 

Subpart C, upon, among others, the Illinois EPA, and specify that comments not timely filed or 

properly served will not be considered except as allowed to prevent material prejudice. 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 102.1 08( c) and (d). Similarly, any motion is required to be filed and served in 

accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101, Subpart C. 35 UL Adm. Code 101.500(b). Furthennore, 

the Hearing Officer's Order dated June 17, 2013 required public comments to be served on those 

persons on the service list, which includes the lllinois EPA. ARID's public comment was not 

properly served on the Illinois EPA and it did not contain an affidavit or certificate of service. 

2 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 863
Therefore, ARlO's public comment does not meet the minimum requirements of Section 

101.302, it violates Section 101.304, 102.208 and l 01.500 (if it is in fact a motion), and it 

violates the Hearing Officer's Order dated June 17, 2013. Moreover, ARID's public comment is 

in the form of an email when it should have been in the form of a motion for leave pursuant to 

35. Ill. Adm. Code 101.500. ARID should be held to the same standard to which the Illinois 

EPA is held. Material prejudice will result if ARlD's public comment is accepted, as discussed 

further below. 

9. Second, ARID's public comment should be stricken from the record because it 

violates the Hearing Officer's Order dated June 17, 2013. This Order established July 8, 2013 as 

the end of the public comment period. Thus, all public comments should have been filed by July 

8, 2013 1

• Section 101.628 allows for public comments subject to the requirements of this 

Section and the hearing officer's schedule for completion of the record. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

101.628(c). Further, Section 102.108(d) of the Board's rules specifies that late filed comments 

will not be considered except as allowed to prevent material prejudice. 35 ill. Adm. Code 

l02.108(d). ARID's public comment was filed on September 9, 2013 -more than two months 

late. All other parties have had to abide by the established public comment deadlines. If ARID's 

public comment is accepted at this late time, it renders public comment deadlines meaningless, 

and material prejudice will result, as discussed further below. 

10. Third, as part of its initial filing, the Illinois EPA filed a Motion for Expedited 

Review (Mot. Exp.) explaining that expedited review was necessary due to the emissions 

disbenefit associated with maintaining the Stage II program beginning in 20 14; to allow gasoline 

1 As noted above, the Hearing Officer did re-open the public comment period for the limited and sole purpose of 

requiring the [Jlinois EPA to respond to a public comment filed on July 8, 2013, and the Illinois EPA timely and 

properly filed a response as required. 

3 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 864
stations beginning operations on January 1, 2014 or later to not install unnecessary and 

expensive Stage II equipment; and to allow existing gasoline stations to begin decommissioning 

Stage II equipment on this date and begin realizing a recurring annual cost savings. Mot. Exp. at 

8-9. In its Proposed Rule, First Notice Opinion and Order (Op. and Ord.) dated April 4, 2013, 

the Board granted the U1inois EPA's Motion for Expedited Review finding that the emission 

reduction benefits for the State and economic savings for gasoline stations justified establishing a 

January 1, 2014 effective date. Op. and Ord. at 3. If ARID's public comment is erroneously 

accepted and debated, it will delay the adoption of this rulemaking substantially such that a 

January I, 2014 effective date will most certainly not be possible. If this occurs, the State and its 

citizens will be materially prejudiced as it relates to the emissions dis benefit of maintaining the 

Stage II program, and affected sources will be materially prejudiced through the existing 

requirement to install expensive and unnecessary State II equipment at gasoline stations and 

incur the costs of maintaining such systems. 

11. Fourth, in its public comment, ARID presents arguments and comments in favor 

of a new regulatory program - an enhanced Stage II program. ARID's arguments and comments 

are not based on evidence contained in the record. This issue has not been raised in this 

proceeding- it has not been subject to public notice, comment, or hearing. Therefore, ARID's 

public comment should be stricken from the record as violating 35 lll. Adm. Code 101.628(c)(2). 

If ARID's public comment is erroneously allowed, the Illinois EPA respectfully requests that it 

be provided an opportunity to respond to the merits of ARID's public comment, especially as it 

raises issues that are outside of the record in this proceeding, and that additional hearings be 

strongly considered to provide proper due process. If the Illinois EPA is not allowed the 

opportunity to respond to ARID's public comment, it will be materially prejudiced. 

4 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 865
12. As required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 101.512, this Motion is accompanied by an 

Affirmation attesting that the facts cited herein are true. 

WHEREFORE, for any one or more of the reasons set forth above, the Illinois EPA 

respectfully requests that the Hearing Officer grant this Motion and strike ARID's public 

comment from the record. In the alternative, if the Hearing Officer accepts ARID's public 

comment, the Illinois EPA respectfully requests that the Hearing Officer provide the Illinois EPA 

with the opportunity to respond to the merits of ARID's public comment. 

DATED: August 12, 2013 

I 021 N. Grand Ave. East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

(217) 782-5544 

5 

Respectfully submitted, 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

By: ~~r. Kent E. Mohr Jr. 

Assistant Counsel 

Division of Legal Counsel 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 866
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MA TIER OF: 

VAPOR RECOVERY RULES: 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. 

CODE PARTS 201,218, AND 219 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AFFlRMA TION 

R13-l8 

(Rulemaking- Air) 

I, Kent E. Mohr Jr., under oath, hereby state and affirm that I am an Assistant Counsel for 

the Illinois Envirorunental Protection Agency and that the facts cited in the foregoing Motion to 

Strike are true and correct to the best of my information and belief. 

SUBSC~ED ~SWORN TO BEFORE ME 

this a tlay of --~013 

OFFICIAL SEAL 

DAWN A. HOLLIS 

NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF ILLINOIS 

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 8-19-2016 

Assistant Counsel 

Division of Legal Counsel 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 867
STATE OF ILLINOIS 

COUNTY OF SANGAMON 

) 

) 

) 

ss 

Receaveo 

CLERI('S OFFICE 

SEP 1 6 2013 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Po/lutron Control Board 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served the attached MOTION TO 

STRIKE ARID TECHNOLOGIES. INC.'S PUBLIC COMMENT of the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency upon the following persons, 

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Richard R. McGill, Jr. 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Ted Tiberi 

ARID Technologies, Inc. 

323 S. Hale Sh·eet 

Wheaton, Illinois 60187 

Thomas Davis, Bureau Chief 

Environmental Bureau 

Office of the Attorney General 

500 South Second Street 

Springfield, Illinois 62706 

Office of Legal Services 

Illinois Department ofNatural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, IL 62702-1271 

by mailing a true copy thereof in an envelope duly addressed bearing proper first class 

postage and deposited in the United States mail at Springfield, illinois on August 12, 

2013. 

DATED: August 12, 2013 

l 021 N. Grand A venue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, 1llinois 62794-9276 

(217) 782-5544 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

::~ d~ ' KentE.MOiU::Jt~ Assistant Counsel 

Division of Legal Counsel 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 868
Attachment 24

Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association’s 

Response to ARID Technologies Inc.’s Public Comments 

dated September 17, 2013

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 869
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 870
Dlinois Petroleum Marketers Association 

Dlinois Association of Convenience Stores 

WIU.IAM J. FLEJSCHI.I 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 

WM. R. DEUTSCH BUILDING • 1 1 2 WEST COOK STREET 

P.O. BOX 1 2020 • SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62791·2020 

PHONE: 2 17/544-4609 • FAX: 217/789-0222 

September 17,2013 

Mr. Richard R. McGill, Jr., Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

1021 North Grand Ave E 

Springfield, IL 62702 

Fisceave 

Cl.EAK'S OFFICED 

SEP 1 8 2L'13 

STATE OF 1 

Pollution ConboLIINBOIS oard 

Re: Rl3-18 Vapor Recovery Rules: Amendments to 35 ILL. ADM. Code Parts 201, 218, and 219 

Dear Mr. McGill: 

The Illinois Petroleum Marketers Associatio~ (IPMA) opposes the Illinois PoUution Control 

Board'~ ~c~ep~~ce ofth~ copi.ffieJ;it submitted By·A\z'id Technologies on September 91 2013, a full 

two mQ~tW! after the p~blic comment peri~d dea,dli~e of July 8, 2013. Acceptance oftbi~ comment, 

and subs~uent r~poris~s ~o it; ~y delay 'the' actip!'!· on the proposed l'Hl~m11king bey on~ the. 

propos~~ Jailwiry t;. 2Q14 date that the lltln9~~ ~rivironmental ~rot~tion Agency has propt)sed to 

rescind Jhe &tag~ J.I ·Ylipor recovery re.quihmienffor new gasoline dispensing facilities and when 

existing operatitms may b,egin de.commissi6hlhg their vapor recovery equipment. Delaying the 

implementation of this. action will result in additional expenses to gasQline dispensing facility owners 

either in the delay in opening ·new ~soline refueling facilities, many of which have been on hold in 

anticipation of the proposed rule revision, or in the continued Ul3intenance e:xpenses for existing 

stations with Stage II equipment. 

