hi janet, please see information below re: a settlement ...attachment "2011 ozone naaqs nsr...

Anna Wood/DC/USEPA/US

09/30/2010 06:56 AM

To Janet McCabe

cc Carol Kemker, Steve Page

bcc

Subject Re: Time Sensitive: Settlement Proposal in Litigation with Sierra Club and Kentucky Environmental Foundation

OK, thanks! Carol please let me know if you need anything else from us at this time and thank you for coordinating so closely with us on this. _______________________________Anna Marie WoodOffice of Air Quality Planning & StandardsU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAQPD (C504-01)109 T.W. Alexander DriveResearch Triangle Park, NC 27711Phone: (919) 541- 5504Fax: (919) 541- 4028

Re: Time Sensitive: Settlement Proposal in Litigation with Sierra Club and Kentucky Environ...

Re: Time Sensitive: Settlement Proposal in Litigation with Sierra Club and Kentucky Environmental Foundation

Janet McCabe to: Anna Wood 09/29/2010 11:30 PM

Cc: Steve Page, Carol Kemker

If you guys and OGC are ok with it, then I'm ok with it.

Janet McCabePrincipal Deputy Assistant AdministratorOffice of Air and Radiation, USEPARoom 5426K, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC [email protected]

-----Anna Wood/DC/USEPA/US wrote: -----

To: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPAFrom: Anna Wood/DC/USEPA/USDate: 09/29/2010 06:25PMcc: Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Carol Kemker/R4/USEPA/US@EPASubject: Time Sensitive: Settlement Proposal in Litigation with Sierra Club and Kentucky Environmental Foundation

Hi Janet, please see information below re: a settlement proposal in the referenced litigation.

OAQPS and R 4 are OK with the proposal. We just wanted to check in with you to make sure

Scott Jordan/DC/USEPA/US

05/12/2010 03:54 PM

To Gina McCarthy, Janet McCabe

cc Richard Ossias, Elliott Zenick, Raj Rao, David Painter, Anna Wood, Susan Tennenbaum

bcc

Subject Wisconsin NSR Reform SIP Litigation Update

Gina and Janet -

This email provides an update on the litigation arising from our approval of Wisconsin's adoption of the NSR Reform provisions into their SIP.

BACKGROUND: In December 2008, we approved Wisconsin's SIP submission adopting the 2002 NSR Reform provisions. 73 FR 76,560. In response to that action, NRDC and Sierra Club filed both a court petition in the 7th Circuit and a petition for reconsideration with us. The court petition has been stayed pending our reconsideration.

UPDATE: We published our denial of the NRDC/Sierra Club petition for reconsideration on March 8, 2010. 75 FR 10,415. On May 7, 2010, NRDC and Sierra Club filed the attached petition challenging our denial of their petition for reconsideration.

NEXT STEPS: The expected next steps in this litigation are to (1) have this recently filed court petition consolidated with the stayed court petition from last year, and (2) work out a proposed schedule for briefing these challenges.

Please let me know if you would like additional information on this.

Scott

Anna Wood/RTP/USEPA/US

08/04/2011 09:23 PM

To Janet McCabe

cc

bcc

Subject Re: NSR Permitting insert for the ozone implementation rule

Yes you did reply so we are set.Janet McCabe

----- Original Message ----- From: Janet McCabe Sent: 08/04/2011 07:49 PM EDT To: Anna Wood Cc: Lydia Wegman; Richard Wayland; Rosalina Rodriguez; Scott Mathias; Steve Page Subject: Re: NSR Permitting insert for the ozone implementation ruleThanks, Anna. Did I already reply to this? I did in my mind, if not in fact-

....


Anna Wood 08/03/2011 06:11:52 PMHi Janet, attached is the excerpt from th...

From: Anna Wood/RTP/USEPA/USTo: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia

Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/03/2011 06:11 PMSubject: NSR Permitting insert for the ozone implementation rule

Hi Janet, attached is the excerpt from the ozone implementation package that addresses the implications of the revised ozone NAAQS for NSR/PSD permitting.

