ORIGINAL 1 

1 STATE OF MAINE 

2 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

3 

4 

5 ************************************************************ 

6 

7 IN RE: CHAPTER 111 - PETROLEUM LIQUID STORAGE VAPOR CONTROL 

8 CHAPTER 111 

9 

10 ************************************************************ 

11 

12 DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 26, 1998 

13 LOCATION: HOLIDAY INN/GROUND ROUND 

14 AUGUSTA, MAINE 

15 

16 APPEARANCES 

17 

18 OSMOND BONSEY 

19 JOHN TEWHEY 

20 JEAN WILKINSON 

21 KATHY LITTLEFIELD 

22 ,CHA~ES STICKNEY 

23 ANBREW CADOT 

24 NORMAN DEAN 

25 PHIL SOUCY 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

~ 

2 

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 

CHAIRMAN BONSEY: This is a meeting of the 

Board of Environmental Protection. We'll be holding a 

public hearing on Chapter 111, Petroleum Liquid Storage 

Vapor Control. My name is Osmond Bonsey, and I'm a member 

of the Board of Environmental Protection, and I will be the 

presiding officer today. Other Board members here today are 

Charles Stickney, Andrew Cadot, Phil Soucy, Norman Dean, 

John Tewhey, Cathy Littlefield, and Jean Wilkinson. Staff 

here today from the Department of Environmental Protection, 

Bureau of Air Quality, are Jeff Crawford and Carolyn 

Wheeler. Our recorder is Alley & Morrisette Recording 

Services. Today's hearing is being held pursuant to 38 MRSA 

Sections 585, 585-A, Public Law Chapter 384. In addition, 

because this amendment will be submitted as a revision of 

Maine's State Implementation Plan for Air Quality, today's 

hearing will be conducted pursuant to the requirements of 

Title 40, part 51, proposed Federal Regulations. Notice of 

today's hearing was published in the Kennebec Journal on 

July 23, 1998, in the Kennebec Journal, Lewiston Daily Sun, 

Waterville Morning Sentinel, Portland Press Herald, and 

Bangor Daily News on August 5, 1998. Notice of today's 

hearing was also sent to all persons on the Department's 

regulatory notice mailing list and to other persons who have 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
- 3 

1 expressed interest in the rule that is the subject of 

2 today's hearing. The record for written comment should 

3 remain open until 5 p.m., September 7, 1998. All testimony 

4 should be addressed to the Bureau of Air Quality and clearly 

5 marked for inclusion in the August 26, 1998 Chapter 111 

6 public hearing record. Today's hearing will be transcribed 

7 and made available to all Board members. Based on the 

8 complete record the Board will vote to approve, deny, or 

9 amend the proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled Board 

10 meeting. Copies of the final staff recommendation will be 

11 available upon request. An attendance sheet is presently 

12 circulating the room. Please indicate on the sheet if you 

13 desire to receive a copy of the draft final rule. Following 

14 adoption of this rule, the Department will prepare a formal 

15 submittal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for 

16 inclusion in the State Implementation Plan. At this time I 

17 would ask all persons who intend to testify to please stand 

18 to be sworn in. 

19 

20 (Two people sworn in at this time) 

21 

22 CHAIRMAN BONSEY: Procedures call for 

23 -~ presentations first by proponents, second by opponents, and 

24 third by other interested parties neither for nor against. 

25 If you plan to speak and have not done so, please sign in 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
4 

1 now on the appropriate speaker sheet at the front table. 

2 Following each presentation there will be an opportunity for 

3 members of the Board to direct questions through the chair. 

4 Copies of the rule are available on the front table by the 

5 door. Are there any questions? If there are no questions, 

6 we will hear testimony beginning with staff. 

