# Attachment 22

Public Comments of ARID Technologies, Inc. (PC #4)

d ated September 9 and 10 , 2013

## Therriault, John

From:



### Sent:

To: 

### Subject:

Attachments:



## Dear Mr. Therrinult, Ted Tiberi <ttiber i @aridtech.com>
Monday

, S ep t em ber 09,**~** 

### 12 :1 5 PM

Therr i au l t, Jo hn

R2013-018
OTC_Presentation 4

- 4

- 13 f or IL EPA submittal.pptx; spreadsheet showing derivation of

the refueling and storage tank emissions OTC phone conf 22 may 2013

. xlsx; Stage Il

ORVR and Emissions Reduction Opt i ons 20 DEC 2012 with Executive Summary.pdf; Analysis Results[l] copy.pdf; CT_CF_Drop_l3

. txt



## A s per our phone conversation (and my subsequent call with 

## Mr. Richard McGill), I am pleased to anach

ARID's comments in the matter of Case R20 13-018 current I y before the niinois Pollution Control Board ( IPCB ). I have attached 3 files; a powerpoint presentation previously provided to the OTC (Ozone Transport Commission), an excel spreadsheet showing the derivation of the charts found in the powerpoint, a nd a White Paper, where ARID 's rationale is more fully explained. Also, I have attached a non-road emissions study compiled by Meszler Engineering Service s at the request of the Marylnnd Department of Environment (MOE).

The non

- road emiss i ons are generated from the refueling of gas cans, motorcycJes, boats, snowmobiles, etc

.. The non road fuel tanks do not have ORVR technology

.... nor will they ever have ORVR technology in the

future. I have also attached a video taken with a special camera which shows the emissions from a non-ORVR

vehicle being refueled at a non-Stage II GDF.

Please note that we respectively request that our filing be accepted late into the record as we recently became

aware of this matter before the IPCB

.

As part of our submittal, I would also like to say that the State of PA is in the process of considering fieldtesting to accurately quantify the st<;>rage tank emissions from GDF (Gasoline Dispensing Facilitie s) under

various scenarios (with and without Stage II, and with and without the use of vapor processor s

. for example). The results of such field measurements will comprise key inputs into future ru le making in this

matter.

In 

## addition, our attachments include GDF emissions data from the state of Connecticut and the state of

Massachusetts as we were provided with detailed metrics for these states. For example, for MA data in our spreadsheet calculat io ns, we used:

-Emission Factor: 7.01 lbs/1,000 gallons (d KC report)

- ORVR Throughput: .8487 in year 2013 ( penetration values pe r dKC report}

- ORVR Efficiency: 98% (USEPA)

- Stage II Efficiency:

75% (dKC, MA, USEPA)

- Gasoline Throughput:

2.9 billion gallons per year (final result s nonnallized to l b/1 ,000 gallon)

The calculation methods and dynamics for the state of Illinois would be the**same~** 

## if fL EPA would like to provide ARID with the above metrics (along with GDF population data as a function of throughput)

, ARID

would be pleased to work up the Illinois

- specific data)

1 Il l in o i s Ozo n e SI P Rev i s i on

- V ehi cle R efu l eing Vapo r Rec overy P r og r am : A tta ch me n ts Pag e - 755

# Vapor Recovery Emissions Reductions

Stage II 

# and ORVR

Mr. Luke Howard, Mr. Ted Tiberi

ARID Technologies, Inc.

www.ARIDtech.com

lhoward@ARIDtech.com



# •

ARID TECHNOLOGIES

, INC

.

Illinoi s Ozone S I P Revision

- Vehic l e Refu l eing Vapo r Recovery Prog ram : Attachments Page

- 758

# Topics of D i scussion

• Refueling Emissions

-Status Quo vs Non Stage II (MA DEP examp l e)



# • Storage Tank Emissions

-lEE (Incompatibility Excess Emissions) for Status Quo

- STBL (Storage Tank Breathing Losses) for MA DEP



# • Enhancement of Status Quo and MA DEP

-Processor on Combined Storage Tank Ullage



# . .

' 

# • Rhode Island Shared Savings Example**.**

Illinoi s Ozone S I P Revision

- Vehic l e Refu l e i ng Vapo r Recovery P r og ram : Attachments Page

- 7 5 9

# Refueling Emissions (lbs/1000 gat)



# 2013

A B

7

. 01 (0.85) (1- 0

. 98) (1- 0.75) 7.01 (1-0

. 85) (1-0

. 75) 

# Stage II



# 0.029 0.263



# c D

7.01 (0.85) (1-0.98) 7.01 (1

- 0.85)



# INo Stage II



# 0.119 1.05

Illinoi s Ozone S I P Revision

- Vehicle Refu l eing Vapo r R eco very Program : Atta c hmen ts Page

- 7 6 1... .::1 

# •

<X:**~ ~**  

## 0

OJ

+J 

# "'

+J**~**



# .. V) 

# c: 0

V)

V) 

# E

LU



### 0.0 

# c:



# · -



# - Q) 

### :J**~** Q) 

### 0:::

:1) ll ci !.,;)
l t1 

### ooo·tjHll '\UO I H H U ':J

Il l i nois Ozone SIP Revision -Vehic le Refule i ng Vapor Recovery Progra m : Attach m ents Page

- 762 

# •



# " .. 

# -· :') 

# -·**~.>**



# -

· 0 

# -·**~** ....



# ... t:a



### .....

;.n



# - :...>



### .....



# . ..

..... :...>



# .. ,**~**


## .... ::;)



# - ·

Jl



### ..... ::;)



## ....



# . 

# . :)



# -

·

# - "'C 

# <t: 

# +**~** u**~** 

# - 0 

## a.. w <lJ 

## 0 iJ 1(0 

### <(



# ..... tl') 

# 2

... VI In 

### r C: 

# > i Q



# ·- 

# - 1111 

## .0 VI



# ·- + 

# E ro UJ 

# -
l ll.Q 

### 0

r C: 

### ::J



# - CJ ! CiJ 

### ':J Ill**~** 

### :3 ! (1) +J 

### 0::: 

# n:s

. +J U')**··~** \,J n



## {

:.., .1:1

Ca**~** jt':1**OOO' /S()J** **~\ l**  Ct Hll ll]

Il l in o i s Ozone SIP Rev i sion -Vehic le R efu l eing Vapor Rec ove ry P r og r am : Attach me nts Page

- 763**~** 

# .

.... :..•


## .,

:-,



# ... .")**~.**



# • •



# .. r..



## ....

· o

::> 

# ..

...



# ..**~** "I

.(•



# . . . (I



## ....

... 

# ,



# -**~** '"I



### .....



# ... n**~.**

# ...-....



# -

ra Lll Lll ri 

### 0 

# bO o:::t**~** 

# . . 0 M 

### N



# 0 0 \.C) 

# M 0 M N



# ............ 

# . 0 

## V) 

# ..c



# -

..._..... l/1 (V') \..0 

# z M N 

### 0 

# 0 ri M



# . 

# 0 N n



# - Vl l/1

en m

# ~ 00 \0 

### N ri



# . 

# . UJ 0 ri



# -1

# ~ a..

UJ 

# 0 Vl 

## 0 

# 1- :J 

# 0 Vl

# ~ V)



# ::> <l: 

# r Cj**~** Vl

Il l i no i s Ozone SIP Rev i sion

- Vehic l e Refu l e i ng Vapor Recovery P r og r a m: Attach m ents Page

- 765

# I n H 20



# 9

1



# 5

3

1



# . 1



# . 3

-5



# .7

-9

- 11 I 

# I**~**



# L Non-Stage II Site Pressure P r o f ile

rJo n Stage II GDF

I



# I

• I 

### I l., I


# r } ' 

## {


# l 

# ' I

I 

# I 

# I I
' Pta n kI 

### I 

## I 

# I I

1



# - - - 

# -- - 

# - 

# - - 

# -- -· 

# -- - 

# -**~** 

# - -**~~** 

# - -

I I



# , ,



# - - 

# 1

Z

:OO :OOAr

, I12 : 00:00AU**12 00** **00A 112** **00:0 Ar** **,l 12:00:00Ar,l** **2:00:00Af.112:00 00A** **~l 00:00** **Ar 12** **:0 00** **AfJ** 

# 12:00:00At 1 12:00:00Af

. 8 1

19 ' 2012 8 1 21 1 2012 

# 8 1 23 : 2012 8 1 25 1 20 1 2 8 ' 27

, ' 20 1 2 

# 8 / 29 ' 2012 8 f 31 1 2012 9 : 2'20 1 2 9 1 

# 4 1

2012 9 ' 6 

# 20 1 2 9 ' 8 ' 2 0

1 2

Illinoi s Ozone S I P Revision

- Vehic l e Refu l eing Vapo r Recovery P r og ram : Attachments Page

- 767

# In H20



# 10

8



# 6

4



# 2



# 0



# -2

-4

- 6

-8



# - 10**1** j

I**~--** 

## I



# j 

# I f / 1 

# r ·

I I

I 

# I '

l

.



### .._ ...__ 

# Non-Stage II S i te Pressure Profi l e Expanded Sca l e

llon Stage II GOF



# !\ 

# I 

# /l

I I I I I 

# I

I I

I 

# I I 1



# I I 

# '

I



### \ 

# I l.__j



# I**~· '\**  

# (\

I

J 

# 1 \



# I I

! 

# LJ l



# 12 : 00:00AI.l 1 2:00 : 00Pr.l 1 2:00 : 00Af

. 1 12:00:00Pf.l 1 2 : 00 : 00A/.l 1 2:00 : 00Pt

. l 1 2

: 0

0: 00Ar.1

, 2 : 00:00Pr.l 1 2:00 : 00AI.1 1 2:00:00 P f

. 1

8

, 2320 1 2 S232012 82420 1 2 82420 1 2 82520 1 2 82520 1 2 82620 1 2 826 ' 20 1 2 827

, 20 1 2 8 ' 2 7 20 1 2

Ill i n oi s Ozone S I P Revision

- Vehicle Refu l e i ng Vapo r Recovery Prog r am : Attac hm ents Page

- 768 

# I

r 

# Ptank

-



# '
:lR "



### c. 0 

### 2.5

_,**~** 

### 1

## ~

0.5

0



### 2013 2014 

# Refueling+ Tank Emis

, sions, State o f MA

2015 2016 2017 2018 

### 2019 2020 2021. 

### 2022

Illinoi s Ozo n e S I P Revision

- Vehic l e Refu l eing Vapo r Recovery P r og ram : Attachments Page

- 769 Statu s Quo

MA IDE!'



### Status Quo Enhanced**~ ~**  

## , ,



# ...

...



# ....

a 0

I I 

## cr**~** 

# .. . I I ::l**:~** 

### .-: =·i /i**~·** 

### :;;;



# -.**~** 

## ;· ·



# .. ,



# co 

# <l: tl.O 

## 0

# ~ 0 

### 0



# ...... 'r'i 

## 0 

# -· , ,



# ._,



# ,..,

......... ClJ

V) 

### .0 

# .... 

# "'

00 +-1 V') L.f')



## ... 

# . V) 

### M 

# c:

II 

### 0 M V) 

### T""i V) 

### 0 

# E N



# .. w LLJ 

### .X UJ 

# c 

# i

. I 

### I 

### {**'~'~** -=**'""-=~·** 

# i**~** I 

### ( 

### l



### 1 

# - =

l 

## ·- 

# ' c • N u



## ,.. ,**~** 

# ... u



# ... .**'~** 

# - 0 -I



# u 

# "'

+-' 

# .._

V'l 

# +

co tl.O I**~--~~---=- ~**  

## l 

# ....

0



# ...

Q) 

# c: cr::
ClJ 

# l

I 

# J-**--~-=-=-===** :,



# - :l



# ..... QJ 

# cr:: l ] 

# I

I 

## r

--**-~** 

## ·- -·**~** 0



# .. .

..n



## .... l :'?



# · - ·**~ ~-**  

## == 

# ..

• 1**~** :") 

# -·

. r

I

----- 

### ====-=



# ....



# . ' 

## [ :")



## ... 

# ,

.... 

## ._,

Il l ino i s Ozone S IP Revision -Vehic le R efu l eing Vapor Recovery Program : Attac h me nts Page

- 770

### <(

## ~ '+- 

### 0

(1) 

### 00**~** 

### ro l.t)**~** 

# m V')



### II 

## ... V') 

# m c:: M 

### 0 0 V') 

### N V')



# ... 

# E LU 

## w UJ



# u 

# ..:.::

+J 

# c::

V) 

### ro



# · - t

# ro 

# + Q) 

### 0:::: l:l.O 

# c::

(1) 

### :::J
'+- QJ 

## a:: n**~** 

### " 

## 1: ? " t ;; 

# ... ' ·:'l 0 

### • I 

# .. . '.1 

## =- ';.1



# ... .OJ


# .. .. ,



# , -::, 1 0



### :.! .:: 

# ., .::

4



# . A 

### '**•"'~ ~** **~**

1

J**,.--~· -~--'**  ...,..._ (



### l

- 1

j I [



## ('

I**~** 

### l 

# I

I 

### l l
I**·~-** ---='

[



# r

...... 

## ""'

- l



### l



### (



# - ,

; l

I i



# . .., 

# " .-J

Il l ino i s Ozone S IP Rev i sion -V e hic le R efu l e i ng Vapo r Rec o very Program : Attachments Page

- 77 1 '..) 

# ...



# . '

:")



## ,..,



# ... 'J



# . . .



# ... ::)



# ...

"



# .. :-.**~** 

# .

## , c 2



## ,



# .. E



## .... 

# .. .

·· J

l !l

L

!I

J 

# )

.':.J:.3 .? :/ ll 

# Realistic lEE, 20 1 3 =3.58

Refueling+ Tank Emissions, State of MA, Cumulative



# -

' ·/• '. t: lf'**tnh.l ~~** **-=:**

t 

## '



# r 

# r

1

- 

### -**~** I

'

J



### 1 C l: .: u H : .!.Ul .: 

## ..::. o: 2 J:**1 J:J~J-'**  2(21 i.U.U

Ill inois Ozone S I P Revision

- Vehicle Refu l eing Vapo r Recovery Program : Attac h ments Page

- 772

# Why a Processor?

• Actively Controls Pressure

• Eliminates almost all Vent and Fugitive Emissions

• Reports Anomalies Immediately (vapor leakage)

• Returns Saleable Product to the storage tank

• Cost neutral (or cash flow positive) to GDF using

shared savings program

Illinoi s Ozone S I P Revision

- Vehic l e Refu l eing Vapo r Recovery Prog ram : Attachments Page

- 77 4

# l L_ 

## l 

## t

lb 

### 0 

## l

1e1t 

### ooo "tJS ql 

## J suots:qw3 

## t



# , ,



# l**.** 

# l '



# r

i**~** 

## l



# '

rt

I 

## fl

## ~

I 

## r 

# l

N 

### 6

Il l in o i s Ozone SIP Rev i sion -Vehic le R efu l eing Vapor Rec ove ry P r og r am : Attach me nts Page

- 776 

# q l**~ ~**  ..

# 1



# c

r**~**



# · cr



# cr



# _ 9

0 QO



# ... 0 N

Ll'l .-4 0

N 

# l

# Stage II & 

# ORVR and Associated Emissions of Gasoline Vapor

State of Connecticut Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

Ted Tiberi, Luke Howard, Mike Heffernan, ARID Technologies, fn c

.

Executive Summary 1 8 December 2012

www 

## AR!Dtech.coJll

Gas stations; also called gaso li ne 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 em i ssions of VOC's to the atmosphere are ozone precursors; where ozone formation in the lower atmosphere

is detrimental to human health.

To t •educe emissions ofVOC'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 f uel dispenser along with a coaxia l 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 hydroca r bon emissions to the environment as the displaced vapors are captured and d i rected back to the UST's

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

vapors from the motorist's veh i cle 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 Hequlllbrium leve l "

,

Il l i no i s Ozon e SIP Rev i s i on

- V ehi c l e Refu l e i ng Vapo r Recovery P r og r a m: Attac h m ents Page

- 777 

### 1

## 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 I I plus ORVR.

Jt is best to illust1·ate 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.

:

. A:

!

. !:.C

J.1C

O. l il 

### CHART 1: Refuelin g Emission s Only



### Sta t e of CT, 

### gram s / ga llo n

ORVR Alone 

### v s. Sta ge I I A l one



### No l EE Added



## Next, we show Chart 2, which incorporates Stage II+ ORVR refueling emissions, using the same Stage II efficiencies of82% 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 comparcson to Stage II+ ORVR over the entire

interval shown.

Il l in o i s Ozon e SI P Rev i s i on

- V ehi cle R efu l eing Vapo r Rec overy P r og r am : Atta ch me n ts Pag e - 78 1 

## 5

### CHART 2: Re f u e l i ng Emis s ions On l y

State of CT, gram s /gallon

ORVR A l one 

### vs

. Stage 

### II Alone 

### & Stage 

### II 

### + ORVR



### No l EE Added**~~** u**~.:** I r.)n • ' b .! '



## Next. we move to Chart 3

, whkh represents 

## 'the data fmm the dl<C 

## Report shown as Figure 4 

## on p ag e 49. H ere ARID recreates the dl<C 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 

## [(efficiency levels. Even 

## though ARID has directly measured values for lEE 

## which far exceed t he value of 0.86

l bs. VOC 

## /1,000 gal figure used by 

## dKC for their Figure 4 

## plot; ARID use s the 

## low fig ure in our Cha-rt 3. Chart 3, 

## if realistic, would show 

## a b enef i t to using ORVR Alone

b eyond 2012 to 2013 

## (depehding on Stage II efficiency)

.

6

Il l in o i s Ozo n e SIP Rev i sion -Vehic le R efu l eing Vapor Rec ove ry P r og r am : Attachments Page

- 782

### CHART 3: State 

### o f CT : Refueling Em issi ons+ l EE



### ORV R A l on e vs. S tag e II plus 

### ORVR (No P rocessor)



### 0.86 lbs 

### VOC 

## I 1

, 000 gal 

### l EE

STBL 

### = 0 .0 lbs 

### VOC 

## I 1,000 ga l

Jt'Y l •**~** { I

. !II "• • f

,.._

.:.••**~. o;**  .. '1. ' (/.'C'..ll. "" J .tu l.J.tUIJ ..''11•. r llJ::.! I!"! •:t>J**!fJ ~\.!** **•:•1 1** **~l !**  ;CJ.!**t~ t** 



### However, the major problem with Chart 3 (and Fig ur e 4) is that the Storage Tank Breathing Losses (STBL) for the ORVR Alone plot is set to zero. T he assumption of

zero STBL is totally unreali stic and not supportable by actual m easured data. Th e

STBL are a very important contriblltion to the total vapor losses

, and the dKC Report
(and US EPA rationale) hav e totally neglected this category of emissions. For
decades, the USEPA has ignored this category of important emissions in t heir

ana l ysis of Stage II and ORVR interactions.

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

processor for mi tigating; however, the magnitude of these emissions is strangely assigned a zero in this part of the dKC analysis

.

7

Il l i no i s Ozo ne S IP R e v i s i o n

- V ehi c l e R efu l e i ng Vap or R eco v e ry P r og r a m: A tta ch m en ts Pa ge

- 783: I I

J

,, . 

### CHART 4: State of CT: Refuel i ng Emiss i ons 

### + lEE

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



### 0

. 86 lbs VOC /1,000 ga l l EE

STBL 

## = 1

. 0 lbs VOC /1,000 gal

J ll\ I

. ... I I

. l / I-t I U( I'• •**~** ,. I•**~I ~**  I I ·" · I J ' w

• -.
. · "

- •. t .', i t A, r • •J. II.U l'li1Jl

.. .**~** .. .**~.' ''**  ! .t. .' :t .• .'& !: /

, 1 JJ:

. .. ·:!



### We incorporate a very conservat i ve figure of 1

. 0 lbs ./ 1

, 000 gal STBL i n our Chart 4.

Pleas e note a gap between the ORVR On l y emissions and th e ORVR +Stage II

emis s ions; there is no intersection of the curves and t her e fore no emissions

r e duction advantage to using ORVR Alone in comparison to ORVR +Stage II. Please

also note that the emissions gap is relatively modest in futur e years

. As a fair comparison, our Chart 5 now incorporates emissions curves for ORVR +Stage 

## !I + 

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

pressure and to reduce lEE by 99.3%, as confirmed by objective

, third-party field
testing

.

In Chart 4 a
, 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.

