Attachment 22

Public Comments of 

ARID Technologies, Inc. (PC #4) 

dated September 9 and 10, 2013

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 753
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 754
Therriault, John 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Dear Mr. Therrinult, 

Ted Tiberi <ttiberi@aridtech.com> 

Monday, September 09, ~ 12:15 PM 

Therriault, John 

R2013-018 

OTC_Presentation 4-4-13 for 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 Options 20 DEC 2012 with Executive Summary.pdf; 

Analysis Results[l] copy.pdf; CT_CF_Drop_l3.txt 

As 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, and a White 

Paper, where ARID's rationale is more fully explained. Also, I have attached a non-road emissions study 

compiled by Meszler Engineering Services at the request of the Marylnnd Department of Environment (MOE). 

The non-road emissions 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 Facilities) under 

various scenarios (with and without Stage II, and with and without the use of vapor processors. for 

example). The results of such field measurements will comprise key inputs into future rule 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 calculations, we used: 

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

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

- ORVR Efficiency: 98% (USEPA) 

- Stage II Efficiency: 

75% (dKC, MA, USEPA) 

- Gasoline Throughput: 

2.9 billion gallons per year (final results nonnallized to lb/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 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 755 
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 756
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 757
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. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 758 
Topics of Discussion 

• Refueling Emissions 

-Status Quo vs Non Stage II (MA DEP example) 

• 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 . 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 759 
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 760
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 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 761 
... .::1 

• 

<X: 

~ ~ 

0 

OJ 

+J 

"' +J 

~ 

.. V) 

c: 

0 

V) 

V) 

E 

LU 

0.0 

c: 

·--Q) 

:J 

~ 

Q) 

0::: 

:1) ll 

ci !.,;) 

lt1 ooo·tjHll '\UOIH H U':J 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision -Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 762 

• 

" 

.. 

-· :') 

-· 

~.> 

-

0 · 

-· 

~ .... 

... 

t:a 

..... 

;.n 

-:...> 

..... 

... ..... 

:...> 

.. , 

~ .... 

::;) 

-· 

Jl 

..... 

::;) 

.... 

. . :) 

-· 
-

"'C <t: + ~ u ~ 

0 -

a.. 

w <lJ 

iJ 0 

1(0 <( ..... 

tl') 

... 2 

VI In rC: > iQ 

·-1111 -.0 VI 

·- + E ro UJ 

lll.Q -

0 

rC: ::J 

- CJ !CiJ 

':J Ill ~ :3 !(1) +J 

0::: n:s 

.+J 

U') 

··~ \,J 

n 

{ 

:.., .1:1 

Ca ~ 

jt':1 OOO' /S()J ~\ l CtHllll] 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision -Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 763 

~ . .... 

., :..• 

:-, 

... 

.") 

~. 

.. •• 

r.. 

.... 

·o 

::> 

.. 

... 

.. 

~ 

"I 

.(• 

... 

(I 

.... 

... , 

-~ 

'"I 

..... 

... 

n 

~. 
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 764
...-.... 

-

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 

Vl Cj ~ 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 765 
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 766
In H20 

9 

1 

5 

3 

1 

.1 

.3 

-5 

.7 

-9 

-11 

I 

I 

~ 

L 

Non-Stage II Site Pressure Profile 

rJon Stage II GDF 

I 

I • I I l., I 

r } ' { 

l ' I I 

I I I 

' 

PtankI I I 

I I 1 - - - -- - - - - -- -· -- - - ~ 

- - ~~ - -

II 

,, 

- - 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 00:00Ar 12:0 00AfJ 12:00:00At112:00:00Af. 

8119'2012 812112012 8123:2012 812512012 8'27,'2012 8/29'2012 8f3112012 9:2'2012 9

1

412012 9'6 2012 9'8'2012 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 767 
In H20 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

-2 

-4 

-6 

-8 

-10 

1 

j 

I 

~--

I 

j 

If 

/ 1 r · 

I I 

I I ' 

l. 

.._ ...__ 

Non-Stage II Site Pressure Profile 

Expanded Scale 

llon Stage II GOF 

!\ I /l 

I I II I 

I 

I I 

I II 1 

II 

I ' 

\ 

I l.__j 

I 

~·'\ (\ 

I 

J 1 \ 

I I 

! 

LJ l 

12:00:00AI.l 12:00:00Pr.l 12:00:00Af.1 12:00:00Pf.l 12:00:00A/.l 12:00:00Pt.l 12:00:00Ar.1 , 2:00:00Pr.l 12:00:00AI.1 12:00:00Pf.1 

8,232012 S232012 8242012 8242012 8252012 8252012 8262012 826'2012 827,2012 8'272012 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 768 

I 

r 

Ptank-

: ' 
lR" 

c. 

0 

2.5 _, 

~ 1 

~ 

0.5 

0 

2013 2014 

Refueling+ Tank Emis,sions, State of MA 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021. 2022 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 769 

Status Quo 

MA IDE!' 

Status Quo Enhanced 
~ 

~ ,, 

... 

... 

.... a 0 I I 

cr ~ ... I ::l I :~ .-: =·i 

/i ~· :;;; 

-. ~ ;·· .. , 

co 

tl.O <l: 

0 

0 ~ 0 ...... 'r'i 0 

-· ,, 

._, 

,.., 

......... V) ClJ 

.0 .... 

"' 00 +-1 

V') 

L.f') ... . V) M c: II 0 

M V) T""i V) 

0 

N E .. w 

LLJ 

UJ .X 

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 I l J- --~-=-=-=== :, 

:l - ..... 

QJ 

cr:: 

l ] 

I I r -- -~ ·- -· ~ 

0 

... 

..n 

.... 

l :'? 