The IPMA urges the Board to disregard the late comment and proceed as expeditiously as 

possible to adopt the proposed revisions. In addition to reducing the station operating expenses, the 

decommissioning of Stage II equipment in a timely manner will1 as demonstrated in the Illinois 

EPA's testimony1 reduce excess emissions from the use of incompatible equipmeot1 thereby 

improving air quality. Thank you. 

Sincerely yours1 

v.~- Btll Fleischli 

Executive Vice President 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 871
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 872
Attachment 25

ARID Technologies, Inc.’s Response to 

Illinois EPA Motion to Strike

dated September 20, 2013

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 873
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 874
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 875
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 876
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 877
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 878
Attachment 26

Public Comments of 

ARID Technologies, Inc. (PC #5)

dated September 23, 2013

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 879
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 880
Therriault, John 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc 

Subj~ct: 

Attachments: 

Hi John, 

Ted Tiberi <ttiberi@aridtech.com> f' 

Monday, September 23.201312:14 PM ~r\ ~')~. Therriault, John~ v ~ . McGill, Richard 

Re: Response to Mr. Mohr's Request 

Il EPA Data from MOVES.xlsx; Stage IT, ORVR and Emissions Reduction Options 20 DEC 

2012 with Executive Summary.pdf 

After reviewing materials from the on·line case summary for R2013-018, I would like to submit the following 

additional comments and materials. 

I have attached a data table and spreadsheet which plots the ORVR Only and ORVR +Stage II (with lEE) 

emissions (Tons/Day) for the Chicago Nonattainment Area per the data submitted by IL EPA in their Exhibit 2, 

page 4 filing of 28 May 2013 (We simply put IL EPA data into spreadsheet and graphical form). Please note 

that the curves in this graph closely approximate the curves in ARID's previously submitted Chart 3, on page 7 

of "Stage II & ORVR and Associated Emissions .... " White Paper, dated 18 DEC 2012 (The units on they-axis 

are different, but the relative slopes are of particular note). The key point is then to consider Chart 4, on page 8 

of the same ARID submittal, which shows no crossover of the ORVR Only and ORVR +Stage II (with lEE) 

curves for the case where Storage Tank Breathing Losses are considered. (STBL not equal to zero). It's clear 

that the MOVES model does not incorporate the impact of storage tank breathing losses; and this oversight is a 

very significant error. In addition, in the testimony of Mr. Burkhart, p. 17; lines 6-8; (Transcript from 8 May 

2013 Hearing), he makes a reference to the year 2014; where the "ORVR-only line crosses the ORVR +Stage 

II line". As seen in our White Paper, Chart 4 and text, page 3, 2nd Paragraph; ARID shows clearly that these 

lines do not intersect when the STBL are properly accounted for in the emissions inventory. The ORVR +Stage 

.H (with lEE) emissions are less than the ORVR Only emissions throughout t.he entire time frame- up to and 

including 2022. Removal of Stage II with sole reliance on ORVR, will INCREASE rather than DECREASE 

emissions. 

I have re-attached the White Paper which was previously submitted as well. 

Best Regards, Ted 

Ted Tiberi 

ARID Technologies, Inc. 

323 S. Hale Street 

Wheaton, IL 60187 USA 

office: 630.681.8500 

mobile: 708.557.0297 

ttiberi@ ARIDtech.com 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 881
On Sep 20, 2013, at 4:19PM. Therriault, John wrote: 

Electronic isOt{. 

John 

From: Ted Tiberi [mailto:ttiberi@andtech.com] 

sent: friday, September 20, 2013 4:16PM 

To: Therriault, John 

Cc McGill, Richard 

SUbject: Re: Response to Mr. Mohr's Request 

Hi John. 

Many thanks. Is electronic format ok if I decide to file any additional reply within 14 days 1 

Please advise. 

Have a good weekend. Regards, Ted 

On Sep 20.2013. at 4:03PM, Therriault. John wrote: 

Ted, 

Consider your response to Mr. Mohr's request as electronically filed as of today. 

Regarding response to Mr. Mohr's Request, you have 14 days from when you received a copy of his document to file a 

reply or replies, Anyth~ng after that may or may not be taken Into consideration by the Board. 

John 

From: Ted Tiberi [mailto:ttiberi@ARIDtech.com] 

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2.013 3:12PM 

To: Therriault, John 

Cc: McGill, Fl.ichard 

Subject: Fwd: Response to Mr. Mohr's Request 

Sorry. typo on point l, below; 39 days late. 

Regards. Ted 

Begin forwarded message: 

2 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 882
From: Ted Tiberi <ttiberi@ ARIDtech.com> 

Subject: Response to Mr. Mohr's Request 

Date: September 20, 2013 3:00:06 PM COT 

To: richard.mcgill@illinois.gov 

Cc: John Therriault <john.therriault@illinois.gov> 

Dear Mr. McGill, 

Please advise if I can provide any additional information on my submittal below. 

Regards, Ted 

Ted Tiberi 

ARID Technologies, Inc. 

323 S. Hale Street 

Wheaton, IL 60187 USA 

office: 630.681.8500 

mobile: 708.557.0297 

ttiberi@ ARIDtech.com 

Begin forwarded message: 

From: Ted Tiberi <ttiberi@aridtech.com> 

Subject: Re: Additional Submittal for ARID . 

Date: September 20, 2013 2:55:54 PM COT 

To: "Therriault, John" <John.Therriault@ illinois.goV> 

Hi John, 

Received a copy of Kent Mohr's filing yesterday. 

Wow; if IL EPA directed even a small portion of their energy to investigating the substance of our submittal as 

opposed to vigorously attempting to disallow our comments; perhaps we'd all be much better off. 

I suspect ARID is likely the lone dissenter on the proposed action to allow removal and decommissioning of 

Stage II vapor recovery. I hope the IL Pollution Control Board can allow for a democratic process, and consider 

our technical comments and objective data in this matter. 

I am a chemical engineer, not an attorney, but I would like to respond to Mr. Mohr's letter as follows: 

1. Yes; our comments were submitted late, about 9 days. We were unaware of the process taking place in 

Illinois. 

2. The reason we submitted electronic information was to a.) expedite our submittal and b.) properly forward a 

video clip (no way to send a video clip in "hard copy") 

3 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 883
3. Relative to expedited review; the sooner Stage II controls are removed, the sooner the refueling emissions 

will be increased in State of Illinois; the sooner Stage n vapor recovery is enhanced, the sooner gasoline vapor 

emissions will be decreased in Illinois 

4. New Regulatory Program ~ not our intent; simply stating a means to enhance an EXISTlNG program as an 

alternative to ABOLISHING such a program. 

5. Perhaps Mr. Mohr's filing should be disallowed since he dated the submittal 12 August 2013; which is 

incorrect. (we submitted our comments on 9 Sept) 

We respectfully ask the Hearing Officer to allow our public comments and to provide ARID with an 

opportunity to further discuss our technical rationale and objective data on this important matter. 

All the Best, Ted 

Ted Tiberi 

ARID Technologies, Inc. 

323 S. Hale Street 

Wheaton, IL 60187 USA 

office: 630.681.8500 

mobile: 708.557.0297 

ttiberi@ AAI Dtech.com 

On Sep 11. 2013, at 1:46PM, Therriault, John wrote: 

Ted, 

We don't keep email addresses, but I do have their phone numbers. 

Tom Davis at Attorney General's offlce is 217/782·9031 

Kent Mohr of IEPA is 217/782-5544 (general number) 

Department of Natural Resources, Legal Services, is 217/782-1809. 

John 

From: Ted Tiberi [mailto:ttiberl@aridtech.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:54 AM 

To: Therriaul~ John 

Subject: Re: Additional Submittal for ARID 

Hi John, 

Many thanks for your confirmation and recommendations. 

Are there email addresses available for the 3 service list entries ? 

4 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 884
Please advise, and Best Regards, Ted 

ps travelling on East Coast this week. ..... 

Ted Tiberi 

ARID Technologies, Inc. 

323 S. Hale Street 

Wheaton, IL 60187 USA 

office: 630.681.8500 

mobile: 708.557.0297 

ttiberi@ ARIDtech.com 

On Sep 10, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Therriault, John wrote: 

Ted, 

Received your addition to your submission of yesterday and will docket it as an addendum to PC#4 (your 9/9/13 

submission). 

Two points: (1) you need to send a copy of all you've submitted to the persons on the Service List, available on our 

website, and (2) as long as the material is docketed, it is available for consideration by Board members, but I can't 

confirm whether or not your materials are incorporated into the decision process before a Board order is issued (no 

specific date of issuance). 