Il l i noi s Ozone S IP Revision -Vehic le Refu l e i ng Vapo r Recovery Progra m : Attac h m ents Page

- 784 

## 8J.,.c

},)!,.t**J.\~'**



### o .

..-.: CHART 4a: State of CT: 

### Refueling Em i ss i on s+ lEE



### ORVR Alone vs. Stage II plus ORVR (No Pr o cessor)

0

. 86 lbs VOC /1,000 gal I EE



### S

T BL = 2.5 lb s VOC /1,000 gal**.~·,a** i\.(er**~\.('J** lt:t:d ..!OC'J JU l iJ .!U! 1**~:tl!** 1J!.i JtJ: 1 JO!'.t**J~~b J~!**  /lOla J 0 1 9/Ji tJ l: Jl :• :J**r.~ ·** 



### CHAR T 5: State of CT: Refueling Emiss i on s + I EE

ORVR A l one vs

. Stage II plus ORVR (With and W i thout Processor)

0.86 lbs VOC / 1,000 gal lEE

STBL 

## = 1.0 Jbs VOC /1,000 ga l

.'l. n JCC'c lC.:I XC{ J

. t'I

- 'UIU !IJ II JJU ZJ:3**2.1: ~** **n:~ n:•l~ll** **!~ IJl~** **~ J:**  to:: J

Y•J•

Il l i noi s Ozone SIP Revision -Vehic le Refule i ng Vapor Rec o very Program : Attach me nts Page

- 785 

## 9

### i

";:) J

. l! l**J.; ~** 

.: .' .t:e**~**

. o 

### CHART Sb : 

### State o'f 

### 'CT: Refueling Emissions+ lEE

ORVR Alone 

### vs
, Stage II plus OIRVR (With and Without Processor )

0

. 86 lbs 

## voc /1,000 

## gal**lEE** 

### STBL:;:; 2.5 l bs VOC /1,000 gal



# . ,___......,_ 

# ____ . 

# - ·**lC~~ !t:C~**  ;t:r:J**l('c;~** :1.)f;•;

.. U J U JUt I**.!1,1!~ .'~:.l**  .' 0 : l**.W:~ JO:t~o**  !'.l'!..l**.! :~** **:K** . !J t t.. •t

. ' ! ':. • J:.•

.. ' ! .:s;

.. • .!**v~):,**



### CHART 

### Sc: State of 

### CT: R e fu eling Emissions+ lEE

ORVR

. Alone v.s. 

### Stage I I plus ORVR (With and Without .Processor)

3.67 lbs VOC 

### /1

, 000 gal lEE



### STBI. 

### = 2

. S 

### lbs VOC /1,000 gal

# :~ 

# I

- :

. >C 

### j • • • 4lo • 

# *

...**0.~**

Il l i no i s Ozone SIP Rev i sion -Vehic l e Refu l e i ng Vapor Recovery P r og r a m: Attach m ents Page

- 787 

## 11

## Tabl e 1 : 

## Cos t Effe ct i ve n ess: I E E 

# = 0.8 6 Jbs

. V O C / 1.000 

## ga l

, S TBL 

# = 1

. 0 lb s./1, 000 gal

O

RVR A l o n e v s

. S tag e II + 

### O R V R 

## + Pr oce s so r

4 

# · C**~: lul~t~~I!I1IDE** **·** 

# • 

# M-zrr:w

..**w~~mi:J** 2013 2 0 13 201 5 2 0 1 5 2 018 20 1 8

Th r o ug h put C a t ego ry F u e l S av i n gs Ne t $/Ton Fu e l Sa v i ngs N et $/To n Fu el Sa v i ngs N e t ${T o n

Less than 3 00, 00 0 $ 53,37 8 $45,708 $ 39,571

300 ,00 0 t o 7 00 ,000 $ 18 5, 6 06 $ 1 5 8 ,9 3 4 II $ 1 3 7 ,59 7

700,0 01 t o 1

, 1 00, 0 0 0 $3 11 ,1 85 $ 26 6,4 67 $ 230,693

1

, 100,001 to 1

, 500,000 $266,012 $227.7 8 5 $ 19 7

, 2011

1

, 500,001 to 1, 900

, 000 $206

, 88 7 $1 77

, 157 $15 3 ,373

1

, 900,001 t o 2

, 700

, 000 $298

, 885 $255

, 935 $221

, 575

2

, 700

, 001 to 3

, 9 00

, 0CO $l1U

, 98b $2 4 3

, 1 77 $210 ,5 30

> 3

, 900,001 $3 1 6

, 8 7 0 

### Sl

.. S $271

, 3 3 6 $ 234

, 908



## If we e xcl u de t h e fir s t tw o t hrou g hput c at ego r i e s f ro m a bov e ( < 

## 7 00, 0 00 ga ll o n s per

y e a r) ; The c o s t e ff ec t i ven e ss f o r the s i x s u b se qu e nt thr oug hput categ ori es s h o w via bl e me as ure s; whe r e appr oxi mat e l y 87.5 % ofCT ga so line t h r oughp u t is

c ontr o ll e d w it h t h e c om bi n a ti o n of St a g e II+ ORVR + P r o c e s so r

. O f p a r ticu l a r n ote

, the m aximum cos t pe r t on i s s h ow to be $9,336, wi t h a r e ven u e st re am of $145 p e r

ton for the b est cas e . T h e se figure s a r e fo r very co n se rv ative l EE and STBL ; pl ea s e

not e t h at t h e se cost effe c t i v e n e s s f ig ur es v ary grea tl y f r om t h e dKC re p ort e d r a n ge

o f $ 2 1

, 000 t o $ 32, 000 p e r t on for Stage II e nh ance m e n t

, Ta b le 30; pag e 3 4

.



## 1 3

Illin o i s Ozo ne S IP Rev i sion- Vehic l e Refu l e i ng Vapor Recov e ry P r og r a m : A ttac hm e n ts Page- 789

### CHAR T 6: Nat**Reve ut:~**  

### Per Ton of Emissio n s Reduced

7 GDF 

### Throughpu t Categories vs Year, 0.86 

### lbs VOC /1,000 

### gal lEE



### and 1.0 lb/1

, 000 gal STBL

CT P r oposal vs. State of the A r t wit h Active Processor

# · , .. u

. I i J 

# -=**l''~ ·.IJ**  l

. l 3'**~** I " ' 'U

. ,_ • \**i'JI),~f. t**  t\t .r

. .o:.n

. t:•.!t h• .!/U • .'**:•:J •**  J

, 'JI I(.' : ): I:t • 1**wu .~** **>~ :** 

8 -! IH I



## Tab l e 2: Cost Effectiveness: lEE 

## = 0.86 lbs. VOC/ 1 ,000 gal, STBL 

# = 2.5 l bs./1

, 000 gal



## ORVR Alone vs. Stage II + 

## ORVR + 

## Processor**~** 

# I

· [**[**

### WI~**r** 

## @l"ltmt11

,. 

# r**..:.!**

## ~**~** 2013 2013 2015 2015 2018 2018

Th r oughput Cate

. gory Fue l**s~vings** Net $/Ton Fue l Savings Net $/Ton Fue l Savings Net $/Ton

less than 300,000 $103,834 l

,. $96,164 $90

, 027

300 ,000 to 700,000 $361,051 $334,379 $313,041

700,001 to 1, 100,000 $605,334 $5 60,617 $524,842 I I

1,100,001 to 1,500,000 $517,461 1' $479,234 $448,653



## 1,soo,oo1 to l,9oo,ooo $402,4il9 $:372,719 $3.118,935

1, 900 ,001 

### to 2,700,000 

### ' $591,407 $53$, 457 $504,097



## 2. ,7oo ,Oo1 t o 

## 3,soo,ooo $5S2,4:l5 $435 $!>11,618 S342**~47&,969** 

### $l7S

>**900 001**  $616,394 

### $652 5570,859 $793 $534,431 $750 

## •



## 14

Il l in o i s Ozon e SI P Rev i s i on

- V ehi cle R efu l eing Vapo r Rec ove ry P r og r am : A tta ch me n ts Pag e - 7 90

### If we exclude t he first t h roug h put category fro m ab o ve ( < 

### 300

, 000 ga llon s p e r y e ar ) ;

T h e cost effec t ive n ess for the seven s u bseque n t thro u g h p ut c at eg o ries s h o w vi a b le

measures; w h ere ap p rox i mately 97

. 2% ofCT ga sol i ne t hro u g hp u t is co nt rolled w it h

th e co m bi n a t ion ofStage II + ORVR +Processo r

. O f particular n ote, the max i m u m

cost pe r to n is s ho w t o be $6

, 9 1 0, with a revenue st re am of$8 5 2 per ton for t he b est

case

. T h e s e fi gur e s ar e f o r c o n servative lEE and ST B L; pl ease note that t h ese cost

e f

f ec ti ven e ss fig u res vary gre a tly f rom th e dKC r e port e d range o f $2 1 ,000 to $32,0 0 0 pe r t on fo r Stag e II e nh a nc e m ent, T a b le 30 ; p age 3 4

. A lso the A R ID cos t s a r e
fa r b e low the u p p er cos t ra n g e shown i n T a b le 26

, pag e 26

, wh e r e a figure of
$4 2 ,2 5 7 p er t o n i s list e d

.

2**~·0..:**

## ~ 

## •

## ~ >I(·.··

[ 

### CHAR T 7 : Net 

### Revenue P e r 

### To n of 

### Emissio n s R e d uc e d

7 G DF 

### Throu g hpu t Ca tegor i es v s Vea r
, 0

. 86 lb s 

### VOC 

# I 1

, 000 ga l lEE

and 2

. 5 lb/1,000 gal S T BL

I• 0

, 

### C T Propos a l vs

. State o f 

### the Art 

### w i th Active P rocesso r

# ~ I I

# :~~**ll .**  :,,Ll OOU 

# I**.~.I J.~CI**  tc**.' ~)J**  Jl •1 1 'Jl•O.**~:..+~ ~"**  J,ll(' llOU**~' ""'**  t luoUI! h p. l t <l <e"''"'

,, . /'(f l 

# •

J, 1:11,: 1 ,:.1 ·, J.•)l;o' ll<liJ

Il l i no i s Ozo n e S IP R e vi s i on -Vehic l e Refu l e i n g Va por R eco v e ry Prog r a m : Atta c h m e n ts Pa g e - 79 1 :ciJ

e ,!.,;h



### 15

## 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 t hi s link for video of 

## a refueling event with a non-ORVR vehicle refueling

a t a 

## non

- St a g e II 

## GD F: lt l l p :/**/WW\'!.:JOll e.com/~alch'!v"'EBI-** **oj**



### vUW 

## 4& f t.!a l ul

· e=relale d

• 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-S t age ll 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 w i ll 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 ll 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 lEE 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 i mpact of using active processors to enhance Stage II by managing storage tank pressure and significantly reducing lEE and STBL.

The optimal course of action is for CT DEEP to require Enhanced Stage II via vapor p1

· ocessors with continuous pressure monitoring and remote data acquisi t ion.

16

Il l i no i s Ozone SIP Rev i s i on

- Ve hi c l e Refu l e i ng Vapo r Recovery P r og r a m: Attac h m ents Page

- 792

### The detailed analysis above shows that the use of an active processor provides the following benefits to a GDF:

);>. 

## Cont r ol ofVOC's and HAP's

);>. 

## Reduction ofToxic Exposure Risk to motorists, GDF employees and members of
Community
).;- Energy Recovery from saved gasoline



# » Automatic monitoring and inspection through data Jogging and remote data

acquisition system ).- Continuous monitoring to reduce Jeal<s in UST and Stage II piping system )- Leverage valuable existing hardware already installed at GDF**~ Jmpro~·e**  

## operating efficiency and associated profitability for GDF



# >- Allow both large capacity and small capacity GDF 

## to earn benefits

In compa riso n to ORVR Alone, the aggregate benefits for enhancing Stage II for the

State o f CT GDF operators with a vapor processor include $3 3 million in fuel savings

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

taxies by over 21,000 tons. I n the final chart below which shows State of CT

aggregate emissions i n tonsjyear; it is interesting to note that the CT DEE P

re commenda tion for ORVR Alone ranks 3 r d 

### out o f 4 optio n s; the Status

- Quo case is a
bet ter alternative and the ARID processor case is the f ar superior op ti on.

• I It '"

• t u 

### Cumulative Fuel Saved a nd Tons Reduced

CT Propos a l vs. State of the Art

, 0.86lbs /1,000 ga l l EE a nd



### 2

. 5 lbs /1,000 

### gal STBL

Connecticut

... I

h ;

. , D

..... . I l i t

.. ,**t. J.~t··~** **'** l 

## :

,_.,

}J:J J**~** .• 1 X I .'1:11' .lt li J I t

v

....



## 17

Il l ino i s Ozone S IP Rev i s i on -V ehi c le Re fu l e i ng Vapo r Recovery Program : Attachments Page

- 793

### Gasoline Em i s sions Under Various 

### Scenarios



### Co nnecti cut · Statewide (Includes Ref1.1eling Emission$, O.B6lbs /1,000 

### ' gal lEE with Sta

, ge 

### II 

### +

ORVR : and 

### 2.S**bs** 

### /1,000 

### gal STBL with ORVR 

### Alone) :

# ~**~ ~** 

:•:II**~:· :**  1 .!:J::> !U l'-**l~'!J .!:J~:i**  O:UI'I l\.'J('**'** 1**V~t..l l** 

Il l i no i s Ozone SIP Rev i sion -Vehic l e Refu l e i ng Vapor Recovery P r og r a m: Attach m ents Page

- 794 

## 1 8

# Meszler

Engineering Services 906 Hamburg Drive, Abingdon, Maryland 21009

www.meszler.com phone: 410-569-0599 fax: 410-569-0730 

## To: Marcia Ways, MDE

From: Dan Meszler

Subject: Stage II Emission Reduction Benefits

Date: August 22, 2012

As requested by MDE, MES has performed an analysis of the potential impacts associated with the elimination of Stage II requirements in Marylan d. In conducting this analysis, MES has evaluated potential gasoline refueling emissions trends related to both onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) and Stage II control technology over the period 2011 through 2020. MES has also evaluated the potential impact of indirect exc ess emissions (IEE), caused by a negative interaction between ORVR and some Stage II controls , on gasoline refueling emissions and quantified the potential timeframe in which IEE emi ssions may lead to a crossover point, following which Stage II emissions controls might a ctually result in an increase in refueling emissions above levels that would result if Stage I I controls were eliminated. 1 

## As requested, all analysis has been performed at the county level of detail for each of the 12 counties that currently require Stage II controls. Emission esti mates are available for each county individually as well as the aggregate Baltimore and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas and the 12 county Stage II area as a whole.

Before presenting a synopsis of analysis results, i t is important to recognize that despite the fact that Stage II control technology has been in use in the U.S. for four decades, there is surprisingly

little consensus on the actual in-use effectiveness of such technology, even with regard to reducing vapor displacement emissions. Greater unc ertainty exists with regard to whether Stage II offers any spillage-related emission reduction b enefit; and there is virtually no information available with regard to the effectiveness of Stage II controls during the refueling of either nonroad equipment and vehicles or portable refuelin g containers. In fact, most SIP-related Stage II estimates continue to rely on information origin ally published in EPA guidance documents in the early 1990s, and developed from rather sparse d atabases. 2 

## There are some data available for more recent issues such as IEE, but even those data exhibit significant uncertainty – indicating potential emission rates that vary approximately ov er an order of magnitude. For these reasons, it is not possible to present a single set of concl usive results regarding the impact of eliminating Stage II vapor recovery requirements. Instead, ana lysis results are presented on in a four-step

1 

### In reviewing the impacts of IEE, it is important t o recognize that there are methods to eliminate suc h emissions,

including the installation of ORVR-compatible Stage II equipment and bulk storage tank vent line vapor recovery and processing equipment. While it is beyond the scope of this analysis, it i s important to evaluate the cost effectiveness of IEE reduction technology before an y decision-making based on IEE impacts is implement ed.

2 

### U.S. EPA, “Technical Guidance - Stage II Vapor Rec overy Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emis sions at

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities,” EPA-450/3-91-022a , November 1991.

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 2 

## fashion so that the potential impact (and associate d uncertainty) of specific analysis assumptions can be accurately gauged.

The first set of analysis results apply solely to g asoline vapor displacement emissions associated with onroad vehicle refueling. These results indic ate the interaction between ORVR and Stage II controls assuming no gasoline spillage benefits (fo r either technology) and no Stage II control associated with nonroad equipment and vehicles or p ortable refueling containers. In the context of analysis design, this set of results is consistent with similar analyses that MES has

encountered from the EPA and others. A second set of analysis results extends the first set to include potential gasoline spillage impacts for onr oad vehicles. Potential impacts related to nonroad equipment and vehicles and portable refueling containers continue to be ignored. A third set of results adds the potential vapor displ acement impacts associated with nonroad equipment and vehicles and portable refueling conta iners to the onroad vehicle vapor displacement (only) estimates (potential spillage i mpacts on both onroad and nonroad equipment and vehicle emissions are not considered). Finally , a fourth set of analysis results adds the potential spillage impacts for nonroad equipment an d vehicles and portable refueling containers to the vapor displacement impacts estimated in the third set of analysis results. Table 1 summarizes this approach and provides a brief descr iption of how each set of results allows for the effects of effectiveness uncertainty to be eval uated.

Each set of analysis results includes estimates for three evaluation scenarios, allowing for a range of control effectiveness values to be investigated (within each results set). In addition, each analysis set also includes impacts with and without IEE, so that the impacts of IEE reductions can also be isolated. Together, the resulting anal ysis estimates define a wide range of potential impacts and it is, unfortunately, not possible to n arrow this range to a single value given the existing state of Stage II (and ORVR) effectiveness data. 3 

## Ideally existing uncertainty over Stage II effectiveness would be narrowed through th e conduct of detailed (and comprehensive)

Table 1. Impacts Included in Analysis Results

Emissions Impact Type Results Set 1 Results Set 2 R esults Set 3 Results Set 4

Onroad Displacement Emissions Included Included Inc luded Included

Onroad Spillage Emissions Not Included Included Not I ncluded Included

Nonroad Displacement Emissions Not Included Not Includ ed Included Included

Nonroad Spillage Emissions Not Included Not Included No t Included Included

Benefit of Results Set Isolates onroad displacement effects, allowing effects of spillage uncertainty to be

understood. Isolates onroad effects, allowing

nonroad influence

on combined

effects to be

understood. Isolates combined

onroad and nonroad effects of Stage II removal, without spillage effects uncertainty. Isolates potential

maximum onroad

and nonroad effects of Stage II

removal.

3 

### Note that although MES did not alter the ORVR effe ctiveness assumptions employed by the U.S. EPA, it should

be recognized that these assumptions are quite aggr essive – assigning a 98 percent in-use effectivenes s to ORVR vapor displacement control. Should this level of e ffectiveness ultimately prove to be overly optimist ic, the level of Stage II reductions (relative to those of ORVR) pre sented in this analysis will be correspondingly und erestimated.

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 3 

## in-use field studies, but given the four decade history of such controls and the ever increasing penetration of ORVR technology, it seems unlikely t hat such studies will be undertaken in the imminent future, if ever. There are valuable infor mation being developed and published by organizations such as the California Air Resources Board and independent developers and marketers of Stage II and IEE control equipment, bu t those data provide little information with regard to specific conditions in Maryland.

To conduct the requested analysis, MES has construc ted a spreadsheet that allows the potential gasoline vapor displacement and spillage impacts fo r onroad vehicles and nonroad vehicles and equipment to be quantified for any given set of ORV R and Stage II effectiveness assumptions. While readers interested in the specific methodolog y employed to develop the onroad and nonroad portions of this spreadsheet will find sign ificant additional detail in the sections of this memorandum that follow, fundamental uncontrolled re fueling emissions are derived from the

EPA’s MOVES and NONROAD emissions models for onroad v ehicle and nonroad equipment and vehicles respectively. 4,5 

## ORVR effectiveness data developed by the EPA and Stage II effectiveness data provided by MDE form the backbone of the implemented analysis.

Table 2 presents the various system effectiveness a ssumptions used to evaluate the impacts of Stage II controls. ORVR spillage and vapor displac ement effectiveness estimates are taken (without change) from the databases underlying the EPA MOVES model. For onroad vehicles, Stage II effectiveness assumptions for “nominal” sc enario 1 are set at values provided by MDE. Scenarios 2 and 3 reflect a 20 percentage point inc rease and decrease in vapor displacement effectiveness respectively – with these shifts inte nded to isolate the effect of in-use effectiveness uncertainty. The magnitude of the MDE-estimated St age II spillage reduction effectiveness for

onroad vehicles is held constant across all three s cenarios, but the spreadsheets corrects scenarios

2 and 3 for what MES believes is a flaw in the MOVE S emissions estimation algorithm for Stage II spillage impacts. The interested reader is referred to the detailed discussion on onroad vehicle emissions processing below for more information on this perceived flaw, but its net impact is manifested in MOVES as an overestimation of Stage I I spillage reduction benefits. The spreadsheet developed by MES for this analysis allo ws this potential flaw to be eliminated, and that option is selected for scenarios 2 and 3. Con versely, scenario 1 is constructed to produce onroad vehicle impact estimates identical to those estimated by MOVES (and so includes no adjustment for this perceived flaw).

