Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Charles D. Baker 

Governor 

Karyn E. Polito 

Lieutenant Governor 

One W inter Street Boston, MA 02 108 • 6 17-292-5500 

Massachusetts Stage II Vapor Recovery Program Discontinuation 

State Implementation Plan Revision 

May 2015 

Matthew A Beaton 

Secretary 

Martin Suuberg 

Commissioner 

This information is available in alternate format. Call Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Diversity Director, at 617-292-5751. TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370 

MassDEP Website: www mass.gov/dep 

Pnnted on Recycled Paper 
Introduction 

In January 2015, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) 

promulgated amendments to its Air Pollution Control regulations (31 0 CMR 7.00 and 310 CMR 

7.24) that require removal of Stage II vapor recovery systems and enhancements to Stage I vapor 

recovery equipment at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs). MassDEP is submitting these final 

regulations to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval as a revision to the 

Massachusetts State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Section 182(b)(3) ofthe federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires areas designated as "moderate" or 

worse nonattainment areas under the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

to adopt Stage II vapor recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs). Gasoline 

vapors contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that contribute to the formation of ozone; 

Stage II systems capture vapors displaced by refueling of motor vehicles. Section 202(a)(6) of 

the CAA gives EPA the authority to waive the Stage II requirements of section 182(b )(3) when 

on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems are determined to be in widespread use 

throughout the motor vehicle fleet. 

Massachusetts and other states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) 1 

are subject to an 

additional requirement in CAA Section 184(b )(2) that requires Stage II or comparable measures 

in the OTR irrespective of ozone attainment status. In order to remove Stage II controls, states in 

the OTR must ensure that there is no significant increase in emissions from removal of Stage II 

programs. 

Massachusetts was an ozone nonattainment area in the 1980s and was classified as a "serious" 

ozone non-attainment area in the 1990s. Since the 1980s, MassDEP and EPA have adopted 

many regulatory programs to control emissions of VOCs and nitrogen oxides, which are 

precursors to ozone formation. Ozone concentrations in Massachusetts and other states have 

dropped significantly as a result. In April 2012, EPA issued designations for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and designated Massachusetts as an attainment area with the exception of Dukes 

County (Martha's Vineyard and other islands), which EPA designated as a marginal 

nonattainment area. Air quality in Dukes County now attains the 2008 ozone NAAQS, along 

with the rest of Massachusetts. 

Under the 1990 amendments to the CAA, EPA promulgated regulations requiring motor vehicle 

manufacturers to install ORVR systems on light and medium-duty vehicles. ORVR systems are 

carbon canisters installed on motor vehicles to capture the fuel vapors displaced from the vehicle 

tank during refueling. The vapors are then burned off during vehicle operation. These vapors 

are the same vapors captured by Stage II systems installed at GDFs. Under EPA's regulations, 

since model year 2000, all passenger cars have been equipped with ORVR systems. Since model 

year 2006, all light duty trucks, SUV s and medium duty vehicles have been equipped with 

ORVR systems. 

1 The Ozone Transport Region (OTR) is comprised of eleven states in the northeastern U.S. and the District of 

Columbia. 

2 
For vehicles that have ORVR, Stage II does not provide additional fuel vapor capture. 

Therefore, the amount of vapors captured by Stage II systems decreases as cars with ORVR 

replace older cars in the vehicle fleet. Eventually, the diminishing benefits of Stage II systems 

no longer justify the cost of installing them in new service stations or maintaining existing 

systems. One type of Stage II control system- vacuum-assist- is generally incompatible with 

ORVR. Use of a vacuum-assist system to refuel an ORVR-equipped car can result in greater 

vapor emissions than if the car was refueled at a pump without a Stage II system. 2 This 

incompatibility further diminishes the air quality benefits of Stage II systems as ORVR 

prevalence increases. 