Good luck, 

John 

From: Ted Tiberi [mailto:ttiberi@aridtech.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:31 AM 

To: Therriault, John 

Subject: Additional Submittal for ARID 

Hi John, 

As a follow-on to my submittal yesterday on R20 13-018, I wanted to also submit the attached Attribute Matrix. I will present this 

matrix at a meeting of the OTC (Ozone Transport Commission) on Thursday of this week in Washington, DC. 

Please advise if I may provide any clarification or further information on the material I've submiteed thus far. Can you please confirm 

if the material is allowed late into the proceeding ? 

Best Regards, Ted 

5 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 885
Ted Tiberi 

ARID Technologies, Inc. 

323 S. Hale Street 

Wheaton, IL 60187 USA 

office: 630.681.8500 

mobile: 708.557.0297 

ttiberi@ ARIDtech.c.:om 

6 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 886
1	

Stage	II	&	ORVR	and	Associated	Emissions	of	Gasoline	Vapor

State	of	Connecticut	Gasoline	Dispensing	Facilities

Ted	Tiberi,	Luke	Howard,	Mike	Heffernan,	ARID	Technologies,	Inc.	

18	December	2012	

www.ARIDtech.com

Executive	Summary

Gas	stations;	also	called	gasoline	dispensing	facilities	(GDF)	typically	store	fuel	in	

underground	tanks	(called	UST’s).	The	gasoline	is	dispensed	through	nozzles	to	the	

motorist’s	vehicle	tank.	When	the	vehicle	tank	is	refilled,	the	liquid	gasoline	entering	

the	tank	will	displace	a	volume	of	vapor	phase	gasoline;	for	example,	if	10	gallons	of	

fuel	are	pumped	into	the	vehicle	tank,	approximately	10	gallons	of	vapor	will	be	

displaced.	This	displaced	vapor	is	comprised	of	air	and	hydrocarbons.	Some	of	the	

hydrocarbons	(also	called	VOC’s	–	Volatile	Organic	Compounds)	contain	HAP’s	

(Hazardous	Air	Pollutants),	and	direct	exposure	to	some	HAP’s	is	known	to	increase	

risks	for	cancer;	for	example	benzene.	In	addition,	the	emissions	of	VOC’s	to	the	

atmosphere	are	ozone	precursors;	where	ozone	formation	in	the	lower	atmosphere	

is	detrimental	to	human	health.			

To	reduce	emissions	of	VOC’s	and	HAP’s	to	humans	and	the	environment,	Stage	II	

vapor	recovery	systems	were	put	in	place.	The	Stage	II	systems	use	a	small	vacuum	

pump	located	in	the	fuel	dispenser	along	with	a	coaxial	hose	(hose	within	a	hose)	

arrangement	to	allow	liquid	gasoline	to	flow	from	the	UST’s	to	the	vehicle	and	at	the	

same	time	to	collect	displaced	vapors	from	the	vehicle	tank	and	then	direct	these	

collected	vapors	back	to	the	UST’s.	

The	operation	of	Stage	II	vapor	recovery	provides	three	key	benefits:

• Reduced	health	risks	to	motorists	as	direct	exposure	to	benzene	and	

other	HAP’s	is	avoided	

• Reduced	impact	of	hydrocarbon	emissions	to	the	environment	as	the	

displaced	vapors	are	captured	and	directed	back	to	the	UST’s

• Operational	savings	to	the	GDF	owner/operator	since	the	recovered	

vapors	from	the	motorist’s	vehicle	tank	are	used	to	blanket	the	liquid	

gasoline	stored	in	the	UST’s.	By	keeping	the	hydrocarbon	vapor	

concentration	at	elevated	levels	in	the	vapor	space	of	the	UST’s,	the	

natural	phenomena	of	evaporation	of	liquid	gasoline	to	vapor	phase	

gasoline	is	avoided.	In	this	manner,	there	is	a	kind	of	linked	or	

interdependency	between	the	Stage	II	system	and	the	UST’s	

o The	vapor	space	above	the	liquid	gasoline	has	a	hydrocarbon	

vapor	concentration	that	attains	some	“equilibrium	level”,	

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 887
2	

where	the	rate	of	liquid	evaporating	to	vapor	equals	the	rate	of	

vapor	condensing	to	liquid.	When	the	equilibrium	hydrocarbon	

concentration	is	altered	by	ingestion	of	atmospheric	air,	liquid	

fuel	will	evaporate	to	increase	the	hydrocarbon	concentration	

back	up	to	the	original	equilibrium	level.	During	this	process	of	

“re-saturation”	of	the	UST	vapor	space,	the	storage	tank	

pressure	will	increase	and	excess	volume	of	hydrocarbon	

vapors	will	be	exhausted	from	the	UST	vapor	space	(One	gallon	

of	liquid	gasoline	evaporates	into	520	gallons	of	vapor	phase	

gasoline,	at	40%	hydrocarbon	concentration).	This	storage	

tank	breathing	loss	is	the	primary	reason	that	very	large	above	

ground	storage	tanks	at	bulk	gasoline	terminals,	refineries	and	

distribution	facilities	use	so-called	“floating	roof	tanks”;	these	

tanks	use	a	roof	that	literally	floats	on	the	surface	of	the	

gasoline,	therefore	eliminating	any	vapor	space	above	the	

liquid,	to	subsequently	eliminate	the	breathing	loss	dynamics.		

A	debate	emerged	between	the	Auto	and	Oil	Industries	as	to	what	party	should	be	

responsible	for	controlling	the	refueling	losses.	The	Oil	Industry	prevailed	and	the	

Auto	industry	was	forced	to	equip	new	vehicles	with	the	so-called	ORVR	(On	Board	

Refueling	Vapor	Recovery)	system.	The	ORVR	system	is	primarily	comprised	of	an	

activated	carbon	canister,	which	captures	the	displaced	vapor	during	refueling.	As	

the	motorist	drives	down	the	highway,	the	carbon	canister	is	regenerated	by	a	

portion	of	engine	intake	air	“back	flushing”	through	the	carbon	canister,	where	the	

hydrocarbons	are	desorbed	and	burned	as	fuel	in	the	engine.	Since	the	ORVR	

systems	are	not	retrofit	to	vehicles,	but	rather	incorporated	into	new	vehicle	

production,	the	population	of	ORVR	equipped	vehicles	has	been	slowly	increasing	

throughout	the	United	States.	Passenger	vehicles	were	first	equipped	in	1998,	with	

40%,	80%,	and	100%	of	new	vehicle	production	having	ORVR	systems	in	1998,	

1999	and	2000,	respectively.		

At	the	time	of	the	Oil	Industry	“victory”,	the	oil	industry	wanted	to	remove	the	Stage	

II	hardware	from	GDF.	Since	only	a	low	proportion	of	vehicles	had	ORVR	systems	in	

1998,	immediate	removal	of	the	Stage	II	systems	was	not	possible.	However,	the	oil	

industry	negotiated	for	a	timed	“phase-out”	of	the	Stage	II	hardware	in	conjunction	

with	a	greater	proportion	of	ORVR	equipped	vehicles	in	the	fleet.	The	notion	of	

widespread	use	(WSU)	was	discussed	between	USEPA	and	the	Oil	Industry;	

whereby	a	certain	population	of	ORVR	equipped	vehicles	would	trigger	the	removal	

of	Stage	II	vapor	recovery	controls.	The	rough	idea	formulated	at	that	time	(without	

in-depth	study	or	understanding) was	that	after	a	threshold	population	of	ORVR	

vehicles	was	attained	in	the	fleet,	the	use	of	overlapping	controls	(Stage	II	at	the	GDF	

and	ORVR	within	the	vehicles)	would	be	counterproductive	since	the	emissions	

controlled	by	ORVR	Alone	would	exceed	the	emissions	controlled	by	either	Stage	II	

Alone	or	Stage	II	in	conjunction	with	ORVR.	However,	in	practice,	these	fundamental	

assumptions	are	not	accurate	or	true.	For	the	first	assumption	regarding	the	

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 888
3	

refueling	emissions	controlled	by	ORVR	Alone	in	comparison	to	Stage	II	Alone;	we	

show	in	our	CHART1	of	this	report,	that	there	is	a	cross-over	for	the	ORVR	Alone	

curve	with	the	Stage	II	Alone	curves;	however,	in	practice	Stage	II	is	never	able	to	be	

used	“Alone”	as	there	will	always	now	be	some	proportion	of	ORVR	equipped	

vehicles	in	the	fleet.	Thus,	our	CHART2	shows	that	the	combination	of	Stage	II	+	

ORVR	provides	the	lowest	emissions	in	comparison	to	ORVR	Alone	over	the	entire	

interval	presented;	which	incorporates	increased	proportion	of	ORVR	vehicles in	

the	fleet.	Basically,	the	presence	of	the	Stage	II	system	acts	as	a	“backstop”	to	

provide	a	chance	to	capture	the	refueling	emissions	from	non-ORVR	vehicles.	