7 MR. CRAWFORD: Good afternoon, Chairman 

8 Bonsey, Members of the Board. My name is Jeff Crawford. I'm 

9 with the Bureau of Air Quality and Control. The Department 

10 is here before you today proposing amendments to our Chapter 

11 111 Petroleum Liquid Storage Vapor Control Rule. This 

12 regulation pertains to the control of volatile organic 

13 compound emissions from bulk storage terminals, oil 

14 terminals, if you will, that store such compounds as crude 

15 oil, oil, gasoline, other petroleum compounds. Our proposal 

16 was prompted by a letter from USEPA last July pointing out 

17 that our current regulation is inconsistent with EPA's 

18 modeling VOC RACT, or Reasonably Available Control 

19 Technology Rule. In that correspondence, EPA suggested that 

20 we amend our current regulation to require complete 

21 inspection to be conducted once every five years in the case 

22 of a double-seal system and once every ten years in the case 

23 ,• 

of a single-seal system, and, in fact, that is the principal 

24 amendment to Chapter 111 that we're proposing on Section 

25 2-E, a complete inspection of cover and seal is performed 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

5 

and tank is degassed and cleaned at a minimum of once in ten 

years for single-seal system and a minimum of once in five 

for a double-seal system. Chapter 111 is a prime example of 

Murphy's Rule, and even though when I posted this regulation 

hearing earlier this summer, it seemed to be a fairly 

straightforward process. As soon as the public comment 

period was open, I received correspondence both from Maine 

Petroleum Association and also from Mobil pointing out that, 

in fact, unbeknownst to the Department, EPAs letters, which 

interestingly were sent to all of the New England states, 

were, in fact, in error. Maine Petroleum Association 

pointed out that what EPA was really asking us to do was to 

incorporate the new source performance standard. These are 

standards for new sources, if you will. The new source 

performance standards required those systems with double 

seals to have an option. That option would be to conduct an 

annual individual inspection and a complete inspection every 

ten years, not every five years, or conduct a complete 

inspection every five years. So there's a difference. In 

fact, if you look at our initial proposal, it seemed rather 

counter-intuitive, why would a double-sealed tank require an 

inspection every five years; and why would a single-sealed 

~ 23 tank require one every ten years. When I posted this 

24 legislation to public hearing, I anticipated that question. 

25 We had some of our licensing staff here with us, and to be 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 ~ 

24 

25 

6 

very frank, I was thrilled that it didn't come at that point 

in time because I didn't have a good response. Maine 

Petroleum Association, in fact, has clarified what that 

situation is, and, in fact, Mobil also, I believe, will be 

testifying with additional comments pointing out that really 

there is no need to completely empty or degas these 

facilities to test them. So I'm bringing this to you just 

as a little bit of a primer. Our proposal is very likely 

going to be significantly changed to reflect new source 

performance standards and perhaps likely also the proposal 

that would be brought before you by Mobil providing it is, 

in fact, in concert with EPA requirements. So I just wanted 

to prime you for those. With that, I will entertain any 

questions if you may have them. 

CHAIRMAN BONSEY: Questions? 

MR. CADOT: Let me just understand what 

you're saying. Are you going to come back with a revision 

to this proposal? 

MR. CRAWFORD: Our proposal is, in all 

likelihood, going to be amended to reflect the new source 

performance standard inspection frequency. 

MR. CADOT: Would we have to have another 

public hearing? 

MR. CRAWFORD: That will have to be discuss 

with the AG's office. I believe it probably will require at 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

....... 

- 7 

least an additional posting for comment by the Board. I 

think that would probably suffice since we have a relatively 

limited body of affected parties. 

CHAIRMAN BONSEY: Other questions? Thank 

you, Jeff. 

MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BONSEY: We have two speakers both 

speaking for. First, Patty Aho. 

MS. AHO: Thank you, Chairman Bonsey, and 

members of the Board. I am Patricia Aho. I'm the 

Executive Director of the Maine Petroleum Association, and 

I'm based here in Augusta, Maine. Maine Petroleum 

Association is a division of the American Petroleum 

Institute, and as such we represent over 400 members of the 

oil and gas industry. I'm testifying in the category of 

support today, and, as Mr. Crawford indicated just a moment 

ago, it's a little bit confusing. The comments that you 

will see in front of you are those comments of concerns that 

I sent to Mr. Crawford at the opening of the comment period 

back in July in regards to this proposal, and you'll see 

that as it has been currently proposed by DEP we entered 

into significant concerns in regards to the current drafting 

23 ·· of the proposal. So my comments are, in essence, in 

24 opposition to the current proposal, but we would like to 

25 testify and encourage you to undertake significant revisions 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

u 

8 

to these amendments, as Mr. Crawford indicated a moment ago. 