·-· 

~ ~- == .. • 1 

~ 

:") 

-· . r 

I ----- ====-= .... 

. ' 

[ :") 

... , 

.... ._, 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision -Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 770 
<( 

~ 

'+-

0 

(1) 

00 ~ 

ro l.t) ~ 

m V') 

II ... V') 

m c:: 

M 0 

0 V') 

N V') 

... LU E 

w UJ 

u ..:.:: 

+J c:: 

V) ro ·- tro 

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 " 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision -Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 771 

'..) 

... 

. ' :") 

,.., 

... 

'J 

... 

... 

::) 

... 

.. " :-. 

~ . 
, 

c 

2 

, 

.. 

E 

.... 

... ·· J 

l !l 

L 

!I 

J 

) 

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

Realistic lEE, 2013 =3.58 

Refueling+ Tank Emissions, State of MA, Cumulative 

-

'·/•'. t:lf' tnh.l~~ -=: 

t 

' 

r r 

1- - ~ 

I 

' 

J 

1Cl: .:uH: .!.Ul .: ..::.o: 2J: 1 J:J~J-' 2(21 i.U.U 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 772 
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 773
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 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 774 
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 775
l 

L_ 

l 

t 

lb 

0 

l 

1e1t ooo"tJSql Jsuots:qw3 

t 

,, 

l . 

l' 

ri 

~ 

l 

' 

rt 

I fl 

~ 

I r 

l 

N 

6 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision -Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 776 

ql 

~ 

~ .. 

1 

cr 

~ 

·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, fnc. 

Executive Summary 

18 December 2012 

www AR!Dtech.coJll 

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

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

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

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

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

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

hydrocarbons (also called VOC's- Volatile Organic Compounds) contain HAP's 

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

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

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

is detrimental to human health. 

To 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 fuel dispenser along with a coaxial hose (hose within a hose) 

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

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

collected vapors back to the UST's. 

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

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

other HAP's is avoided 

• Reduced impact of hydrocarbon emissions to the environment as the 

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

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

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

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

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

natural phenomena of evaporation of liquid gasoline to vapor phase 

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

interdependency between the Stage II system and the UST's 

o The vapor space above the liquid gasoline has a hydrocarbon 

vapor concentration that attains some Hequlllbrium level", 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 777 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 778
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 779
 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 780
point"; where (1) the refueling emissions from ORVR alone are said to equal the 

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

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

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: Refueling Emissions Only 

State of CT, grams/ga llon 

ORVR Alone vs. Stage II Alone 

No lEE 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. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 781 

5 
CHART 2: Refueling Emissions Only 

State of CT, grams/gallon 

ORVR Alone vs. Stage II Alone & Stage II + ORVR 

No lEE 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 page 49. Here 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 the value of 0.86 

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

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

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

6 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision -Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 782 
CHART 3: State of CT: Refueling Emissions+ lEE 

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

0.86 lbs VOC I 1,000 gal lEE 

STBL = 0.0 lbs VOC I 1,000 gal 

Jt'Y l • ~ { I . !II "• • f ,.._ 

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

t~ t 

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

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

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

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

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

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

analysis of Stage II and ORVR interactions. 

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

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

assigned a zero in this part of the dKC analysis. 

7 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 783 
: I I 

J ,, . 

CHART 4: State of CT: Refueling Emissions + lEE 

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

0.86 lbs VOC /1,000 ga l lEE 

STBL = 1.0 lbs VOC /1,000 gal 

Jll\ 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 conservative figure of 1.0 lbs./1,000 gal STBL in our Chart 4. 

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

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

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

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

comparison, our Chart 5 now incorporates emissions curves for ORVR +Stage !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 4a, below; we incorporate a still conservative figure of 2.5 lbs./1,000 gal 

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

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision -Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 784 

8 
J.,.c 

},)!,.t 

J.\~' 

o . ..-.: 

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

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

0.86 lbs VOC /1,000 gal I EE 

STBL = 2.5 lbs VOC /1,000 gal 

.~·,a i\.(er ~\.('J lt:t:d ..!OC'J JUl iJ .!U! 1 ~:tl! 1J!.i JtJ: 1 JO!'.t J~~b J~! /lOla J019/JitJ l: Jl :• :J 

r.~· 

CHART 5: State of CT: Refueling Emissions + I EE 

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

0.86 lbs VOC / 1,000 gal lEE 

STBL = 1.0 Jbs VOC /1,000 gal 

.'l.n JCC'c lC.:I XC{ J. t'I -'UIU !IJII JJU ZJ:3 2.1: ~ n:~ n:•l~ll !~ IJl~ ~ J: to:: J 

Y•J• 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision -Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 785 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 786
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 lbs VOC /1,000 gal 

.,___......,_ ____ . -· lC~~ !t:C~ ;t:r:J l('c;~ :1.)f;•; .. UJU JUt I .!1,1!~ .'~:.l .' 0: l .W:~ JO:t~o !'.l'!..l .! :~ :K .!J tt..•t .'!':.• J:.• .. ' ! .:s; .. •.! 

v~):, 

CHART Sc: State of CT: Refueling Emissions+ lEE 

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

3.67 lbs VOC /1,000 gal lEE 

STBI. = 2.S lbs VOC /1,000 gal 

-

:~ :.>C I 

j 

• • • 4lo • * ... 