In May 2012, EPA issued a rule finding that ORVR-equipped vehicles are in widespread use in 

the U.S. motor vehicle fleet. 3 EPA used two analytical approaches to determine the date of 

widespread use: 

1. Estimating when ORVR systems alone provide the same benefits as Stage II 

systems alone. EPA assumes that Stage II systems are 77.4% effective, so 

widespread use occurs when ORVR systems are projected to reduce refueling 

emissions by 77.4%. 

2. Estimating when 75% of the gasoline is dispensed to ORVR equipped vehicles. 

Using the first approach, EPA determined that widespread use occurred in May of2013. Using 

the second approach, EPA determined that widespread use occurred in April 2012. Based on the 

dates derived from these two approaches, EPA determined that ORVR was in widespread use in 

the national fleet as of May 16, 2012, the date of the final rule. EPA subsequently published 

guidance that described the analysis a state must perform to remove Stage II requirements from 

the state's SIP. 4 

State Implementation Plan Revision 

MassDEP is required to submit its final Stage II regulatory amendments to EPA as a revision to 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP). In order for EPA to approve the regulatory amendments, 

MassDEP must demonstrate that the amendments meet CAA Section 184(b )(2) and Section 

11 0( t). Section 184(b )(2) requires states in the OTR to implement Stage II or "comparable 

measures." Section 11 0( -E) prohibits EPA approval of a SIP revision that interferes with 

attainment of the NAAQS or other CAA applicable requirements. 

CAA Section 184(b)(2)- Comparable Measures 

MassDEP has conducted an analysis using the methodology in the EPA guidance, which 

provides equations and regional data that may be used by states to estimate the VOC emissions 

2 Vacuum assist systems draw air into the underground storage tank during fueling of a vehicle with ORVR leading 

to vapor growth in the tank and fugitive and vent vapor emissions. 3 Final notice signed on May 9, 2012 and published in Federal Register on May 16, 2012: 77 FR 28772. 4 Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing 

Comparable Measures, August 7, 2012, EPA-457/B-12-001. 

3 
impact of phasing out Stage II programs. In its guidance EPA states that "in the specific context 

of the comparable measures requirement, it is reasonable to conclude that the incremental 

emissions control that Stage II achieves beyond ORVR is de minimis if it is less than 10% of the 

area-wide emissions inventory associated with refueling highway motor vehicles."5 

Equation 1 in EPA's guidance demonstrates the overall increment, or the annual area-wide 

emissions control gain, from Stage II installations at GDFs as ORVR technology phases in. 

Thus, it also indicates the emissions reduction potential loss from removing Stage II. Using both 

Massachusetts-specific and EPA default factors, MassDEP calculated that the emissions 

reduction potential loss from removing Stage II in 2013 is 5.12%, which meets EPA's de 

minimis criterion ofless than 10% of the highway vehicle refueling emissions. Using Equation 

3 in EPA's guidance, MassDEP calculated that this potential emissions reduction loss equates to 

1.27 tons per summer day in 2013. These calculations are provided in Attachment 1 and 

demonstrate that Massachusetts meets the CAA Section 184(b )(2) comparable measures 

requirement using EPA's de minimis criterion. 

CAA Section 11 O(.e) - Interference with Attainment- Stage II Revisions 

In evaluating a proposed SIP revision, as required by CAA Section 11 O(e), EPA determines if 

the revision would interfere with applicable CAA requirements, including interference with 

attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA notes in its Stage II guidance that it generally 

considers whether the proposed SIP revision will allow for an increase in actual emissions over 

what is allowed under the existing EPA -approved SIP. An increase in emissions may be 

considered to be "backsliding," which is prohibited under Section 110(t). 

MassDEP's analysis6 of the removal of the Stage II program concluded that: 

• ORVR systems alone will result in the same reductions as Stage II systems alone by 

approximately July 2013. 