Therefore	the	combined	Stage	II	+	ORVR	efficiency	will	always	be	higher	than	ORVR	

Alone.	

For	the	second	assumption	from	above,	regarding	the	total	emissions	controlled	by	

ORVR	Alone	in	comparison	to	Stage	II	in	conjunction	with	ORVR;	we	show	in	

CHART3	that	there	is	a	cross-over	for	the	ORVR	Alone	curve	with	the	Stage	II	+	

ORVR	curves;	however,	this	ORVR	Alone	curve	is	generated	without	including	any	

storage	tank	breathing	losses.	These	storage	tank-breathing losses	are	the	category	

of	emissions	described	above	under	the	“Operational	Savings”	section	of	this	

Executive	Summary.	Since	Stage	II	is	removed	under	the	ORVR	Alone	option,	the	

UST’s	are	not	able	to	use	any	of	the	hydrocarbon	vapors	displaced	from	the	

motorist’s	vehicle	tank;	as	these	vapors	are	now	adsorbed	on	the	activated	carbon	

used	in	the	ORVR	system.	As	such,	the	UST’s	will	ingest	atmospheric	air	to	offset	the	

vacuum	developed	as	product	is	withdrawn	and	directed	to	vehicles.	The	

interdependency	of	Stage	II	and	the	UST’s is	now	interrupted,	and	the	ingested	air	

will	cause	storage	tank	breathing	losses	to	occur.	The	dynamics	of	this	situation	

have	been	overlooked	or	ignored	by	the	Regulatory	Community,	Lawmakers,	and	

other	Stakeholders.	When	the	storage	tank	breathing	losses	are	properly	accounted	

for	and	added	back	to	the	emissions	inventory,	the	ORVR	Alone	curve	never	crosses	

over	the	ORVR	+Stage	II	curves,	and	therefore	the	ORVR	Alone	case	never	provides	

for	the	maximum	amount	of	emissions	reductions.	The	fact	that	Stage	II	systems	

“solve	two	problems	simultaneously”	by	recovering	displaced	vapors	from	the	

vehicle	tank	AND	using	these	recovered	vapors	to	blanket	the	UST	vapor	space	and	

thereby	avoid	subsequent	evaporation	of	fuel	and	storage	tank	breathing	losses has	

not	been	understood.	

A	quick	word	about	IEE,	Incompatibility	Excess	Emissions.	IEE	have	been	

recognized	by	various	Stakeholders’; whereby	the	higher	proportion	of	ORVR	

equipped	vehicles	will	cause	higher	amounts	of	ambient	air	to	be	ingested	by	the	

Stage	II	systems.	This	greater	quantity	of	air	will	dilute	the	hydrocarbon	vapor	

space,	and	cause	liquid	fuel	to	evaporate	and	eventually	be	exhausted	from	the	UST	

combined	vapor	spaces.	When	the	IEE	are	properly	quantified,	there	is	a	crossover

with	the	ORVR	Alone	case	with	the	Stage	II	+	ORVR	Case	(Please	see	CHART5c);	

when	a	vapor	processor	is	not	used	to	actively	manage	the	UST	pressure.	When	a	

vapor	processor	such	as	the	ARID	Permeator	is	employed,	the	IEE	emissions	are	

reduced	by	99.3%,	and	this	is	clearly	the	optimum	configuration.	For	clarity,	ORVR	

Alone	storage	tank	breathing	losses	and	Stage	II	+	ORVR	IEE	are	generated	by	a	

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 889
4	

similar	mechanism.	Storage	tank	breathing	losses	are	caused	by	pure	air	ingested	

through	the	vent	line,	and	IEE	emissions	are	generated	by	a	combination	of	air	and	

hydrocarbons	pumped	back	into	the	UST	by	the	Stage	II	system,	while	refueling	an	

ORVR	equipped	vehicle.	

Widespread	Use	and	General	Overview

In	general,	vapor	emissions	at	gasoline	dispensing	facilities	(GDF)	are	comprised	of	

refueling	emissions and	storage	tank	emissions.	In	turn,	refueling	emissions	are	

generated	at	the	nozzle/vehicle	interface	and	at	the	outlet	from	the	carbon	canister	

used	on	the	ORVR	systems.		The	storage	tank	emissions	are	comprised	of	vent	line	

emissions	through	the	pressure/vacuum	valve	(p/v	valve)	and	fugitive	emissions	

through	various	point	sources	within	the	vapor	containing	hardware;	where	the	

vent	&	fugitive	emissions	are	a	function	of	storage	tank	pressure.			

At	a	GDF	using	a	combination	of	Stage	II	and	ORVR,	the storage	tank vent	and	

fugitive	emissions	comprise	the	so-called	“IEE”	or	incompatibility	excess	emissions.	

The	IEE	emissions	are	generated	from	the	combined	storage	tanks	due	to	air	

ingestion,	dilution	of	the	hydrocarbon	concentration	within	the	vapor	spaces	of	the	

tanks,	and	subsequent	evaporation	of	liquid	gasoline	to	increase	the	vapor	space	

concentration	back	to	the	original	“equilibrium”	value.		As	ORVR	penetration	

increases	with	time,	the	IEE	will	increase	due	to	leaner	vapors	(more	air)	being	

returned	to	the	storage	tank	vapor	space,	which	in-turn	triggers	the	evaporative	

process	described	above.	

With	non-Stage	II	and	ORVR	alone,	air	ingestion	via	Stage	II	vacuum	pumps	located	

in	the	fuel	dispensers	is	eliminated,	however	air	will	still	be	ingested	into	the	

storage	tanks	through	the	vent	line.	 During	busy	refueling	periods,	the	negative	

cracking	pressure	of	the	p/v	valve	is	quickly	reached	since	the	volume	of	fuel	

removed	from	the	tank	will	draw	down	the	level	of	fuel	and	this	“piston	effect”	will	

create	a	vacuum	in	the	tank	vapor	space.	Typically,	the	air	ingestion	will	occur	when	

a	negative	pressure	of	-6	to	-8	inches	of	water	column	is	reached.	The	ambient	air	

entering	the	system	will	cause	the	liquid	fuel	in	the	tank	to	evaporate	(similar	to	IEE	

mechanism),	and	when	the	GDF	experiences	slower	pumping	periods	or	when	the	

GDF	is	closed	for	business,	the	combined	storage	tank	pressure	will	quickly	

increase.		Let’s	refer	to	these	emissions	as	“Storage	Tank	Breathing	Losses”.	

To	summarize,	when	Stage	II	and	ORVR	are	used	together	at	a	GDF,	the	storage	tank	

emissions	are	called	IEE	(Incompatibility	Excess	Emissions).	When	Stage	II	is	not	

present	at	the	GDF,	and	only	ORVR	is	employed,	the	storage	tank	emissions	are	

called	Storage	Tank	Breathing	Losses (STBL).	

ORVR	and	Stage	II	Emissions

In	our	view,	the	concept	of	ORVR	 WSU	“widespread	use”	has	been	misunderstood	

and	misinterpreted.	The	primary	flaw	centers	on	the	“breakeven”	or	“cross	over	

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 890
5	

point”; where	(1)	the	refueling	emissions	from	ORVR	alone	are	said	to	equal	the	

refueling	emissions	from	Stage	II	alone;	or	(2)	when	refueling	emissions	from	ORVR	

alone	are	said	to	equal	the	refueling	emissions	from	Stage	II	plus	ORVR.	

It	is	best	to	illustrate	these	points	by	charts.	Chart	1,	represents	the	data	from	the	

dKC	Report	shown	as	Figure	3	on	page	48.	Here	ARID	recreates	the	dkC	data	by	

using	a	simple	spreadsheet	instead	of	MOVES.	Our	spreadsheet	uses	all	the	same	

assumptions	as	dKC.		First,	we	plot	the	ORVR	Alone	vs.	Stage	II	Alone	refueling	

emissions	from	2005	through	2022;	we	show	ORVR	only	and	two	control	

efficiencies	for	Stage	II	only,	82%	and	57%.	This	Chart	1,	is	essentially	the	same	as	

Figure	3.	

Next,	we	show	Chart	2,	which	incorporates	Stage	II	+	ORVR	refueling	emissions,	

using	the	same	Stage	II	efficiencies	of	82%	and	57%.	The	refueling	emissions	with	

the	combined	use	of	Stage	II	and	ORVR	are	always	lower	than	the	emissions	with	

ORVR	only;	and	there	is	no	“crossover”	point	with	ORVR	only	and	the	Stage	II	+	

ORVR	curves.		Thus	definition	(1)	from	above	on	WSU	is	negated,	and	there	is	no	

benefit	to	using	ORVR	Alone	in	comparison	to	Stage	II	+	ORVR	over	the	entire	

interval	shown.			

