HPV Policy Evaluation

Update on Workgroup Progress

R4 Air Enforcement Workshop

November 2012

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”

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

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

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.”

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

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”

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?

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

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

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

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

Oversight Process

Some discussions to date – no working framework as yet

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

Questions & Discussion

Concerns about work to-date on criteria? Key considerations for process

development?