• Stage II in combination with ORVR will continue to reduce refueling emissions until 

2015. Stage II reductions of 1.73- 1.98 tons per summer day (TPSD) in 2013 were 

estimated to decline to 0.36- 0.52 TPSD in 2015 . (Stage II effectiveness estimates of 

both 70% and 75% were used, which results in the range of estimated reductions.) 

• Between July 2015 and July 2016, the continued presence of Stage II systems may cause 

emissions to increase relative to the ORVR alone case. 

EPA's guidance states that a small temporary increase in V OC emissions can meet the Section 

llO(i) requirement: "A phase-out plan that would result in very small foregone emissions 

reductions in the near term that continue to diminish rapidly over time as ORVR phase-in 

continues, may result in temporary increases that are too small to interfere with attainment or 

progress toward attainment. This may be particularly evident in areas that are already attaining 

5 Ibid, page 6. 

6 Air Program Support for Stage I and Stage II Programs in Massachusetts Final Report, December 12, 20 12 

www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/air/community/s2ergf.pdf 

4 

.. 
.. 

the ozone NAAQS or where emissions and/or air quality projections already demonstrate that an 

area is likely to maintain the NAAQS into the future." 7 

In accordance with EPA's guidance, MassDEP is able to demonstrate that removal of Stage II 

vapor controls meets the requirements of Section 11 0( .t) because although the removal may 

result in a small increase in emissions in the near term, the increase diminishes rapidly and will 

not interfere with attainment or progress toward attainment. MassDEP estimates that the 

maximum reductions from retaining Stage II in 2013 were 1.73- 1.98 TPSD. As discussed 

above, using Equation 3 in EPA's guidance, MassDEP calculated the potential emissions 

reduction loss from removing Stage II to be 1.27 TPSD in 2013.8 MassDEP did not estimate 

emissions from Stage II in 2014, but the 2015 estimates demonstrate the rapid reduction of 

emissions benefits from Stage II between 2013 and 2015. By 2014 the reductions that Stage II 

would have achieved would be significantly less than in 2013 and by 2015 the reductions would 

be reduced to 0.36 - 0.52 TPSD. 

These estimates show that MassDEP's proposal is consistent with EPA's guidance because the 

proposed amendments would have resulted in only a small loss in emissions reductions in 2013), 

with the emission reductions diminishing rapidly in 2014 - 2015 as ORVR continues to phase-in. 

As noted above, Massachusetts currently meets the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS statewide. Any small emissions increase that would occur in the short term would not 

interfere with Massachusetts' existing attainment status. Thus, MassDEP's discontinuation of 

the Stage II program meets the requirements of Section 11 0( .t). 

CAA Section 11 OCO - Interference with Attainment - Stage I Revisions 

Because MassDEP amended its Stage I program, it must demonstrate that these changes do not 

constitute backsliding. As discussed below, the enhanced Stage I system requirements will result 

in additional Stage I controls, and therefore will not constitute backsliding from MassDEP's 

previous Stage I requirements.9 

MassDEP's previous Stage II regulations required that Stage II systems be certified by CARB to 

achieve 95% vapor control. CARB's Stage II certifications rely on CARB Stage I systems for 

achieving the 95% control efficiency. Therefore, MassDEP's Stage II requirements (in 310 

CMR 7.24(6)) had the effect of requiring CARB pre-EVR certified Stage I systems, used in 

combination with Stage II systems, to achieve the 95% control efficiency. MassDEP's previous 

Stage I regulations (31 0 CMR 7 .24(3)), in the absence of Stage II requirements, required only 

that GDFs have Stage I vapor balance systems with submerged filling, which are not certified to 

achieve 95% control efficiency. 

7 Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs, August 7, 2012, page 5. 8 It should be noted that most G DFs in Massachusetts continued to operate their Stage I I systems in 2013 , so a 

significant percentage of the reductions from Stage II were realized in Massachusetts during the 2013 ozone season. 9 The Stage I changes also provide further evidence that the Stage I I revisions meet Section I I 0( E) because the 

increased reductions from enhanced Stage I systems will partially offset the small amount of short-term emissions 

increases that may result from discontinuing Stage II. 