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 891
6	

Next,	we	move	to	Chart	3,	which	represents	the	data	from	the	dKC	Report	shown	as	

Figure	4	on	page	49.	Here	ARID	recreates	the	dKC	data	by	again	using	our	simple	

spreadsheet	instead	of	MOVES;	incorporating	the	relevant	dKC	assumptions.	First	

we	plot	ORVR	Alone	vs. Stage	II	plus	ORVR,	at	the	two	Stage	II	efficiency	levels.	Even	

though	ARID	has	directly	measured	values	for	IEE	which	far	exceed	the	value	of	0.86	

lbs. VOC	/	1,000	gal	figure	used	by	dKC	for	their	Figure	4	plot;	ARID	uses	the	low

figure	in	our	Chart	3.		Chart	3,	if	realistic,	would	show	a	benefit	to	using	ORVR	Alone	

beyond	2012	to	2013	(depending	on	Stage	II	efficiency).	

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 892
7	

However,	the	major	problem	with	Chart	3	(and	Figure	4)	is	that	the	Storage	Tank	

Breathing	Losses	(STBL)	for	the	ORVR	Alone	plot	is set	to	zero.	The	assumption	of	

zero	STBL	is	totally	unrealistic	and	not	supportable	by	actual	measured	data.	The	

STBL	are	a	very	important	contribution	to	the	total	vapor	losses,	and	the	dKC	Report	

(and	US	EPA	rationale)	have	totally	neglected	this	category	of	emissions.		For	

decades,	the	USEPA	has	ignored	this	category	of	important	emissions	in	their	

analysis	of	Stage	II	and	ORVR	interactions.	

It	is	this	very	same	category	of	emissions	which	dKC	recommends	the	use	of	a	vapor	

processor	for	mitigating;	however,	the	magnitude	of	these	emissions	is	strangely	

assigned	a	zero	in	this	part	of	the	dKC	analysis.	

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 893
8	

We	incorporate	a	very	conservative	figure	of	1.0	lbs./1,000	gal	STBL	in	our	Chart	4.	

Please	note	a	gap	between	the	ORVR	Only	emissions	and	the	ORVR	+	Stage	II	

emissions;	there	is	no	intersection	of	the	curves	and	therefore	no	emissions	

reduction	advantage	to	using	ORVR	Alone	in	comparison	to	ORVR	+	Stage	II.	Please	

also	note	that	the	emissions	gap	is	relatively	modest	in	future	years.		As	a	fair	

comparison,	our	Chart	5	now	incorporates	emissions	curves	for	ORVR	+	Stage	II	+	

Vapor	Processor;	where	an active	vapor	processor	is	used	to	control	storage	tank	

pressure	and	to	reduce	IEE	by	99.3%,	as	confirmed	by	objective,	third-party	field	

testing.	

In	Chart	4a,	below;	we	incorporate	a	still	conservative	figure	of	2.5	lbs./1,000	gal	

STBL.	Please	note	that	further	“upward	shift”	in	the	ORVR	only	emissions	curve.		

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 894
9	

CHART 4a: State of CT: Refueling Emissions+ lEE 

ORVR Alone vs. Stage II plus ORVR (No Processor) 

0.86 lbs VOC I 1,000 gal lEE 

STBL = 2.S lbs VOC I 1,000 gal 

3.50 ..-------------------------

300 " 

2 50 +---

OO ~ f' ~~== 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 2020 2021 2022 

Year 

...,_.ORVR Only, STBL: 2S 

ORVR + Stage 11. 82% No Processor" 

RVR + Stage 11. 57% No Processor 

CHARTS: State of CT: Refueling Emissions+ lEE 

ORVR Alone vs. Stage II plus ORVR (With and Without Processor) 

0.86 lbs VOC I 1,000 gal lEE 

STBL = 1.0 lbs VOC I 1,000 gal 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 2020 2021 2022 

Year 

...,_.ORVR Only+ STBL" 

ORVR + Stage 11. 82% No Processor" 

-*-oRVR + Stage 11. 57% No Processor 

RVR + Stage 11. 82%. + Proceuor 

-.oRvR + Stage 11. 57% • Processor 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 895
10

As	seen	in	Chart	5,	the	ORVR	+	Stage	II	+	Processor	curves	show	a	large	reduction	in	

total	emissions	from	the	ORVR	Alone	case,	when	STBL	emissions	are	properly	

accounted	for	in	the	emissions	inventory.	We	use	a	very	conservative	figure	of	1.0	

lbs.	VOC	/	1,000	gal	for	STBL;	in	practice	ARID	has	measured	values	nearly	five

times	higher	than	this	figure,	or	about	5	lbs. of	VOC	per	1,000	gallons	of	fuel	

dispensed.	

Chart	5b,	below,	shows	the	same	curves	but	with	STBL	incremented	to	2.5	

lbs./1,000	gallons;	still	in	our	view	a	conservative	figure.	

Ironically,	as	mentioned	previously,	the	dKC	Report	(and	USEPA	rationale)	seems	to	

recommend	the	elimination	of	Stage	II	(without	considering	enhancement	via	vapor	

processors);	but	then	the	report	recommends	the	use	of	vapor	processors	to	

mitigate	the	new	problem caused	by	STBL,	in	an	ORVR	only	environment.		

Especially	bothersome	is	that	STBL	are	not	included	in	the	dKC	report	to	CT	DEEP,	

Figure	4,	page	49.	The	omission	of	these	important	storage	tank	emissions	results	in	

dramatically	different	(and	incorrect)	conclusions	drawn	from	this	study.		

Thus	far,	we	have	explained	a	fundamental	flaw	in	the	dKC	Report	and	USEPA	

treatment	of	storage	tank	emissions	in	an	ORVR	Alone	environment.	In	addition,	we	

have	shown	a	large	emissions	gap	between	the	CT	DEEP	proposal	and	the	simple	

enhancement	of	Stage	II	vapor	recovery.	In	the	section	to	follow,	we	will	quantify	

the	costs	per	ton	of	VOC	reduced	under	the	CT	DEEP	proposal	and	compare	these	to	

the	costs	per	ton	of	VOC	reduced	for	a	state-of-the-art	approach	using	the	ARID	

processor. For	our	economic	analysis,	we	will	incorporate	the	most	conservative	

assumptions	from	our	perspective	(in	other	words;	even	though	ARID	has	directly	

measured	higher	parameters	for	IEE	and	STBL;	we	will	use	lower	figures	referenced	

in	the	dKC	Report	and	by	USEPA)		

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 896
11

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 897
12

Economic	Analysis	

Assumptions	used	in	the	Cost	Effectiveness	calculations:	

• Fuel	Savings:	$4/gallon

• Stage	II	Operating	Expenses:	$3,277/site-year

• Stage	II	Removal	Expenses:	$7,000	/	site	(33%	allocated	in	2013,	33%	

allocated	in	2015,	and	33%	allocated	in	year	2018)

• State	of	CT	Gasoline	Throughput:	1,514,621,565	gallons	per	year;	constant	

over	period	2013	–	2022

• Uncontrolled	Refueling	Emissions:	6.601	lbs. /	1,000	gallons

• Stage	II	Overall	Vapor	Recovery	Efficiency:	69%	(82%	+	57%)/2

• ORVR	Vapor	Recovery	Efficiency:	98%,	constant	with	no	degradation

• 93.5	%	of	fuel	dispensed	to	GDF	equipped	with	Stage	II	Vacuum	Assisted	

systems	

• IEE	=	0.86	lbs. /	1,000	gallons

• STBL:	0,	1.0	and	2.5	lbs. /	1,000	gallons

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 898
13

Table	1:	Cost	Effectiveness:	IEE	= 0.86	lbs. VOC/1,000	gal,	STBL	=	1.0	lbs./1,000	gal

ORVR	Alone	vs.	Stage	II	+	ORVR	+	Processor	

If	we	exclude	the	first	two	throughput	categories	from	above	(<	700,000	gallons	per	

year);	The	cost	effectiveness	for	the	six	subsequent	throughput	categories	show	

viable	measures;	where	approximately	87.5%	of	CT	gasoline	throughput	is	

controlled	with	the	combination	of	Stage	II	+	ORVR	+	Processor.		Of	particular	note,	

the	maximum	cost	per	ton	is	show	to	be	$9,336,	with	a	revenue	stream	of	$145	per	

ton	for	the best	case.	These	figures	are	for	very	conservative	IEE	and	STBL;	please	

note	that	these	cost	effectiveness	figures	vary	greatly	from	the	dKC	reported	range	

of	$21,000	to	$32,000	per	ton	for	Stage	II	enhancement,	Table	30;	page	34.		

