From: Koprowski, Paul
Sent: Mon May 20 13:48:15 2013
To: Vergeront, Julie
Cc: Spenillo, Justin; Suzuki, Debra; Fidis, Alexander; CURTIS Andrea; ROOT Jenny
Subject: RE: Request review of revisions to ODEQ enforcement rules.
Importance: Normal
Per our phone conversation earlier to I’m writing to confirm the DEQ would like our comments around mid-June. They will be posting the notice July 1 with a plan to bring the final rules to EQC in mid October.
Paul Koprowski
U.S. EPA; Oregon Operations Office
805 SW Broadway, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97205
(503) 326-6363
From: Vergeront, Julie
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:09 AM
To: Koprowski, Paul
Cc: Spenillo, Justin; Suzuki, Debra; Fidis, Alexander
Subject: RE: Request review of revisions to ODEQ enforcement rules.
I will review. What is the timing?
Julie A. Vergeront
Assistant Regional Counsel
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-1497
Confidential communication for internal deliberations only; attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or enforcement privilege; do not distribute outside EPA or DOJ
From: Koprowski, Paul
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:19 PM
To: Vergeront, Julie
Cc: Spenillo, Justin; Suzuki, Debra; Fidis, Alexander
Subject: Request review of revisions to ODEQ enforcement rules.
Hi Julie,
Subsequent to a SIP planning call this morning with Justin el al, and in response to your message dated 5/14 I am sending you a copy of the latest revisions to the ODEQ enforcement rules. The main reason for updating the rules was to implement an increase in the size of the maximum penalty in Oregon approved by the legislature last year.
DEQ asked me to be on the advisory group tasked with reviewing and suggesting changes to the rules. I should note this is not only about an increase in penalty amounts. It’s also about how those penalties are calculated and like you said in your message the state has much latitude in how they do this. I know you are familiar with their penalty matrix. They’ve made a few changes as a result of this process.
I appreciate you taking a look at it. If you have any questions or need any additional information please let me know.
Thanks,
Paul
Paul Koprowski
U.S. EPA; Oregon Operations Office
805 SW Broadway, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97205
(503) 326-6363
From: Vergeront, Julie
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:07 PM
To: Fidis, Alexander; Spenillo, Justin; Suzuki, Debra
Subject: RE: Civil Penalty Increase - SIP change?
We do want DEQ to submit these regulations to us as part of the SIP because they are part of ODEQ’s authority for enforcing the SIP. For example, if ODEQ changed their penalty matrix so as to limit penalties for PSD violations to $200, we would want to know about it and should respond that that the state wouldn’t have adequate enforcement authority if it made such a change. Granted, here is an increase, but we need to be aware of and, if needed, comment on how they are changing their enforcement authority.
But we don’t want to IBR them because neither we nor the public (under the citizen suit provision) would rely on those provisions in enforcing the requirements of the SIP.
I have reviewed and commented on Division 12 in the past and can do so again this time around. The state has a lot of discretion in this area, but there are limits to the state’s discretion.
Julie A. Vergeront
Assistant Regional Counsel
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-1497
Confidential communication for internal deliberations only; attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and/or enforcement privilege; do not distribute outside EPA or DOJ
From: Fidis, Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:02 PM
To: Spenillo, Justin; Suzuki, Debra; Vergeront, Julie
Subject: RE: Civil Penalty Increase - SIP change?
Julie, feel free to chime in if I’m off base here….
I don’t see an issue approving the DEQs proposed enforcement procedures and penalty amounts and in some cases these procedures might be a vital part of the control strategy (e.g., citation enforcement of burn bans in Klamath and Oakridge). That said, we wouldn’t IBR the state’s enforcement procedures and penalty amounts because the substantive regulations approved in a SIP are federally enforceable under the CAA which sets out the relevant EPA/citizen enforcement procedures and penalty amounts.
From: Spenillo, Justin
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:45 PM
To: Suzuki, Debra; Vergeront, Julie; Fidis, Alexander
Subject: FW: Civil Penalty Increase - SIP change?
Julie / Alex / Debra,
In our last few actions, we have approved Division 12 (Oregon Enforcement Procedures and Civil Penalties) but not IBR’d the rules into the SIP. My understanding is that they support the SIP but do not necessarily need our approval or even need to be submitted.
1. Is my understanding correct?
2. Should we continue to proceed as in the past by having them submit and then approving but not IBR – or - can we advise Oregon that they do not need submit these at all?
All thoughts welcome,
Justin
From: CURTIS Andrea [mailto:CURTIS.Andrea@deq.state.or.us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:43 AM
To: Spenillo, Justin
Subject: Civil Penalty Increase - SIP change?
Justin,
We’re performing an additional rulemaking that might be part of the SIP under part 1.L. on the attachment. The rulemaking would increase the dollar amount of civil penalties. It affects chapter 340 division 12. It’s being performed by DEQ’s Enforcement program, not the Air Quality program.
Is an increase in penalty amounts considered a change to the SIP? If yes, how can we get an EPA project manager assigned to work with the rulewriter and me? DEQ’s Enforcement program wants to begin DEQ’s public notice for the rulemaking in mid June this year.
Thanks,
Andrea Curtis
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
503-229-5946