5 
------------------------------------------

MassDEP estimated that requiring 98% efficient CARB EVR Stage I systems in Massachusetts 

would reduce VOC emissions by up to 3.7 tons per summer day. MassDEP's final regulations 

require the installation of either CARB EVR Stage I systems or EVR Component systems. 

While CARB EVR Stage I Systems have been certified to operate at 98% vapor recovery, the 

EVR Component systems have not. Therefore, MassDEP is not assuming a specific level of 

control efficiency for Component systems. Nonetheless, the Stage I requirements will improve 

vapor capture as compared to the previously required Stage I systems for the following reasons: 

1. Within 2 years, all GDFs are required to install CARB EVR P/V vent valves, which are 

certified to a more stringent leak rate than pre-EVR valves. 

2. Within 2 years, GDFs are required to install CARB EVR rotatable adaptors. Under 

MassDEP's previous regulations, only GDFs with vacuum assist systems were required to 

have CARB rotatable adaptors and there were no requirement to test the adaptors. Under the 

new regulations, the requirement to install EVR adaptors extends to all facilities (except for 

aboveground storage tanks and GDFs with coaxial Stage I systems). The CARB EVR design 

standards for adaptors result in reduced vapor leaks and improve adaptor durability. 

Furthermore, GDFs are required to perform the CARB torque test for rotatable adaptors 

when they are installed and during annual compliance testing10. These changes- requiring 

additional facilities to install CARB EVR rotatable adaptors and requiring torque testing -

are clear improvements to MassDEP's previous Stage I controls. 

3. Within 7 years, all GDFs must have either a CARB EVR system or an EVR Component 

system. Additionally, during the 7-year period, whenever a GDF replaces an existing Stage I 

component or fails an annual compliance test due to a faulty pre-EVR component, a 

comparable EVR component must be installed. CARB EVR components meet more 

stringent performance standards than pre-EVR components. Compared to non-EVR 

components, they are engineered for increased durability and address common causes of 

leaks in dispensing systems, such as adaptors (the connection points between the tank truck 

and the service station storage tank), drop tubes, and drain valves. 11 Components are 

individually certified to meet engineering and performance standards prior to their in-use 

certification as part of a CARB EVR Stage I system 12 • Thus, the design and durability of 

EVR components will result in tighter Stage I controls, whether or not the EVR components 

comprise a specific CARB Stage I EVR system. In addition to installation of PN vent 

valves and rotatable adaptors within 2 years, the following improved EVR components are 

required over the 7-year phase in period: 

• Drop tube with Overfill Protection Specification: CARB EVR requires overfill 

protection devices on drop tubes. These devices, which were not previously required 

10 The Static Torque Rotatable Adaptor Test (CARB TP 20 l.lB) will ensure that the adaptor rotates 360 degrees and 

the average static torque is no greater than the maximum allowed value. 11 CARB Staff Report, February 4, 2000: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the Vapor 

Recovery Certification and Test Procedures for Gasoline Loading and Motor Vehicle Gasoline Refueling at Service 

Stations. 

12 As noted previously in Section ll.A, CARB EVR Systems have been tested to ensure that they are 98% efficient at 

collecting vapors during filling of storage tanks in field tests over a range of operating conditions at multiple sites 

for a minimum of 6 months. 

6 
. .. 

by MassDEP, use a valve to shut off liquid flow when the underground storage tank is 

being filled. 

• Spill Containment Boxes: GDFs in Massachusetts currently must have spill 

containment boxes but they were previously not required to meet the EVR standards 

for product containment boxes, which limit the leak rate to< 0.17 cubic feet/hour at+ 

2.0 inches H20 and prohibit any standing fuel in the containment box of product 

connectors. 