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 899
14

Table	2:	Cost	Effectiveness:	IEE	=	0.86	lbs. VOC/1,000	gal,	STBL	=	2.5	lbs./1,000	gal

ORVR	Alone	vs.	Stage	II	+	ORVR	+	Processor	

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 900
15

If	we	exclude	the	first	throughput	category	from	above	(<	300,000	gallons	per	year);	

The	cost	effectiveness	for	the	seven	subsequent	throughput	categories	show	viable	

measures;	where	approximately	97.2%	of	CT	gasoline	throughput	is	controlled	with	

the	combination	of	Stage	II	+	ORVR	+	Processor.		Of	particular	note,	the	maximum	

cost	per	ton	is	show	to	be	$6,910,	with	a	revenue	stream	of	$852	per	ton	for	the	best	

case.	These	figures	are	for	conservative	IEE	and	STBL;	please	note	that	these	cost	

effectiveness	figures	vary	greatly	from	the	dKC	reported	range	of	$21,000	to	

$32,000	per	ton	for	Stage	II	enhancement,	Table	30;	page	34.	Also	the	ARID	costs	are	

far	below	the	upper	cost	range	shown	in	Table	26,	page	26,	where	a	figure	of	

$42,257	per	ton	is	listed.			

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 901
16

Negative	Health	Impacts	

At	a	non-Stage	II	GDF,	in	addition	to	the	problem	of	Storage	Tank	Breathing	Losses,	

STBL,	non-ORVR	vehicle	refueling	will	directly	expose	the	motorist	(and	nearby	

people)	to	carcinogenic	vapors,	increasing	toxic	exposure	risk	factors.	Please	

reference	this	link	for	video	of	a	refueling	event	with	a	non-ORVR	vehicle	refueling	

at	a	non-Stage	II	GDF:	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Hoj-

_v0W4&feature=related

• This	problem	will	be	more	prevalent	at	GDF	refueling	a	higher	proportion	of	

non-ORVR	vehicles.	Such	GDF	are	typically	located	in	so-called	

Environmental	Justice	(or	“EJ”)	areas.		

• Motorists	who	refuel	non-ORVR	equipped	vehicles	at	non-Stage	II	GDF	will	

be	directly	exposed	to	carcinogenic	vapors,	thus	creating	unnecessary	and	

unreasonable	risks	to	public	health,	welfare	and	safety

In	Connecticut,	the	population	of	automobiles	is	approximately	2	million	(1,999,809,	

US	Dept.	of	Transportation,	Federal	Highway	Administration,	Highway	Statistics,	

2006).	Thus,	if	ORVR	penetration	is	87%	in	year	2013;	then	13%	or	260,000	

vehicles	do	not	have	ORVR. Using	an	ORVR	vapor	recovery	efficiency	of	98%; upon	

refueling	each	“batch	of	260,000	cars”,	the	raw	emissions	will	be	equivalent	to	50	x	

260,000	or	13,000,000	vehicles.	This	far	exceeds	the	total	vehicle	population	by	a	

factor	of	6.5	times.	In	another	context,	the	motorist	refueling	a	non-ORVR	vehicle	at	

a	non-Stage	II	GDF	will	be	exposed	to	50	times	the	pollutants	as	a	motorist	

refueling	an	ORVR	vehicle.	

Conclusion	

In	conclusion,	the	elimination	of	Stage	II	and	sole	reliance	on	ORVR	technology	does	

not	provide	the	State	of	Connecticut	with	optimal	emissions	reductions;	in	terms	of	

both	refueling	and	storage	tank	emissions.	This	action	will	increase	emissions	of	

VOC’s	and	HAPS,	increase	health	risks	to	motorists,	GDF	employees	and	members	of	

the	Community,	where	the	brunt	of	the	emissions	and	negative	health	impacts	will	

be	borne	by	EJ	Communities.		

Overlooked	in	past	studies	and	analyses	on	this	topic	are	three	key	elements:	1.)	The	

proper	quantification	and	accounting	for	the	IEE		and	the	STBL	from	the	Storage	

Tanks,	2.)	The	adverse	health	impacts	from	raw,	uncontrolled	emissions	from	nonORVR vehicles;	especially	the	disproportionate	share	of	this	burden	being	borne	by	

EJ	Communities,	and	3.)	The	positive	impact	of	using	active	processors	to	enhance	

Stage	II	by	managing	storage	tank	pressure	and	significantly	reducing	IEE	and	STBL.		

The	optimal	course	of	action	is	for	CT	DEEP	to	require	Enhanced	Stage	II	via	vapor	

processors	with	continuous	pressure	monitoring	and	remote	data	acquisition.	

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 902
17

The	detailed analysis	above	shows	that	the	use	of	an	active	processor	provides	the	

following	benefits	to	a	GDF:	

Ø Control	of	VOC’s	and	HAP’s

Ø Reduction	of	Toxic	Exposure	Risk	to	motorists,	GDF	employees	and	members	of	

Community

Ø Energy	Recovery	from	saved	gasoline

Ø Automatic	monitoring	and	inspection	through	data	logging	and	remote	data	

acquisition	system

Ø Continuous	monitoring	to	reduce	leaks	in	UST	and	Stage	II	piping	system

Ø Leverage	valuable	existing	hardware	already	installed	at	GDF

Ø Improve	operating	efficiency	and	associated	profitability	for	GDF

Ø Allow	both	large	capacity	and	small	capacity	GDF	to	earn	benefits

In	comparison	to	ORVR	Alone,	the	aggregate	benefits	for	enhancing	Stage	II	for	the	

State of	CT	GDF	operators	with	a	vapor	processor	include	$33	million	in	fuel	savings	

while	at	the	same	time	reducing	emissions	of	volatile	organic	compounds	and	air	

toxics	by	over	21,000	tons.	In	the	final	chart	below	which	shows	State	of	CT	

aggregate	emissions	in	tons/year;	it	is	interesting	to	note	that	the	CT	DEEP	

recommendation	for	ORVR	Alone	ranks	3rd out	of	4	options;	the	Status-Quo	case	is	a	

better	alternative	and	the	ARID	processor	case	is	the	far	superior	option.		

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 903
18

.	

7.000 

6.000 

~ 5,000 

~ 'i 4,000 

0 

! 

~ 3,000 

~ 

1 \.:1 2,000 

1.000 

Gasoline Emissions Under Various Scenarios 

Connecticut - Statewide 

{Includes Refueling Emissions, 0.86 lbs I 1,000 gal lEE with Stage II + 

ORVR and 2.S lbs I 1,000 gal STBL with ORVR Alone): 

2013 20 14 2015 2016 20 17 2018 2019 20 20 2021 

Year 

•No St<tge II, No ORVR, No Processor• • With Stage u. With ORVR,. No Processor- Status Quo 

• No St<tge II, With ORVR, No Processor-dKC Oprlon • With Stage U, With ORVR,. Wdh Processor· St<lte-.of·the--Art 

2022 

_j 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 904
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Emissions, Tons/day VOC

Year

Chicago Non Attainment Area

MOVES Output Provided by IL EPA

ORVR Only

ORVR + Stage II + IEE

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 905
year ORVR Only ORVR + Stage II (with IEE)

2007 14.52 4.39

2008 12.15 4.2

2009 11.66 4.42

2010 9.45 4.27

2011 8.12 4.31

2012 5.98 4.08

2013 4.92 4.08

2014 4 4.07

2015 3.23 4.04

2016 2.57 3.98

2017 2.08 3.94

2018 1.85 3.93

2019 1.54 3.89

2020 1.31 3.84

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 906
Attachment 27

Hearing Officer Order 

dated September 30, 2013

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 907
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 908
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

September 30, 2013 

IN THE MA TIER OF: ) 

) 

VAPOR RECOVERY RULES: ) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 

PARTS 201,218, and 219 ) 

R13-18 

(Rulemaking- Air) 

HEARING OFFICER ORDER 

ECEI E 

CLERK'S OFFICE 

SEP 3 0 2013 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Pollution Control Board 

In this order, the hearing officer decides whether to allow two late-filed public comments 

into the record for the Board's consideration. The public comments were filed some 60 days 

after the scheduled close of the comment period by ARID Technologies, Inc. (ARID), a 

Wheaton, Illinois designer and manufacturer of vapor processors. The rulemaking proponent, the 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), opposes allowing ARID's public comments 

into the record, as do the Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association and the Illinois Association of 

Convenience Stores (collectively, IPMA). 

For the reasons below, the hearing officer allows ARID's public comments into the 

record for the Board's consideration and directs IEPA to file a responsive public comment for 

receipt by the Clerk's Office no later than October 11, 2013. Any other participant may also file 

a public comment in response to ARID's public comments, which comment likewise must be 

received by the Clerk's Office no later than October 11, 2013. In so ruling, the hearing officer 

does not contemplate granting any further extensions of the public comment period. 

This order provides the relevant procedural history of the rulemaking before turning to 

ARID's motion to allow its late public comments and !EPA's motion to strike them. 