0.~ 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision -Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 787 

11 
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 788
Table 1: Cost Effectiveness: I EE = 0.86 Jbs. VOC/ 1.000 gal, STBL = 1.0 lbs./1,000 gal 

ORVR Alone vs. Stage II + ORVR + Processor 

4 · C ~: lul~t~~I!I1IDE· • M-zrr:w .. w~~mi:J 2013 2013 2015 2015 2018 2018 

Thro ughput Category Fuel Savings Net $/Ton Fuel Savings Net $/Ton Fuel Savings Net ${Ton 

Less than 300,000 $53,378 $45,708 $39,571 

300,000 to 700,000 $185,606 $158,934 II $137,597 

700,001 to 1,100,000 $311,185 $266,467 $230,693 

1,100,001 to 1,500,000 $266,012 $227.785 $197,2011 

1,500,001 to 1,900,000 $206,887 $177,157 $153,373 

1,900,001 to 2, 700,000 $298,885 $255,935 $221,575 

2,700,001 to 3,900,0CO $l1U,98b $243,177 $210,530 

> 3,900,001 $316,870 Sl .. S $271,336 $234,908 

If we excl ude the first two throughput categories from above ( < 700,000 ga llons per 

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

viabl e measures; where approximately 87.5% ofCT gasoline throughput is 

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

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

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

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

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

13 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision- Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page- 789 
CHART 6: Nat Reve ut:~ Per Ton of Emissions Reduced 

7 GDF Throughput Categories vs Year, 0.86 lbs VOC /1,000 gal lEE 

and 1.0 lb/1,000 gal STBL 

CT Proposal vs. State of the Art with Active Processor 

· , .. u. 

I i J -= l''~ ·.IJ 

l. l3' ~ I "''U . ,_• \ i'JI),~f. t t\t .r . .o:.n.t:•.!t h• .!/U•.' :•:J • J,'JII(.' :):I:t • 1 wu.~>~ : 

8 -!IH I 

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

ORVR Alone vs. Stage II + ORVR + Processor 

~ I· [ 

2013 

[ WI~2013 r @l"ltmt11

2015 

,. r 

2015 

..:.! ~ 2018 ~ 2018 

Throughput Cate.gory Fuel s~vings Net $/Ton Fuel Savings Net $/Ton Fuel 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 $560,617 $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 to 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 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 790 
If we exclude the first throughput category from above ( < 300,000 gallons per year); 

The cost effectiveness for the seven subsequent throughput categories show viable 

measures; where approximately 97.2% ofCT gasoline throughput is controlled with 

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

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

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

effecti veness figures vary grea tly from the dKC reported range of $21,000 to 

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

fa r below the upper cost ra nge shown in Table 26, page 26, where a figure of 

$42,257 per ton is listed. 

2 ~·0..: 

~ • 

~ >I(·.·· 

[ 

CHART 7: Net Revenue Pe r Ton of Emissions Reduced 

7 GDF Throughput Categories vs Vear, 0.86 lbs VOC I 1,000 gal lEE 

and 2.5 lb/1,000 gal STBL 

I• 0, 

CT Proposal vs. State of the Art with Active Processor 

I I 

~ :,,Ll 

:~~ llOOU . I 

.~.IJ.~CI tc 

.' ~)J Jl•1 1 'Jl•O. ~:..+~ ~" 

J,ll(' llOU 

~' ""' t luoUI!hp.l t <l<e"''"' ,,. /'(fl 

• 

J, 1:11,:1,:.1 ·, 

J.•)l;o' ll<liJ 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision -Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 791 

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

a t a non-Stage II GDF: ltllp:/ /WW\'!.:JOll e.com/~alch'!v"'EBI- oj

vUW 4&ft.!alul·e=relaled 

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

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

Environmental Justice (or "EJ") areas. 

• Motorists who refuel non-ORVR equipped vehicles at non-Stage 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 will be equivalent to 50 x 

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

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

a non-Stage 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 nonORVR vehicles; especially the disproportionate share of this burden being borne by 

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

Stage II by managing storage tank pressure and significantly reducing 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 tion. 

16 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 792 
The detailed analysis above shows that the use of an active processor provides the 

following benefits to a GDF: 

);>. Control 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 comparison to ORVR Alone, the aggregate benefits for enhancing Stage II for the 

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

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

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

aggregate emissions in tonsjyear; it is interesting to note that the CT DEEP 

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

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

• I It '" 

• t u 

Cumulative Fuel Saved a nd Tons Reduced 

CT Proposal vs. State of the Art, 0.86lbs /1,000 ga l lEE and 

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' .ltli J I t 

v .... 

17 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision -Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 793 
Gasoline Emissions Under Various Scenarios 

Connecticut · 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::> !Ul'- l~'!J .!:J~:i O:UI'I l\.'J(' ' 1 

V~t..l l 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision -Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 794 

18 
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 Maryland. 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 excess 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 emissions may lead to a crossover point, 

following which Stage II emissions controls might actually result in an increase in refueling 

emissions above levels that would result if Stage II 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 estimates 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, it 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 uncertainty exists with regard to whether Stage 

II offers any spillage-related emission reduction benefit; 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 refueling containers. In fact, most SIP-related Stage 

II estimates continue to rely on information originally published in EPA guidance documents in 

the early 1990s, and developed from rather sparse databases.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 over an order of magnitude. For these reasons, 

it is not possible to present a single set of conclusive results regarding the impact of eliminating 

Stage II vapor recovery requirements. Instead, analysis results are presented on in a four-step 

 

1

 In reviewing the impacts of IEE, it is important to recognize that there are methods to eliminate such 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 is important to evaluate the cost 

effectiveness of IEE reduction technology before any decision-making based on IEE impacts is implemented.

2

 U.S. EPA, “Technical Guidance - Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at 

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

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 795
Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012 

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 2 

fashion so that the potential impact (and associated uncertainty) of specific analysis assumptions 

can be accurately gauged. 