• Connectors and Fittings: Loose connectors and fittings can lead to leaks in the 

underground storage tank. CARB EVR connectors and fittings are designed to meet 

tighter specifications than pre-EVR equipment. 

4. The Stage I revisions expand the universe of GDFs required to have CARB Stage I 

systems or components. MassDEP's previous Stage II regulations, which indirectly required 

CARB Stage I systems, applied to all GDFs with a greater than 250 gallon tank except those 

constructed before November 1, 1989 that have never dispensed more than 10,000 gallons in 

any calendar month and have never been substantially modified. The new Stage I 

amendments apply to all GDFs with a greater than 250 gallon tank, and therefore apply to 

those GDFs that previously were exempt from the requirement to have a CARB Stage I 

system. MassDEP estimates that less than 1% of the gasoline throughput in Massachusetts 

met the former exemption. Nevertheless, the slight expansion of the universe of CARB 

Stage !-covered GDFs will result in additional emission reductions and therefore represents 

an improvement to the existing Stage I program. 

5. The CARB EVR Stage I systems and EVR Component systems decrease overall leaks that 

take place under all operating scenarios (vs. only during tank filling). Other than vehicle 

refueling emissions, which are captured by Stage II and ORVR systems, there are two main 

sources of emissions at GDFs - filling losses and breathing losses. The 98% vapor capture 

efficiency that has been certified by CARB of EVR systems applies only to the control of 

vapors captured during the filling of storage tanks. Breathing losses occur daily and are 

attributable to gasoline evaporation and barometric pressure changes. (Breathing losses are 

reduced but not totally eliminated by P/V valves.) In addition to decreasing filling losses 

during fuel deliveries, EVR components improve the integrity of the Stage I system and the 

ongoing containment of storage tank vapors, thereby reducing the incidence of breathing 

losses. 

6. The new Stage I regulations adopt all terms and conditions of the CARB Executive 

Orders for Stage I EVR systems. These include references to manufacturer operation and 

maintenance manuals that describe operation, maintenance, and training requirements. GDFs 

with CARB EVR systems must be operated and maintained according to equipment 

manufacturers' specifications. This creates an enforceable requirement for GDFs to install 

only EVR components systems that can be effectively operated and maintained with other 

EVR components. The level of effectiveness need not be 98% efficient, but all GDFs must 

be able to pass the applicable tests (see below) for system tightness after they decommission 

their Stage II systems and annually thereafter. 

7 
7. The new Stage I regulations require additional testing of Stage I systems. In addition to 

the new requirement for torque testing of rotatable adaptors, the regulations also require a 

newer Pressure Decay Test that is now the industry-standard (2-inches of water pressure 

instead of 10 inches), and require testing of drop tube/over-fill prevention devices. 

8. The new Stage I regulations include requirements for inspections, record keeping, 

compliance testing, annual certification and notification, similar to the previous Stage II 

regulations, which will ensure that GDFs operate and maintain Stage I systems effectively, as 

has been required for Stage II systems. 

8 
Attachment 1 

To detennine the impact of removing its Stage II Program, MassDEP used the methods presented in 

EPA's guidance document, "Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from 

State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures." 13 Specifically, MassDEP used 

Equation #1 to calculate the impact on Massachusetts' refueling emissions inventory, and used Equation 

#3 to calculate the impact on Massachusetts' area-wide VOC inventory, both for the year 2013. 

The equations and inputs are presented below. 

Equation 1: Increment 2013 = (Qsu)(1-QoRVR20t3)('120t3uSH)-(Qsuva)(CF 20t3) 

Equation 1 quantifies the annual emissions control gain (in 20 13) from Stage II installations at GDFs as 

ORVR technology phases in. There are five inputs for this equation. EPA's Guidance Document 

includes input default values for states that lack state-specific data. The EPA default values and the 

Massachusetts-specific values are shown below. 