Procedural History 

On March 18, 2013, IEPA filed a rulemaking proposal to amend the Board's air pollution 

rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201, 218, and 219. On April4, 2013, the Board accepted !EPA's 

proposal for hearing. The proposal includes the phase out of Stage II vapor recovery systems at 

the pump nozzles of gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) in the Chicago ozone nonattainment 

area (NAA). The phase out is based upon (1) widespread use of on-board refueling vapor 

recovery (ORVR) in highway motor vehicles and (2) decreased emission reductions resulting 

from simultaneously using ORVR and incompatible Stage II systems. 

In its April 4, 2013 order, the Board also granted !EPA's motion for expedited review, 

finding that "the emission reduction benefits for the State and economic savings for affected 

[GDFs], as described by IEPA, justify establishing a January 1, 2014 starting date to phase out 

the Chicago NAA Stage II program." Vapor Recovery Rules: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code Parts 201,218, and 219, R13-18, slip op. at 3 (Apr. 4, 2013). In granting the motion for 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 909
2 

expedited review, the Board stated that it would, subject to available resources, "endeavor to 

adopt final rules by the end of this calendar year." Id. 

In accord with expedited review, the Board's April 4, 2013 order adopted !EPA's 

proposed amendments for first notice without Board comment on their merits. First-notice 

publication of the amendments appeared in the Illinois Register on May 10, 2013 (3 7 Ill. Reg. 

6028 (Part 201); 37 Ill. Reg. 6054 (Part 218); 37 Ill. Reg. 6083 (Part 219)). The Board conducted 

two public hearings: the first in Springfield on May 8, 2013; and the second in Chicago on June 

5, 2013. 

A deadline of July 8, 2013, for filing public comments was established at the end of the 

second hearing and reiterated in a June 17, 2013 order of the hearing officer. On the date of the 

filing deadline, IPMA filed a public comment proposing significant changes to the first-notice 

amendments. IPMA had not previously participated actively in the rulemaking. The hearing 

officer issued an order on July 16, 2013, directing IEP A to file a public comment responsive to 

IPMA's public comment by July 31, 2013. Hearing Officer Order, R13-18 at 1 (July 16, 2013). 

IEPA filed a public comment on July 31, 2013. 

On September 9, 2013, ARID sent an email message with attachments to the Board's 

Clerk. The Clerk designated the submittal as public comment four (PC4) and in the R13-18 

docket sheet, noted that the submittal was accompanied by ARID's request to accept the late 

submission (ARID Mot.). On September 10, 2013, ARID sent another email message with an 

attachment to the Board's Clerk. This email message described the attachment as a "follow-on" 

to ARID's September 9, 2013 submittal, and the Clerk docketed the September 10, 2013 

submittal as an addendum to PC4. 

On September 16,2013, IEPA filed a motion to strike (IEPA Mot. Str.) ARID's PC4, 

including the addendum. In tum, ARID submitted an email message to the Clerk on September 

20,2013, opposing !EPA's motion to strike (ARID Resp.). On September 18,2013, IPMA filed 

a response (IPMA Resp.) opposing ARID's request that PC4 be accepted into the record. On 

September 23, 2013, ARID sent an email message with attachments to the Clerk, which was 

docketed as public comment five (PC5). 

ARID's Motion to Accept Late Public Comment 

ARID's Motion 

ARID makes a "request that our filing [PC4] be accepted late into the record as we 

recently became aware of this matter before the IPCB." ARID Mot. at 1. ARID represents that it 

has been "involved in GDF vapor recovery technology for the past 20 years" and that its 

submissions "contribute technical data and information on this issue. Id. at 2. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 910
3 

IPMA's Response in Opposition 

IPMA argues that accepting PC4 "and subsequent responses to it" may delay final action 

in the rulemaking beyond the proposed January 1, 2014 effective date for the amendments. 

IPMA Resp. at 1. This, continues IPMA, would result in "additional expenses to [GDF] owners 

either in the delay in opening new gasoline refueling facilities .. . or in the continued 

maintenance expenses for existing stations with Stage II equipment." !d. IPMA urges the Board 

to disregard ARID's late comment and proceed as expeditiously as possible to adopt the 

proposed revisions, adding that "the decommissioning of Stage II equipment in a timely manner 

will ... reduce excess emissions from the use of incompatible [Stage II and ORVR] equipment, 

thereby improving air quality." !d. 

IEPA's Motion to Strike ARID's Public Comment 

IEPA's Motion 

IEPA first argues that ARID's PC4 should be stricken from the record because it was not 

properly filed or served. IEPA Mot. Str. at ,-[8. Next, IEPA asserts that ARID's public comment 

should be stricken because it was submitted over two months after the hearing officer's deadline 

of July 8, 2013, for filing public comments. !d. at ,-[9. Third, IEPA reminds that to accommodate 

a January 1, 2014 effective date for the amendments, the Board granted !EPA's motion for 

expedited review. !d. at ,-[1 0. According to IEPA: 

If ARID's public comment is erroneously accepted and debated, it will delay the 

adoption of this rulemaking substantially such that a January 1, 2014 effective 

date will most certainly not be possible. If this occurs, the State and its citizens 

will be materially prejudiced as it relates to the emissions disbenefit of 

maintaining the Stage II program, and affected sources will be materially 

prejudiced through the existing requirement to install expensive and unnecessary 

[Stage] II equipment at gasoline stations and incur the costs of maintaining such 

systems. !d. 

Fourth, IEPA maintains that ARID seeks a "new regulatory program- an enhanced Stage II 

program," unsupported by record evidence and without being subjected to public notice, 

comment, or hearing. !d. at ,-[11. Lastly, if ARID's public comment is allowed, IEP A asks for 

the opportunity to respond to the merits of ARID's public comment. !d. 

ARID's Response in Opposition 

ARID's president and founder, Ted Tiberi, states that he is a chemical engineer, not an 

attorney. ARID Resp. at 1. Mr. Tiberi suspects that ARID is the "lone dissenter" on the proposal 

to decommission Stage II vapor recovery systems. !d. It is his hope that a "democratic process" 

will prevail, allowing the Board to consider ARID's comments. Id. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 911
4 

ARID reiterates that it had previously been unaware of this rulemaking. ARID Resp. at 1. 

ARID maintains that its submittals were made to the Clerk by email to expedite their arrival. Id. 

Regarding TEPA's concerns over expedited rule adoption, ARID argues that "the sooner Stage II 

controls are removed, the sooner the refueling emissions will be increased in the State of Illinois; 

the sooner Stage II vapor recovery is enhanced, the sooner gasoline vapor emissions will be 

decreased in Illinois." !d. (emphasis in original). ARID also takes issue with TEPA 

characterizing ARID as seeking a new regulatory program. ARID asserts that it is "simply 

stating a means to enhance an existing program as an alternative to abolishing such a program." 

!d. (emphasis in original). 

Hearing Officer's Rulings 

ARID moves that its PC4, though late, be accepted into the record for Board 

consideration. IPMA opposes ARID's motion and TEPA moves to strike PC4. As an initial 

matter, the hearing officer construes both ARID's motion to add and TEPA's motion to strike as 

encompassing not only PC4, but also PC5, though this was not made explicit by either ARID or 

TEPA. The hearing officer does so in the interest of administrative efficiency and to avoid undue 

delay. Generally, the reasons ARID seeks to add PC4 to the record also apply to PC5, and the 

reasons TEPA seeks to strike PC4 from the record also apply to PC5. 

ARID's public comments were submitted by email to the Clerk. This form of filing is not 

necessarily improper. The Board's procedural rules allow for "[f]iling by electronic transmission 

... with the prior approval of the Clerk .... ," which was the case here. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

101.302(d). 

It is uncontested, however, that ARID's public comments were untimely and 

unaccompanied by the requisite proof of service. See Hearing Officer Order, R13-18 at 1 (July 

17, 2013); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.304(d), 102.108(c). Despite this non-compliance, ARID's 

comments can be considered by the Board if such consideration is necessary to prevent material 

prejudice. The Board's procedural rules state: 

Comments that are not timely filed or properly served will not be considered, 

except as allowed by the hearing officer or the Board to prevent material 

prejudice. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.108(d). 

In its comments, ARID opposes requiring the removal of Stage II vapor recovery systems. 

ARID claims that if the Board adopts the Stage II decommissioning amendments, emissions of 

volatile organic compounds from GDFs will increase, not decrease as TEPA maintains. PC4 at 2. 

According to ARID, TEPA failed to adequately take into account emissions resulting from (1) 

underground storage tank (UST) "breathing losses" (PC5 at 1) and (2) refueling non-road fuel 

tanks lacking ORVR (e.g., gas cans, motorcycles, boats, snowmobiles) (PC4 at 1). ARID 

advocates requiring that Stage II equipment be "enhanced" with UST vapor processors, a "largely 

overlooked" option which the company asserts would minimize emissions and "yield[] a 

favorable economic payback for the GDF owner." PC4 at 2. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 912
5 

Consistent with its grant ofiEPA's motion for expedited review, the Board adopted 

!EPA's proposed amendments for first notice without commenting on their merits. This timesaving step would, in the ordinary course of rulemaking, be followed by a second-notice order, 

after which the Board is permitted to make substantive rule changes only in response to 

suggestions of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. See 5 ILCS 100/5-40(c) (2012); 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 102.606. Accordingly, if ARID's public comments are not allowed and the 

Board proceeds to second notice, the company would have no other chance during this 

rulemaking to weigh in with the Board. 