MES has elected to maintain all spillage-related ef fectiveness assumptions unchanged across all

three scenarios in an effort to minimize the influe nce of alternative spillage assumptions on analysis results. This is exclusively due to the f act that MES does not believe that Stage II provides any reliably demonstrated spillage reducti on benefits. The effect of Stage II on spillage is subject to significant uncertainty, with some EP A documents indicating a reduction benefit and others indicating no reduction. Vacuum assist Stage II systems are the overwhelmingly

4 

### The MOVES model and associated supporting document ation can be downloaded from

www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm.

5 

### The NONROAD model and associated supporting docume ntation can be downloaded from

www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm.

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 4 

## Table 2. Emissions Impact Effectiveness Assumption s

Analysis Parameter Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Onroad Vehicle Emissions Impact Parameters

ORVR Spillage Reduction Factor 50% 50% 50%

ORVR Vapor Displacement Reduction Factor 98% 98% 98 %

Stage II Spillage Reduction Factor 70% 70% 70%

Stage II Vapor Displacement Reduction Factor 70% 90 % 50%

Use MOVES Stage II Spillage Assumptions Yes No No

Incompatibility Excess Emissions Rate (1) 0.3901 [0 .00086] 0.3901 [0.00086] 0.3901 [0.00086]

Nonroad Equipment and Vehicle Emissions Impact Para meters

Spillage Reduction Factor at a Balance System Pump 70% 70% 70%

Spillage Reduction Factor at a Vacuum Assist Pump 7 0% 70% 70%

Vapor Displacement Reduction Factor at a Balance Sy stem Pump 0% 0% 0%

Vapor Displacement Reduction Factor at a Vacuum Ass ist Pump 70% 90% 50%

Portable Refueling Container (Pump Refilling) Emiss ions Impact Parameters

Spillage Reduction Factor at a Balance System Pump 70% 70% 70%

Spillage Reduction Factor at a Vacuum Assist Pump 7 0% 70% 70%

Vapor Displacement Reduction Factor at a Balance Sy stem Pump 0% 0% 0%

Vapor Displacement Reduction Factor at a Vacuum Ass ist Pump 56% 72% 40%

Notes: (1) grams [pounds] per gallon dispensed to O RVR-equipped vehicles.



## predominant – in fact, nearly universal – Stage II system in Maryland. It is difficult to envision an engineering rationale for spillage emissions con trol with such systems. Vacuum assist systems are virtually indistinguishable from non-St age II gasoline delivery systems in both style and function – as perceived by the user. While boo ted balance-type systems might engender some behavioral caution on the part of users – lead ing to possible decreases or increases spillage depending on user response thereto – balance system s are associated with far less than one percent of Stage II gasoline throughput in Maryland . This uncertainty is seemingly confirmed by

available field studies where some researchers find decreases in spillage with Stage II systems, while others find the opposite. 6



## Nevertheless, even as recently as the 2012 release o f the MOVES2010b model, supporting documentation claims that “Stage II controls reduce the amount of fuel spilled due to “spitback”.” 7 

## Based in EPA emission rate calculations, spitback is responsible for approximately 50 percent of uncontrolled spillage emissions, with the remainder due to nozzle drips – both pre and post fill (at about 7 and 10 percent of total s pillage respectively) – and overfill (at about 33

6 

### See for example, Section 3.4.2 of U.S. EPA, “Techn ical Guidance - Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities,” EPA-450/3-91-022a, November 1991.

7 

### See for example, Appendix F of U.S. EPA, “Motor Ve hicle Emission Simulator (MOVES), User Guide Version,

MOVES2010b,” EPA-420-B-12-001, March 2012.

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 5 

## percent of total spillage). 8



## , 9 

## As mentioned previously, while booted balance-typ e Stage II systems might indeed reduce spitback emissions, suc h systems are exceedingly rare in Maryland. Moreover, the introduction of enhanced evaporative emissions testing requirements, beginning in the mid-1990s, was responsible for the virtual elimination of spitback due to the inclusion of an actual vehicle refueling event as an integral compo nent of vehicle evaporative testing – leading to the redesign of vehicle fill pipes and a limit o n the delivery rate of gasoline. Whether spitback emission reduction is credited to enhanced evaporat ive testing, ORVR, or Stage II controls, it is difficult to envision a scenario where one program is more effective than the other. Once spitback is “not spilled,” it can’t be “not spilled ” again. Of course, some residual impact may accrue to Stage II for vehicles without ORVR, but e ven that requires an assumption that vacuum assist systems somehow control spitback, nozzle leakage, or overfilling (relative to a conventional non-Stage II delivery system). Given our skepticism in this regard, MES has elected to utilize the MDE-provided Stage II spilla ge reduction credit of 70 percent without change on the premise that the derivation of this level of effectiveness is documented and supported in existing MDE Stage II materials.

Two IEE rates have been assumed in this analysis. Each scenario is evaluated at both a zero IEE rate and a rate of 0.86 pounds per thousand gasolin e gallons dispensed to ORVR-equipped vehicles (by definition, the IEE rate is always zero for vehicles without ORVR and for balance-type Stage II systems regardless of ORVR pr esence). As mentioned above, there are a rather wide range of published IEE rates – and the actual rate in Maryland is dependent on the mix of balance, low V/L vacuum assist, and high V/L vacuum assist systems. 10



## MDE provided data for Stage II system types in Mary land. These data, which are summarized in Table 3, indicate a near negligible fraction of bal ance-type systems. Healy vacuum assist systems are identified as distinct from other vacuu m assist systems, but MES does not believe that one can assume that all existing Healy systems are ORVR compatible, so this analysis treats all vacuum assist systems as a group (of unknown V/ L performance). As indicated in Table 3, the identified Healy systems account for less than five percent of all gasoline throughput, so any error associated with this aggregation is small. Ne vertheless, the assumed 0.86 pounds per thousand gallon IEE rate is representative of high V/L Stage II systems, and it is virtually certain that some fraction of existing Stage II systems are low V/L (ORVR compatible) systems. 11 

## Thus the IEE impacts presented in the analysis results s hould be viewed as “high end” estimates almost certain to overstate the impact of IEE in Ma ryland. However, the impact of alternative assumptions regarding IEE (e.g., a 50/50 split of O RVR and non-ORVR compatible vacuum

8 

### See for example, Table 4 of U.S. EPA, memorandum f rom Glenn W. Passavant with subject “Onboard Refuel ing Vapor Recovery Widespread Use Assessment,” June 9, 2011.

9 

### Elimination of the 50 percent spitback emissions c ontribution is undoubtedly the source of EPA’s ORVR spillage emissions reduction credit of 50 percent (as shown in Table 2 and encoded in the databases underlying the EPA MOVES model).

10 

### V/L is the volumetric ratio of vapor returned to l iquid dispensed from the refueling storage tank. V acuum assist systems with V/L ratios of 1 (±10 percent) exhibit IEE rates that are about an order of magnitude lower than those

with V/L ratios of 1.2.

11 

### The 0.86 pounds per thousand gallon emission rate is based on California Air Resources Board testing and is representative of a high V/L system emission rate. See U.S. EPA, “Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems, Is sues Paper,” August 12, 2004.

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 6 

## Table 3. Stage II System Distribution (fraction of Stage II gasoline throughput)

County Balance System Vacuum Assist Healy Vacuum

Assist

Anne Arundel 0.3% 94.3% 5.4%

Baltimore 0.5% 95.2% 4.3%

Calvert 0.0% 94.2% 5.8%

Carroll 0.2% 98.4% 1.4%

Cecil 0.3% 96.8% 2.9%

Charles 0.1% 83.8% 16.1%

Frederick 0.3% 96.3% 3.4%

Harford 0.1% 97.8% 2.0%

Howard 0.3% 98.4% 1.4%

Montgomery 0.3% 97.0% 2.8%

Prince George's 0.1% 92.2% 7.7%

Baltimore City 0.3% 98.4% 1.3%

Stage II Area Total 0.3% 95.0% 4.7%



## assist systems) can be easily evaluated by interpolating between the zero and non-zero IEE emissions curves in the presented results. Alternatively, MES would be happy to evaluate one or more scenarios with alternative IEE rate assumption s should MDE develop data on the distribution of high and low V/L vacuum assist syst ems.

Finally MES has estimated the potential Stage II im pact on nonroad vehicles and equipment refueled at gasoline dispensing pumps, as well as p ortable refueling containers refilled at gasoline dispensing pumps. Although the latter are not included in the EPA’s NONROAD model, MES has developed a methodology to estimate portable refueling container emissions from other data included with, and estimates produc ed by, the model. The interested reader will find detailed information on this methodology in th e extended nonroad processing discussion

that follows.

For nonroad equipment and vehicles refueled at a ga soline dispensing pump, MES has applied the same Stage II spillage effectiveness assumption s provided by MDE for onroad vehicles. Although we have concerns regarding the accuracy of this estimate (as described above), we see no reason that spillage impacts (should such exist) would differ (on a relative basis) across the

onroad and nonroad sectors. The relative contribut ions of onroad vehicle fill pipe redesign and mandated dispensing flow rate caps to spitback emis sions reduction is unclear, but the latter certainly influence any equipment subjected to pump refueling, be that equipment used in onroad or nonroad applications. Of course, the primary concern of MES is that neither ORVR nor Stage II controls are the primary drivers of spitback emi ssion reduction. For vapor displacement control, we assume zero effectiveness for balance-t ype Stage II systems (due to a perceived lack of fill pipe standardization that would allow for a proper balance-type system seal) and vacuum assist system effectiveness identical to that for o nroad vehicles (due to the negative pressure operational nature of such systems that should comp ensate for differing fill pipe characteristics).

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 7 

## For portable refueling containers refilled at a gas oline dispensing pump, MES has also applied the same Stage II spillage effectiveness provided b y MDE for onroad vehicles, for the same reasons described in the preceding paragraph. For vapor displacement control, we again assume zero effectiveness for balance-type Stage II system s (due to a perceived lack of a proper balance-type system seal). For vacuum assist syste ms, we discount the effectiveness values for onroad vehicles by 20 percent, under the assumption that the negative pressure operational nature of such systems will still provide control, but tha t control will be reduced due to the lack of a defined fill pipe and the likelihood that some vapo r will escape above the nozzle intake openings. Given the lack of available data, this discount is not robust and should be subjected to refinement

should additional information become available. As described in detail in the extended nonroad processing discussion that follows, there are assumptions associated with portable container refilling emission estimates that should be underst ood; primarily that (1) such refilling is performed on containers that are properly sealed (b efore refilling) and thus contain saturated gasoline vapor, and (2) no post-refilling losses ar e assumed, so that the volume of gasoline dispensed into such containers is the minimum required to refuel associated nonroad equipment. Clearly alternative assumptions are possible and ME S would be happy to adjust the portable refueling container estimates should MDE wish to in vestigate alternative assumptions.

Given these assumptions, Figures 1 through 4 presen t the derived emission impact estimates for results sets 1 through 4. For results set 1 (Figur e 1), which addresses onroad vehicle vapor displacement emissions only, the zero impact point for Stage II is mid-2013 for “nominal” input

scenario 1. If the IEE rate is altered to reflect a 50 percent ORVR compatible system penetration, the point of zero impact would be exte nded to 2017. If potential onroad spillage impacts are considered (Figure 2), the “maximum IEE ” zero impact point is mid-2015 for “nominal” input scenario 1 – extended to beyond 202 0 for a 50 percent ORVR compatible system penetration. 12 

## Adding nonroad vehicles and equipment to a displa cement only evaluation (Figure 3) indicates a “maximum IEE” zero impact po int of early 2015 for “nominal” input scenario 1 – extended to beyond 2020 for a 50 perce nt ORVR compatible system penetration. Finally, including both onroad and nonroad vehicles and equipment and both potential displacement and spillage impacts (Figure 4) indica tes a “maximum IEE” zero impact point of beyond 2020 for “nominal” input scenario 1.

Of course, the specific level of emissions “above” or “below” the zero impact point for any given evaluation scenario varies with time, so it is not possible to define a required emissions offset should Stage II control requirements be eliminated – without first specifying an associated time parameter. The specific time-dependent nature of s uch an offset can be easily viewed in Figures 1 through 4 as the distance between each emissions impact curve and the horizontal zero impact line. Tables 9 through 56, included at the end of this memorandum, present the specific emission impact estimates for each year from 2011 through 20 20 by county, metropolitan area, and Stage II region (Tables 9 through 32), as well as hazardo us air pollutant emission impact estimates for those same years for the aggregate Stage II region (Tables 33 through 56). The remainder of this memorandum provides additional detail on the method ologies employed to estimate onroad and nonroad equipment and vehicle emissions.

12 

### The analysis conducted by MES includes all years f rom 2011 through 2020, so it is not possible to pre cisely indicate transition points beyond 2020 without additional analysis beyond the scope of this work.

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 8 

## Figure 1. Results Set 1 – Onroad Only, Displacement Impacts Only (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

Figure 2. Results Set 2 – Onroad Only, Displacement and Spillage Impacts (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 9 

## Figure 3. Results Set 3 – Onroad+Nonroad, Displacem ent Impacts Only (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

Figure 4. Results Set 4 – Onroad+Nonroad, Displacem ent and Spillage Impacts (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 10 

## Onroad Processing : Generally, all emission estimates for onroad vehicles are based on modeling performed using the U.S. EPA’s MOVES2010b model. 13 

## The MOVES model includes the capability of estimating the impact of Stage II vapor recovery on both displacement and spillage emissions. However, based on an analy sis of how MOVES handles the interaction between ORVR and Stage II controls with regard to spillage emissions, MES believes that while the MOVES algorithms are not flawed per se, there a re nuances in their implementation that are not discussed in any of the available MOVES-related documentation, and which result in a significant likelihood that users will not properly quantify Stage II modeling inputs. For this reason, as well as to facilitate alternative scenar io evaluation, MES developed a stand-alone routine that allows both the ORVR and Stage II emis sion estimates that would be produced through the execution of detailed MOVES modeling sc enarios to be produced quickly and efficiently in a spreadsheet environment (in effect , MES has moved MOVES uncontrolled emissions data and MOVES assumptions and algorithms related to ORVR and Stage II into an independent spreadsheet).

There are several parameters required to implement MOVES ORVR and Stage II algorithms that are not available from MOVES output data. These pa rameters include: (1) the penetration of ORVR-equipped vehicles into the fleet, which varies both with geography (due to differences in fleet turnover rates) and time, (2) the volume of f uel consumed by vehicles, and (3) the EPA-assumed effectiveness of ORVR controls on vapor displacement and spillage emissions. The first two sets of parameters were precisely calculated using other MOVES data as described below. The third set of parameters is reported in supporting documentation associated with MOVES, but also confirmable via examination of the default database underlying the model. Specifically, MOVES assumes that ORVR controls redu ce displacement and spillage emissions by 98 and 50 percent respectively. 14



## It is worth noting that while MOVES “assigns” the 5 0 percent spillage emissions reduction to ORVR controls, the driving force in this reduction is not ORVR per se, but the introduction of enhanced evaporative emissions testing requirements in the mid-1990s. These enhanced requirements include a vehicle refueling event as a n integral part of the evaporative emissions testing process, which prompted vehicle manufacture rs to redesign fuel tank fill pipes to eliminate gasoline “spitback.” 15,16 

## For reasons that are not clear, EPA assigns the b enefit of this

emission reduction to ORVR controls. This “mis-ass ignment” can be easily confirmed through examination of the MOVES default database, wherein “ORVR-induced” spillage reductions begin in model year 1996 (prior to the introduction of ORVR), while ORVR-induced vapor displacement reductions “properly” begin in model y ear 1998. 17 

## Although this “accounting discrepancy” is of no real practical importance in this analysis from an emission reduction

13 

### The MOVES model and associated supporting document ation can be downloaded from www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index htm.

14 

### See MOVES database table “sourcetypetechadjustment .”

15 

### In addition, these same requirements limited the m aximum flow rate from gasoline dispensing pumps to 10 gallons per minute, which assisted manufacturers in fill pipe redesign.

16 

### “Spitback” occurs when gasoline is dispensed into a fuel tank at a rate that exceeds the rate at whic h evacuating vapor is released, forcing liquid to accumulate in and overflow the fill pipe.

17 

### See MOVES database table “sourcetypetechadjustment .”

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 11 

## standpoint, it is critical in assessing the fractio n of ORVR-equipped vehicles in the fleet at any given point in time (as that assessment cannot be r eliably based on spillage emissions changes).

To calculate the fraction of gasoline use associated with ORVR-equipped vehicles in the flee t at any given point in time (as assumed by MOVES), one needs to compare MOVES-estimated vapor displacement emissions with ORVR in place to MOVES-estimated vapor displacement

emissions in the absence of ORVR. 18



## , 19 

## Since MOVES assumes a fixed 98 percent reduction in vapor displacement from ORVR-equipped vehicles, the fraction of fuel consumed by ORVR-equipped vehicles (as assumed within MOVES) ca n be calculated as follows:

FA Emis = [UC Emis  1 – ORVRf  ] + [UC Emis(1 – 0.98)(ORVRf)], or

ORVRf = FA Emis – UC Emis
 UC Emis  1 – 0.98   – UC Emis

w h e r e : F A E m i s = f l e e t a v e r a g e e m i s s i o n s
U C E m i s = uncontrolled emissions (i.e., emissions with no O RVR)

O R V R f = fraction of emissions generated by ORVR-equipped vehicles 20



## While this calculation is conceptually trivial, it must be performed for each year and each county evaluated (since ORVR penetration changes over time and since the age and relative populations of vehicles across vehicle types will generally var y with geography). Table 4 depicts the calculated ORVR fuel consumption fractions for the 12 counties included in this analysis. These fractions are used in the spreadsheet developed for this analysis to both calculate ORVR emissions impacts as well as distinguish Stage II i mpacts on vehicles without ORVR from corresponding impacts on vehicles with ORVR.

In order to estimate the impact of IEE, it is neces sary to know the absolute volume of gasoline

that is associated with both ORVR and Stage II controls. 21 

## The ORVR fuel consumption fraction

18 

### A non-ORVR MOVES scenario is run by providing an a lternative “sourcetypetechadjustment” database tabl e that replaces all default adjustments with a value of zero.

19 

### Note that all MOVES runs described in this document (and used fo r the associated Stage II analysis) include only emissions from gasoline vehicles (by instructing MO VES to estimate emissions from all gasoline vehicle types and no others). This is critical for many of the described calculations since parameters such as emis sion rates, ORVR requirements, and Stage II applicability diffe r across fueling types. To derive accurate data, c alculations must either be limited to gasoline vehicles (as in this analysis) or include appropriate corrections f or fuel-related

influences.

20 

### Since vapor displacement emission factors are expr essed in mass per unit volume of fuel dispensed, the fraction of emissions also equals the fraction of gasoline c onsumed by ORVR-equipped vehicles – which, due to t he fact that mileage accumulation rates vary by age and vehicle type, is not the same as the population fracti on of ORVR-equipped vehicles.

21 

### IEE (incompatibility excess emissions) is the name assigned to incremental refueling station bulk tan k losses that result when vacuum assisted Stage II vapor recovery systems deliver ambient air to the refueling tank instead of saturated gasoline vapor. This occurs because the vast majority of saturated vapor displaced during ORVR-equipped vehicle refueling is captured by the ORVR system. There are methods to eliminate these losses, but in the absence of these system “upgrades,” the combination of an ORVR-equipped vehicle and a vacuu m assist Stage II system has been shown to lead to IE E.