In Massachusetts, 99% of annual gasoline throughput was covered by Stage II 14 and of this total, 84.9% 

was dispensed to vehicles that have on-board vapor recovery technology (ORVR) 15 . EPA estimates that, 

depending upon variations in programs across the U.S., Stage II controls achieve a range of between 60% 

and 75% vapor control efficiency. Due to its comprehensive annual testing and certification 

requirements, MassDEP's Stage II program is on the upper end of that efficiency range at an estimated 

70% in-use control efficiency. MassDEP's Stage II program data shows that 81% of annual gasoline 

through-put is dispensed via vacuum-assist Stage II systems. The compatibility factor (CF) represents the 

increase in underground storage tank vent pipe emissions over the normal breathing/emptying loss 

emissions and is calculated using a constant (0.0777). 

Os11 = Fraction of gasoline throughput covered by Stage II 

QoRVR20 13 =Fraction of gasoline dispensed to ORVR vehicles 

f} 20I3 uSII =Stage II in-use control efficiency 

Qs11 va =Fraction of gasoline throughput dispensed to 

vacuum assist type Stage II 

CF2013 =Compatibility Factor= (0.0777) x (QoRVR20 13) 

Increment2013 using MA-specific parameters: 

Increment2013= (0.99)( 1-0.849)(0.70)-(0.81 )(0.0659) = 0.0512 

Increment 2013 = 5. 12% 

EPA Default MA-Specific 

0.95-0.98 0.99 

0.81 0.849 

0.60-0.75 0.70 

varies by state 0.81 

0.0629 0.0659 

Conclusion: During the year 2013, MassDEP estimates that the Stage II program achieves an emissions 

control increment of 5.12% 

13 Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and 

Assessing Comparable Measures, U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (EPA-457/b- 12-0 II) 14 Analysis ofMassDEP Stage II Program data, September2013. 15 Air Program Support for Stage I and Stage II Programs in Massachusetts, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and de Ia 

Torre-Klausmeier Consulting, August 12, 2012 Addendum 

9 
Equation 3: Tons2013 = (Increment 20tJ) (GC2otJ)(EF) 

Equation 3 quantifies the total annual emissions control provided by Stage 11 during the year 2013. This 

equation has three inputs. The increment for 2013 is the output from Equation 1. The gaso line 

consumption is the 2013 annual gasoline consumption reported by the Massachusetts Department of 

Revenue.

16 The uncontrolled refueling displacement refueling emissions factor was calculated by using a 

formula in EPA's Stage Il guidance. 

lncrement201 3 = Increment calculated from Equation I. 

GC20 13 = Annual gaso line consumption in 201 3:2,739,205,3 96 gallons. 

EF = Uncontrolled displacement refueling emission factor: 6.6 lbs/ 1 ,000 gallons. 

EF= (g/gal)=exp[ -1.2798 - 0.0049(~ T) + 0.0203(Td) + 0.1315(RVP)] 

Where Td = dispensed fuel temperature (74°F); ~T=difference between tank fuel temperature and 

dispensed fuel temperature (ll.4°F); RVP =ozone season gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (7.0 psi). 

Tons2013 using MA-specific parameters: 

Tons2o13 = (0.0512)(2,739,250,396 gal/yr)(6.6 lbs/1 ,000 gallons)(! ton/2,000 lbs) = 462.82 tons per year 

Tons2ou = 462.82 tpy = 1.27 tons per summer day 17

. 

Conclusion: The overall emissions increase from removing Stage II is approximately 463 tons ofVOCs 

per year. This translates to 1.3 tons per summer day. 

16 Summed from Motor Fuels Monthly Summary Reports for January 2013 through December 2013, Massachusetts 

Department of Revenue Excises Unit. 17 Since Stage II systems operate 7 days per week, there are 92 summer days of Stage II operations during the 13 

weeks of summer. Tons per summer day = [(462.82 tons/year) x (92 summer days/365 days per year = 0.252)]/( 92 

days) . 

10 

~ •' ' ..