# 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)626-00591 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, PetroleumLiquid Storage Vapor Control. My name is Osmond Bonsey, and I'ma member of the Board of Environmental Protection, and I will be the presiding officer today. OtherBoardmembers here today are Charles Stickney, Andrew Cadot, Phil Soucy, NormanDean, John Tewhey, Cathy Littlefield, and JeanWilkinson. Staff here today from theDepartment of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, areJeff Crawford and Carolyn Wheeler. Our recorder isAlley 

### &Morrisette Recording Services. Today's hearing is beingheldpursuant 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 hearingwill be conductedpursuant to the requirements of Title 40, part 51, proposed Federal Regulations. Notice of today's hearingwas published in the Kennebec Journal on July 23, 1998, in the Kennebec Journal, LewistonDaily Sun, WatervilleMorning Sentinel, Portland Press Herald, and BangorDailyNews onAugust 5, 1998. Notice of today's hearingwas also sent to all persons on the Department's regulatory notice mailing list and to otherpersons 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 openuntil 5 p.m., September 7, 1998. All testimony 4 shouldbe 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 hearingwill be transcribed 7 andmade available to all Boardmembers. Based on the 8 complete record the Boardwill vote to approve, deny, or 9 amend the proposed amendment at a regularly scheduledBoard 10 meeting. Copies of the final staff recommendationwill be 11 available upon request. An attendance sheet is presently 12 circulating the room. Please indicate on the sheet ifyou 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 ProtectionAgency 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 byproponents, secondby opponents, and 24 thirdby other interestedparties neither for nor against. 25 If you plan to speak andhave not done so, please sign in

ALLEY 

### &MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-00594

1 now on the appropriate speaker sheet at the front table. 2 Following eachpresentation 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 tableby the 5 door. Are there any questions? If there are no questions, 6 we will hear testimonybeginningwith 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 beforeyou todayproposing amendments to our Chapter 11 111 PetroleumLiquid StorageVapor Control Rule. This 12 regulationpertains to the control of volatile organic 13 compound emissions frombulk storage terminals, oil 14 terminals, if you will, that store such compounds as crude 15 oil, oil, gasoline, otherpetroleumcompounds. Ourproposal 16 was promptedby a letter fromUSEPA last Julypointing out 17 that our current regulation is inconsistent withEPA's 18 modelingVOC RACT, orReasonablyAvailable Control 19 Technology Rule. In that correspondence, EPA suggested that 20 we amend our current regulation to require complete 21 inspection tobe conducted once every five years in the case 22 of a double-seal systemand once every tenyears 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)626-00591 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 systemand a minimum of once in five for a double-seal system. Chapter 111 is a prime example of Murphy's Rule, and even thoughwhen I posted this regulation hearing earlier this summer, it seemed tobe a fairly straightforwardprocess. As soon as thepublic comment periodwas open, I received correspondence both fromMaine PetroleumAssociation and also fromMobil pointing out that, in fact, unbeknownst to the Department, EPAs letters, which interestinglywere sent to all of the New England states, were, in fact, in error. Maine PetroleumAssociation pointed out that what EPA was really askingus 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 optionwouldbe to conduct an annual individual inspection and a complete inspection every tenyears, 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 inspectionevery five years; andwhy would a single-sealed**~** 23 tank require one every tenyears. When I posted this 24 legislation to public hearing, I anticipated that question. 25 We had some of our licensing staff here withus, and to be

ALLEY 

### &MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-00591 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 timebecause I didn't have a good response. Maine PetroleumAssociation, in fact, has clarifiedwhat that situation is, and, in fact, Mobil also, I believe, will be testifyingwith additional comments pointing out that really there is no need to completely empty ordegas these facilities to test them. So I'mbringing this toyoujust

as a littlebit of a primer. Ourproposal is very likely going tobe significantly changed to reflect new source performance standards andperhaps likely also the proposal that wouldbebrought before you byMobil providing it is, in fact, in concert withEPA requirements. So I justwanted toprimeyou for those. With that, I will entertain any questions if youmayhave them. CHAIRMAN BONSEY: Questions? MR. CADOT: Let me justunderstandwhat you're saying. Are you going to comebackwith a revision to this proposal? MR. CRAWFORD: Ourproposal is, in all likelihood, going tobe 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 tobe discuss with the AG's office. I believe itprobablywill require at