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 12 

## Table 4. Fuel Consumption Fractions of ORVR-Equipp ed Vehicles

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 77.3% 81.7% 85.2% 88.1% 90.3% 92.2% 93 .5% 94.6% 95.4% 96.0%

Baltimore 77.7% 82.0% 85.5% 88.3% 90.5% 92.3% 93.6% 94.6% 95.4% 95.9%

Calvert 74.4% 79.3% 83.4% 86.7% 89.3% 91.5% 93.1% 9 4.4% 95.3% 96.0%

Carroll 76.5% 81.0% 84.7% 87.7% 90.1% 92.0% 93.5% 9 4.6% 95.4% 96.1%

Cecil 71.4% 76.5% 80.6% 84.0% 86.8% 89.0% 90.8% 92. 1% 93.2% 94.0%

Charles 75.0% 79.8% 83.8% 87.0% 89.6% 91.7% 93.3% 9 4.5% 95.4% 96.1%

Frederick 75.0% 79.8% 83.7% 87.0% 89.6% 91.6% 93.2% 94.4% 95.3% 96.0%

Harford 76.9% 81.4% 85.0% 87.9% 90.2% 92.0% 93.4% 9 4.5% 95.3% 95.9%

Howard 77.8% 82.1% 85.6% 88.3% 90.5% 92.3% 93.6% 94 .6% 95.4% 96.0%

Montgomery 76.4% 81.0% 84.7% 87.7% 90.2% 92.1% 93.6 % 94.7% 95.5% 96.1%

Prince George's 76.1% 80.7% 84.5% 87.6% 90.0% 92.0% 93.5% 94.6% 95.5% 96.1%

Baltimore City 78.5% 82.6% 86.0% 88.7% 90.8% 92.5% 93.8% 94.8% 95.5% 96.1%

Baltimore Region Total 77.6% 81.9% 85.4% 88.2% 90.5% 92.2% 93.6% 94.6% 95.4% 96.0%

Washington Region Total 76.0% 80.6% 84.4% 87.5% 90.0% 92.0% 93.5% 94.6% 95.5% 96.1%

Stage II Area Total 76.7% 81.2% 84.8% 87.8% 90.1% 92.0% 93.5% 94.5% 95.4% 96.0%



## provides the fraction of total fuel subject to both controls, but MOVES does not output the actual gasoline consumption estimate calculated within the model. Nevertheless, this gasoline volume can be precisely estimated from other MOVES output and assumptions. For this analysis, the parameters selected for this calculation are the MO VES-estimated uncontrolled (i.e., no ORVR and no Stage II) spillage emissions and the MOVES-a ssumed uncontrolled spillage emission rate of 0.31 grams per dispensed gallon. 22 

## Using these parameters, gasoline use in gallons i s equal to emissions mass in grams divided by the spillage emi ssions rate (0.31 grams per dispensed gallon). Table 5 depicts the calculated fuel consu mption volumes for a July weekday in the 12 counties included in this analysis. These volumes are used in the spreadsheet developed for this analysis to estimate IEE. 23

22 

### The emission rate is from MOVES database table “re fuelingfactors.” This combination of parameters re sults in precise estimates since the spillage emission facto r is constant for all gasoline vehicles and all unc ontrolled modeling scenarios (unless, of course, the scenario itself involves explicitly altering the factor).

23 

### The tabulated volumes are, by definition, consiste nt with the vehicle miles of travel data provided b y MDE as input into MOVES, the MOVES-assumed fuel economy data for modeled vehicles, and the resulting emission estimates upon which this analysis is based. As a result, they are used in this analysis without chan ge. Nevertheless, it is possible to make a general assessment of the accuracy of these MOVES-derived estimates though comparisons with reported Maryland fuel use data. The average annual onroad gasoline usage for Maryland between 2007 and 2010 (no data is currentl y available for 2011), as reported by the Federal H ighway Administration (see www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformat ion/statistics.cfm, table MF-21 for each of the fou r included years) is 2,677,554,500 gallons, which equ ates to an average daily consumption of 7.34 millio n gallons. According to Maryland State Highway Administration statistics (see sha md.gov/index.aspx?pageid=681, A nnual Vehicle Miles of Travel Report) for 2011, the 12 co unty Stage II area is responsible for about 85 perc ent of statewide miles of travel, so that reported fuel us e for the 12 county Stage II area should be on the order of 6.24 million gallons per average annual day (7.34 × 0.85 ). MOVES data exceed this consumption rate by 24 p ercent, but there is a summer weekday seasonal factor that must be considered. While MES is uncertain of the aggregate seasonality factor for the 12 county Stage II area, typical factors are in the range of 1.1-1.15, so t hat the summer

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 13 

## Table 5. Stage II Area Fuel Consumption (million g allons per summer weekday)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.93865 0.94224 0.94905 0.95099 0.94922 0.96174 0.97973 0.96800 0.95589 0.94230

Baltimore 1.32527 1.32405 1.32757 1.32435 1.31606 1.31851 1.32822 1.30927 1.28994 1.26861

Calvert 0.11760 0.12032 0.12324 0.12553 0.12731 0.12823 0.12971 0.13050 0.13116 0.13153

Carroll 0.21650 0.21885 0.22189 0.22380 0.22482 0.23151 0.23968 0.23755 0.23531 0.23271

Cecil 0.19541 0.20031 0.20584 0.21001 0.21337 0.21537 0.21836 0.22005 0.22155 0.22264

Charles 0.20133 0.20595 0.21093 0.21486 0.21793 0.21950 0.22204 0.22342 0.22460 0.22525

Frederick 0.45177 0.46051 0.46998 0.47705 0.48222 0.48406 0.48803 0.48971 0.49095 0.49104

Harford 0.38133 0.38576 0.39142 0.39511 0.39728 0.40977 0.42494 0.42139 0.41764 0.41323

Howard 0.63166 0.63404 0.63862 0.63996 0.63884 0.64694 0.65873 0.65095 0.64294 0.63388

Montgomery 1.25379 1.26384 1.27593 1.28165 1.28262 1.27445 1.27221 1.26580 1.25854 1.24833

Prince George's 1.42185 1.42844 1.43729 1.43885 1.43500 1.42112 1.41394 1.40251 1.39019 1.37474

Baltimore City 0.60671 0.60561 0.60676 0.60488 0.60074 0.60064 0.60388 0.59512 0.58623 0.57638

Baltimore Region Total 4.10012 4.11054 4.13531 4.13910 4.12697 4.16911 4.23518 4.18228 4.12795 4.06710

Washington Region Total 3.44633 3.47907 3.51738 3.53794 3.54509 3.52737 3.52592 3.51194 3.49544 3.47089

Stage II Area Total 7.74186 7.78992 7.85853 7.88704 7.88542 7.91185 7.97946 7.91427 7.84494 7.76063



## Finally, as indicated above, the treatment of spill age emission reductions as attributable to ORVR controls is somewhat misleading in MOVES (sinc e these reductions are driven by enhanced evaporative emissions testing requirements rather than ORVR). Nevertheless, since MOVES assumes a 50 percent spillage emissions reduc tion for such vehicles, it is possible to

estimate the fraction of gasoline use associated with reduced spillage vehicles in the f leet at any given point in time (as assumed by MOVES). Since b oth the uncontrolled and controlled spillage emission rates are fixed (at 0.31 and 0.31 ×(1-0.5) grams per dispensed gallon respectively), the gasoline usage fraction of reduc ed spillage vehicles (as assumed within MOVES) can be calculated as follows:

FA Emis

GC = [0.31  1 – RSf  ] + [0.31(1 – 0.5)(RSf)], or

RSf =   _

  – 0.31

 0.31  1 – 0.5   – 0.31

w h e r e : F A E m i s = f l e e t a v e r a g e s p i l l a g e e m i s s i o n s (in grams)

G C = f l e e t w i d e g a s o l i n e c o n s u m p t i o n ( i n g a l l o n s )

R S f = fraction of emissions generated by reduced spilla ge vehicles 24



### weekday equivalent of the reported annual average d ay gasoline consumption rate should be on the order of 7.02 million gallons (6.24 × 1.125). MOVES data exceed this consumption rate by about 10 percent. A more refined comparison may yield even closer agreement, but suc h analysis is beyond the scope of this work.

24 

### Since spillage emission rates are expressed in mas s per unit volume of fuel dispensed, the fraction o f emissions also equals the fraction of gasoline consumed by re duced spillage vehicles – which, due to the fact th at mileage

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 14 

## While this calculation is conceptually trivial, it must be performed for each year and each county evaluated (since reduced spillage vehicle penetrati on changes over time and since the age and relative populations of vehicles across vehicle typ es will generally vary with geography). Table 6 depicts the calculated reduced spillage vehicle fuel consumption fractions for the 12 counties included in this analysis. These fractions are not used in the spreadsheet developed for this analysis, but provide a quantitative indication of why spillage emission reduction is not an ORVR-driven phenomena (since the derived fuel consu mption fractions are greater than the corresponding ORVR fuel consumption fractions prese nted in Table 4 above).

Table 6. Fuel Consumption Fractions of Reduced Spi llage Vehicles

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 91.6% 93.3% 94.4% 95.2% 95.8% 96.3% 96 .7% 97.0% 97.3% 97.5%

Baltimore 91.6% 93.2% 94.4% 95.2% 95.7% 96.3% 96.6% 97.0% 97.2% 97.4%

Calvert 91.0% 92.8% 94.2% 95.1% 95.8% 96.4% 96.8% 9 7.2% 97.5% 97.7%

Carroll 91.7% 93.3% 94.5% 95.3% 95.9% 96.4% 96.8% 9 7.2% 97.4% 97.6%

Cecil 88.8% 90.9% 92.2% 93.2% 93.9% 94.6% 95.1% 95. 5% 95.8% 96.1%

Charles 91.0% 92.9% 94.2% 95.2% 95.8% 96.4% 96.9% 9 7.2% 97.5% 97.7%

Frederick 91.0% 92.8% 94.2% 95.1% 95.8% 96.4% 96.8% 97.1% 97.4% 97.6%

Harford 91.6% 93.2% 94.4% 95.2% 95.8% 96.3% 96.7% 9 7.0% 97.2% 97.4%

Howard 91.6% 93.3% 94.4% 95.2% 95.8% 96.3% 96.7% 97 .0% 97.2% 97.4%

Montgomery 91.0% 92.9% 94.2% 95.1% 95.8% 96.4% 96.8 % 97.2% 97.4% 97.6%

Prince George's 91.0% 92.9% 94.2% 95.1% 95.8% 96.4% 96.8% 97.2% 97.4% 97.6%

Baltimore City 91.7% 93.3% 94.4% 95.2% 95.8% 96.3% 96.7% 97.0% 97.3% 97.5%

Baltimore Region Total 91.6% 93.3% 94.4% 95.2% 95.8% 96.3% 96.7% 97.0% 97.2% 97.4%

Washington Region Total 91.0% 92.9% 94.2% 95.1% 95.8% 96.4% 96.8% 97.2% 97.4% 97.6%

Stage II Area Total 91.3% 93.0% 94.2% 95.1% 95.7% 96.3% 96.7% 97.0% 97.3% 97.5%



## As discussed above, MOVES assumes reduced spillage emissions beginning with the introduction of enhanced evaporative emissions testing in model year 1996 (for 100 percent of all light duty vehicles). MOVES (properly) assumes ORVR-driven vapor displacement reductions track ORVR introduction beginning in mod el year 1998 (for less than 100 percent of passenger cars due to an associated multi-year phas e-in, and with even more extended delays for light duty trucks). Thus, the vapor displacement-d erived fuel consumption fractions accurately track ORVR deployment (and lag the spillage-derived fractions by about five years).

MOVES model emission estimates with no ORVR control s, no reduced spillage controls, and no Stage II controls have been incorporated into an an alysis spreadsheet for the 12 Maryland counties with Stage II requirements. These emissio n estimates were developed by executing the

accumulation rates vary by age and vehicle type, is not the same as the population fraction of reduced spillage

vehicles.

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 15 

## MOVES model for each county using appropriate input data for each calendar year from 2011 through 2020. 25



## , 26 

## The analysis spreadsheet includes ORVR, reduced s pillage, and Stage II emission impact algorithms identical to those of the MOVES model. These algorithms can be evaluated by the user for any specified set of ORVR and Stage II effectiveness assumptions (without need to rerun the MOVES model).

In evaluating the MOVES algorithms for Stage II con trols, it became apparent that there are nuances in the implementation of spillage-related c alculations that result in a significant likelihood that users will not properly quantify St age II modeling inputs. For this reason, the spreadsheet developed for this analysis includes an option to perform Stage II spillage-related calculations in exactly the same manner as MOVES, o r in a slightly modified manner that serves

to diminish the likelihood of inaccurate emissions estimation.

The fundamental “problem” is that MOVES assumes tha t Stage II spillage benefits (if any) accrue “on top of” any ORVR (or more accurately, an y enhanced evaporative test-driven) spillage benefits. In principle this is a valid ap proach and associated emission estimates will be

accurate if the associated input data are properly quantifie d , but MOVES guidance documents provide little explanation related to algorithm fun ction and input quantification, and EPA’s default effectiveness assumption (specifically, a 5 0 percent spillage reduction due to Stage II) itself seems to be improperly quantified given the MOVES algorithm design. Basically, MOVES applies an additional reduction to any remain ing spillage emissions that are left after (ORVR, or enhanced evaporative test, driven) spilla ge reductions. This reduction accrues to both ORVR and non-ORVR equipped vehicles, reducing any remaining emissions by the same specified percentage (in the case of the EPA defaul t data, by 50 percent).

Unfortunately, this approach does not seem to recog nize that once something is “not spilled,” it can’t be “not spilled” again. For example, if ORVR (or more accurately enhanced evaporative testing) leads to a 50 percent reduction in spillag e due to fill pipe redesign and a flow rate cap that eliminate spitback emissions, then Stage II co ntrols cannot reduce spitback emissions any further on affected vehicles (since the spitback mo de of spillage is eliminated). Yet, if both ORVR and Stage II are assigned 50 percent reduction effectiveness values (as they are in the EPA default data), then ORVR-equipped vehicles will actually have spillage emissions reduced by 75 percent when both programs are modeled togeth er (50 percent from ORVR and 50 percent of the remainder from Stage II, or [1-((1-0.5)×(1-0 .5))]), while vehicles without ORVR will have emissions reduced by “only” 50 percent. Of course, if Stage II targeted entirely different

25 

### The input data used for the MOVES modeling scenari os were provided by MDE to ensure that the estimate s generated in this analysis are consistent with othe r onroad vehicle modeling performed by MDE.

26 

### In total, 360 scenarios were processed through the MOVES model, each applicable to one of the 12 Stag e II counties. At 12 counties and 10 evaluation years per county, there are 120 MOVES scenarios per scenar io “group.” A total of three scenario “groups” were m odeled. One group of 120 MOVES runs estimated emis sions in the absence of ORVR, spillage, and Stage II cont rols. This group forms the basis of the onroad veh icle portion of the spreadsheet developed for this analysis. A second group of 120 MOVES runs estimated emissions with ORVR and spillage controls in place, as defined by default EPA database tables. A third group of 120 MOVES runs estimated emissions with ORVR and spillage con trols in place, as defined by default EPA database tables, and Stage II controls in place as defined by MDE. These latter two groups were analyzed to ensure tha t the algorithms implemented in the spreadsheet developed for this analysis were identical to those implemen ted in MOVES (in effect, to ensure that spreadsheet predic ted Stage II impacts would exactly match the same i mpacts that would be estimated by additional tailored MOVE S runs).

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 16 

## components of spillage (e.g., nozzle drip or overfi lling), it is possible for the dual reductions to be accurate, but it does not appear that this is th e intention of the EPA default data. Certainly, no specific guidance is provided to ensure that Stage II spillage impacts are estimated properly given MOVES algorithms.

If both ORVR and Stage II are credited with reducin g spitback, then the net Stage II reduction for ORVR-equipped vehicles should be zero (since OR VR has already been credited with the associated spillage reduction). Under MDE’s defaul t Stage II assumptions, which ascribe a 70 percent spillage reduction to Stage II, the net spi llage reduction due to ORVR and Stage II combined is 85 percent [1-((1-0.5)×(1-0.7))]. If i nstead, the overall spillage reduction is intended to be 70 percent with Stage II, then non-O RVR vehicles should have a 70 percent reduction applied and ORVR vehicles should be subje ct to an additional spillage reduction of “only” 40 percent [(0.7-0.5)/0.5]. This would prod uce the desired net 70 percent reduction [1-((1-0.5)×(1-0.4))]. Similarly, if the EPA defau lt Stage II spillage reduction of 50 percent is intended to signify (as expected) that ORVR and Sta ge II have the same spillage impacts, then the net Stage II reduction for ORVR-equipped vehicl es should be zero [(0.5-0.5)/0.5]. This, however, is not the way the Stage II algorithms are implemented in MOVES.

As an option, the spreadsheet developed for this an alysis allows the user to select a Stage II spillage algorithm that is either: (1) identical to that implemented in MOVES, or (2) implemented as a “net” (ORVR plus Stage II) reducti on for ORVR-equipped vehicles and a

“full” reduction for non-ORVR vehicles. Under the second option, Stage II is only credited with spillage emission reduction for ORVR-equipped vehic les at a rate based on the extent to which the Stage II spillage reduction effectiveness excee ds that of ORVR alone. Non-ORVR vehicles are always credited with the full Stage II spillage reduction.

Finally, MOVES emissions estimates were also used t o develop both hydrocarbon adjustment and speciation factors, the former allowing hydroca rbons to be expressed as either total organic gases (TOG), total hydrocarbons (THC), volatile org anic compounds (VOC), non-methane organic gases (NMOG), or non-methane hydrocarbons (NM HC) – the latter allowing for estimation of methane, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), ethanol, benzene, xylene, toluene, ethyl benzene, hexane, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, and naphthalene. Table 7 presents the derived factors, which are built into the spreadsheet devel oped for this analysis and used to estimate hazardous air pollutant emissions as well as tailor hydrocarbon emissions estimates to the basis desired by the user. It is perhaps worth noting th at while one would expect the components of evaporated gasoline to be identical whether that ev aporation occurs inside or outside of a fueling tank, MOVES estimates slightly different hydrocarbo n fractions for displacement and spillage

emissions. While the source of this difference is not clear, it has been retained in this analysis to ensure consistency with MOVES emissions estimates. It should also be noted that the factors depicted in Table 7 are used for both onroad and nonroad emission estimates in the spreadsheet developed for this analysis. 27

27 

### The U.S. EPA NONROAD model that was used for nonro ad vehicle and equipment emissions estimation in th is analysis does not include speciation factors for hazardous air pollutants. It does, however, include hydrocarbon adjustment factors for refueling emissions and these are set to unity (i.e., TOG=THC=VOC=NMOG=NMHC). Since this is not consistent with MOVES adjustment factors and since the same gasoline is assumed for both onroad and nonroad vehicles and equipment, it makes no sense to assume different hydrocarbon adjustmen t factors for onroad and nonroad vehicles and equipme nt. Since gasoline in the Stage II counties contains ethanol

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 17 

## Table 7. Emissions Adjustment and Speciation Facto rs

Emission Species Vapor Displacement

Emissions Spillage

Emissions

Total Organic Gases (TOG) 1.00000

Total Hydrocarbons (THC) 0.88934 0.91090

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 1.00000

Methane (CH 4 ) 0.00000

Non-Methane Organic Gasses (NMOG) 1.00000

Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC) 0.88934 0.91090

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) 0.00000

Ethanol 0.13345

Benzene 0.00333

Xylene 0.06423

Toluene 0.14336

Ethyl Benzene 0.01721

Hexane 0.02536

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 0.03354

Naphthalene 0.00040

All factors are relative to VOC emissions.



## Nonroad Processing : Generally, all emission estimates for nonroad ve hicles and equipment are based on modeling performed using the U.S. EPA’s NONROAD2008a model. 28 

## While the NONROAD model does include the capability of estimati ng the impact of Stage II vapor recovery on vapor displacement emissions from gasol ine equipment refueled at a gasoline dispensing pump, there are two limitations associat ed with the way in which Stage II impacts are estimated in the model – limitations that require m odel emission estimates to be augmented in order to fully gauge the potential impacts of Stage II system removal.

The primary limitation is that the NONROAD model make s no estimate of the emissions associated with filling portable refueling containe rs. This is a critical issue in evaluating the potential benefits of Stage II on nonroad equipment and vehicle emissions since the overwhelming majority of nonroad gasoline usage in urban areas is associated with portable container refueling. 29 

## Emission estimates for nonroad equipment refueled from a portable container are generated by the model, but emissions associated with filling up those portable containers are not considered. Since these containers are filled at gasoline dispensing pumps,

in significant volumes, it is believed that the MOV ES assumptions are superior to those of the NONROAD model, so the latter have been replaced with the fo rmer in this analysis.

28 

### The NONROAD model and associated supporting docume ntation can be downloaded from www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm.

29 

### Although it is not possible to assign a specific v alue to this majority as it depends on equipment po pulation and usage rates that are dependent on both geography an d time (even at the county level), typical urban ar ea portable container refueling fractions in this analysis range from 70-90 percent – but are as low as 40 percent in the more rural affected counties and as high as 95 percent i n some urban counties.