In addition, ARID's comments contemplate keeping Stage II equipment in place, but the 

first-notice amendments would allow the decommissioning of Stage II equipment to commence 

on January 1, 2014. It would accordingly be oflittle practical use to simply advise ARID that it 

can instead file its own rulemaking proposal to advocate enhancing Stage II equipment. Neither 

IEPA nor IPMA suggest that the issues posed by ARID's public comments are irrelevant. 

Because those issues are not otherwise articulated in this rulemaking record, disallowing the 

comments would deprive the Board of potentially significant information. 

Under these circumstances, the hearing officer finds that not allowing Board 

consideration of ARID's comments poses a substantial risk of material prejudice. See Clean-Up 

Part III Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211,218, and 219, R04-20, Technical 

Corrections to Formulas in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 214 "Sulfur Limitations", R04-12 (consol.), slip 

op. at 5 (Apr. 21, 2005) (accepting public comment filed 1.5 months late by company previously 

unaware of rulemaking). 

Admittedly, there have been numerous public notices of this rulemaking, with 

corresponding opportunities for ARID to have participated in a timely manner. The hearing 

officer, however, has no reason to believe that ARID failed to act promptly upon learning of this 

proceeding. Further, allowing ARID's public comments, even with a period oftime for IEPA 

and other participants to respond, does not in itself jeopardize Board adoption of final rules by 

the end of this calendar year. Moreover, when rulemaking, the Board acts in a quasi-legislative 

capacity, and therefore generally allows items into the record more liberally than it does in 

adjudicatory proceedings. See Proposed Site Specific Regulation Applicable to Ameren Energy 

Generating Co., Elgin, Amending 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 901, R04-11, slip op. at 3 (June 3, 

2004) ("the Board is generally more liberal in adding to the record in a regulatory context than in 

an adjudicatory context"); id. at 2, 4 (May 6, 2004) (granting post-hearing motion to supplement 

record). 

For the above reasons, the hearing officer denies !EPA's motion to strike and grants 

ARID's motion to accept the late-filed PC4 and PC5 for Board consideration. On his own 

motion, however, the hearing officer strikes a video file attachment that ARID submitted (as part 

ofPC4 on September 9, 2013) because the video is not readily viewable. PC4, so amended, is 87 

pages in length, including its 2-page addendum filed on September 10, 2013. Both PC4 and PC5 

are available in the Clerk's Office and on the Clerk's Office On-Line (COOL) on the Board's 

website (www.ipcb.state.il.us). 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 913
6 

As requested by IEPA should ARID's public comments be accepted, the hearing officer 

directs IEP A to file a public comment that is responsive to PC4 and PC5. IEP A must file its 

comment with the Clerk no later than October 11, 2013. By the same deadline, any other 

participant may also file a public comment in response to ARID's comments. The "mailbox 

rule" (35 Ill. Adm. Code 101 .300(b)(2)) does not apply to these filings. Therefore, the Clerk 

must receive the public comments by 4:30p.m. on Friday, October 11, 2013. The public 

comments may be filed through COOL. The public comments must be served on those persons 

on the R13-18 service list, which is available on COOL. 

The hearing officer also directs IEP A to address in its public comment the following: As 

IEPA maintains that current registration requirements (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.583(e), 219.583(e)) 

should be repealed as redundant, please supply citations to the other provisions (e.g., Office of 

the State Fire Marshal regulations) already requiring that regulators be provided with the 

information called for by the registration requirements, including the information regarding 

pressure/vacuum (P/V) relief valves for tank vent pipes. See 60 Fed. Reg. 5318 (Jan. 27, 1995); 

15% ROP Plan Control Measures for VOM Emissions- Part I: PressureNacuum ReliefValves 

and 7.2 RVP (Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201. 211. 218, and 219), R94-12 (Sept. 15, 

1994). For any information called for by the current registration requirements that is not 

otherwise required to be reported to regulators, IEP A is directed to explain why it is unnecessary 

for regulators to be notified of such information. 

Finally, to allow the Board the opportunity to complete the rulemaking by the end of this 

calendar year pursuant to the Board's April 4, 2013 grant ofiEPA's motion for expedited review, 

the hearing officer does not contemplate further extending the public comment period. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Richard R. McGill, Jr. 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

(312) 814-6983 

richard.mcgill@illinois.gov 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 914
Attachment 28

Public Comments of the 

Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association (PC #6)

dated October 11, 2013

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 915
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 916
WILLIAM J . FLEISCHLI 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 

BY EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL 

October II. 2013 

Winois Petroleum Marketers Association 

Ulinois Association of Convenience Stores 

WM. R. DEUTSCH BUILDING • 1 1 2 WEST COOK STREET 

P.O. BOX 1 2020 • SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62791 -2020 

PHONE: 217/544-4609 • FAX: 217/789-0222 

Clerk ofthe !!linois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 6060 l 

Re: Comments on Vapor Recovery Ruies Rl3-18 (Rulemaking- Air) 

Dear Clerk: 

On July 8, 2013, I filed comments on behalfofthe Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association I Illinois Association of 

Convenience Stores (co!lectively "'IPMA'") on the proposed Vapor Recovery Rules 13-I 8. On September 9, 2013, 

ARID Technologies, Inc., ("ARID") filed commenis by email on the proposed rules, more than two months after the 

date for comments established by the Hearing Ofticer. On September 30. the Hearing Officer rejected opposition to 

ARID's comments filed by the Il linois Environmental Protection Agency and IPMA and allowed ARID's comments 

into the ;ecord. The tollowing comments are in response to ARID's comments. 

The I PMA is familiar with the type of system being proposed b)' ARID. ARlO is one of several manufacturers that 

are an option if a Stage I1 site wants to make the investment to make their site ORVR compatible. When the !EPA 

drafted the revised S.I.P., it had already taken into consideration the option of upgrading existing Stage II sites to be 

ORVR compatible. ARID does not offer any new game-changing technology. Its system is just one of several 

options to make an existing site with Stage II compatible with ORVR. As with the other existing upgrade options, it 

would be an expensive investment for the site to make this change. Once done the site would have additional cosrs 

to maintain the ARID system. Keeping their system Stage ll active as ORVR compatible would also keep their 

maintenance costs higher as documented in your drafted ruiemaking. Additionally Stage ll systems are only certified 

and compatible for up toE l 0 fuel. This is also a great limitation to the State and marketers that want to offer highei 

bio fuel options. ARID missed the tiling deadline to submit comments on the proposed rulemaking. ARID system 

does not resu lt in decommissioning Stage II recovery, which the USEPA has approved. ARID's system only 

modifies existing Stage II equipment. 

As we indicated in our July 8 comments, Illinois marketers are delaying investment in building new sites or 

upgrading existing ones until the new rules are in place. Delaying the course of the proposed rulemaking beyond the 

planned January 1, 2014, implementation date in order to review ARID's product would be unproductive and a 

disservice to the citizens of Illinois. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present these comments. 

2dl!M~ William J. Fleischli 

Executive Vice President 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 917
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served the attached Comments of the illinois 

Petroleum Marketers Association/illinois Association of Convenience Stores (IPMA/IACS) upon the 

following persons: 

John Therriault, Clerk 

illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

1 00 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, illinois 60601 

(By e-mail and U.S. Mail) 

Richard R. McGill, Jr. 

Hearing Officer 

illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph, Suite 11- 500 

Chicago,Dlino~ 60601 

Ted Tiberi 

ARID Technologies Inc. 

323 S. Hale Street 

Wheaton, illino~ 6018 7 

Thomas Davis, Bureau Chief 

Environmental Bureau 

Office of the Attorney General 

500 South Second Street 

Springfield, illinois 62706 

Office of Legal Services 

Dlinois Department of Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, Dlinois 62702-1271 

Kent E. Mohr, Jr., Assistant Counsel 

illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

1021 N. Grand Avenue, East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, illino~ 62794-9276 

By mailing a true thereof in an envelope duly addressed bearing proper first class postage and 

deposited in the United States mail at Springfield, illinois on October 11, 201 S. 

Dated: October 11, 2013 

112 W. Cook Street 

Springfield, Dlinois 62704 

217/789-7800 

Dlino~ Petroleum Marketers Association/ 

Dlinois Association of Convenience Stores 

B)r. ~ <( ~ _--; 

/ Steven E. Wermcrantz 0 

Its Attorney 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 918