ALLEY 

### &MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-00591 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 wouldprobably suffice since we have a relatively limitedbody of affectedparties. CHAIRMAN BONSEY: Otherquestions? Thank you, Jeff. MR. CRAWFORD: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN BONSEY: We have two speakers both speaking for. First, PattyAho. MS. AHO: Thankyou, ChairmanBonsey, and members of the Board. I am PatriciaAho. I'mthe Executive Director of the Maine PetroleumAssociation, and I'mbasedhere inAugusta, Maine. Maine Petroleum Association is a division of the American Petroleum Institute, and as suchwe represent over400 members of the oil and gas industry. I'm testifying in the category of support today, and, as Mr. Crawford indicatedjust a moment ago, it's a littlebit confusing. The comments that you will see in front of you are those comments of concerns that I sent toMr. Crawford at the opening of the comment period back inJuly in regards to this proposal, andyou'll see that as it has been currentlyproposedbyDEP we entered into significant concerns in regards to the current drafting 23 ·· of theproposal. Somy 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)626-00591 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 problemarose in that, as Mr. Crawford indicated, the Department of Environmental Protection received a letter fromUSEPA Region I asking the Department to amend the current Chapter 111 in order tomake it consistent with national regulations. EPA then in the letterthat it submitted toDEP 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 situationhappened just a few months ago. The State of Massachusetts DEP, in fact, has issued a non-enforcement letter to itsmarine and bulk oil terminals there indicating, yes, this is incorrect, andwe need to revise our regulation accordingly. So those

are attached tomy letter inmy comments that I have submitted toyou. When the new sourceperformance standard 21 will promulgate it at the Federal level, in 1987 itwas 22 clear in there that there was going tobe an option in 23 ,. regards to the inspection schedule for bulk storage tanks. 24 In fact, even though in 1987 the optionwas granted, EPA 25 came back in 1989 and further clarified that it is an option

ALLEY 

### &MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-00591 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 tomake it very clear that this option allows for

-- two ways, ifyou 9

want to do a complete inspectionyoumay do so, but youmust do so every five years, or ifyou would like to undertake an annual visual inspection, thenyou must undertake a complete inspection every tenyears. 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 andurge theDepartment and the Board to clarify and make Chapter 111 consistent with the new sourceperformance standard language, which clearly recognizes that you have an option as tohow you want toproceedwithyour 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 wouldurge you to significantly amendwhat is before you right now andwouldbe happy to answer any questions that youmayhave. I appreciateyour time this afternoon. MR. TEWHEY: Thank you, Patty. Are there any questions to PattyAho from the Board? Thankyou. MS. AHO: Thankyou. MR. TEWHEY: Mr. Bill Ward.

ALLEY 

### &MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-00591 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 WilliamWard. I represent Mobil Oil Corporation. I am based out of Massachusetts but cover all of New England andNew York State. Mobil operates two terminals within the State of Maine, in Portland and in Bangor, andboth of these wouldbe affectedby the subject regulation. We operate 15 tanks whichwouldbe affectedby the change that has beenproposed. We appreciate this opportunity toprovide the comments, andwe do support changes, at least changing of the rules as mentionedbyMr. Crawford. I was involved in the process inMassachusetts, and I actuallywas the person that found that there was an error, and it was actually slipped inkind of very -- I don't even thinkMassachusetts knew that theywere making the change in such a way, but it was very unusual, sowe convinced them that they needed to make the change, and now I believe it wouldbehoove Maine tomake such a change. There are a couple things I want topoint 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)626-00591 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 tounderstand. If you read through ityou have to read through it about three times to get anunderstanding. 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, whichwere written subsequent to the new sourceperformance 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 threeparagraphs

-- 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 tenyears. Now, this fits entirelywith the new sourceperformance 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 tankhatches. So themonthly 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 didmake one recommendation, and, again, it works exactly in the Federal regulation, andMr. Crawford did

ALLEY 

### &MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-00591 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 differencebetween an inspectionwhen the tank is emptied anddegassed and the inspection that has tohappen every ten years. Again, if you look at the new sourceperformance standards, they sayyoumust do it every time the tank is emptied and degassed. They go on to say that inspections that areperformedmust be done at least every tenyears. It's somewhat difficult tounderstand, but, again, if you go over to the subsequent regulations, they read exactly the

same way as we hadproposed. I'mgoing to read from actually from subpartDD of 63 itwouldbe 40 CFR 63.695, and it's actuallyNESHAP's for waste and recovery operations, but there are various regulations that say the

same thing, and it says tovisually inspect the internal floating roof, primary seal, secondary seal (if one is in service), gaskets, slottedmembranes, and sleeve seals (if any), each time the tank is emptied and degassed and at least once every tenyears. It's clearwhenyou read that that it says you have to do it each time it's emptied and degassed andyou have to do it at least once every ten years, but you don't tohave do themboth the same. EPA has agreedwith this. This is the practice in certainplaces ,• 23 under