The problem arose in that, as Mr. Crawford indicated, the 

Department of Environmental Protection received a letter 

from USEPA Region I asking the Department to amend the 

current Chapter 111 in order to make it consistent with 

national regulations. EPA then in the letter that it 

submitted to DEP proceeded to give incorrect information to 

the Department. The Department proceeded to take that 

information and incorporate it as a proposed amendment to 

the current regulation. As I indicated, unfortunately what 

EPA provided to the Department is not correct. In the back 

of my comments you will see where EPA has agreed that their 

information is incorrect in a letter that they submitted to 

the State of Massachusetts where the same situation happened 

just a few months ago. The State of Massachusetts DEP, in 

fact, has issued a non-enforcement letter to its marine and 

bulk oil terminals there indicating, yes, this is incorrect, 

and we need to revise our regulation accordingly. So those 

are attached to my letter in my comments that I have 

submitted to you. When the new source performance standard 

21 will promulgate it at the Federal level, in 1987 it was 

22 clear in there that there was going to be an option in 

23 ,. regards to the inspection schedule for bulk storage tanks. 

24 In fact, even though in 1987 the option was granted, EPA 

25 came back in 1989 and further clarified that it is an option 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

,• 23 

24 

25 

for an inspection schedule that is granted as part of the 

new source performance standards. EPA has tried to make it 

very clear that this option allows for -- two ways, if you 

9 

want to do a complete inspection you may do so, but you must 

do so every five years, or if you would like to undertake an 

annual visual inspection, then you must undertake a complete 

inspection every ten years. That's the option that's 

available to terminal operators, and that is what is not in 

the current proposed regulation in front of you. We would 

ask and urge the Department and the Board to clarify and 

make Chapter 111 consistent with the new source performance 

standard language, which clearly recognizes that you have an 

option as to how you want to proceed with your inspection 

schedule. As I indicated earlier, Massachusetts was given 

the same letter from EPA, they realized that it was 

incorrect, and they are in the process of amending their 

regulations as well so that it is consistent with the new 

source performance standard. With that, as I indicated, I 

would urge you to significantly amend what is before you 

right now and would be happy to answer any questions that 

you may have. I appreciate your time this afternoon. 

MR. TEWHEY: Thank you, Patty. Are there any 

questions to Patty Aho from the Board? Thank you. 

MS. AHO: Thank you. 

MR. TEWHEY: Mr. Bill Ward. 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

MR. WARD: Mr. Chairman, members of the 

Board, my name is William Ward. I represent Mobil Oil 

Corporation. I am based out of Massachusetts but cover all 

of New England and New York State. Mobil operates two 

terminals within the State of Maine, in Portland and in 

Bangor, and both of these would be affected by the subject 

regulation. We operate 15 tanks which would be affected by 

the change that has been proposed. We appreciate this 

opportunity to provide the comments, and we do support 

changes, at least changing of the rules as mentioned by Mr. 

Crawford. I was involved in the process in Massachusetts, 

and I actually was the person that found that there was an 

error, and it was actually slipped in kind of very -- I 

don't even think Massachusetts knew that they were making 

the change in such a way, but it was very unusual, so we 

convinced them that they needed to make the change, and now 

I believe it would behoove Maine to make such a change. 

There are a couple things I want to point out. First, we do 

agree that the way to go is the new source performance 

standards for tanks under the Federal regulations, and those 

do require there are a couple of options in there. Let 

1me explain one thing. I think the new source performance 

standards were the original internal roof language, or at 

least very early on, and when they wrote the NSPS standard 

for internal floating roofs, they had to make some changes, 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 ,• 

24 

25 

- 11 

and it's actually somewhat difficult to understand. If you 

read through it you have to read through it about three 

times to get an understanding. I have included that behind 

my comments. I've also included two other internal floating 

roof regulations. There are actually several others, but I 

only included two others at this point, which were written 

subsequent to the new source performance standards, and they 

say exactly the same thing, but they're written a lot 

clearer. In essence, that's what Mobil is proposing that 

Maine take. It's simply taking three paragraphs -- it takes 

it down to one paragraph, and it makes it very simple to 

understand. In essence, what it says is that we've 

recommended that it say a complete inspection of cover and 

seal is performed each time the vessel is emptied and 

degassed and at least once every ten years. Now, this fits 

entirely with the new source performance standards for one 

reason, and that is because Maine is going to require 

monthly inspections from the tank hatches, which the new 

source performance standards require annual inspections from 

the tank hatches. So the monthly inspections do cover the 

annual inspections, and, thereby, that allows rather than a 

1five-year inspection requirement, that allows a 

ten-year inspection requirement. So that fits very well. 