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 18 

## emissions associated with the refilling of portable containers can be affected by Stage II systems. A methodology to estimate the emissions associated with the refilling of portable containers was developed, as described below, from data produced b y the NONROAD model.

The second limitation associated with the way in wh ich the NONROAD model estimates Stage II impacts is that there is no consideration of pot ential Stage II impacts on gasoline spillage emissions. Unlike the EPA MOVES model, which consi ders both displacement and spillage impacts, the NONROAD model includes impact estimates for displacement emissions only. Thus, a methodology was developed, as described bel ow, to estimate potential Stage II spillage emission impacts. 30



## The NONROAD model does not provide an output that des cribes which equipment are assumed to be refueled at a gasoline dispensing pump and which equipment are assumed to be refueled via portable fuel containers. However, this distin ction can be inferred by comparing the model output for a scenario without Stage II vapor recove ry to an otherwise identical scenario with Stage II vapor recovery. The specific Stage II eff ectiveness assumptions are not important to the comparison; any non-zero effectiveness assumption w ill produce the same results. 31 

## Equipment

for which NONROAD model emission estimates do not var y across the two scenarios must be assumed (in the NONROAD model) to be refueled via a portable fuel container (since the

alternative would result in lower emissions under t he Stage II non-zero effectiveness scenario). Equipment for which NONROAD model emission estimates do vary across the two scenarios must be assumed (in the NONROAD model) to be refueled at a gasoline dispensing pump. 32



## Since the NONROAD model estimates fuel consumption by equipment type, the fuel consumption associated with the identified gasoline dispensing pump and portable refueling container equipment fractions can be readily calculated from model output. The total fuel consumption supplied through portable refueling con tainers indicates exactly the volume of fuel that must initially be placed into such containers at gasoline dispensing pumps, and thus exactly

that volume of fuel that would be associated with: (1) the displacement of gasoline vapor during the filling of portable containers, (2) potential f uel spillage during those filling events, and (3) potentially affected by Stage II vapor recovery equ ipment.

To estimate vapor displacement emissions associated with the filling of portable refueling containers at gasoline dispensing pumps, MES applie d the same vapor displacement algorithm that NONROAD applies to equipment refueling. 33 

## This algorithm estimates displacement

30 

### While MES is skeptical of Stage II (and ORVR) spil lage emissions benefits, the inclusion of possible benefits in the onroad vehicle sector (as is the case in the EP A MOVES model algorithms) dictates the inclusion of those same possible benefits in the nonroad vehicle and e quipment sector.

31 

### For this comparison, MES assumed an effectiveness of 100 percent for Stage II in order to maximize co mparative emission differentials (which can be helpful for eq uipment with very low population, and thus emission s, estimates).

32 

### The magnitude of the emissions differential in con junction with the scenario Stage II effectiveness a ssumption was used to confirm the function of the Stage II im pact algorithm coded within the NONROAD model. Thi s serves as an important quality assurance check sinc e these same computations are ultimately reproduced by MES in an external spreadsheet that allows the impacts of alternative Stage II effectiveness assumptions to be evaluated without rerunning the NONROAD model.

33 

### U.S. EPA, “Refueling Emissions for Nonroad Engine Modeling, NR-013b,” EPA420-P-04-013, April 2004.

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 19 

## emissions mass as a function of dispensed fuel temperature, ambient temperature, and gasoline

RVP as follows:

gpdg= e [ –1.2798 –  0.0049 ×  T d – T

a   +  0.0203 × T d  +  0.1315 × RVP  ]



### w h e r e : g p d g = g r a m s ( o f g a s o l i n e v a p o r ) p e r d i s p e n sed gallon

T

a 

### = ambient temperature (degrees F)

T d 

### = dispensed gasoline temperature (degrees F) = 62 + (0.6 × (T

a 

### - 62))

R

V P = R e i d V a p o r P r e s s u r e ( p s i )



## Ambient temperature and RVP were set at the values provided by MDE as part of the MOVES modeling data for the 12 Stage II counties. For am bient temperature, a daily average temperature was calculated as the arithmetic averag e of the 24 hourly average temperatures provided by MDE. These data as well as the resulti ng vapor displacement emission rates are presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Displacement Data for Filling of Portable Refueling Containers

Vapor Displacement Parameter Baltimore

Area

Counties Washington

D.C. Area

Counties Cecil County

Average Ambient Temperature (oF) 81.55 84.12 82.09

RVP (psi) 6.74 6.74 6.74

Dispensed Fuel Temperature (oF) 73.73 75.272 74.054

Displacement Emission Rate (gpdg) 3.132 3.248 3.156



## While there is no question that portable containers must be minimally filled with the same volume of gasoline required to refuel associated nonroad equipment, 34 

## there is uncertainty related to the vapor saturation status of the empty portable containers at the time of refueling. It is assumed in this analysis that such containers ar e properly sealed between their last use to refuel nonroad equipment and their subsequent refil ling, such that they contain saturated vapor at the time that gasoline is dispensed into the portable container. In cases where the portable container is not properly sealed between the time o f last use and subsequent refilling, the actual vapor displacement rate could be substantially lowe r than assumed in this analysis. Without a detailed analysis of consumer behavior with regard to portable container handling, it is impossible to know the fraction of containers that are not properly sealed with precision (although one might reasonably expect consumers to minimize fugitive vapor loss to avoid inhalation of escaping vapors).

34 

### Ignoring post-fill spillage and evaporative losses related to storage, which for conservative estimat ion purposes are ignored in this analysis.

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 20 

## In addition to vapor displacement, there will also be spillage emissions associated with the refilling of portable fuel containers. As with dis placement emissions, MES applied the same spillage algorithm that NONROAD applies to equipment refueling – which assumes that spillage emissions from a gasoline dispensing pump equal 3.6 grams per refueling event. 35 

## By estimating the average number of gallons dispensed per refueli ng event, this spillage mass can be converted into an emission rate per gallon of dispensed fuel. Based on data collected by the California Air Resources Board, MES estimated an average portable refueling container size of 2.364 gallons. 36


## This results in an average spillage emission rate o f 1.523 grams per dispensed gallon (3.6/2.364), which was used in this analysis to estimate spillag e emissions during the filling of portable refueling containers. 37



## Using the derived vapor displacement and spillage e mission rates, emissions associated with the filling of portable refueling containers can be est imated in a fashion that is entirely consistent with the methodologies employed in the NONROAD model for nonroad equipment refueling. These estimates can then be adjusted in accordance with assumed Stage II effectiveness rates to derive Stage II induced emission reduction estimate s. It is important to note that while the NONROAD model calculates Stage II emission impacts so lely for displacement emissions, MES extended this calculation to cover both displacemen t and spillage emissions (based on independent effectiveness inputs for displacement a nd spillage) for consistency with the Stage II modeling approach employed in both the MOVES and MO BILE6 onroad vehicle emissions

models.

As with the onroad emissions analysis approach desc ribed above, NONROAD model emission estimates with no Stage II controls have been incor porated into an analysis spreadsheet for the 12 Maryland counties with Stage II requirements. Thes e emission estimates were developed by executing the NONROAD model for each county using app ropriate input data for each calendar year from 2011 through 2020. 38,39 

## The analysis spreadsheet includes Stage II emissi on impact

35 

### U.S. EPA, “Refueling Emissions for Nonroad Engine Modeling, NR-013b,” EPA420-P-04-013, April 2004.

36 

### Nguyen, M., “Source Inventory Category # 1434, Por table Fuel Container Spillage,” undated. The docum ent, which indicates the fraction of 1, 2, and 5 gallon containers to be 39.2, 35.6, and 25.2 percent respectively, can be downloaded from www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/districtm eth/BayArea/C1434.pdf.

37 

### Note that this assumes that all portable container s are empty when refilled. Since it is likely that some containers will not be empty, this approach almost certainly u nderestimates the actual volume of gasoline spillag e. However, there are no data available to estimate th e average liquid volume present at the time of port able container refilling, and since the NONROAD model em ploys a similar assumption for spillage emissions associated with nonroad equipment, the empty contai ner approach is entirely consistent with other NONR OAD

model emission estimates.

38 

### Generally, the input data are derived from MOVES ( onroad vehicle) meteorologic and fuel-related input data provided by MDE.

39 

### In total, 90 scenarios were processed through the NONROAD model, each applicable to one of three geog raphic areas of common meteorology and fuel characteristic s as defined by MDE (these areas represent the six county Baltimore area, the five county Washington D.C. are a, and Cecil County). Fifty scenarios were evaluated for the Baltimore area: 10 reflecting no Stage II controls, 10 reflecting a 25 percent effective Stage II cont rol efficiency, 10 reflecting a 50 percent effective Stage II control efficiency, 10 reflecting a 75 percent effective Stage II control efficiency, and 10 reflecting a 100 percent effecti ve Stage II control efficiency. Only the 10 “no St age II” scenarios are used in the final analysis spreadshee t, the remainder were used to identify which equipm ent were refueled with portable containers and to confirm th e methodology through which NONROAD estimates Stage II impacts so that that methodology could be replicate d without deviation in the analysis spreadsheet. T wenty

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 21 

## algorithms identical to those of the NONROAD model as well as supplemental equivalent algorithms to estimate Stage II impacts on portable fueling container and spillage emissions. These algorithms can be evaluated by the user for a ny specified set of Stage II effectiveness assumptions (without need to rerun the NONROAD model)

.

Potential Impact Tables . Tables 9 through 32 that follow present specific emission impact estimates for each year from 2011 through 2020 by c ounty, metropolitan area, and the aggregate Stage II region. Tables 33 through 56 present asso ciated hazardous air pollutant emission impact estimates for those same years for the aggregate Stage II region.

scenarios were evaluated for each of the Washington D.C. and Cecil County areas: 10 reflecting no Stag e II controls and 10 reflecting a 100 percent effective Stage II control efficiency. As with the Baltimore area, only the 10 “no Stage II” scenarios are used in the analysis spreadsheet.

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 22 

## Table 9. Stage II Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Impacts Only, Scenario 1 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.50 0.41 0.34 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.18 0.1 5 0.14 0.12

Baltimore 0.69 0.57 0.47 0.39 0.33 0.28 0.24 0.21 0 .18 0.17

Calvert 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.0 2 0.02

Carroll 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.0 3 0.03

Cecil 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04

Charles 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.0 3 0.03

Frederick 0.27 0.23 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.08 0 .07 0.07

Harford 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.0 6 0.05

Howard 0.33 0.27 0.23 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08

Montgomery 0.71 0.59 0.49 0.41 0.34 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.16

Prince George's 0.81 0.67 0.56 0.46 0.38 0.31 0.27 0.23 0.20 0.18

Baltimore City 0.31 0.25 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.11 0 .09 0.08 0.07

Baltimore Region Total 2.15 1.77 1.47 1.23 1.03 0.88 0.77 0.67 0.59 0.53

Washington Region Total 1.98 1.65 1.37 1.14 0.95 0.78 0.67 0.58 0.51 0.46

Stage II Area Total 4.26 3.53 2.94 2.44 2.04 1.72 1.49 1.29 1.14 1.02



## Table 10. Stage II Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Impacts Only, Scenario 1 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.22 0.11 0.03 -0.04 -0.10 -0.14 -0.18 -0.20 -0.22 -0.23

Baltimore 0.29 0.15 0.03 -0.06 -0.14 -0.20 -0.24 -0 .27 -0.29 -0.31

Calvert 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03

Carroll 0.05 0.03 0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.0 5 -0.05 -0.06

Cecil 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0 .04 -0.04

Charles 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05

Frederick 0.14 0.08 0.04 0.00 -0.03 -0.06 -0.08 -0. 10 -0.11 -0.12

Harford 0.09 0.05 0.01 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -0.0 9 -0.09 -0.10

Howard 0.14 0.07 0.01 -0.03 -0.07 -0.10 -0.12 -0.14 -0.15 -0.15

Montgomery 0.34 0.19 0.07 -0.03 -0.11 -0.18 -0.23 - 0.26 -0.29 -0.30

Prince George's 0.39 0.22 0.08 -0.03 -0.12 -0.20 -0 .25 -0.29 -0.32 -0.33

Baltimore City 0.12 0.06 0.01 -0.04 -0.07 -0.09 -0. 11 -0.13 -0.14 -0.14

Baltimore Region Total 0.91 0.46 0.10 -0.19 -0.43 -0.62 -0.77 -0.87 -0.94 -0.99

Washington Region Total 0.97 0.56 0.22 -0.07 -0.30 -0.48 -0.62 -0.72 -0.79 -0.84

Stage II Area Total 1.95 1.07 0.35 -0.25 -0.72 -1.11 -1.41 -1.62 -1.77 -1.88

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 23 

## Table 11. Stage II Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Impacts Only, Scenario 2 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.64 0.53 0.44 0.37 0.31 0.26 0.23 0.2 0 0.18 0.16

Baltimore 0.89 0.73 0.61 0.50 0.42 0.36 0.31 0.27 0 .24 0.21

Calvert 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.0 3 0.02

Carroll 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.0 4 0.04

Cecil 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05

Charles 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.0 4 0.04

Frederick 0.35 0.29 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.11 0 .09 0.08

Harford 0.26 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.0 8 0.07

Howard 0.42 0.35 0.29 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.11

Montgomery 0.91 0.76 0.63 0.52 0.43 0.36 0.31 0.26 0.23 0.21

Prince George's 1.05 0.86 0.72 0.59 0.49 0.40 0.34 0.29 0.26 0.23

Baltimore City 0.39 0.32 0.27 0.22 0.19 0.16 0.14 0 .12 0.11 0.09

Baltimore Region Total 2.76 2.28 1.89 1.58 1.32 1.13 0.99 0.86 0.76 0.68

Washington Region Total 2.55 2.12 1.76 1.46 1.22 1.01 0.86 0.74 0.65 0.59

Stage II Area Total 5.48 4.54 3.78 3.14 2.62 2.21 1.91 1.66 1.46 1.31



## Table 12. Stage II Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Impacts Only, Scenario 2 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.36 0.23 0.13 0.04 -0.03 -0.08 -0.13 -0.16 -0.18 -0.19

Baltimore 0.49 0.31 0.17 0.05 -0.04 -0.12 -0.17 -0. 21 -0.24 -0.26

Calvert 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03

Carroll 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05

Cecil 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0. 03 -0.03

Charles 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05

Frederick 0.22 0.15 0.09 0.04 0.00 -0.03 -0.05 -0.0 7 -0.09 -0.10

Harford 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.02 -0.01 -0.03 -0.05 -0.07 -0.08 -0.08

Howard 0.23 0.15 0.08 0.02 -0.02 -0.06 -0.09 -0.11 -0.12 -0.13

Montgomery 0.54 0.36 0.21 0.08 -0.02 -0.10 -0.16 -0 .20 -0.23 -0.26

Prince George's 0.62 0.41 0.24 0.10 -0.01 -0.11 -0. 17 -0.22 -0.26 -0.28

Baltimore City 0.21 0.13 0.07 0.01 -0.03 -0.06 -0.0 8 -0.10 -0.11 -0.12

Baltimore Region Total 1.52 0.97 0.52 0.16 -0.13 -0.37 -0.55 -0.68 -0.77 -0.84

Washington Region Total 1.53 1.03 0.61 0.26 -0.03 -0.25 -0.42 -0.55 -0.65 -0.71

Stage II Area Total 3.16 2.08 1.19 0.45 -0.14 -0.62 -0.99 -1.25 -1.45 -1.58

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 24 

## Table 13. Stage II Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Impacts Only, Scenario 3 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.36 0.29 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.1 1 0.10 0.09

Baltimore 0.49 0.41 0.34 0.28 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.15 0 .13 0.12

Calvert 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.0 1 0.01

Carroll 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.0 2 0.02

Cecil 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03

Charles 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.0 2 0.02

Frederick 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0 .05 0.05

Harford 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.0 4 0.04

Howard 0.23 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06

Montgomery 0.51 0.42 0.35 0.29 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.12

Prince George's 0.58 0.48 0.40 0.33 0.27 0.22 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.13

Baltimore City 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08 0 .07 0.06 0.05

Baltimore Region Total 1.53 1.27 1.05 0.88 0.73 0.63 0.55 0.48 0.42 0.38

Washington Region Total 1.42 1.18 0.98 0.81 0.68 0.56 0.48 0.41 0.36 0.33

Stage II Area Total 3.04 2.52 2.10 1.75 1.46 1.23 1.06 0.92 0.81 0.73



## Table 14. Stage II Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Impacts Only, Scenario 3 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.07 -0.01 -0.07 -0.12 -0.16 -0.20 -0. 23 -0.25 -0.26 -0.26

Baltimore 0.09 -0.02 -0.10 -0.17 -0.23 -0.27 -0.31 -0.33 -0.35 -0.35

Calvert 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 -0.0 3 -0.03 -0.04

Carroll 0.02 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0. 06 -0.06 -0.07

Cecil 0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05

Charles 0.03 0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0. 06 -0.06 -0.06

Frederick 0.06 0.02 -0.02 -0.05 -0.07 -0.09 -0.11 - 0.12 -0.13 -0.14

Harford 0.03 0.00 -0.03 -0.05 -0.07 -0.08 -0.10 -0. 11 -0.11 -0.12

Howard 0.04 -0.01 -0.05 -0.09 -0.11 -0.14 -0.16 -0. 17 -0.17 -0.18

Montgomery 0.13 0.02 -0.07 -0.15 -0.21 -0.26 -0.29 -0.32 -0.34 -0.35

Prince George's 0.16 0.03 -0.08 -0.16 -0.23 -0.29 - 0.32 -0.35 -0.37 -0.39

Baltimore City 0.03 -0.01 -0.05 -0.08 -0.11 -0.13 - 0.14 -0.15 -0.16 -0.16

Baltimore Region Total 0.30 -0.04 -0.32 -0.54 -0.72 -0.87 -0.99 -1.06 -1.11 -1.14

Washington Region Total 0.40 0.09 -0.18 -0.39 -0.57 -0.70 -0.81 -0.88 -0.94 -0.97

Stage II Area Total 0.73 0.06 -0.49 -0.95 -1.31 -1.60 -1.84 -1.99 -2.10 -2.17

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 25 

## Table 15. Stage II Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Plus Spillage Impacts, Sc enario 1 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.61 0.52 0.45 0.39 0.35 0.31 0.29 0.2 6 0.24 0.23

Baltimore 0.85 0.72 0.62 0.54 0.48 0.42 0.39 0.36 0 .33 0.31

Calvert 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.0 3 0.03

Carroll 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.0 6 0.06

Cecil 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06

Charles 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.0 6 0.05

Frederick 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.14 0 .13 0.12

Harford 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.1 1 0.10

Howard 0.40 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15

Montgomery 0.86 0.73 0.64 0.55 0.48 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.32 0.30

Prince George's 0.98 0.84 0.72 0.62 0.54 0.47 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.33

Baltimore City 0.38 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.17 0 .16 0.15 0.14

Baltimore Region Total 2.63 2.25 1.95 1.70 1.49 1.34 1.24 1.13 1.05 0.98

Washington Region Total 2.39 2.05 1.78 1.54 1.35 1.18 1.06 0.97 0.90 0.84

Stage II Area Total 5.17 4.43 3.84 3.34 2.93 2.61 2.38 2.17 2.01 1.89



## Table 16. Stage II Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Plus Spillage Impacts, Sc enario 1 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.33 0.22 0.14 0.07 0.01 -0.03 -0.07 - 0.09 -0.11 -0.12

Baltimore 0.45 0.30 0.18 0.09 0.01 -0.05 -0.09 -0.1 3 -0.15 -0.17

Calvert 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 - 0.01 -0.02

Carroll 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03

Cecil 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.0 1 -0.02

Charles 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 - 0.03 -0.03

Frederick 0.19 0.14 0.09 0.05 0.02 -0.01 -0.03 -0.0 4 -0.05 -0.06

Harford 0.14 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.01 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05

Howard 0.21 0.14 0.09 0.04 0.00 -0.02 -0.05 -0.06 - 0.08 -0.08

Montgomery 0.48 0.34 0.21 0.11 0.03 -0.03 -0.08 -0. 12 -0.15 -0.17

Prince George's 0.56 0.39 0.25 0.13 0.04 -0.04 -0.0 9 -0.13 -0.16 -0.18

Baltimore City 0.19 0.13 0.08 0.03 0.00 -0.03 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08

