Hpv policy evaluation
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 16

HPV Policy Evaluation PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 82 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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

Download Presentation

HPV Policy Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Hpv policy evaluation

HPV Policy Evaluation

Update on Workgroup Progress

R4 Air Enforcement Workshop

November 2012


The hpv policy background

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 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

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 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

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

    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%


    Hpv definition revised criteria workgroup recommendations

    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


    Hpv definition revised criteria workgroup recommendation oeca feedback

    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


    Hpv definition revised criteria workgroup recommendation oeca feedback1

    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


    Hpv definition revised criteria workgroup recommendation oeca feedback2

    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


    Hpv definition revised criteria workgroup recommendation oeca feedback3

    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


    Hpv definition revised criteria workgroup recommendation oeca feedback4

    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


    Oversight process

    Oversight Process

    • Some discussions to date – no working framework as yet


    Next steps

    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

    Questions & Discussion

    • Concerns about work to-date on criteria?

    • Key considerations for process development?


  • Login