The first set of analysis results apply solely to gasoline vapor displacement emissions associated 

with onroad vehicle refueling. These results indicate the interaction between ORVR and Stage II 

controls assuming no gasoline spillage benefits (for either technology) and no Stage II control 

associated with nonroad equipment and vehicles or portable 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 onroad 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 displacement impacts associated with nonroad 

equipment and vehicles and portable refueling containers to the onroad vehicle vapor 

displacement (only) estimates (potential spillage impacts 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 and 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 description of how each set of results allows for 

the effects of effectiveness uncertainty to be evaluated. 

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 analysis estimates define a wide range of potential 

impacts and it is, unfortunately, not possible to narrow 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 the conduct of detailed (and comprehensive) 

Table 1. Impacts Included in Analysis Results 

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

Onroad Displacement Emissions Included Included Included Included 

Onroad Spillage Emissions Not Included Included Not Included Included 

Nonroad Displacement Emissions Not Included Not Included Included Included 

Nonroad Spillage Emissions Not Included Not Included Not 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 effectiveness assumptions employed by the U.S. EPA, it should 

be recognized that these assumptions are quite aggressive – assigning a 98 percent in-use effectiveness to ORVR 

vapor displacement control. Should this level of effectiveness ultimately prove to be overly optimistic, the level of 

Stage II reductions (relative to those of ORVR) presented in this analysis will be correspondingly underestimated. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 796
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 that such studies will be undertaken in the 

imminent future, if ever. There are valuable information 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, but those data provide little information with 

regard to specific conditions in Maryland. 

To conduct the requested analysis, MES has constructed a spreadsheet that allows the potential 

gasoline vapor displacement and spillage impacts for onroad vehicles and nonroad vehicles and 

equipment to be quantified for any given set of ORVR and Stage II effectiveness assumptions. 

While readers interested in the specific methodology employed to develop the onroad and 

nonroad portions of this spreadsheet will find significant additional detail in the sections of this 

memorandum that follow, fundamental uncontrolled refueling emissions are derived from the 

EPA’s MOVES and NONROAD emissions models for onroad vehicle 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 assumptions used to evaluate the impacts of 

Stage II controls. ORVR spillage and vapor displacement effectiveness estimates are taken 

(without change) from the databases underlying the EPA MOVES model. For onroad vehicles, 

Stage II effectiveness assumptions for “nominal” scenario 1 are set at values provided by MDE. 

Scenarios 2 and 3 reflect a 20 percentage point increase and decrease in vapor displacement 

effectiveness respectively – with these shifts intended to isolate the effect of in-use effectiveness 

uncertainty. The magnitude of the MDE-estimated Stage II spillage reduction effectiveness for 

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

2 and 3 for what MES believes is a flaw in the MOVES 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 II spillage reduction benefits. The 

spreadsheet developed by MES for this analysis allows this potential flaw to be eliminated, and 

that option is selected for scenarios 2 and 3. Conversely, 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 effectiveness assumptions unchanged across all 

three scenarios in an effort to minimize the influence of alternative spillage assumptions on 

analysis results. This is exclusively due to the fact that MES does not believe that Stage II 

provides any reliably demonstrated spillage reduction benefits. The effect of Stage II on spillage 

is subject to significant uncertainty, with some EPA 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 documentation can be downloaded from 

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

5

 The NONROAD model and associated supporting documentation can be downloaded from 

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

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 797
Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012 

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 4 

Table 2. Emissions Impact Effectiveness Assumptions 

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 Parameters 

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

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

Vapor Displacement Reduction Factor at a Balance System Pump 0% 0% 0% 

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

Portable Refueling Container (Pump Refilling) Emissions Impact Parameters 

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

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

Vapor Displacement Reduction Factor at a Balance System Pump 0% 0% 0% 

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

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

predominant – in fact, nearly universal – Stage II system in Maryland. It is difficult to envision 

an engineering rationale for spillage emissions control with such systems. Vacuum assist 

systems are virtually indistinguishable from non-Stage II gasoline delivery systems in both style 

and function – as perceived by the user. While booted balance-type systems might engender 

some behavioral caution on the part of users – leading to possible decreases or increases spillage 

depending on user response thereto – balance systems 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 of 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 spillage respectively) – and overfill (at about 33 

 

6

 See for example, Section 3.4.2 of U.S. EPA, “Technical 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 Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES), User Guide Version, 

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

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 798
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-type Stage II 

systems might indeed reduce spitback emissions, such 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 component of vehicle evaporative testing – leading 

to the redesign of vehicle fill pipes and a limit on the delivery rate of gasoline. Whether spitback 

emission reduction is credited to enhanced evaporative 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 even 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 spillage 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 gasoline 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 presence). 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 Maryland. These data, which are summarized in 

Table 3, indicate a near negligible fraction of balance-type systems. Healy vacuum assist 

systems are identified as distinct from other vacuum 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. Nevertheless, 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 should be viewed as “high end” estimates 

almost certain to overstate the impact of IEE in Maryland. However, the impact of alternative 

assumptions regarding IEE (e.g., a 50/50 split of ORVR and non-ORVR compatible vacuum 

 

 

8

 See for example, Table 4 of U.S. EPA, memorandum from Glenn W. Passavant with subject “Onboard Refueling 

Vapor Recovery Widespread Use Assessment,” June 9, 2011. 

9

 Elimination of the 50 percent spitback emissions contribution 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 liquid dispensed from the refueling storage tank. Vacuum 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, Issues 

Paper,” August 12, 2004. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 799
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 assumptions should MDE develop data on the 

distribution of high and low V/L vacuum assist systems. 

Finally MES has estimated the potential Stage II impact on nonroad vehicles and equipment 

refueled at gasoline dispensing pumps, as well as portable 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 produced by, the model. The interested reader will 

find detailed information on this methodology in the extended nonroad processing discussion 

that follows. 

