# Attachment 23

Illinois EPA Motion to Strike ARID Technologies, Inc.’s Public Comments dated August 12, 2013**~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 62£n3 ) S " fATE 0 

### ) R13-18 

### Pollution

## c~ ILLINOIS ) (Rulemaking- Air) 

### ntrol Board )


### NOTICE OF FILING 

# D O RIGINAL 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, Illin ois 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 ofNatural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, IL 62702-127 1

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 Avenue 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 Coun sel Division of Legal Counsel

### ~~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 162013 ) 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
Contro l Board (Board).
2. On Apri l 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 ofJuly 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 IllinoisEPA 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 ofreasons 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

### 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 

### ifARlD's 

### public comment is accepted, as discussed
further below.
9. Second, ARID's public comment should be stricken from the record because it
vio lates the Hearing Officer's Order dated June 17, 2013. This Order established July 8, 20 13 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 l ate filed comments will not be considered except as a llowed 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. IfARID'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 Illinoi s 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 so l e purpose of requiring the [Jlinois EPA to respond to a public comment filed on July 8 , 2013, and the Illinoi s EPA time ly and pr

operly filed a response as requir ed

. 

### 3

### 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 t he 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. Ifthis occurs, the State and its
citizens will be materially prejudiced as it 

### relates to the emiss ions 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 ofmaintaining such systems

. 11. Fourth, in its pub li c 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 pub lic comment, especially as 

### it
rai s es 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 AR ID 's public comment, it 

### will be materiall y prejudiced.

412. 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
I021 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 ofLegal Counsel

### 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 s tate 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 ofmy information and belief.**SUBSC~ED ~SWORN**  TO BEFORE ME thi s 

# a tlay of

### --**~013**

OFFICIAL SEAL 

### DAWN A. HOLLIS NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF ILLINOIS MY COMMISS ION EXPIRES 8-19-2016 Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Co un sel

### STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF SANGAMON ) ) ) 

## ss Receaveo CLERI( 'S OFFICE



## SEP 1 62013 STATE OF 

### ILLINOIS P

o/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 ofthe Attorney General 500 South Second Street Springfield, Illinois 62706
Office ofLegal Services Illinois Department ofNatura l 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 Avenue East P

.O. Box 19276 Springfield , 1llinois 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

# ::~**d~** '

# KentE.MOiU::**Jt ~**  Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Coun sel

# Attachment 24

Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association ’s Response to ARID Technologies Inc.’s Public Comments dated September 17, 2013

## Dlinois Petroleum Marketers Association Dlinois Association of Convenience Stores

WIU.IAM J

. FLEJSCHI.I EXEC UTIVE VICE PRESIDENT WM

. R

. DEUTSCH BUILDING • 1 12 WEST COOK STREET P

. O

. BOX 1 2020 • SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62791·2020 PHONE: 2 1 7/544

-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 18 2L'13 STATE OF 

### 1 P

ollution 

### 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 September9 1 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** d elay 'the' actip!'! ·on the proposed**l'Hl~m11 king**  

### 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 faci liti es, many ofwhich have been on hold in anticipation ofthe 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 will 1 as demonstrated in the Illinois EPA's testimony 1 reduce excess emissions from t he use of incompatible equipmeot 1 thereby improving air quality. Thank you. Sincerely yours 1

# v.~- Btll Fleischli Executive Vice President

# Attachment 25
ARID Technologies, Inc. ’ s Response to Illinois EPA Motion to Strike dated September 20 , 2013

# Attachment 26

Public Comments of ARID Technologies, Inc. (PC #5) dated September 23 , 2013

### 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

### 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

### 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") 33. 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 ?

4Please 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

5Ted 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

### 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	asmall	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	ke eping	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”,

### 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 vaporswill	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	1 00%	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 wides pread	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 ideaformulated	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

### 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	proporti on	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 CHART 3	that	there	is	a	cross -over	for	the	ORVR	Alone	curve	with	the	Stage	II	+ ORVR	curves;	however,	thi s	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	atmosp heric	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 Stakeho lders’; 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

### 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	c ontaining	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	emis sions. 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	IIvacuum	pumps	located in	the	fuel	dispensersis	eliminated,	however air	will	still	be	ingested	into	the storage	tanks	through	the	vent	line
. During	busy	refueling	periods, the	negative cracking pressure	of	th e	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	pres sure	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	busine ss,	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

### 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	the se 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%.	Thi s	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.

### 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).

### 7 However,	themajor	problem	with	Chart	3	(and	Figure	4)	is	that	the	Storage	Tank BreathingLosses	(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.

