HPV Policy Evaluation

1. HPV Policy Evaluation Update on Workgroup Progress R4 Air Enforcement Workshop November 2012

2. The HPV Policy- Background • Issued in 1998 as revision to Significant Violator policy • Contains criteria for defining an HPV • Establishes expectations for addressing HPVs in a timely & appropriate manner • Serves as “a tool for prioritizing which violations receive the highest scrutiny and oversight”

3. EPA Inspector General Report • EPA IG report in October 2009 criticized EPA & state handling of HPVs • Key findings included: • Regions and States did not follow the HPV policy • EPA HQ did not oversee regional & State performance • Regions did not oversee State HPV performance • IG Recommendations: • direct regions to comply with the HPV policy • make needed revisions to the policy • implement proper management controls over HPVs

4. HPV Policy Evaluation Workgroup • Created in early 2010 in response to IG Report • Led by Terri Dykes of OCE • Originally included representatives from all regions and several HQ offices • National organizations, state and local representatives invited to join in November 2010 • NESCAUM, NACAA • SC, OK, ME, NH, CO, Puget Sound, San Diego • Mission • Evaluate what revisions might be necessary to ensure the most effective implementation of an HPV policy

5. Workgroup Approach to Evaluate Policy • Workgroup’s current strategy is in two phases: • First, revise what violations are covered under the policy • Primary Goal: identify the most environmentally important violations that warrant additional oversight & intervention • Focusing on “providing an increased degree of agency flexibility in identifying . . . HPVs.” • Second, revise the “process” for oversight & intervention • Secondary Goal: document key federal, state & local agency actions on these most “environmentally important” violations. • Focusing on “providing an increased degree of agency flexibility in . . . resolving HPVs.”

6. Analysis of Current HPV Policy • Currently, an HPV is identified in 1 of 3 ways: • Ten General Criteria • A Matrix of Criteria (generally a 4-by-5 matrix) • A Discretionary Option • As of 2/2/10 - there were 3,016 active HPVs. • Too many violations captured in HPV ‘net’ - Each region had to discuss hundreds of cases on a monthly basis according the current policy. • 429 of these cases remain unaddressed < 270 days • Regions should “take over” these cases under current policy

7. HPV Designations • Over the 5 year period ending in Feb, 2010 - some 9409 HPVs recorded: GC1 – 570 or 6% GC6 – 774 or 8% CG2 – 626 or 7% GC7 – 2217 or 24% CG3 – 363 or 4% GC8 – 1042 or 11% CG4 – 193 or 2% GC9 – 281 or 3% CG5 – 1020 or 11% GC10 – 14 or 0.1% Discretionary – 1120 or 12% Matrix – 1097 or 12%

8. HPV Definition- Revised CriteriaWorkgroup Recommendations Eliminate the following as General Criteria Title V certification violations Failure to submit Title V application violations Violation of any local, state or federal order Violation of SM where actual emissions do not exceed major or significant thresholds Delete the Matrix, and accommodate emission violations into revised General Criteria Move Opacity violations to “discretionary” 8

9. HPV Definition- Revised CriteriaWorkgroup Recommendation & OECA feedback GC1 –Failure to obtain a NSR permit (and/or install BACT/LAER) for new major source or modification Include SM w/ actual or expected exceedance of threshold GC2 – Violation of emission limit, standard or parameter of NESHAP (parts 61 & 63) resulting in illegal emission of a HAP Exceeds EPCRA RQ for 7 days or more GC3 – Violation by SM of Major source limit/condition NSR included above – keep for Title V or NESHAP? GC4 – Violation of terms of order/decree – Eliminated OECA may want to reinstate – perhaps discretionary? 9

10. HPV Definition- Revised CriteriaWorkgroup Recommendation & OECA feedback GC5 – Violation of T5 cert. obligation – Eliminated Include as discretionary, with mutual consent of Region GC6 – Violation of obligation to submit T5 application – Eliminated Include as discretionary, with mutual consent of Region GC7 – Violations involving testing, monitoring, record-keeping that interfere with enforcement Case-by-case determination of “substantial interference” Does not include emission limit violations 10

11. HPV Definition- Revised CriteriaWorkgroup Recommendation & OECA feedback GC8 – Continuous violation of emission limit, standard or parameter in permit or NSPS Violation lasts more than 7 days Results in excess emissions exceeding threshold Option A: any exceedance Option B: % of the limit (e.g. 5% or 15%) Option C: exceed significance threshold (none exists for opacity) GC9 – Violation by chronic/recalcitrant source – Eliminated Include as discretionary, with mutual consent of Region GC10 – Violations of CAA 112(r) - Eliminated Further discussion with RMP program needed 11

12. HPV Definition- Revised CriteriaWorkgroup Recommendation & OECA feedback Matrix Criteria – Eliminated Incorporated elsewhere Discretionary Requires mutual agreement of State/Local & Region National Initiative Violations – Eliminated Workgroup proposal with OECA suggested including as discretionary, as appropriate 12

13. HPV Definition- Revised CriteriaWorkgroup Recommendation & OECA feedback GC8 – Continuous violation of emission limit, standard or parameter in permit or NSPS Violation lasts more than 7 days Results in excess emissions exceeding threshold Option A: any exceedance Option B: % of the limit (e.g. 5% or 15%) Option C: exceed significance threshold (none exists for opacity) GC9 – Violation by chronic/recalcitrant source – Eliminated Include as discretionary, with mutual consent of Region GC10 – Violations of CAA 112(r) - Eliminated Further discussion with RMP program needed 13

14. Oversight Process • Some discussions to date – no working framework as yet

15. Next Steps • December call – finalize criteria & process • Brief Cynthia Giles • Draft policy for workgroup review in January • Request extension from IG deadline – currently February 2013

16. Questions & Discussion • Concerns about work to-date on criteria? • Key considerations for process development?