For nonroad equipment and vehicles refueled at a gasoline dispensing pump, MES has applied 

the same Stage II spillage effectiveness assumptions 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 contributions of onroad vehicle fill pipe redesign and 

mandated dispensing flow rate caps to spitback emissions 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 emission reduction. For vapor displacement 

control, we assume zero effectiveness for balance-type 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 onroad vehicles (due to the negative pressure 

operational nature of such systems that should compensate for differing fill pipe characteristics). 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 800
Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012 

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 7 

For portable refueling containers refilled at a gasoline dispensing pump, MES has also applied 

the same Stage II spillage effectiveness provided by 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 systems (due to a perceived lack of a proper 

balance-type system seal). For vacuum assist systems, 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 that control will be reduced due to the lack of a 

defined fill pipe and the likelihood that some vapor 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 understood; primarily that (1) such refilling is 

performed on containers that are properly sealed (before refilling) and thus contain saturated 

gasoline vapor, and (2) no post-refilling losses are 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 MES would be happy to adjust the portable 

refueling container estimates should MDE wish to investigate alternative assumptions. 

Given these assumptions, Figures 1 through 4 present the derived emission impact estimates for 

results sets 1 through 4. For results set 1 (Figure 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 extended 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 2020 for a 50 percent ORVR compatible 

system penetration.12 Adding nonroad vehicles and equipment to a displacement only evaluation 

(Figure 3) indicates a “maximum IEE” zero impact point of early 2015 for “nominal” input 

scenario 1 – extended to beyond 2020 for a 50 percent ORVR compatible system penetration. 

Finally, including both onroad and nonroad vehicles and equipment and both potential 

displacement and spillage impacts (Figure 4) indicates 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 such 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 2020 by county, metropolitan area, and Stage 

II region (Tables 9 through 32), as well as hazardous 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 methodologies employed to estimate onroad and 

nonroad equipment and vehicle emissions. 

 

12 The analysis conducted by MES includes all years from 2011 through 2020, so it is not possible to precisely 

indicate transition points beyond 2020 without additional analysis beyond the scope of this work. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 801
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) 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 802
Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012 

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 9 

Figure 3. Results Set 3 – Onroad+Nonroad, Displacement Impacts Only 

(VOC, metric tonnes per day) 

Figure 4. Results Set 4 – Onroad+Nonroad, Displacement and Spillage Impacts 

(VOC, metric tonnes per day) 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 803
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 analysis 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 are 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 scenario evaluation, MES developed a stand-alone 

routine that allows both the ORVR and Stage II emission estimates that would be produced 

through the execution of detailed MOVES modeling scenarios 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 parameters 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 fuel 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 reduce displacement and spillage emissions 

by 98 and 50 percent respectively.14

It is worth noting that while MOVES “assigns” the 50 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 an integral part of the evaporative emissions 

testing process, which prompted vehicle manufacturers to redesign fuel tank fill pipes to 

eliminate gasoline “spitback.”15,16 For reasons that are not clear, EPA assigns the benefit of this 

emission reduction to ORVR controls. This “mis-assignment” 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 year 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 documentation 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 maximum 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 which evacuating 

vapor is released, forcing liquid to accumulate in and overflow the fill pipe. 

17 See MOVES database table “sourcetypetechadjustment.” 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 804
Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012 

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 11 

standpoint, it is critical in assessing the fraction of ORVR-equipped vehicles in the fleet at any 

given point in time (as that assessment cannot be reliably based on spillage emissions changes). 

To calculate the fraction of gasoline use associated with ORVR-equipped vehicles in the fleet 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) can 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

 where: FA Emis = fleet average emissions

 UC Emis = uncontrolled emissions (i.e., emissions with no ORVR) 

 ORVRf = fraction of emissions generated by ORVR-equipped vehicles20

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 vary 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 impacts on vehicles without ORVR from 

corresponding impacts on vehicles with ORVR. 

In order to estimate the impact of IEE, it is necessary 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 alternative “sourcetypetechadjustment” database table that 

replaces all default adjustments with a value of zero. 

19 Note that all MOVES runs described in this document (and used for the associated Stage II analysis) include only

emissions from gasoline vehicles (by instructing MOVES to estimate emissions from all gasoline vehicle types 

and no others). This is critical for many of the described calculations since parameters such as emission rates, 

ORVR requirements, and Stage II applicability differ across fueling types. To derive accurate data, calculations 

must either be limited to gasoline vehicles (as in this analysis) or include appropriate corrections for fuel-related 

influences. 

20 Since vapor displacement emission factors are expressed in mass per unit volume of fuel dispensed, the fraction 

of emissions also equals the fraction of gasoline consumed by ORVR-equipped vehicles – which, due to the fact 

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

ORVR-equipped vehicles. 

21 IEE (incompatibility excess emissions) is the name assigned to incremental refueling station bulk tank 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 vacuum 

assist Stage II system has been shown to lead to IEE. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 805
Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012 

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 12 

Table 4. Fuel Consumption Fractions of ORVR-Equipped 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% 94.4% 95.3% 96.0% 

Carroll 76.5% 81.0% 84.7% 87.7% 90.1% 92.0% 93.5% 94.6% 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% 94.5% 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% 94.5% 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 MOVES-estimated uncontrolled (i.e., no ORVR 

and no Stage II) spillage emissions and the MOVES-assumed uncontrolled spillage emission rate 

of 0.31 grams per dispensed gallon.22 Using these parameters, gasoline use in gallons is equal to 

emissions mass in grams divided by the spillage emissions rate (0.31 grams per dispensed 

gallon). Table 5 depicts the calculated fuel consumption 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 “refuelingfactors.” This combination of parameters results in 

precise estimates since the spillage emission factor is constant for all gasoline vehicles and all uncontrolled 

modeling scenarios (unless, of course, the scenario itself involves explicitly altering the factor). 