### 8 We	incorporate	a	very	conservative	figure	of	1.0 lbs. /1,000	gal	STBL	in	our	Chart	4. Please	note	a gap	betwee n	the	ORVR	Only	emissions	and	the ORVR	+	Stage	II emissions;	there	is	no	intersection	of	the	curves	and	therefore	no	emissions reductionadvantage	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 press ure	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.

### 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 20 10 20 11 20 12 2013 20 14 20 15 2 0 1 6 2 0 17 2 0 1 8 2 0 19 202 0 202 1 2022 Year ...,_. ORVR On l y , STB L: 2S**ORVR** + S t age 11

. 82 % N o P r ocessor"**RVR** + S t age 11

. 57% N o P r ocessor

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 20 10 20 11 20 12 2013 20 14 20 15 2 0 1 6 2 0 17 2 0 1 8 2 0 19 202 0 202 1 2022 Year ...,_. ORVR On l y+ STB L"**ORVR** + S t age 11

. 82 % N o P r ocessor" -*-oRVR + Stage 11

. 57% N o P

rocessor**RVR** + Stage 11

. 82 %

. + P roceuor

-.oRvR + Stage 11

. 5 7% • P rocessor

### 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	value s	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	m entioned	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	simpl e 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)

### 11

### 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

### 13 Table	1:	Cost	Effectivene s s:	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	categorie s	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.

### 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

### 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	to n	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.

### 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,	thepopulation	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	“batchof	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 non ORVR 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	I I	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

.

### 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	3 rd 

### out	of	4	options;	the	Status

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

### 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 2 0 14 2015 20 1 6 2 0 17 2018 20 1 9 2 0 2

0 2021 Y ear

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

• No St<tge II, With O RVR , N o Processor-dKC Oprlon • With Stage U, With ORVR,. Wdh Processor· St<lte-.of· the--Art 2022 

# _j0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Emissions, Tons/day VOC

Year 

# Chicago Non Attainment Area MOVES Output Provided by IL EPA

ORVR Only ORVR + Stage II + IEE

### 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

# Attachment 27
Hearing Officer Order dated September 30 , 2013ILLINOIS 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 30 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 for2
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 IEPA 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 2.3

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 ofJuly 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, IEPA 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.

### 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 2.5

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 ofrulemaking, 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).6

As requested by IEPA should ARID's public comments be accepted, the hearing officer directs IEPA to file a public comment that is responsive to PC4 and PC5. IEPA 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 IEPA 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, IEPA 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

# Attachment 28

Public Comments of the Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association (PC #6) dated October 11, 2013WILLIAM J

. FLEISCHLI EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDEN T

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, IL LI NOIS 62791

- 2020 PHONE : 217/544

- 4609 • FAX: 217/789-0222

Clerk ofthe !!linois Poll ution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph Street, Su ite 11-500 Chicago , Illinois 6060 l
Re: Comments on Vapor Recovery Ruies Rl3-18 (Rulemaking- Air)
Dear Clerk:
O n July 8, 2013, I filed comments on behalfofthe Illino i s 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 th e proposed ru l es , more than two months after the date for co mments e s tablished by the Hearing Ofticer. On S eptember 30. the Hearing Officer rejected opposi ti on to ARID 's c o mmen ts filed by the Il linois En vironmental Prot e ction Agency and IPMA and a ll owed ARID ' s c omments into the ;ecord

. The tollo w ing comments are in re sponse to ARID ' s comments . The IPMA is familiar with the type of system being proposed b)' ARID

. ARlO is one of several manufacturers th at are an option if a Stage I1 site wants to make the investment to make their s i te ORVR compatible. When the !EPA drafted the revised S.I.P., it had already taken into consideration the option of upgrading exi sting Stage II si te s 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 th e other existing upgrade options, it would be an expensive investment for the s i te to make th is change. Once done the site would have additional cosrs to maintain the ARID syste m. Keeping their system Stage ll active as ORVR co m patible wou ld also kee p the ir maintenance costs higher as documented in your drafted ruiemaking. Additionall y Stage ll systems are only certified and compatible for up toE l 0 fuel. Thi s is also a great limitation to the State and marketers that wan t to offer hi ghei bio fuel options

. ARID missed the tiling deadlin e to submit comments on the proposed rulemaking. ARID system does not resu l t in decomm is sioning Stage II recovery, wh ich the USEPA has approved. ARID's system only modifies existing Stage II eq uipm ent.
As we indicated in our Jul y 8 comments, Illinois marketers are delaying investment in bu ildi ng new sites or upgrading existing ones until the new rules are in place. Delaying the course ofthe proposed rulemaki ng beyond the planned J an uary 1, 2014 , implementation date in order to review ARID's product would be unproductive and a disservice to the citizens of Illin ois.
Thank you for the opportunity to pres e nt these comments.

# 2dl!M~ William J. Fleischli Executive Vice Presid entCERTIFICATE 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 100 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~** 60187 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