Now, we did make one recommendation, and, again, it works 

exactly in the Federal regulation, and Mr. Crawford did 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

- - 12 

point out that it's our recommendation, regarding the 

difference between an inspection when the tank is emptied 

and degassed and the inspection that has to happen every ten 

years. Again, if you look at the new source performance 

standards, they say you must do it every time the tank is 

emptied and degassed. They go on to say that inspections 

that are performed must be done at least every ten years. 

It's somewhat difficult to understand, but, again, if you go 

over to the subsequent regulations, they read exactly the 

same way as we had proposed. I'm going to read from 

actually from subpart DD of 63 it would be 40 CFR 63.695, 

and it's actually NESHAP's for waste and recovery 

operations, but there are various regulations that say the 

same thing, and it says to visually inspect the internal 

floating roof, primary seal, secondary seal (if one is in 

service), gaskets, slotted membranes, and sleeve seals (if 

any) , each time the tank is emptied and degassed and at 

least once every ten years. It's clear when you read that 

that it says you have to do it each time it's emptied and 

degassed and you have to do it at least once every ten 

years, but you don't to have do them both the same. EPA has 

agreed with this. This is the practice in certain places 

,• 

23 under -- they have to be under special conditions because it 

24 is a safety issue of putting someone inside the tank when 

25 you have not completely emptied the tank, but it is done, 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

~ 

13 

it's done safely, and, in fact, EPA has recognized that 

there was some misunderstanding, and we have included 

proposed Federal language that EPA is in the process of 

drafting that reads floating roof inspections shall be 

conducted by visually inspecting the floating roof deck 

fittings and rim seals from within the storage vessel. The 

inspection may be performed entirely from the top side of 

the floating roof as long as there is visual access to all 

deck components specified. So, in essence, what they're 

saying is you may do it while the tank is in service, and 

we're recommending that that be the way this regulation is 

put into place. Thank you. 

MR. TEWHEY: Thank you, Mr. Ward. Questions 

of Mr. Ward? Mr. Stickney. 

MR. STICKNEY: Mr. Ward, not knowing nothing 

about these bulk tanks, when a tank is degassed, does that 

skirt that holds the cover come down just to a certain point 

so that a person can go in underneath and look up? It never 

comes down right to the ground? 

MR. WARD: That's correct. It has legs, and 

the legs are -- they're movable. Actually, the way the 

process is, is once you put it into service and you've 

floated it, you will lift those legs. In other words, 

here's this flat piece of tin, let's say, that's actually 

got a structure on it, but it's like a piece of tin that 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
- 14 

1 floats on top. It's got pontoons under it, and it floats on 

2 top of the product. It has legs all the way through so that 

3 if it does come down it can set on those legs. Those legs 

4 are lifted up so that you can actually bring that roof very 

5 close to the bottom, let's say within three feet, and those 

6 legs may be eight or ten feet long. When we get ready to 

7 degas the tank, we would probably send someone into the tank 

8 and push those legs down and put a pin through them so that 

9 they're at six feet. Actually, when I get into a tank, I 

10 would have to get down and look at it like this, but, still, 

11 there are people that are actually built for this, and they 

12 get to walk in there and don't have to duck and work under 

13 the roof. So, again, it's not abnormal to have people come 

14 down on top of a roof, but part of the reason that this 

15 proposal was made was to reduce the emissions that are 

16 required from degassing. One way to do that is not to degas 

17 when you do the inspection. There are some difficulties. 

18 You must if you have a double seal, then you actually 

19 have to look at either remove or do something to look at 

20 the second seal rather than the first seal. Actually, 

21 you're trying to see the primary seal because the secondary 

22 seal is the one that's on top that you see. It is done, and 

23 it's very effective at reducing emissions. 

24 MR. STICKNEY: The second question is, the 

25 reason a double seal is done more frequently is because 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
- - 15 

1 there can be breaks between the two so that petroleum 

2 products can get in between the upper and lower seal? 