23 The tabulated volumes are, by definition, consistent with the vehicle miles of travel data provided by 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 change. 

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 currently available for 2011), as reported by the Federal Highway 

Administration (see www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm, table MF-21 for each of the four 

included years) is 2,677,554,500 gallons, which equates to an average daily consumption of 7.34 million gallons. 

According to Maryland State Highway Administration statistics (see sha md.gov/index.aspx?pageid=681, Annual 

Vehicle Miles of Travel Report) for 2011, the 12 county Stage II area is responsible for about 85 percent of 

statewide miles of travel, so that reported fuel use 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 percent, 

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 that the summer 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 806
Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012 

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 13 

Table 5. Stage II Area Fuel Consumption (million gallons 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 spillage emission reductions as attributable to 

ORVR controls is somewhat misleading in MOVES (since these reductions are driven by 

enhanced evaporative emissions testing requirements rather than ORVR). Nevertheless, since 

MOVES assumes a 50 percent spillage emissions reduction for such vehicles, it is possible to 

estimate the fraction of gasoline use associated with reduced spillage vehicles in the fleet at any 

given point in time (as assumed by MOVES). Since both 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 reduced 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

 where: FA Emis = fleet average spillage emissions (in grams) 

 GC = fleetwide gasoline consumption (in gallons)

 RSf = fraction of emissions generated by reduced spillage vehicles24

 

weekday equivalent of the reported annual average day 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 such analysis is beyond the scope of this work. 

24 Since spillage emission rates are expressed in mass per unit volume of fuel dispensed, the fraction of emissions 

also equals the fraction of gasoline consumed by reduced spillage vehicles – which, due to the fact that mileage 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 807
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 penetration changes over time and since the age and 

relative populations of vehicles across vehicle types 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 consumption fractions are greater than the 

corresponding ORVR fuel consumption fractions presented in Table 4 above). 

Table 6. Fuel Consumption Fractions of Reduced Spillage 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% 97.2% 97.5% 97.7% 

Carroll 91.7% 93.3% 94.5% 95.3% 95.9% 96.4% 96.8% 97.2% 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% 97.2% 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% 97.0% 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 model year 1998 (for less than 100 percent of 

passenger cars due to an associated multi-year phase-in, and with even more extended delays for 

light duty trucks). Thus, the vapor displacement-derived fuel consumption fractions accurately 

track ORVR deployment (and lag the spillage-derived fractions by about five years). 

MOVES model emission estimates with no ORVR controls, no reduced spillage controls, and no 

Stage II controls have been incorporated into an analysis spreadsheet for the 12 Maryland 

counties with Stage II requirements. These emission 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. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 808
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 spillage, 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 controls, it became apparent that there are 

nuances in the implementation of spillage-related calculations that result in a significant 

likelihood that users will not properly quantify Stage 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, or in a slightly modified manner that serves 

to diminish the likelihood of inaccurate emissions estimation. 

The fundamental “problem” is that MOVES assumes that Stage II spillage benefits (if any) 

accrue “on top of” any ORVR (or more accurately, any enhanced evaporative test-driven) 

spillage benefits. In principle this is a valid approach and associated emission estimates will be 

accurate if the associated input data are properly quantified, but MOVES guidance documents 

provide little explanation related to algorithm function and input quantification, and EPA’s 

default effectiveness assumption (specifically, a 50 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 remaining spillage emissions that are left after 

(ORVR, or enhanced evaporative test, driven) spillage 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 default data, by 50 percent). 

Unfortunately, this approach does not seem to recognize 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 spillage due to fill pipe redesign and a flow rate cap 

that eliminate spitback emissions, then Stage II controls cannot reduce spitback emissions any 

further on affected vehicles (since the spitback mode 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 together (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 scenarios were provided by MDE to ensure that the estimates 

generated in this analysis are consistent with other onroad vehicle modeling performed by MDE. 

26 In total, 360 scenarios were processed through the MOVES model, each applicable to one of the 12 Stage II 

counties. At 12 counties and 10 evaluation years per county, there are 120 MOVES scenarios per scenario 

“group.” A total of three scenario “groups” were modeled. One group of 120 MOVES runs estimated emissions 

in the absence of ORVR, spillage, and Stage II controls. This group forms the basis of the onroad vehicle 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 controls 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 that the 

algorithms implemented in the spreadsheet developed for this analysis were identical to those implemented in 

MOVES (in effect, to ensure that spreadsheet predicted Stage II impacts would exactly match the same impacts 

that would be estimated by additional tailored MOVES runs). 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 809
Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012 

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 16 

components of spillage (e.g., nozzle drip or overfilling), it is possible for the dual reductions to 

be accurate, but it does not appear that this is the 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 reducing spitback, then the net Stage II reduction 

for ORVR-equipped vehicles should be zero (since ORVR has already been credited with the 

associated spillage reduction). Under MDE’s default Stage II assumptions, which ascribe a 70 

percent spillage reduction to Stage II, the net spillage reduction due to ORVR and Stage II 

combined is 85 percent [1-((1-0.5)×(1-0.7))]. If instead, the overall spillage reduction is 

intended to be 70 percent with Stage II, then non-ORVR vehicles should have a 70 percent 

reduction applied and ORVR vehicles should be subject to an additional spillage reduction of 

“only” 40 percent [(0.7-0.5)/0.5]. This would produce the desired net 70 percent reduction 

[1-((1-0.5)×(1-0.4))]. Similarly, if the EPA default Stage II spillage reduction of 50 percent is 

intended to signify (as expected) that ORVR and Stage II have the same spillage impacts, then 

the net Stage II reduction for ORVR-equipped vehicles 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 analysis 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) reduction 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 vehicles at a rate based on the extent to which 

the Stage II spillage reduction effectiveness exceeds that of ORVR alone. Non-ORVR vehicles 

are always credited with the full Stage II spillage reduction. 

