Com m onwealth of Mass ach uset ts Exec utive Office o f Energy & Environmenta l Affa irs 

# Department of Environmental Protection

Charle s D

. Baker Governor Karyn E

. Polito Lieutenant Governor One W inter Str eet Boston, MA 0 2 108 • 6 1 7-292 -5500



### Massachusetts Stage II Vapor Recovery Program Discontinuation State Implementation Plan Revision

May 2015 Matthew A Beaton Secretary Martin Suuberg Commiss ioner

This in formation is available in alternate format. Call Miche ll e Waters-Ekanem, Diversity Directo r, at 617-292-5751. TTY# MassRe lay Service 1-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website : www mass.gov/dep Pnnted on Recycled PaperIntroduction In January 2015, the Massachusetts Department ofEnvironmental 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 ofozone; Stage II systems capture vapors displaced by refueling ofmotor 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 ofozone 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 ofVOCs 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 ofDukes 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 ofMassachusetts
. 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 offduring 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 , SUVs and medium duty vehicles have been equipped with ORVR systems.

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

2For 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 longerjustify the cost ofinstalling 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 ifthe 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% ofthe 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 ofMay 16, 2012, the date ofthe 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 ofa SIP revision that interferes with attainment ofthe 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.

3impact ofphasing out Stage II programs. In its guidance EPA states that "in the specific context ofthe comparable measures requirement, it is reasonable to conclude that the incremental emissions control that Stage II achieves beyond ORVR is de minimis ifit is less than 10% ofthe 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 los s 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% ofthe 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 ofthe 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 analysis 6 ofthe removal ofthe 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 VOC 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 ofrequiring 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 GDFs in Massachusetts continued to operate their Stage I I systems in 2013 , so a significant percentage ofthe 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 I0(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 testing 10

. 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 StaffReport, February 4 , 2000 : Initial Statement of Reasonsfor Pro posedAmendments to the Vapor Recovery Certification and Test Proceduresfor 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 fillin g 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 H2

### 0 and prohibit any standing fuel in the containment box ofproduct 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% ofthe gasoline throughput in Massachusetts met the former exemption. Nevertheless, the slight expansion ofthe universe of CARB Stage !-covered GDFs wi ll 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 ofEVR 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 ofthe Stage I system and the ongoing containment of storage tank vapors, thereby reducing the incidence ofbreathing losses. 6. The new Stage I regulations adopt all terms and conditions ofthe 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 ofeffectiveness 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.

77. The new Stage I regulations require additional testing of Stage I systems. In addition to the new requirement for torque testing ofrotatable adaptors , the regulations also require a newer Pressure Decay Test that is now the industry-standard (2-inches ofwater pressure instead of 10 inches) , and require testing ofdrop 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.

8Attachment 1 To detennine the impact ofremoving 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)(CF20t3) 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 gaso line throughput was covered by Stage II 14 and ofthis 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 ran ge 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 ofthat efficiency range at an estimated 70% in-use control efficiency. MassDEP's Stage II program data shows that 81% ofannual 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 gaso line throughput covered by Stage II QoRVR20 13 =Fraction of gasoline dispensed to ORVR vehicles f} 20I3 uSII =Stage II in-use control efficiency Qs 11va =Fraction of gasoline throughput dispensed to vacuum assist type Stage II CF2 01

3=Compatibility Factor= (0.0777) x (QoRVR20 1 3 ) Increment2 01

3 using MA-specific parameters: Increment2 013 = (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 Programsfrom State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures, U.S
. EPA Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards (EPA-457/b- 12-0 II) 14 Analysis ofMassDEP Stage II Program data, September2013. 15 Air Program Supportfor Stage I and Stage II Programs in Massachusetts, Eastern Re search Group, Inc. and de Ia Torre-Klausmeier Consulting, August 12, 2012 Addendum

9Equation 3: Tons2013 = (Increment 20tJ) (GC2otJ)(EF) Equation 3 quantifies the total annual emis sions 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. 1 6 The uncontrolled refueling displacement refueling emissions factor was calculated by using a formula in EPA's Stage Il guidance. lncrement2 01 3 = Increment calcu lated from Equation I
. GC20 1 3 = Annual gaso line consumption in 201 3:2,73 9,205 ,3 96 gallons. EF = Uncontrolled di sp lacement refueling emi ss ion factor : 6.6 lbs/ 1 ,000 gallons. EF= (g/gal)=exp[-1.2798

-**0.0049(~**T) + 0.0203(Td) + 0
. 1315 (RVP)] Where Td= di spensed 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)
. Tons2 01

3 using MA-specific parameters: Tons2 o1

3 = (0.0512)(2 ,739,25 0,396 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 emiss ions 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**~** • ' ' 

## ..