Baltimore Region Total 1.39 0.94 0.57 0.28 0.04 -0.15 -0.30 -0.41 -0.48 -0.54

Washington Region Total 1.37 0.96 0.62 0.33 0.10 -0.08 -0.22 -0.33 -0.40 -0.46

Stage II Area Total 2.86 1.97 1.25 0.65 0.17 -0.22 -0.52 -0.74 -0.90 -1.01

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 26 

## Table 17. Stage II Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Plus Spillage Impacts, Sc enario 2 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.73 0.62 0.53 0.46 0.40 0.35 0.32 0.2 9 0.27 0.25

Baltimore 1.02 0.86 0.73 0.63 0.55 0.48 0.44 0.39 0 .36 0.33

Calvert 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.0 4 0.04

Carroll 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.0 7 0.06

Cecil 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07

Charles 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.0 6 0.06

Frederick 0.39 0.34 0.29 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.15 0 .14 0.13

Harford 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.1 2 0.11

Howard 0.48 0.41 0.35 0.30 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.17

Montgomery 1.04 0.88 0.75 0.64 0.56 0.48 0.43 0.38 0.35 0.33

Prince George's 1.19 1.00 0.85 0.73 0.63 0.54 0.48 0.43 0.39 0.36

Baltimore City 0.45 0.38 0.33 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.19 0 .18 0.16 0.15

Baltimore Region Total 3.16 2.68 2.29 1.97 1.71 1.52 1.39 1.25 1.15 1.06

Washington Region Total 2.89 2.46 2.10 1.80 1.55 1.34 1.19 1.07 0.98 0.91

Stage II Area Total 6.24 5.30 4.54 3.90 3.38 2.97 2.67 2.41 2.21 2.05



## Table 18. Stage II Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Plus Spillage Impacts, Sc enario 2 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.45 0.32 0.22 0.13 0.06 0.01 -0.03 -0 .07 -0.09 -0.11

Baltimore 0.62 0.44 0.29 0.18 0.08 0.01 -0.05 -0.09 -0.12 -0.14

Calvert 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0 .01 -0.01

Carroll 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 - 0.02 -0.03

Cecil 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01

Charles 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0 .02 -0.02

Frederick 0.26 0.19 0.14 0.09 0.05 0.02 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05

Harford 0.19 0.14 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.01 -0.01 -0.03 - 0.04 -0.05

Howard 0.29 0.21 0.14 0.08 0.04 0.00 -0.02 -0.05 -0 .06 -0.07

Montgomery 0.66 0.48 0.33 0.21 0.11 0.02 -0.04 -0.0 8 -0.12 -0.14

Prince George's 0.76 0.55 0.38 0.24 0.12 0.03 -0.04 -0.09 -0.13 -0.15

Baltimore City 0.27 0.19 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.00 -0.03 -0.04 -0.06 -0.07

Baltimore Region Total 1.93 1.37 0.92 0.55 0.26 0.03 -0.15 -0.29 -0.38 -0.45

Washington Region Total 1.87 1.37 0.95 0.60 0.31 0.08 -0.09 -0.22 -0.32 -0.38

Stage II Area Total 3.93 2.84 1.95 1.21 0.61 0.13 -0.23 -0.50 -0.70 -0.85

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 27 

## Table 19. Stage II Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Plus Spillage Impacts, Sc enario 3 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.45 0.39 0.34 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0 0.19 0.18

Baltimore 0.62 0.53 0.46 0.41 0.36 0.32 0.30 0.27 0 .25 0.24

Calvert 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.0 3 0.02

Carroll 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.0 5 0.04

Cecil 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05

Charles 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.0 4 0.04

Frederick 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.11 0 .10 0.09

Harford 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.0 8 0.08

Howard 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12

Montgomery 0.63 0.54 0.47 0.41 0.36 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.23

Prince George's 0.72 0.62 0.54 0.47 0.41 0.36 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.26

Baltimore City 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.13 0 .12 0.11 0.11

Baltimore Region Total 1.94 1.67 1.45 1.27 1.13 1.02 0.95 0.87 0.81 0.76

Washington Region Total 1.76 1.52 1.32 1.15 1.01 0.90 0.81 0.74 0.69 0.65

Stage II Area Total 3.81 3.28 2.86 2.50 2.21 1.98 1.82 1.67 1.56 1.46



## Table 20. Stage II Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Plus Spillage Impacts, Sc enario 3 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.17 0.09 0.02 -0.03 -0.07 -0.11 -0.14 -0.15 -0.17 -0.18

Baltimore 0.22 0.11 0.02 -0.05 -0.10 -0.15 -0.18 -0 .21 -0.22 -0.23

Calvert 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02

Carroll 0.04 0.02 0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03 -0.0 4 -0.04 -0.04

Cecil 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0 .03 -0.03

Charles 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04

Frederick 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.00 -0.03 -0.05 -0.06 -0. 07 -0.08 -0.09

Harford 0.07 0.04 0.01 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.06 -0.0 7 -0.07 -0.08

Howard 0.11 0.05 0.01 -0.02 -0.05 -0.07 -0.09 -0.10 -0.11 -0.12

Montgomery 0.26 0.15 0.05 -0.02 -0.09 -0.14 -0.17 - 0.20 -0.22 -0.23

Prince George's 0.30 0.17 0.06 -0.02 -0.09 -0.15 -0 .19 -0.22 -0.24 -0.26

Baltimore City 0.09 0.04 0.01 -0.03 -0.05 -0.07 -0. 09 -0.10 -0.10 -0.11

Baltimore Region Total 0.70 0.36 0.08 -0.15 -0.32 -0.47 -0.59 -0.67 -0.72 -0.76

Washington Region Total 0.74 0.43 0.16 -0.05 -0.23 -0.37 -0.47 -0.55 -0.61 -0.65

Stage II Area Total 1.50 0.82 0.27 -0.19 -0.55 -0.85 -1.08 -1.24 -1.35 -1.43

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 28 

## Table 21. Stage II Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Only Impacts, Sce nario 1 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.58 0.50 0.43 0.37 0.33 0.29 0.27 0.2 5 0.23 0.22

Baltimore 0.79 0.67 0.58 0.50 0.44 0.39 0.35 0.32 0 .30 0.28

Calvert 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.0 3 0.03

Carroll 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.0 6 0.06

Cecil 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06

Charles 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.0 6 0.05

Frederick 0.31 0.27 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.13 0 .12 0.11

Harford 0.24 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.1 0 0.09

Howard 0.38 0.33 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14

Montgomery 0.87 0.75 0.65 0.57 0.51 0.45 0.41 0.38 0.36 0.35

Prince George's 0.91 0.77 0.65 0.56 0.48 0.41 0.37 0.33 0.31 0.29

Baltimore City 0.34 0.29 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.15 0 .13 0.12 0.11

Baltimore Region Total 2.48 2.11 1.82 1.58 1.38 1.24 1.13 1.04 0.96 0.91

Washington Region Total 2.32 1.99 1.71 1.49 1.30 1.14 1.03 0.95 0.88 0.83

Stage II Area Total 4.95 4.23 3.65 3.17 2.77 2.46 2.24 2.05 1.91 1.81



## Table 22. Stage II Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Only Impacts, Sce nario 1 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.30 0.20 0.12 0.05 -0.01 -0.05 -0.09 -0.11 -0.12 -0.13

Baltimore 0.39 0.25 0.14 0.04 -0.03 -0.08 -0.13 -0. 16 -0.18 -0.19

Calvert 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 - 0.01 -0.02

Carroll 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 - 0.02 -0.03

Cecil 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.0 2 -0.02

Charles 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 - 0.03 -0.03

Frederick 0.18 0.13 0.08 0.04 0.01 -0.01 -0.03 -0.0 5 -0.06 -0.07

Harford 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.06

Howard 0.19 0.12 0.07 0.02 -0.01 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -0.09 -0.09

Montgomery 0.50 0.35 0.23 0.14 0.06 0.00 -0.05 -0.0 8 -0.11 -0.12

Prince George's 0.48 0.32 0.18 0.07 -0.02 -0.09 -0. 15 -0.18 -0.21 -0.23

Baltimore City 0.16 0.09 0.04 0.00 -0.03 -0.06 -0.0 8 -0.09 -0.10 -0.10

Baltimore Region Total 1.25 0.81 0.45 0.16 -0.07 -0.26 -0.41 -0.50 -0.57 -0.61

Washington Region Total 1.30 0.89 0.56 0.28 0.06 -0.12 -0.25 -0.35 -0.42 -0.46

Stage II Area Total 2.64 1.77 1.06 0.47 0.01 -0.37 -0.66 -0.86 -1.00 -1.09

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 29 

## Table 23. Stage II Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Only Impacts, Sce nario 2 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.75 0.64 0.55 0.48 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.3 2 0.30 0.28

Baltimore 1.02 0.87 0.74 0.64 0.56 0.50 0.45 0.41 0 .39 0.36

Calvert 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.0 4 0.04

Carroll 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.0 8 0.08

Cecil 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08

Charles 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.0 7 0.07

Frederick 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.17 0 .16 0.15

Harford 0.31 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.1 2 0.12

Howard 0.49 0.42 0.36 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.19

Montgomery 1.12 0.97 0.84 0.74 0.65 0.58 0.53 0.49 0.47 0.45

Prince George's 1.17 0.99 0.84 0.72 0.62 0.53 0.47 0.43 0.39 0.37

Baltimore City 0.44 0.37 0.32 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.19 0 .17 0.16 0.15

Baltimore Region Total 3.19 2.72 2.34 2.03 1.78 1.59 1.46 1.33 1.24 1.17

Washington Region Total 2.98 2.55 2.20 1.91 1.67 1.47 1.33 1.22 1.13 1.07

Stage II Area Total 6.37 5.44 4.69 4.07 3.56 3.16 2.88 2.64 2.46 2.32



## Table 24. Stage II Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Only Impacts, Sce nario 2 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.47 0.34 0.24 0.15 0.09 0.03 -0.01 -0 .04 -0.06 -0.07

Baltimore 0.62 0.44 0.30 0.19 0.10 0.03 -0.03 -0.07 -0.09 -0.11

Calvert 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.0 0 -0.01

Carroll 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0. 01 -0.01

Cecil 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00

Charles 0.13 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 -0. 01 -0.02

Frederick 0.27 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.06 0.03 0.01 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04

Harford 0.19 0.14 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.01 -0.01 -0.02 - 0.03 -0.04

Howard 0.30 0.22 0.15 0.09 0.05 0.02 -0.01 -0.03 -0 .04 -0.05

Montgomery 0.74 0.57 0.42 0.30 0.20 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.00 -0.02

Prince George's 0.74 0.54 0.37 0.23 0.11 0.02 -0.04 -0.09 -0.12 -0.15

Baltimore City 0.25 0.18 0.11 0.06 0.02 -0.01 -0.03 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07

Baltimore Region Total 1.96 1.41 0.97 0.61 0.33 0.09 -0.08 -0.20 -0.29 -0.35

Washington Region Total 1.96 1.46 1.05 0.71 0.43 0.21 0.04 -0.08 -0.17 -0.23

Stage II Area Total 4.05 2.98 2.10 1.38 0.80 0.33 -0.02 -0.27 -0.45 -0.58

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 30 

## Table 25. Stage II Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Only Impacts, Sce nario 3 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.42 0.36 0.31 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.1 8 0.16 0.16

Baltimore 0.57 0.48 0.41 0.36 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.23 0 .21 0.20

Calvert 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.0 2 0.02

Carroll 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.0 5 0.04

Cecil 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04

Charles 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.0 4 0.04

Frederick 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0 .09 0.08

Harford 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.0 7 0.06

Howard 0.27 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10

Montgomery 0.62 0.54 0.47 0.41 0.36 0.32 0.30 0.27 0.26 0.25

Prince George's 0.65 0.55 0.47 0.40 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20

Baltimore City 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0 .09 0.09 0.08

Baltimore Region Total 1.77 1.51 1.30 1.13 0.99 0.88 0.81 0.74 0.69 0.65

Washington Region Total 1.66 1.42 1.22 1.06 0.93 0.82 0.74 0.68 0.63 0.60

Stage II Area Total 3.54 3.02 2.61 2.26 1.98 1.76 1.60 1.47 1.36 1.29



## Table 26. Stage II Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Only Impacts, Sce nario 3 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.13 0.06 -0.01 -0.06 -0.10 -0.13 -0.1 6 -0.18 -0.19 -0.20

Baltimore 0.17 0.06 -0.03 -0.10 -0.15 -0.20 -0.23 - 0.25 -0.26 -0.27

Calvert 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03

Carroll 0.04 0.02 0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03 -0.0 4 -0.04 -0.04

Cecil 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 - 0.03 -0.04

Charles 0.04 0.02 0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03 -0.0 4 -0.04 -0.05

Frederick 0.09 0.05 0.01 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -0 .09 -0.10 -0.10

Harford 0.06 0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.07 -0.0 8 -0.09 -0.09

Howard 0.08 0.03 -0.01 -0.05 -0.07 -0.09 -0.11 -0.1 2 -0.13 -0.13

Montgomery 0.25 0.14 0.05 -0.03 -0.09 -0.13 -0.17 - 0.19 -0.21 -0.22

Prince George's 0.23 0.10 -0.01 -0.09 -0.16 -0.21 - 0.25 -0.28 -0.30 -0.31

Baltimore City 0.06 0.01 -0.03 -0.06 -0.08 -0.10 -0 .12 -0.13 -0.13 -0.13

Baltimore Region Total 0.54 0.20 -0.07 -0.29 -0.46 -0.61 -0.73 -0.80 -0.84 -0.87

Washington Region Total 0.64 0.33 0.07 -0.14 -0.31 -0.45 -0.55 -0.62 -0.67 -0.70

Stage II Area Total 1.23 0.56 0.01 -0.43 -0.79 -1.08 -1.30 -1.45 -1.55 -1.61

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 31 

## Table 27. Stage II Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Plus Spillage Imp acts, Scenario 1 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.73 0.65 0.58 0.52 0.48 0.45 0.43 0.4 0 0.38 0.37

Baltimore 1.00 0.88 0.78 0.70 0.64 0.59 0.56 0.53 0 .50 0.48

Calvert 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.0 5 0.05

Carroll 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.1 1 0.10

Cecil 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09

Charles 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.0 9 0.09

Frederick 0.39 0.35 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.21 0 .20 0.20

Harford 0.30 0.26 0.24 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.1 6 0.15

Howard 0.49 0.43 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.25

Montgomery 1.10 0.99 0.89 0.81 0.75 0.69 0.65 0.62 0.60 0.59

Prince George's 1.12 0.98 0.87 0.77 0.69 0.63 0.58 0.54 0.52 0.50

Baltimore City 0.43 0.38 0.33 0.30 0.27 0.25 0.23 0 .22 0.21 0.20

Baltimore Region Total 3.14 2.76 2.47 2.23 2.03 1.89 1.80 1.70 1.62 1.56

Washington Region Total 2.90 2.56 2.29 2.07 1.88 1.72 1.61 1.53 1.46 1.42

Stage II Area Total 6.21 5.49 4.91 4.43 4.04 3.73 3.52 3.32 3.18 3.07



## Table 28. Stage II Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Plus Spillage Imp acts, Scenario 1 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.45 0.35 0.27 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.0 5 0.03 0.02

Baltimore 0.60 0.46 0.34 0.25 0.18 0.12 0.08 0.05 0 .03 0.01

Calvert 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.0 0 0.00

Carroll 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.0 2 0.02

Cecil 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01

Charles 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.0 1 0.00

Frederick 0.26 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.03 0 .02 0.01

Harford 0.18 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.0 0 0.00

Howard 0.29 0.23 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01

Montgomery 0.73 0.59 0.47 0.37 0.30 0.23 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.12

Prince George's 0.70 0.53 0.40 0.28 0.19 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.00 -0.02

Baltimore City 0.25 0.18 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.01 0 .00 -0.01 -0.02

Baltimore Region Total 1.90 1.46 1.10 0.81 0.58 0.40 0.26 0.16 0.09 0.04

Washington Region Total 1.88 1.47 1.14 0.86 0.64 0.46 0.33 0.23 0.16 0.12

Stage II Area Total 3.90 3.03 2.32 1.74 1.27 0.90 0.62 0.41 0.27 0.17

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 32 

## Table 29. Stage II Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Plus Spillage Imp acts, Scenario 2 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.88 0.77 0.69 0.61 0.56 0.51 0.49 0.4 6 0.43 0.42

Baltimore 1.20 1.05 0.93 0.82 0.74 0.68 0.64 0.60 0 .57 0.54

Calvert 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.0 6 0.06

Carroll 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.1 2 0.12

Cecil 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11

Charles 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.1 0 0.10

Frederick 0.47 0.42 0.37 0.33 0.30 0.27 0.25 0.24 0 .23 0.22

Harford 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.1 8 0.17

Howard 0.58 0.51 0.45 0.41 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.29 0.28

Montgomery 1.33 1.18 1.05 0.95 0.87 0.80 0.75 0.71 0.68 0.66

Prince George's 1.36 1.18 1.03 0.91 0.81 0.72 0.66 0.62 0.58 0.56

Baltimore City 0.52 0.45 0.39 0.35 0.31 0.28 0.26 0 .25 0.23 0.22

Baltimore Region Total 3.77 3.29 2.92 2.61 2.35 2.17 2.05 1.92 1.83 1.75

Washington Region Total 3.49 3.07 2.72 2.43 2.19 1.99 1.85 1.74 1.66 1.60

Stage II Area Total 7.48 6.56 5.81 5.19 4.69 4.30 4.02 3.78 3.59 3.46



## Table 30. Stage II Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Plus Spillage Imp acts, Scenario 2 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.60 0.47 0.37 0.29 0.22 0.17 0.13 0.1 0 0.08 0.07

Baltimore 0.80 0.63 0.48 0.37 0.28 0.21 0.16 0.12 0 .09 0.07

Calvert 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.0 1 0.01

Carroll 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.0 3 0.03

Cecil 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03

Charles 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.0 2 0.01

Frederick 0.34 0.27 0.22 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.06 0 .05 0.04

Harford 0.24 0.19 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.0 3 0.02

Howard 0.39 0.31 0.24 0.19 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04

Montgomery 0.96 0.78 0.63 0.51 0.42 0.34 0.29 0.25 0.22 0.20

Prince George's 0.93 0.73 0.56 0.42 0.30 0.21 0.15 0.10 0.06 0.04

Baltimore City 0.33 0.25 0.19 0.14 0.10 0.07 0.04 0 .03 0.01 0.01

Baltimore Region Total 2.53 1.98 1.54 1.19 0.90 0.68 0.51 0.38 0.30 0.24

Washington Region Total 2.47 1.98 1.57 1.22 0.95 0.73 0.57 0.44 0.36 0.30

Stage II Area Total 5.17 4.10 3.22 2.50 1.93 1.46 1.12 0.87 0.68 0.56

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 33 

## Table 31. Stage II Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Plus Spillage Imp acts, Scenario 3 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.55 0.49 0.44 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.3 1 0.30 0.29

Baltimore 0.75 0.66 0.60 0.54 0.49 0.46 0.44 0.41 0 .40 0.38

Calvert 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.0 4 0.04

Carroll 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.0 8 0.08

Cecil 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07

Charles 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.0 7 0.07

Frederick 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.17 0 .16 0.15

Harford 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.1 3 0.12

Howard 0.36 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.20

Montgomery 0.83 0.75 0.68 0.62 0.58 0.54 0.51 0.49 0.48 0.47

Prince George's 0.84 0.74 0.66 0.59 0.53 0.49 0.45 0.43 0.41 0.39

Baltimore City 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.18 0 .17 0.16 0.16

Baltimore Region Total 2.35 2.09 1.88 1.70 1.56 1.47 1.40 1.33 1.27 1.23

Washington Region Total 2.17 1.93 1.74 1.58 1.45 1.34 1.26 1.20 1.15 1.12

Stage II Area Total 4.65 4.14 3.73 3.39 3.11 2.89 2.74 2.61 2.50 2.42



## Table 32. Stage II Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Plus Spillage Imp acts, Scenario 3 (VOC, metric tonnes per day)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Anne Arundel 0.27 0.19 0.13 0.08 0.04 0.00 -0.02 -0 .04 -0.05 -0.06

Baltimore 0.35 0.24 0.15 0.09 0.03 -0.01 -0.05 -0.0 7 -0.08 -0.09

Calvert 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0 .01 -0.01

Carroll 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0.00

Cecil 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01

Charles 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0 .01 -0.02

Frederick 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03

Harford 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 -0.02 -0.02 - 0.03 -0.03

Howard 0.17 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.03 -0 .03 -0.04

Montgomery 0.46 0.35 0.26 0.19 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00