Finally, MOVES emissions estimates were also used to develop both hydrocarbon adjustment 

and speciation factors, the former allowing hydrocarbons to be expressed as either total organic 

gases (TOG), total hydrocarbons (THC), volatile organic compounds (VOC), non-methane 

organic gases (NMOG), or non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) – 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 developed 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 that while one would expect the components of 

evaporated gasoline to be identical whether that evaporation occurs inside or outside of a fueling 

tank, MOVES estimates slightly different hydrocarbon 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 nonroad vehicle and equipment emissions estimation in this 

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 adjustment 

factors for onroad and nonroad vehicles and equipment. Since gasoline in the Stage II counties contains ethanol 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 810
Ms. Marcia Ways, MDE August 22, 2012 

Stage II Analysis Impacts Page 17 

Table 7. Emissions Adjustment and Speciation Factors 

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 (CH4) 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 vehicles 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 estimating the impact of Stage II vapor 

recovery on vapor displacement emissions from gasoline equipment refueled at a gasoline 

dispensing pump, there are two limitations associated with the way in which Stage II impacts are 

estimated in the model – limitations that require model 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 makes no estimate of the emissions 

associated with filling portable refueling containers. 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 MOVES assumptions are superior to those of the NONROAD

model, so the latter have been replaced with the former in this analysis. 

28 The NONROAD model and associated supporting documentation can be downloaded from 

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

29 Although it is not possible to assign a specific value to this majority as it depends on equipment population and 

usage rates that are dependent on both geography and time (even at the county level), typical urban area 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 in some urban counties. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 811
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 by the NONROAD model. 

The second limitation associated with the way in which the NONROAD model estimates Stage 

II impacts is that there is no consideration of potential Stage II impacts on gasoline spillage 

emissions. Unlike the EPA MOVES model, which considers both displacement and spillage 

impacts, the NONROAD model includes impact estimates for displacement emissions only. 

Thus, a methodology was developed, as described below, to estimate potential Stage II spillage 

emission impacts.30

The NONROAD model does not provide an output that describes 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 distinction can be inferred by comparing the model 

output for a scenario without Stage II vapor recovery to an otherwise identical scenario with 

Stage II vapor recovery. The specific Stage II effectiveness assumptions are not important to the 

comparison; any non-zero effectiveness assumption will produce the same results.31 Equipment 

for which NONROAD model emission estimates do not vary 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 the 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 containers 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 fuel spillage during those filling events, and (3) 

potentially affected by Stage II vapor recovery equipment. 

To estimate vapor displacement emissions associated with the filling of portable refueling 

containers at gasoline dispensing pumps, MES applied 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) spillage emissions benefits, the inclusion of possible benefits in 

the onroad vehicle sector (as is the case in the EPA MOVES model algorithms) dictates the inclusion of those 

same possible benefits in the nonroad vehicle and equipment sector. 

31 For this comparison, MES assumed an effectiveness of 100 percent for Stage II in order to maximize comparative 

emission differentials (which can be helpful for equipment with very low population, and thus emissions, 

estimates). 

32 The magnitude of the emissions differential in conjunction with the scenario Stage II effectiveness assumption 

was used to confirm the function of the Stage II impact algorithm coded within the NONROAD model. This 

serves as an important quality assurance check since 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. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 812
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 – Ta + 0.0203 × Td + 0.1315 × RVP]

 where: gpdg = grams (of gasoline vapor) per dispensed gallon 

 Ta = ambient temperature (degrees F) 

 Td = dispensed gasoline temperature (degrees F) = 62 + (0.6 × (Ta - 62)) 

 RVP = Reid Vapor Pressure (psi)

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 ambient temperature, a daily average 

temperature was calculated as the arithmetic average of the 24 hourly average temperatures 

provided by MDE. These data as well as the resulting 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 are properly sealed between their last use to 

refuel nonroad equipment and their subsequent refilling, 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 of last use and subsequent refilling, the actual 

vapor displacement rate could be substantially lower 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 estimation purposes 

are ignored in this analysis. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 813
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 displacement 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 refueling 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 of 1.523 grams per dispensed gallon (3.6/2.364), 

which was used in this analysis to estimate spillage emissions during the filling of portable 

refueling containers.37

Using the derived vapor displacement and spillage emission rates, emissions associated with the 

filling of portable refueling containers can be estimated 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 estimates. It is important to note that while the 

NONROAD model calculates Stage II emission impacts solely for displacement emissions, MES 

extended this calculation to cover both displacement and spillage emissions (based on 

independent effectiveness inputs for displacement and spillage) for consistency with the Stage II 

modeling approach employed in both the MOVES and MOBILE6 onroad vehicle emissions 

models. 

As with the onroad emissions analysis approach described above, NONROAD model emission 

estimates with no Stage II controls have been incorporated into an analysis spreadsheet for the 12 

Maryland counties with Stage II requirements. These emission estimates were developed by 

executing the NONROAD model for each county using appropriate input data for each calendar 

year from 2011 through 2020.38,39 The analysis spreadsheet includes Stage II emission 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, Portable Fuel Container Spillage,” undated. The document, 

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/districtmeth/BayArea/C1434.pdf. 

37 Note that this assumes that all portable containers are empty when refilled. Since it is likely that some containers 

will not be empty, this approach almost certainly underestimates the actual volume of gasoline spillage. 