Thanks, Anna

[attachment "2011 Ozone NAAQS NSR Implementation language 080311.docx" deleted by Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US] _______________________________Anna Marie WoodDirector, Air Quality Policy DivisionOffice of Air Quality Planning & Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency109 T.W. Alexander DriveResearch Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: (919) 541-3604Fax: (919) 541-5509

Seth Oster/DC/USEPA/US

09/16/2011 07:58 AM

To "Lisa Jackson", "Bob Perciasepe", "Laura Vaught", "Arvin Ganesan", "Sarah Pallone", "Betsaida Alcantara", "Brendan Gilfillan", "Stephanie Owens", Scott Fulton, "Diane Thompson", Gina McCarthy, "Joseph Goffman", "Janet McCabe", "Lisa Garcia", Bob Sussman, "Michael Goo"

cc

bcc

Subject Morning; Energy: Sierra Club blasting Obama’s punt on smog standards in a Spanish-language ads

The Sierra Club is blasting Obama’s punt on smog standards today in a Spanish-language ad running in Reno and Las Vegas. The ad, which a club official tells ME will run for four weeks “in heavy saturation,” tells viewers (in Spanish) that: “President Obama had the chance to clean the air, but he decided that clean air and our children can wait. … Obama, honor your word and protect us from pollution.” The ad: http://bit.ly/oxA4aJ<http://bit.ly/oxA4aJ>.

Shannon Kenny/DC/USEPA/US

04/04/2011 11:28 AM

To Michael Goo

cc Alex Barron

bcc

Subject Fw: FYI: Cancelled: Briefing for Early Guidance on RTR for Pulp and Paper

fyi looks like we're getting an extension on Pulp & Paper RTR --

Shannon KennyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency202-566-2964

----- Forwarded by Shannon Kenny/DC/USEPA/US on 04/04/2011 11:28 AM -----

From: Karen Thundiyil/DC/USEPA/USTo: Shannon Kenny/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lesley Schaaff/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin

Kime/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ann Johnson/DC/USEPA/USDate: 04/04/2011 10:27 AMSubject: FYI: Cancelled: Briefing for Early Guidance on RTR for Pulp and Paper

Hi -

FYI - this Early Guidance briefing on the Pulp & Paper RTR (Tier 2) has been cancelled. A reschedule has not been sent. I talked to the program office & OGC this morning and I understand a primary reason for canceling the meeting is to see if a 6-9 month extension will be granted. (This action is on a tight timeline w/ critical ICR data only arriving a week before the NPRM deadline.) OGC will talk to the litigants (Sierra Club) in the next few days/next week about getting an extension as well try to learn what RTRs are of particular interest. Let me know if you have any questions.

Karen.

----- Forwarded by Karen Thundiyil/DC/USEPA/US on 04/04/2011 10:15 AM -----

Cancelled: Briefing for Early Guidance on Risk and Technology Review (RTR) for Pulp and Paper Subpart S (SAN 5469, Tier 2)Mon 04/04/2011 3:00 PM - 4:00 PMAttendance is optional for Karen ThundiyilChair: Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/USSent By: Cindy Huang/DC/USEPA/USLocation: Location TBD conference: access:

Gina McCarthy

has cancelled this meeting. Your calendar will be updated to reflect this change.

Bill Schrock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Cynthia Giles-AA/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Edward

Shira Sternberg/DC/USEPA/US

05/18/2010 06:53 PM

To Lee Veal

cc Beth Craig, Drew McConville, Janet McCabe

bcc

Subject Re: OAR Submission on our NGO call

Thanks- can you send me titles for the below folks

OAR (Janet McCabe, Beth Craig, Steve Page managers and staff from OAQPS)

Shira [email protected] (cell)202-564-0467 (office)

Lee Veal 05/18/2010 06:42:35 PMOAR, Region 4 and Region 6 Conferen...

