P. O. Box 9422
25 Cottage Road
South Portland, ME 04116-9422 

Scott T. Morelli City Manager 

Joshua Reny Assistant City Manager 

. 

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 

Via Electronic Mail Only (pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov) 

July 24, 2020 

Assistant Attorney General U.S. DOJ—ENRD
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, DC 20044-7611 

RE: United States, et al. v. Sprague Resources LP, et al., D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-11436 To Whom It May Concern, 

On behalf of Mayor Katherine Lewis, the South Portland City Council, and the City of South Portland, I hereby submit comments related to the proposed consent decree between Sprague and the United States, as referenced above. These comments were formulated by the City’s Clean Air Advisory Committee (CAAC) and approved unanimously by the City Council at their meeting on July 21, 2020. Our community is home to one of Sprague’s facilities where some of the alleged violations occurred. 

Concern that the Consent Decree does not require Sprague to obtain a license modification or amendment from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) 

•       The CAAC believes that all of the requirements imposed on Sprague under Appendix G of the Consent Decree should be included in the air emissions license administered by MEDEP through a license amendment process in order to allow MEDEP to exert enforcement authority.
•       The EPA’s complaint against Sprague alleges numerous violations of Maine law, including failures to seek MEDEP permission to make modifications to the South Portland facility. However, the Consent Decree does not mention a requirement for Sprague to obtain an air emissions license modification or amendment from MEDEP. If EPA agrees that these modifications do in fact require MEDEP approval, then the CAAC believes the Consent Decree should include a requirement that license be amended, since the company is making changes to its systems that are claimed to have an effect on the emissions of VOC’s and is resolving allegations of violating Maine law.
•       The Consent Decree imposes (i) throughput limits on the volume of asphalt and no. 6 oil, and (ii) limitations on the uses of tanks at the Sprague Facility. The consent decree in the recent Global case included specific language requiring Global to “apply for an amended State license for the Facility that incorporates conditions at least as stringent as those set forth [in the Global consent decree relating to product storage, tank heating conditions and throughput limitations]” within 60 days. While paragraph 20 of the Consent Decree does require Sprague to obtain permits as may be required, the CAAC believes that Consent Decree in the Sprague case should include the more specific language used in the consent decree entered in the Global case.
•       In addition, the CAAC believes strongly that there are reasons to treat the changes outlined in the Consent Decree as requiring a permit modification, rather than a minor revision. For instance, the
  Telephone (207) 767-7606  Fax (207) 767-7629 www.southportland.org

Carbon Systems described in the Consent Decree could fairly be described as emissions control technology. Furthermore, the proposed limits and changes to the operation of the facility are far from “administrative.” Finally, the uncertainties surrounding Sprague’s actual emissions (see below) suggest that the throughput limitations could themselves constitute an operational change resulting in an increase in emissions and thus constituting a full New Source Review process. 

Concern about the uncertainty and scale of Sprague’s actual emissions 

•       The CAAC has concerns about the estimated emissions of Sprague’s tank farm. The CAAC has reviewed and found compelling two calculations that call into question the accuracy of estimated emissions from tank farms in South Portland, in particular emissions calculations that use estimated vapor pressure for heated asphalt.
•       There is enough uncertainty to suggest true emissions data may show that Sprague may be emitting significantly above its calculated levels. The public is concerned about the health impacts associated with elevated tank farm emissions.
•       In the face of this uncertainty about true emissions, the CAAC believes the responsible path for this Consent Decree is to err on the side of public health and safety. The below comments offer suggestions for addressing this uncertainty and the risks it creates.
  Make actual emissions the basis of Sprague’s throughput limits
•       The throughput limits states in the Consent Decree don’t constitute an actual limit on Sprague’s emissions as they are not connected to true emissions. In fact, they may allow the facility to emit substantially more than it does today.
•       The CAAC strongly recommends that the Consent Decree require continuous, actual emissions monitoring, especially of heated tanks, and to set throughput limits based on this monitoring. Continuous emissions monitoring would eliminate the uncertainty that today surrounds Sprague’s emissions and provide credible data to understand true impact. The CAAC recommends making these data available to the public.

o If continuous monitoring is not deemed to be possible, then the CAAC would urge requiring a monitoring regime that measures actual emissions on a frequent basis when transfer operations are occurring and when the tanks are in use. 

o If such a monitoring regime is not possible, or not viable as the basis for setting limits, then the CAAC would urge the use of true vapor pressure when setting limits based on calculated emissions. The CAAC has heard concerns about the difficulties in measuring true vapor pressure for asphalt, and the potential variability in testing results. However, the CAAC still believes true vapor pressure provides a more accurate window into actual asphalt emissions than a calculated number, such as the estimated value used today by Sprague. The CAAC suggests a series of vapor pressure tests could be conducted to find an average (or range) of measured vapor pressures that could be used in calculations; this may address concerns around true vapor pressure testing. 

•       The CAAC also recommends a requirement that Sprague start monitoring its emissions immediately, in order to have baseline data and a comparison to show the effectiveness of the Carbon Systems and other potential measures in reducing emissions.
•       In summary, the CAAC sees continuous monitoring of actual emissions as the most protective and responsible option, and the subsequent alternatives as second- and third-best options that provide decreasing amounts of certainty and protection. The status quo of basing permit limits on calculations that use artificially low asphalt vapor pressure does not provide sufficient certainty or protection. The CAAC urges the incorporation of these requirements in the Consent Decree.

Page 2 of 3 

Allow South Portland to review the Design Plan and the Operation & Maintenance plan 

•       The CAAC believes the City of South Portland should be able to review and comment on the design plan and operation and maintenance plan that Sprague is required to adopt for the Carbon Systems described in the Consent Decree.
•       The CAAC recommends making more explicit that the Carbon Systems must be operational at all times.
  If tanks are converted in South Portland, require offsets in South Portland
•       The Consent Decree requires Sprague to offset emissions if it converts a tank in South Portland. However, it allows Sprague to generate that offset in any facility in New England.
•       A regional offset would mean higher pollution and health risks in South Portland. The CAAC views the opportunity for a regional offset as unacceptable. The emissions of concern are a local pollutant; any net adjustment should occur locally as well.
  Why no penalties in Maine?
•       The CAAC is surprised that the consent decree includes no penalties in the state of Maine. The underlying complaint alleges that Sprague violated Maine law. The CAAC struggles to understand why the Consent Decree does not include compensation to the state of Maine or the City of South Portland.
•       Regardless of the named parties to the suit, which do not include the State of Maine or the City of South Portland, the Consent Decree can, and should, include some provision for payment to the City, the State, or both, to reimburse the significant expense incurred in reacting to these violations.
  Thank you for your serious consideration of this matter, which is of utmost importance to our citizens. Sincerely,
  Scott Morelli City Manager

cc: City Council (via email only)
Clean Air Advisory Committee (via email only)
David Plumb, CAAC Facilitator (via email only) Adrian Kendall, Special Legal Counsel (via email only) 

Page 3 of 3