-- theyhave tobeunder special conditions because it 24 is a safety issue of putting someone inside the tankwhen 25 you have not completely emptied the tank, but it is done,

ALLEY 

### &MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-00591 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 somemisunderstanding, andwe have included proposed Federal language that EPA is in the process of drafting that reads floating roof inspections shall be conductedbyvisually inspecting the floating roof deck fittings and rim seals fromwithin the storagevessel. The inspectionmaybe 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 youmay do itwhile the tank is in service, and we're recommending that that be the way this regulation is put intoplace. Thankyou. MR. TEWHEY: Thankyou, 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 downjust to a certainpoint

so that a person can go inunderneath and lookup? It never comes down right to the ground? MR. WARD: That's correct. It has legs, and the legs are -- they'removable. Actually, the way the process is, is once you put it into service andyou've floated it, you will lift those legs. In otherwords, 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 liftedup so that you can actuallybring that roof very 5 close to thebottom, let's saywithin three feet, and those 6 legsmaybe eight or ten feet long. When we get ready to 7 degas the tank, we wouldprobably send someone into the tank 8 andpush those legs down andput a pin through them so that 9 they're at six feet. Actually, when I get into a tank, I 10 wouldhave to get down and look at it like this, but, still, 11 there are people that are actuallybuilt for this, and they 12 get towalk in there and don't have to duck andworkunder 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 whenyou do the inspection. There are some difficulties. 18 You must if you have a double seal, thenyou 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 canbebreaks between the two so that petroleum 2 products can get inbetween the upper and lower seal? 3 MR. WARD: That may be. I'dhave to say that 4 I'mnot sure, but frommy investigationof it, it looks like 5 the two

-- the five year and the tenyear, or actually the 6 double seal and single seal, came fromdifferent regulations 7 and thenkind of came together. It looks tome frommy 8 investigation like a double seal one of the two types may 9 have actuallybeen for an external floating roof originally, 10 so in otherwords where there's an external fleeting roof, 11 someone could go down on the roof and inspect itmore often, 12 whereas, with an internal floating roof, you wouldn't want 13 someone going into the tankvery often. Sowhat theywere 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 canhave themdo it every five years. Where it's not easy 17 I'mgoing to have them look through the roof top everymonth 18 or annually and then every tenyears I'll have themgo in. 19 I think that that was the reasoning. 20 MR. STICKNEY: My thinking asjust a pure 21 laymanwouldbe that with a double seal you ought tobe able 22 to do it maybe every 20 in reverse of the single seal. I'm 23 ,• gladyou explained that for my knowledge. Thankyou. 24 MR. TEWHEY: Mr. Soucy? 25 MR. SOUCY: When you use the word degas, are

ALLEY 

### &MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-00591 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 topumping liquidgas out or fumes? MR. v7ARD: It's fumes. Actually, you remove all of the produce, and thenyou would remove all of the vapors. We're talking about vapors whenwe'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. Youmay inspect the bottomof the tank at the

same time. One of the otherrecommendations 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 orhave release preventionbarriers so that there is double protection on thebottom. You wouldn't have to inspect them

as often. Well, if I had to still inspect themat tenyears when the other regulation says it's okay for 20, I'm actually forcing a company like ourselves

-- whenwe go in, we're going to inspect thebottom 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-- whenyou're filling that, you don't necessarily empty itbeforeyou fill it again. So it could

ALLEY 

### &MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207)626-00591 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 tenyears 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 maybe a littlevapor on top of that rightbelow the roof, but it's staying there in the

same place. Soyou never lift that off. If I land the legs and I keep takingproduct out, what happens is I get evaporation, and so you're filling that withvapor, and then when I fill it withproduct, I'm filling itbelow the roof, I fill itbackup, that vapor goes away. That vapor comes out the top, andwe get emissions. So the regulations actually say that unless in emergency situations, you do not bring itbelow the legs. MR. TEWHEY: Any otherquestions toMr. Ward? In the three attachments you have blueprint and redprint. I may havemissed that. What is the significance of the blue and the red? MR. WARD: Actually, itwas done slightly differently. I may have been trying to highlight. In each

one I was trying to highlight certain language. I looked at itmyself and saidwhy did I do it exactly that way, but at

ALLEY &MORRISETTE REPORTING SERVICE (207}626-00591 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 itwas -- if it is highlighted in color, I thought itwas important at least for some reason, and then certainly in one of them I wantedyou to look atjust 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 certainpiece of information and itdidn't necessarily translate all the way through. MR. TEWHEY: I had a right tobe confused. MR. WARD: That's right, as I probablywas when I was reading the regulations. MR. TEWHEY: Thankyou, Mr. Ward. Any questions toJeff? Jeff, doyou 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