Prince George's 0.42 0.29 0.18 0.10 0.03 -0.02 -0.0 6 -0.09 -0.11 -0.12

Baltimore City 0.14 0.09 0.05 0.02 -0.01 -0.03 -0.0 4 -0.05 -0.06 -0.06

Baltimore Region Total 1.11 0.78 0.50 0.28 0.11 -0.03 -0.14 -0.21 -0.26 -0.28

Washington Region Total 1.15 0.84 0.59 0.37 0.21 0.07 -0.02 -0.10 -0.15 -0.18

Stage II Area Total 2.34 1.68 1.13 0.69 0.34 0.06 -0.16 -0.31 -0.41 -0.47

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 34 

## Table 33. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Impacts Only, Scenario 1 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 568.34 471.10 392.28 326.18 272.31 229.49 198.68 172.04 151.81 136.44

Benzene 14.17 11.75 9.78 8.13 6.79 5.72 4.95 4.29 3.79 3.40

Xylene 273.55 226.75 188.81 156.99 131.06 110.45 95.62 82.80 73.07 65.67

Toluene 610.55 506.09 421.42 350.40 292.53 246.53 213.43 184.81 163.08 146.58

Ethyl Benzene 73.29 60.75 50.59 42.06 35.12 29.60 25.62 22.19 19.58 17.60

Hexane 108.00 89.53 74.55 61.98 51.75 43.61 37.76 32.69 28.85 25.93

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 142.84 118.40 98.59 81.98 68.44 57.68 49.93 43.24 38.15 34.29

Naphthalene 1.70 1.41 1.18 0.98 0.82 0.69 0.60 0.52 0.46 0.41

Speciated Emissions Total 1792.45 1485.78 1237.20 1028.71 858.82 723.76 626.60 542.58 478.78 430.32

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%



## Table 34. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Impacts Only, Scenario 1 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 259.95 142.76 46.20 -33.25 -96.67 -148.54 -188.44 -216.40 -236.58 -250.23

Benzene 6.48 3.56 1.15 -0.83 -2.41 -3.70 -4.70 -5.40 -5.90 -6.24

Xylene 125.12 68.71 22.24 -16.00 -46.53 -71.50 -90.70 -104.16 -113.87 -120.44

Toluene 279.26 153.37 49.64 -35.71 -103.85 -159.58 -202.44 -232.47 -254.15 -268.81

Ethyl Benzene 33.52 18.41 5.96 -4.29 -12.47 -19.16 -24.30 -27.91 -30.51 -32.27

Hexane 49.40 27.13 8.78 -6.32 -18.37 -28.23 -35.81 -41.12 -44.96 -47.55

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 65.33 35.88 11.61 -8.36 -24.30 -37.33 -47.36 -54.39 -59.46 -62.89

Naphthalene 0.78 0.43 0.14 -0.10 -0.29 -0.45 -0.56 -0.65 -0.71 -0.75

Speciated Emissions Total 819.84 450.26 145.72 -104.85 -304.87 -468.49 -594.32 -682.49 -746.14 -789.19

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 35 

## Table 35. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Impacts Only, Scenario 2 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 730.72 605.70 504.36 419.37 350.11 295.05 255.44 221.19 195.18 175.43

Benzene 18.22 15.11 12.58 10.46 8.73 7.36 6.37 5.52 4.87 4.38

Xylene 351.70 291.53 242.76 201.85 168.51 142.01 122.95 106.46 93.94 84.44

Toluene 784.99 650.69 541.82 450.52 376.11 316.97 274.41 237.62 209.68 188.46

Ethyl Benzene 94.24 78.11 65.04 54.08 45.15 38.05 32.94 28.53 25.17 22.62

Hexane 138.86 115.11 95.85 79.69 66.53 56.07 48.54 42.03 37.09 33.34

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 183.65 152.23 126.76 105.40 87.99 74.16 64.20 55.59 49.06 44.09

Naphthalene 2.19 1.82 1.51 1.26 1.05 0.88 0.77 0.66 0.59 0.53

Speciated Emissions Total 2304.58 1910.29 1590.69 1322.62 1104.19 930.55 805.62 697.60 615.57 553.27

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%



## Table 36. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Impacts Only, Scenario 2 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 422.33 277.36 158.29 59.95 -18.87 -82.98 -131.68 -167.25 -193.21 -211.25

Benzene 10.53 6.92 3.95 1.50 -0.47 -2.07 -3.28 -4.17 -4.82 -5.27

Xylene 203.27 133.50 76.18 28.85 -9.08 -39.94 -63.38 -80.50 -92.99 -101.67

Toluene 453.70 297.96 170.04 64.40 -20.27 -89.14 -141.46 -179.67 -207.56 -226.93

Ethyl Benzene 54.47 35.77 20.41 7.73 -2.43 -10.70 -16.98 -21.57 -24.92 -27.24

Hexane 80.26 52.71 30.08 11.39 -3.59 -15.77 -25.02 -31.78 -36.72 -40.14

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 106.15 69.71 39.78 15.07 -4.74 -20.85 -33.09 -42.03 -48.56 -53.09

Naphthalene 1.27 0.83 0.47 0.18 -0.06 -0.25 -0.39 -0.50 -0.58 -0.63

Speciated Emissions Total 1331.97 874.77 499.21 189.07 -59.50 -261.70 -415.29 -527.47 -609.35 -666.24

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 36 

## Table 37. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Impacts Only, Scenario 3 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 405.95 336.50 280.20 232.98 194.51 163.92 141.91 122.88 108.43 97.46

Benzene 10.12 8.39 6.99 5.81 4.85 4.09 3.54 3.06 2.70 2.43

Xylene 195.39 161.96 134.86 112.14 93.62 78.90 68.30 59.15 52.19 46.91

Toluene 436.11 361.49 301.01 250.29 208.95 176.09 152.45 132.01 116.49 104.70

Ethyl Benzene 52.35 43.40 36.14 30.05 25.08 21.14 18.30 15.85 13.98 12.57

Hexane 77.15 63.95 53.25 44.27 36.96 31.15 26.97 23.35 20.61 18.52

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 102.03 84.57 70.42 58.56 48.89 41.20 35.67 30.88 27.25 24.49

Naphthalene 1.22 1.01 0.84 0.70 0.58 0.49 0.43 0.37 0.33 0.29

Speciated Emissions Total 1280.32 1061.27 883.72 734.79 613.44 516.97 447.57 387.56 341.98 307.37

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%



## Table 38. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Impacts Only, Scenario 3 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 97.57 8.16 -65.88 -126.44 -174.47 -214.11 -245.21 -265.55 -279.95 -289.21

Benzene 2.43 0.20 -1.64 -3.15 -4.35 -5.34 -6.12 -6.62 -6.98 -7.21

Xylene 46.96 3.93 -31.71 -60.86 -83.97 -103.05 -118.02 -127.81 -134.74 -139.20

Toluene 104.82 8.77 -70.77 -135.83 -187.43 -230.01 -263.42 -285.28 -300.75 -310.69

Ethyl Benzene 12.58 1.05 -8.50 -16.31 -22.50 -27.61 -31.62 -34.25 -36.10 -37.30

Hexane 18.54 1.55 -12.52 -24.03 -33.16 -40.69 -46.60 -50.46 -53.20 -54.96

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 24.52 2.05 -16.56 -31.78 -43.85 -53.81 -61.63 -66.74 -70.36 -72.69

Naphthalene 0.29 0.02 -0.20 -0.38 -0.52 -0.64 -0.73 -0.80 -0.84 -0.87

Speciated Emissions Total 307.72 25.75 -207.77 -398.77 -550.25 -675.28 -773.35 -837.51 -882.93 -912.14

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 37 

## Table 39. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Plus Spillage Impacts, Sc enario 1 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 690.22 591.75 512.61 445.95 391.34 348.29 318.03 290.03 268.48 251.63

Benzene 17.21 14.76 12.78 11.12 9.76 8.69 7.93 7.23 6.70 6.28

Xylene 332.21 284.82 246.72 214.64 188.36 167.64 153.07 139.60 129.22 121.11

Toluene 741.48 635.71 550.68 479.07 420.41 374.16 341.65 311.57 288.42 270.32

Ethyl Benzene 89.01 76.31 66.11 57.51 50.47 44.92 41.01 37.40 34.62 32.45

Hexane 131.17 112.45 97.41 84.75 74.37 66.19 60.44 55.12 51.02 47.82

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 173.47 148.73 128.84 112.08 98.36 87.54 79.93 72.89 67.48 63.24

Naphthalene 2.07 1.77 1.54 1.34 1.17 1.04 0.95 0.87 0.80 0.75

Speciated Emissions Total 2176.84 1866.30 1616.70 1406.45 1234.23 1098.47 1003.01 914.72 846.73 793.61

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%



## Table 40. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Plus Spillage Impacts, Sc enario 1 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 381.83 263.42 166.53 86.52 22.37 -29.74 -69.09 -98.40 -119.91 -135.04

Benzene 9.52 6.57 4.15 2.16 0.56 -0.74 -1.72 -2.45 -2.99 -3.37

Xylene 183.78 126.78 80.15 41.65 10.77 -14.31 -33.25 -47.36 -57.71 -65.00

Toluene 410.19 282.98 178.90 92.95 24.03 -31.95 -74.22 -105.71 -128.82 -145.07

Ethyl Benzene 49.24 33.97 21.48 11.16 2.88 -3.83 -8.91 -12.69 -15.46 -17.42

Hexane 72.56 50.06 31.65 16.44 4.25 -5.65 -13.13 -18.70 -22.79 -25.66

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 95.97 66.21 41.85 21.75 5.62 -7.47 -17.37 -24.73 -30.14 -33.94

Naphthalene 1.14 0.79 0.50 0.26 0.07 -0.09 -0.21 -0.29 -0.36 -0.40

Speciated Emissions Total 1204.23 830.78 525.22 272.89 70.54 -93.78 -217.91 -310.35 -378.18 -425.90

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 38 

## Table 41. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Plus Spillage Impacts, Sc enario 2 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 832.88 707.19 605.85 520.59 450.87 395.76 356.72 321.42 294.35 273.39

Benzene 20.77 17.64 15.11 12.98 11.24 9.87 8.90 8.02 7.34 6.82

Xylene 400.87 340.38 291.60 250.57 217.01 190.49 171.69 154.70 141.67 131.59

Toluene 894.74 759.71 650.85 559.26 484.36 425.16 383.22 345.29 316.21 293.70

Ethyl Benzene 107.41 91.20 78.13 67.14 58.15 51.04 46.00 41.45 37.96 35.26

Hexane 158.28 134.39 115.13 98.93 85.68 75.21 67.79 61.08 55.94 51.95

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 209.33 177.74 152.27 130.84 113.32 99.47 89.66 80.78 73.98 68.71

Naphthalene 2.50 2.12 1.82 1.56 1.35 1.19 1.07 0.96 0.88 0.82

Speciated Emissions Total 2626.78 2230.36 1910.76 1641.87 1421.97 1248.18 1125.06 1013.70 928.34 862.25

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%



## Table 42. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Plus Spillage Impacts, Sc enario 2 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 524.49 378.85 259.77 161.17 81.89 17.73 -30.39 -67.02 -94.04 -113.28

Benzene 13.08 9.45 6.48 4.02 2.04 0.44 -0.76 -1.67 -2.35 -2.83

Xylene 252.44 182.34 125.03 77.57 39.42 8.54 -14.63 -32.26 -45.26 -54.52

Toluene 563.45 406.99 279.06 173.14 87.98 19.05 -32.65 -72.00 -101.02 -121.69

Ethyl Benzene 67.64 48.86 33.50 20.79 10.56 2.29 -3.92 -8.64 -12.13 -14.61

Hexane 99.67 71.99 49.37 30.63 15.56 3.37 -5.78 -12.74 -17.87 -21.53

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 131.82 95.22 65.29 40.51 20.58 4.46 -7.64 -16.84 -23.63 -28.47

Naphthalene 1.57 1.14 0.78 0.48 0.25 0.05 -0.09 -0.20 -0.28 -0.34

Speciated Emissions Total 1654.18 1194.83 819.27 508.31 258.28 55.93 -95.86 -211.37 -296.58 -357.26

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 39 

## Table 43. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Plus Spillage Impacts, Sc enario 3 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 508.12 437.99 381.69 334.21 295.26 264.63 243.19 223.11 207.60 195.43

Benzene 12.67 10.92 9.52 8.34 7.36 6.60 6.07 5.56 5.18 4.87

Xylene 244.56 210.81 183.71 160.86 142.11 127.37 117.05 107.38 99.92 94.06

Toluene 545.86 470.52 410.04 359.03 317.19 284.28 261.26 239.68 223.02 209.94

Ethyl Benzene 65.53 56.48 49.22 43.10 38.08 34.13 31.36 28.77 26.77 25.20

Hexane 96.56 83.23 72.53 63.51 56.11 50.29 46.22 42.40 39.45 37.14

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 127.71 110.08 95.93 84.00 74.21 66.51 61.12 56.07 52.18 49.12

Naphthalene 1.52 1.31 1.14 1.00 0.89 0.79 0.73 0.67 0.62 0.59

Speciated Emissions Total 1602.52 1381.34 1203.78 1054.04 931.22 834.60 767.00 703.65 654.75 616.35

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%



## Table 44. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Only, Displacement Plus Spillage Impacts, Sc enario 3 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 199.73 109.65 35.61 -25.21 -73.71 -113.40 -143.92 -165.33 -180.78 -191.25

Benzene 4.98 2.73 0.89 -0.63 -1.84 -2.83 -3.59 -4.12 -4.51 -4.77

Xylene 96.13 52.77 17.14 -12.14 -35.48 -54.58 -69.27 -79.57 -87.01 -92.05

Toluene 214.56 117.79 38.25 -27.09 -79.18 -121.82 -154.61 -177.61 -194.21 -205.45

Ethyl Benzene 25.76 14.14 4.59 -3.25 -9.51 -14.62 -18.56 -21.32 -23.31 -24.66

Hexane 37.96 20.84 6.77 -4.79 -14.01 -21.55 -27.35 -31.42 -34.36 -36.34

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 50.20 27.56 8.95 -6.34 -18.53 -28.50 -36.17 -41.55 -45.44 -48.07

Naphthalene 0.60 0.33 0.11 -0.08 -0.22 -0.34 -0.43 -0.50 -0.54 -0.57

Speciated Emissions Total 629.92 345.81 112.30 -79.52 -232.47 -357.65 -453.92 -521.42 -570.16 -603.16

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 40 

## Table 45. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Impacts Only, Sce nario 1 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 660.69 564.70 487.16 422.37 369.84 328.38 298.95 273.71 254.88 240.93

Benzene 16.48 14.08 12.15 10.53 9.22 8.19 7.46 6.83 6.36 6.01

Xylene 318.00 271.80 234.48 203.29 178.01 158.05 143.89 131.74 122.67 115.96

Toluene 709.76 606.65 523.34 453.74 397.30 352.77 321.16 294.03 273.81 258.82

Ethyl Benzene 85.20 72.83 62.83 54.47 47.70 42.35 38.55 35.30 32.87 31.07

Hexane 125.55 107.31 92.58 80.27 70.28 62.40 56.81 52.01 48.44 45.78

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 166.05 141.93 122.44 106.16 92.95 82.53 75.14 68.79 64.06 60.55

Naphthalene 1.98 1.69 1.46 1.27 1.11 0.98 0.90 0.82 0.76 0.72

Speciated Emissions Total 2083.71 1780.99 1536.43 1332.10 1166.41 1035.67 942.85 863.23 803.84 759.85

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%



## Table 46. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Impacts Only, Sce nario 1 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 352.30 236.37 141.08 62.95 0.86 -49.65 -88.17 -114.73 -133.51 -145.75

Benzene 8.79 5.89 3.52 1.57 0.02 -1.24 -2.20 -2.86 -3.33 -3.63

Xylene 169.57 113.77 67.90 30.30 0.41 -23.90 -42.44 -55.22 -64.26 -70.15

Toluene 378.47 253.92 151.56 67.63 0.93 -53.33 -94.71 -123.25 -143.43 -156.57

Ethyl Benzene 45.43 30.48 18.19 8.12 0.11 -6.40 -11.37 -14.80 -17.22 -18.80

Hexane 66.95 44.92 26.81 11.96 0.16 -9.43 -16.75 -21.80 -25.37 -27.70

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 88.55 59.41 35.46 15.82 0.22 -12.48 -22.16 -28.84 -33.56 -36.63

Naphthalene 1.06 0.71 0.42 0.19 0.00 -0.15 -0.26 -0.34 -0.40 -0.44

Speciated Emissions Total 1111.11 745.47 444.95 198.54 2.72 -156.58 -278.06 -361.85 -421.07 -459.66

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 41 

## Table 47. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Impacts Only, Sce nario 2 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 849.46 726.05 626.35 543.05 475.50 422.21 384.37 351.91 327.70 309.76

Benzene 21.19 18.11 15.62 13.54 11.86 10.53 9.59 8.78 8.17 7.73

Xylene 408.85 349.45 301.47 261.37 228.86 203.21 185.00 169.38 157.72 149.09

Toluene 912.55 779.97 672.87 583.38 510.82 453.56 412.92 378.04 352.04 332.77

Ethyl Benzene 109.55 93.63 80.78 70.03 61.32 54.45 49.57 45.38 42.26 39.95

Hexane 161.43 137.98 119.03 103.20 90.36 80.23 73.04 66.87 62.27 58.87

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 213.50 182.48 157.42 136.49 119.51 106.11 96.60 88.45 82.36 77.85

Naphthalene 2.55 2.18 1.88 1.63 1.43 1.27 1.15 1.05 0.98 0.93

Speciated Emissions Total 2679.06 2289.85 1975.41 1712.70 1499.67 1331.57 1212.24 1109.86 1033.51 976.94

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%



## Table 48. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Impacts Only, Sce nario 2 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 541.07 397.71 280.27 183.63 106.53 44.18 -2.75 -36.53 -60.69 -76.91

Benzene 13.49 9.92 6.99 4.58 2.66 1.10 -0.07 -0.91 -1.51 -1.92

Xylene 260.42 191.42 134.90 88.38 51.27 21.26 -1.32 -17.58 -29.21 -37.02

Toluene 581.26 427.25 301.09 197.27 114.44 47.46 -2.96 -39.24 -65.20 -82.62

Ethyl Benzene 69.78 51.29 36.14 23.68 13.74 5.70 -0.35 -4.71 -7.83 -9.92

Hexane 102.82 75.58 53.26 34.90 20.24 8.40 -0.52 -6.94 -11.53 -14.62

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 135.99 99.96 70.44 46.15 26.77 11.10 -0.69 -9.18 -15.25 -19.33

Naphthalene 1.62 1.19 0.84 0.55 0.32 0.13 -0.01 -0.11 -0.18 -0.23

Speciated Emissions Total 1706.45 1254.32 883.93 579.14 335.98 139.33 -8.68 -115.21 -191.41 -242.57

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 42 

## Table 49. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Impacts Only, Sce nario 3 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 471.92 403.36 347.97 301.69 264.17 234.56 213.54 195.50 182.05 172.09

Benzene 11.77 10.06 8.68 7.52 6.59 5.85 5.33 4.88 4.54 4.29

Xylene 227.14 194.14 167.48 145.21 127.15 112.90 102.78 94.10 87.62 82.83

Toluene 506.97 433.32 373.82 324.10 283.79 251.98 229.40 210.02 195.58 184.87

Ethyl Benzene 60.86 52.02 44.88 38.91 34.07 30.25 27.54 25.21 23.48 22.19

Hexane 89.68 76.65 66.13 57.33 50.20 44.57 40.58 37.15 34.60 32.70

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 118.61 101.38 87.46 75.83 66.39 58.95 53.67 49.14 45.76 43.25

Naphthalene 1.41 1.21 1.04 0.90 0.79 0.70 0.64 0.59 0.55 0.52

Speciated Emissions Total 1488.37 1272.14 1097.45 951.50 833.15 739.76 673.47 616.59 574.17 542.75

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%



## Table 50. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Impacts Only, Sce nario 3 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 163.53 75.02 1.89 -57.73 -104.81 -143.47 -173.58 -192.93 -206.33 -214.58

Benzene 4.08 1.87 0.05 -1.44 -2.61 -3.58 -4.33 -4.81 -5.15 -5.35

Xylene 78.71 36.11 0.91 -27.78 -50.44 -69.05 -83.55 -92.86 -99.31 -103.28

Toluene 175.68 80.59 2.03 -62.01 -112.59 -154.13 -186.47 -207.26 -221.66 -230.52

Ethyl Benzene 21.09 9.68 0.24 -7.44 -13.52 -18.50 -22.39 -24.88 -26.61 -27.67

Hexane 31.08 14.26 0.36 -10.97 -19.92 -27.26 -32.99 -36.66 -39.21 -40.78

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 41.10 18.86 0.48 -14.51 -26.34 -36.06 -43.63 -48.49 -51.86 -53.93