However, there are no data available to estimate the average liquid volume present at the time of portable 

container refilling, and since the NONROAD model employs a similar assumption for spillage emissions 

associated with nonroad equipment, the empty container approach is entirely consistent with other NONROAD 

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 geographic 

areas of common meteorology and fuel characteristics as defined by MDE (these areas represent the six county 

Baltimore area, the five county Washington D.C. area, 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 control 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 effective Stage II control efficiency. Only the 10 “no Stage II” 

scenarios are used in the final analysis spreadsheet, the remainder were used to identify which equipment were 

refueled with portable containers and to confirm the methodology through which NONROAD estimates Stage II 

impacts so that that methodology could be replicated without deviation in the analysis spreadsheet. Twenty 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 814
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 any 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 county, metropolitan area, and the aggregate 

Stage II region. Tables 33 through 56 present associated 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 Stage 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. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 815
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 0.15 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 0.02 0.02 

Carroll 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 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 0.03 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 0.06 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 -0.05 -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 -0.09 -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 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 816
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 0.20 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 0.03 0.02 

Carroll 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 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 0.04 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 0.08 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 -0.07 -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 -0.08 -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 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 817
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 0.11 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 0.01 0.01 

Carroll 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 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 0.02 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 0.04 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 -0.03 -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 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 818
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, Scenario 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 0.26 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 0.03 0.03 

Carroll 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 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 0.06 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 0.11 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, Scenario 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 -0.13 -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 -0.01 -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 -0.04 -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 -0.09 -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 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 819
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, Scenario 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 0.29 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 0.04 0.04 

Carroll 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 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 0.06 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 0.12 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, Scenario 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 -0.08 -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 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 820
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, Scenario 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 0.20 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 0.03 0.02 

Carroll 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 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 0.04 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 0.08 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, Scenario 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 -0.04 -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 -0.07 -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 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 821
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, Scenario 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 0.25 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 0.03 0.03 

Carroll 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 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 0.06 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 0.10 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, Scenario 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 -0.02 -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 -0.05 -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 -0.08 -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 -0.08 -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 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 822
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, Scenario 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 0.32 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 0.04 0.04 

Carroll 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 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 0.07 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 0.12 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, Scenario 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 0.00 -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 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 823
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, Scenario 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 0.18 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 0.02 0.02 

Carroll 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 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 0.04 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 0.07 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, Scenario 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 -0.16 -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 -0.04 -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 -0.04 -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 -0.08 -0.09 -0.09 

Howard 0.08 0.03 -0.01 -0.05 -0.07 -0.09 -0.11 -0.12 -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 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 824
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 Impacts, 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 0.40 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 0.05 0.05 

Carroll 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 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 0.09 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 0.16 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 Impacts, 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 0.05 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 0.00 0.00 

Carroll 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 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 0.01 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 0.00 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 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 825
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 Impacts, 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 0.46 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 0.06 0.06 

Carroll 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 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 0.10 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 0.18 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 Impacts, 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 0.10 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 0.01 0.01 

Carroll 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 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 0.02 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 0.03 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 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 826
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 Impacts, 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 0.31 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 0.04 0.04 

Carroll 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 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 0.07 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 0.13 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 Impacts, 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 -0.07 -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 0.00 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 -0.06 -0.09 -0.11 -0.12 

Baltimore City 0.14 0.09 0.05 0.02 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -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 

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 827
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%

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 828
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%

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 829
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%

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 830
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, 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 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, 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 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%

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 831
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, 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 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, 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 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%

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 832
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, 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 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, 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 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%

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 833
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, 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 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, 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 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%

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 834
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, 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 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, 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 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%

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 835
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, 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 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, 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 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%

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 836
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 Impacts, 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 Impacts, 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%

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 837
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 Impacts, 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 Impacts, 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%

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 838
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 Impacts, 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 Impacts, 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%

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 839
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 840
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 Includes emissions during bull< tanker loading and In the interval between tanker deliveries 1 Dripless Nozzles, low permeation hoses, continuous pressure monitoring 1 Included with ARID processor 4 Capital equipment purchase and "shared savings business model* available 5 Need to confirm with field testing; savings • f(RVP, Temp, V /L, GDF Flow Profile) 

s Non-Road emissions generated during refueling of gas cans, motorcycles, boats, snowmobiles; ORVR will never be used on these tanks 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision. Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page. 841 
year 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

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 842
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

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 843
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

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 844
average lbs/yr

average tons/yr

average tons/day

Status Quo Cumulative

MA DEP Cumulative

Status Quo Enhanced Cumulative

MA DEP Enhanced Cumulative

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 845
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

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 846
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

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 847
 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%

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 848
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

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 849
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 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 850
EP

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 851
Status Quo Enhanced CumulativeMA 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

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 852
0 

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1 

1.2

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Emissions, lbs/1,000 gal

Refueling Emissions, State of MA

a

b

c

d

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 853
0 

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1 

1.2

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Emissions, lbs/1,000 gal

Refueling Emissions, State of MA

Status Quo (a + b) vs MA DEP (c + d)

a + b

c + d

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 854
0 

0.5

1 

1.5

2 

2.5

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Emissions, lbs/1,000 gal

Refueling + Tank Emissions, State of MA

Status Quo

MA DEP

Status Quo Enhanced

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 855
0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10

12

14

16

18

20

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Emissions, lbs/1,000 gal

Refueling + Tank Emissions, State of MA, Cumulative

Status Quo Cumulative

MA DEP Cumulative

Status Quo Enhanced Cumulative

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 856
0 

0.5

1 

1.5

2 

2.5

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Emissions, lbs/1,000 gal

Refueling + Tank Emissions, State of MA

Status Quo

MA DEP

Status Quo Enhanced

MA DEP Enhanced

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 857
0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10

12

14

16

18

20

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Emissions, lbs/1,000 gal

Refueling + Tank Emissions, State of MA, Cumulative

Status Quo Cumulative

MA DEP Cumulative

Status Quo Enhanced Cumulative

MA DEP Enhanced

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 858