3 MR. WARD: That may be. I'd have to say that 

4 I'm not sure, but from my investigation of it, it looks like 

5 the two -- the five year and the ten year, or actually the 

6 double seal and single seal, came from different regulations 

7 and then kind of came together. It looks to me from my 

8 investigation like a double seal one of the two types may 

9 have actually been for an external floating roof originally, 

10 so in other words where there's an external fleeting roof, 

11 someone could go down on the roof and inspect it more often, 

12 whereas, with an internal floating roof, you wouldn't want 

13 someone going into the tank very often. So what they were 

14 trying to do was -- where it's easy, I'll send someone down 

15 on top. I don't have to look through a roof hatch, and I 

16 can have them do it every five years. Where it's not easy 

17 I'm going to have them look through the roof top every month 

18 or annually and then every ten years I'll have them go in. 

19 I think that that was the reasoning. 

20 MR. STICKNEY: My thinking as just a pure 

21 layman would be that with a double seal you ought to be able 

22 to do it maybe every 20 in reverse of the single seal. I'm 

23 ,• 

glad you explained that for my knowledge. Thank you. 

24 MR. TEWHEY: Mr. Soucy? 

25 MR. SOUCY: When you use the word degas, are 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

- 16 

you referring to pumping liquid gas out or fumes? 

MR. v7ARD: It's fumes. Actually, you remove 

all of the produce, and then you would remove all of the 

vapors. We're talking about vapors when we're degassing. 

You would remove all of the vapors, and at that point then 

you would have someone enter the tank. Actually, you would 

probably clean you'd clean anything that's on the bottom 

of the tank. You may inspect the bottom of the tank at the 

same time. One of the other recommendations that the 

reasons that I recommend we allow to go in on top of the 

roof is the proposals to the draft proposals to change 

Chapter 600 allow -- at this time would allow a 20-year 

inspection cycle for tanks that have double bottoms or have 

release prevention barriers so that there is double 

protection on the bottom. You wouldn't have to inspect them 

as often. Well, if I had to still inspect them at ten years 

when the other regulation says it's okay for 20, I'm 

actually forcing a company like ourselves -- when we go in, 

we're going to inspect the bottom at the same time, and it 

would actually increase the cost, and that gets passed on to 

the consumer. 

MR. TEWHEY: Mr. Dean. 

MR. DEAN: In the normal operation of a tank 

would it necessarily-- when you're filling that, you don't 

necessarily empty it before you fill it again. So it could 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

~ 

17 

be ten years before the tank is completely emptied? 

MR. WARD: Actually, you're not supposed to 

empty the tank. Like I said, you have those legs that are 

let's say three feet long. You should really never land 

those legs except in an emergency situation, and the. reason 

being, as long as the roof is floating, then it's holding 

the vapors. There's only a certain amount of vapor, and as 

long as it is floating -- there may be a little vapor on top 

of that right below the roof, but it's staying there in the 

same place. So you never lift that off. If I land the legs 

and I keep taking product out, what happens is I get 

evaporation, and so you're filling that with vapor, and then 

when I fill it with product, I'm filling it below the roof, 

I fill it back up, that vapor goes away. That vapor comes 

out the top, and we get emissions. So the regulations 

actually say that unless in emergency situations, you do not 

bring it below the legs. 

MR. TEWHEY: Any other questions to Mr. Ward? 

In the three attachments you have blue print and red print. 

I may have missed that. What is the significance of the 

blue and the red? 

MR. WARD: Actually, it was done slightly 

differently. I may have been trying to highlight. In each 

one I was trying to highlight certain language. I looked at 

it myself and said why did I do it exactly that way, but at 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207}626-0059 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

. 23 '. 

24 

25 

18 

least I thought if it was -- if it is highlighted in color, 

I thought it was important at least for some reason, and 

then certainly in one of them I wanted you to look at just 

the red language even though the blue was what was also 

included elsewhere. In another one I felt like I was trying 

to highlight a certain piece of information and it didn't 

necessarily translate all the way through. 

MR. TEWHEY: I had a right to be confused. 

MR. WARD: That's right, as I probably was 

when I was reading the regulations. 

MR. TEWHEY: Thank you, Mr. Ward. Any 

questions to Jeff? Jeff, do you have anything further? 

MR. CRAWFORD: No. 

MR. TEWHEY: I declare the public hearing 

closed. 

(Hearing Concluded at 2:10p.m.) 

ALLEY & MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-0059