Naphthalene 0.49 0.22 0.01 -0.17 -0.31 -0.43 -0.52 -0.58 -0.62 -0.64

Speciated Emissions Total 515.76 236.61 5.97 -182.06 -330.54 -452.49 -547.45 -608.48 -650.74 -676.76

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 43 

## Table 51. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Plus Spillage Imp acts, Scenario 1 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 829.10 732.65 655.54 590.97 538.48 497.58 469.48 443.66 424.30 409.65

Benzene 20.68 18.27 16.35 14.74 13.43 12.41 11.71 11.06 10.58 10.22

Xylene 399.05 352.63 315.52 284.44 259.17 239.49 225.96 213.54 204.22 197.17

Toluene 890.68 787.06 704.23 634.86 578.47 534.54 504.35 476.61 455.81 440.08

Ethyl Benzene 106.92 94.48 84.54 76.21 69.44 64.17 60.55 57.22 54.72 52.83

Hexane 157.56 139.23 124.58 112.31 102.33 94.56 89.22 84.31 80.63 77.85

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 208.38 184.14 164.76 148.53 135.34 125.06 118.00 111.51 106.64 102.96

Naphthalene 2.49 2.20 1.96 1.77 1.61 1.49 1.41 1.33 1.27 1.23

Speciated Emissions Total 2614.85 2310.66 2067.47 1863.84 1698.27 1569.29 1480.67 1399.25 1338.17 1291.99

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%



## Table 52. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Plus Spillage Imp acts, Scenario 1 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 520.71 404.31 309.46 231.55 169.50 119.55 82.36 55.23 35.91 22.98

Benzene 12.99 10.08 7.72 5.77 4.23 2.98 2.05 1.38 0.90 0.57

Xylene 250.62 194.60 148.95 111.45 81.58 57.54 39.64 26.58 17.28 11.06

Toluene 559.39 434.34 332.44 248.75 182.09 128.43 88.48 59.33 38.58 24.69

Ethyl Benzene 67.15 52.14 39.91 29.86 21.86 15.42 10.62 7.12 4.63 2.96

Hexane 98.95 76.83 58.81 44.00 32.21 22.72 15.65 10.49 6.82 4.37

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 130.87 101.62 77.78 58.20 42.60 30.05 20.70 13.88 9.03 5.78

Naphthalene 1.56 1.21 0.93 0.69 0.51 0.36 0.25 0.17 0.11 0.07

Speciated Emissions Total 1642.25 1275.13 975.99 730.28 534.58 377.04 259.75 174.17 113.25 72.48

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 44 

## Table 53. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Plus Spillage Imp acts, Scenario 2 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 998.15 874.82 775.89 693.10 625.87 573.31 536.83 504.09 479.62 461.27

Benzene 24.89 21.82 19.35 17.29 15.61 14.30 13.39 12.57 11.96 11.50

Xylene 480.42 421.06 373.44 333.60 301.24 275.94 258.38 242.62 230.84 222.01

Toluene 1072.28 939.80 833.51 744.58 672.35 615.89 576.70 541.53 515.24 495.53

Ethyl Benzene 128.72 112.82 100.06 89.39 80.71 73.94 69.23 65.01 61.85 59.49

Hexane 189.68 166.25 147.45 131.71 118.94 108.95 102.02 95.80 91.14 87.66

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 250.87 219.87 195.01 174.20 157.30 144.09 134.92 126.70 120.54 115.93

Naphthalene 2.99 2.62 2.33 2.08 1.88 1.72 1.61 1.51 1.44 1.38

Speciated Emissions Total 3148.02 2759.07 2447.03 2185.94 1973.90 1808.12 1693.07 1589.84 1512.65 1454.78

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%



## Table 54. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Plus Spillage Imp acts, Scenario 2 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 689.76 546.49 429.81 333.68 256.89 195.28 149.71 115.66 91.23 74.60

Benzene 17.20 13.63 10.72 8.32 6.41 4.87 3.73 2.88 2.28 1.86

Xylene 331.99 263.03 206.87 160.60 123.65 93.99 72.06 55.67 43.91 35.90

Toluene 740.99 587.08 461.73 358.47 275.97 209.78 160.83 124.25 98.01 80.14

Ethyl Benzene 88.95 70.48 55.43 43.03 33.13 25.18 19.31 14.92 11.77 9.62

Hexane 131.08 103.85 81.68 63.41 48.82 37.11 28.45 21.98 17.34 14.18

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 173.36 137.35 108.02 83.87 64.57 49.08 37.63 29.07 22.93 18.75

Naphthalene 2.07 1.64 1.29 1.00 0.77 0.59 0.45 0.35 0.27 0.22

Speciated Emissions Total 2175.41 1723.54 1355.54 1052.38 810.21 615.88 472.15 364.76 287.73 235.27

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%

### Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 45 

## Table 55. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Plus Spillage Imp acts, Scenario 3 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 620.61 552.14 497.51 451.75 414.53 385.66 366.00 347.69 333.98 323.60

Benzene 15.48 13.77 12.41 11.27 10.34 9.62 9.13 8.67 8.33 8.07

Xylene 298.71 265.75 239.45 217.43 199.52 185.62 176.16 167.35 160.75 155.75

Toluene 666.71 593.14 534.46 485.30 445.32 414.30 393.18 373.51 358.78 347.63

Ethyl Benzene 80.04 71.21 64.16 58.26 53.46 49.74 47.20 44.84 43.07 41.73

Hexane 117.94 104.93 94.54 85.85 78.78 73.29 69.55 66.07 63.47 61.50

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 155.98 138.77 125.04 113.54 104.19 96.93 91.99 87.39 83.94 81.33

Naphthalene 1.86 1.65 1.49 1.35 1.24 1.16 1.10 1.04 1.00 0.97

Speciated Emissions Total 1957.32 1741.35 1569.06 1424.74 1307.38 1216.31 1154.30 1096.56 1053.31 1020.58

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%



## Table 56. Stage II HAPs Reductions with Non-Zero IEE Onroad Plus Nonroad, Displacement Plus Spillage Imp acts, Scenario 3 (kilograms per day, entire 12 county Stage II area)

County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MTBE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethanol 312.23 223.80 151.43 92.33 45.56 7.63 -21.12 -40.75 -54.41 -63.08

Benzene 7.79 5.58 3.78 2.30 1.14 0.19 -0.53 -1.02 -1.36 -1.57

Xylene 150.28 107.72 72.88 44.44 21.93 3.67 -10.17 -19.61 -26.19 -30.36

Toluene 335.42 240.42 162.68 99.18 48.94 8.20 -22.69 -43.77 -58.45 -67.76

Ethyl Benzene 40.27 28.86 19.53 11.91 5.88 0.98 -2.72 -5.25 -7.02 -8.13

Hexane 59.33 42.53 28.78 17.55 8.66 1.45 -4.01 -7.74 -10.34 -11.99

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 78.47 56.25 38.06 23.20 11.45 1.92 -5.31 -10.24 -13.68 -15.85

Naphthalene 0.94 0.67 0.45 0.28 0.14 0.02 -0.06 -0.12 -0.16 -0.19

Speciated Emissions Total 984.72 705.83 477.58 291.19 143.69 24.06 -66.62 -128.51 -171.61 -198.93

Fraction of Total VOC 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%

## Stage II, ORVR and Vapor Processor Attribute Matrix

# ~ec~rv~ec ClERK:§ 

## OFFICE



# SEP 1 0 

# 2013

STA'!E OF ILLINOIS Pollution Control 

## Board**r------w•~~ .....;.** **Te ;;.;** **;;.. .;..;** **·i .;.:..** **ARID** Tech 

### r 2013

1 I ncludes 

### em i ssions dur i ng 

### b ull< tank er l oadi ng and In the i n terval 

### between tanker deliveries

1 

### Dri ple ss Nozzles, low permeation hoses, c on t in uo us pressure monitoring

1 In cl uded 

### with A RID 

### p rocessor

4 

### C ap ital equ i p me n t p urchase 

### and "s ha r ed 

### savi n gs busi n ess mode l * 

### available

5 

### N eed t o co n firm w i th field testi n g ; sav ings • f( RVP, Te mp, V /L

, GDF Flow Profile)



### s N on- Ro ad emissio n s genera t ed d u ring refueling o f gas can s
, m o to rcycl es, boats, s nowmobil es; ORVR will 

### never be u se d on th ese tanks

Il l ino i s Ozo ne SIP R e v i sion. Vehicle Refu l eing Vapor Recovery P r og r am : Attachments Page. 84 1year orvr throughpu a b a + b c d c + d Refueling Emissions Emission Factor 7.01 lbs/1,000 gal dKC

Status Quo MA DEP (MA DEP - SQ) ORVR Throughput 0.8487 year 2013 penetration figures from dKC
lb/1,000 gal lb/1,000 gal lb/1,000 gal lb/1,000 gal lb/1,000 gal lb/1,000 gal lb/1,000 gal

0% 0 1.7525 1.7525 0 7.01 7.01 5.2575

2013 84.87% 0.029746935 0.26515325 0.294900185 0.11898774 1.060613 1.17960074 0.884700555 ORVR efficiency 0.98 constant USEPA, dKC

2014 87.59% 0.030700295 0 21748525 0.248185545 0.12280118 0.869941 0 99274218 0.744556635 Stage II efficiency 0.75 dKC

2015 90.39% 0.031681695 0.16841525 0.200096945 0.12672678 0.673661 0 80038778 0.600290835 State of MA T-put 2,916,370,000 gal/yr dKC

2016 91.65% 0.032123325 0.14633375 0.178457075 0.1284933 0.585335 0.7138283 0.535371225

2017 92.94% 0.03257547 0.1237265 0.15630197 0.13030188 0.494906 0.62520788 0.46890591

2018 94.24% 0.03303112 0.100944 0.13397512 0.13212448 0.403776 0.53590048 0.40192536

2019 95.56% 0.03349378 0.077811 0.11130478 0.13397512 0.311244 0.44521912 0.33391434

2020 96.90% 0.03396345 0.0543275 0.08829095 0.1358538 0.21731 0.3531638 0.26487285

2021 98.25% 0.034436625 0.03066875 0.065105375 0.1377465 0.122675 0.2604215 0.195316125

2022 99.63% 0.034920315 0.00648425 0.041404565 0.13968126 0.025937 0.16561826 0.124213695

100.00% 0.03505 0 0.03505 0.1402 0 0.1402 0.10515

### Status Quo using Gilbarco Data
IEE = .86 lb/1,000 gal

YEAR %ORVR Refueling Emissions Tank Emissions Quadrant
(%) (lbs/1,000 gal) (lbs/1,000 gal)

0.00% 1.7525 0.396 B

2013 84.87% 0.294900185 1.125882 A + B

2014 87.59% 0.248185545 1.149274 A + B

2015 90.39% 0.200096945 1.173354 A + B

2016 91.65% 0.178457075 1.18419 A + B

2017 92.94% 0.15630197 1.195284 A + B

2018 94.24% 0.13397512 1.206464 A + B

2019 95.56% 0.11130478 1.217816 A + B

2020 96.90% 0.08829095 1.22934 A + B

2021 98.25% 0.065105375 1.24095 A + B

2022 99.63% 0.041404565 1.252818 A + B

100.00% 0.03505 1.256 A

MA DEP using dKC data
STBL = 1.0 lb/1,000 gal (with fugitives)

YEAR %ORVR Refueling Emissions Tank Emissions Quadrant
(%) (lbs/1,000 gal) (lbs/1,000 gal)

0.00% 7.01 0.54 D

2013 84.87% 1.17960074 0.54 C + D

2014 87.59% 0.99274218 0.54 C + D

2015 90.39% 0.80038778 0.54 C + D

2016 91.65% 0.7138283 0.54 C + D

2017 92.94% 0.62520788 0.54 C + D

2018 94.24% 0.53590048 0.54 C + D

2019 95.56% 0.44521912 0.54 C + D

2020 96.90% 0.3531638 0.54 C + D

2021 98.25% 0.2604215 0.54 C + D

2022 99.63% 0.16561826 0.54 C + D

100.00% 0.1402 0.54 C

Status Quo Enhanced with Processor
IEE = .86 lb/1,000 gal

YEAR %ORVR Refueling Emissions Tank Emissions Quadrant
(%) (lbs/1,000 gal) (lbs/1,000 gal)

0.00% 1.7525 0.002772 B

2013 84.87% 0.294900185 0.007881174 A + B

2014 87.59% 0.248185545 0.008044918 A + B

2015 90.39% 0.200096945 0.008213478 A + B

2016 91.65% 0.178457075 0.00828933 A + B

2017 92.94% 0.15630197 0.008366988 A + B

### 2018 94.24% 0.13397512 0.008445248 A + B

2019 95.56% 0.11130478 0.008524712 A + B

2020 96.90% 0.08829095 0.00860538 A + B

2021 98.25% 0.065105375 0.00868665 A + B

2022 99.63% 0.041404565 0.008769726 A + B

100.00% 0.03505 0.008792 A

MA DEP using dKC data:Enhanced with Processor
STBL = 1.0 lb/1,000 gal (with fugitives)

YEAR %ORVR Refueling Emissions Tank Emissions Quadrant
(%) (lbs/1,000 gal) (lbs/1,000 gal)

0.00% 7.01 0.00378 D

2013 84.87% 1.17960074 0.00378 C + D

2014 87.59% 0.99274218 0.00378 C + D

2015 90.39% 0.80038778 0.00378 C + D

2016 91.65% 0.7138283 0.00378 C + D

2017 92.94% 0.62520788 0.00378 C + D

2018 94.24% 0.53590048 0.00378 C + D

2019 95.56% 0.44521912 0.00378 C + D

2020 96.90% 0.3531638 0.00378 C + D

2021 98.25% 0.2604215 0.00378 C + D

2022 99.63% 0.16561826 0.00378 C + D

100.00% 0.1402 0.00378 C

Notes: Fugitive emissions estimated at (1-.54) as 1.0 figure is found in literature; where
Non ROAD: A recent study entitled, "Stage II Emission Reduction Benefits", 22 August 20

Emissions Gap, year 2013

MA DEP vs Status Quo, Year 2013, 84.87% ORVR throughput

Emissions Increase in MA statewide with MA DEP Proposed Action

2,916,370,000 gallons/year

yr

2013 lbs/yr

2013 tons/yr

2013 tons/day

Cumulative Emissions increase in MA

MA DEP vs Status Quo

2013 - 2022 lbs

tons

### average lbs/yr
average tons/yr
average tons/day

Status Quo Cumulative

MA DEP Cumulative

Status Quo Enhanced Cumulative

MA DEP Enhanced Cumulative

### Total Emissions Total Emissions iee (lbs/1,000 gal) (Tons/yr)

2.1485 3132.91 0

1.420782185 2071.76 0.729882

1.397459545 2037.75 0.753274

1.373450945 2002.75 0.777354

1.362647075 1986.99 0.78819

1.35158597 1970.86 0.799284

1.34043912 1954.61 0.810464

1.32912078 1938.10 0.821816

1.31763095 1921.35 0.83334

1.306055375 1904.47 0.84495

1.294222565 1887.22 0.856818

1.29105 1882.59 0.86

Fugitive Emissions Non Road Emissions Total Emissions

(lbs/1,000 gal) (lbs/1,000 gal) (lbs/1,000 gal)

0.46 0.2365875 8.2465875

0.46 0.2365875 2.41618824

0.46 0.2365875 2.22932968

0.46 0.2365875 2.03697528

0.46 0.2365875 1.9504158

0.46 0.2365875 1.86179538

0.46 0.2365875 1.77248798

0.46 0.2365875 1.68180662

0.46 0.2365875 1.5897513

0.46 0.2365875 1.497009

0.46 0.2365875 1.40220576

0.46 0.2365875 1.3767875

Total Emissions Total Emissions effective iee
(lbs/1,000 gal) (Tons/year)

1.755272 2559.51 -0.393228

0.302781359 441.51 -0.388118826

0.256230463 373.63 -0.387955082

0.208310423 303.76 -0.387786522

0.186746405 272.31 -0.38771067

0.164668958 240.12 -0.387633012

### 0.142420368 207.68 -0.387554752

0.119829492 174.73 -0.387475288

0.09689633 141.29 -0.38739462

0.073792025 107.60 -0.38731335

0.050174291 73.16 -0.387230274

0.043842 63.93 -0.387208

Fugitive Emissions Non Road Emissions Total Emissions

(lbs/1,000 gal) (lbs/1,000 gal) (lbs/1,000 gal)

0.00322 0.2365875 7.2535875

0.00322 0.2365875 1.42318824

0.00322 0.2365875 1.23632968

0.00322 0.2365875 1.04397528

0.00322 0.2365875 0.9574158

0.00322 0.2365875 0.86879538

0.00322 0.2365875 0.77948798

0.00322 0.2365875 0.68880662

0.00322 0.2365875 0.5967513

0.00322 0.2365875 0.504009

0.00322 0.2365875 0.40920576

0.00322 0.2365875 0.3837875

the tank had no p/v valves; thus, this figure did not include fugitives; we are simply taking the total STBL valu

012 by Mr. Dan Meszler, Meszler Engineering Services, Abingdon, MD was conducted at the request of MDE; t

0.995406055 lbs/1,000 gal

2,902,972

1,451

4.0

4.94457053 lbs/1,000 gal

14,420,197

7,210

### 1,442,020

721

2.0

lbs/1,000 gal % Reduction Status Quo Enhanced vs. MA DEP % Reduction MA DEP Enhanced vs. MA DE

13.5

18.4

1.6 91%

8.5 54%

### iee check Status Quo Cumulative MA DEP Cumulative

0

0.729882 1.420782185 2.41618824

0.753274 2.81824173 4.64551792

0.777354 4.191692675 6.6824932

0.78819 5.55433975 8.632909

0.799284 6.90592572 10.49470438

0.810464 8.24636484 12.26719236

0.821816 9.57548562 13.94899898

0.83334 10.89311657 15.53875028

0.84495 12.19917195 17.03575928

0.856818 13.49339451 18.43796504

0.86

Total Emissions MA DEP - Status Quo

(tons/year)

12,025.05 6.0980875

3,523.25 0.995406055

3,250.78 0.831870135

2,970.29 0.663524335

2,844.07 0.587768725

2,714.84 0.51020941

2,584.62 0.43204886

2,452.39 0.35268584

2,318.15 0.27212035

2,182.92 0.190953625

2,044.68 0.107983195

2,007.61 0.0857375

ee from Status Qu

0

0.729882

0.753274

0.777354

0.78819

0.799284

### 0.810464

0.821816

0.83334

0.84495

0.856818

0.86

MA DEP - Status Quo

7.2535875

1.120406881

0.980099217

0.835664857

0.770669395

0.704126422

0.637067612

0.568977128

0.49985497

0.430216975

0.359031469

0.3399455

ue back up to figure found in literature; we have noted values up to 2.30 lbs/1,000 for STBL.

this study quantifies a non-road fuel volume of approximately 5% of annual volume. We apply 4.5% here.

cumulative

### EP

### Status Quo Enhanced Cumulative MA DEP Enhanced Cumulative

0.302781359 1.42318824

0.559011822 2.65951792

0.767322245 3.7034932

0.95406865 4.660909

1.118737608 5.52970438

1.261157976 6.30919236

1.380987468 6.99799898

1.477883798 7.59475028

1.551675823 8.09875928

1.601850114 8.50796504

### 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Emissions, lbs/1,000 gal 

# Refueling Emissions, State of MA

a

b

c

d

### 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Emissions, lbs/1,000 gal 

# Refueling Emissions, State of MA
Status Quo (a + b) vs MA DEP (c + d)

a + b

c + d

### 0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Emissions, lbs/1,000 gal 

# Refueling + Tank Emissions, State of MA

Status Quo

MA DEP

Status Quo Enhanced

### 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Emissions, lbs/1,000 gal 

# Refueling + Tank Emissions, State of MA, Cumulative

Status Quo Cumulative

MA DEP Cumulative

Status Quo Enhanced Cumulative

### 0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Emissions, lbs/1,000 gal 

# Refueling + Tank Emissions, State of MA

Status Quo

MA DEP

Status Quo Enhanced

MA DEP Enhanced

### 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Emissions, lbs/1,000 gal 

# Refueling + Tank Emissions, State of MA, Cumulative

Status Quo Cumulative

MA DEP Cumulative

Status Quo Enhanced Cumulative

MA DEP Enhanced