From: Lee Veal/DC/USEPA/USTo: [email protected]: Beth Craig/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Drew

McConville/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 05/18/2010 06:42 PMSubject: OAR Submission on our NGO call

OAR, Region 4 and Region 6 Conference Call with NGOs on Air IssuesMay 18, 2010, 4:00-5:00 pm

Participants: American Lung Association (Paul Billings, Janice Nolan)Louisiana Environmental Action Network or LEAN (Wilma Subra)NRDC (Gina Solomon, Miriam Rotkin-Ellman)Bucket Brigade (invited but did not participate)

OAR (Janet McCabe, Beth Craig, Steve Page managers and staff from OAQPS)OA (Janet Woodka)OSWER (Mathy Stanislaus)Region 4 (Stan Meiburg, Scott Gordon, Carol Kemker)Region 6 (David Gray)

OAR, in partnership with Regions 4 and 6, led a conference call with key stakeholders (NGOs) to discuss EPA's air monitoring and data analysis progress to date, to hear questions and concerns from participants, to identify other NGOs with interests in air pollution activities related to the oil spill response, and to determine a path forward for how to regularly communicate on air issues related to the oil spill.

Our presentation of progress to date, data reported, and sampling methodology was appreciated. Participants asked a number of technical questions and we identified follow-up actions which will be quite helpful to both EPA and the public. We agreed to hold a similar call in one week, and in the meantime, to provide the NGOs with a technical point of contact for detailed questions.

One additional NGO was identified by the participants: Dr. Beverly Wright from the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice.

IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR INTERAGENCY DISCUSSION : One NGO (Gina Solomon) reported that families of the fishermen/women who are now working on the response are experiencing health impacts from air emissions at sea . She also reported that BP has referenced the EPA on -shore and ASPECT data as indicators that air quality would not impact their health and that respirators were not necessary .

Joel Beauvais 04/06/2011 11:21:56 AMGreg (Spraul) - I would like to review thi...

From: Joel Beauvais/DC/USEPA/USTo: Simma Kupchan/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Becky Mitschele/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Grant MacIntyre/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Greg

Spraul/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Louis Eby/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nina Bonnelycke/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard Witt/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gregory Peck/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/06/2011 11:21 AMSubject: Re: Peterson 18 response - Fw: Request for responses to HOUSE Agriculture Committee Hearing

Questions for the Record

Greg (Spraul) - I would like to review this before it gets incorporated into the responses to QFRs. I'll be in touch once I've had a chance to do so. Thanks.

Joel

Joel BeauvaisSpecial Counsel to the Office of the AdministratorOffice of General CounselU.S. Environmental Protection Agency(202) 564-1684

Simma Kupchan 04/05/2011 06:20:16 PMJoel, Louis, and Greg (Louis said to se...

From: Simma Kupchan/DC/USEPA/USTo: Joel Beauvais/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Louis Eby/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Greg

Spraul/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Richard Witt/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Grant MacIntyre/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Becky

Mitschele/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nina Bonnelycke/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 04/05/2011 06:20 PMSubject: Peterson 18 response - Fw: Request for responses to HOUSE Agriculture Committee Hearing

Questions for the Record

Joel, Louis, and Greg (Louis said to send this to Greg, and cc'd both Gregs, so if this was intended for Greg Peck, please forward to him) --

(I received direction to write this response from both Joel and Louis (via Becky); I assume the two of you are coordinating with each other.)

Attached please find a response to Peterson 18. Thanks to Becky Mitschele and Nina Bonnelycke for their input.

[attachment "Peterson 18 - House Ag Inquiry_4-1-11 OGC.docx" deleted by Joel Beauvais/DC/USEPA/US]

Simma A. KupchanWater Law OfficeEPA Office of General CounselAriel Rios North, Room 7426G(202) 564-3105

----- Forwarded by Simma Kupchan/DC/USEPA/US on 04/05/2011 06:14 PM -----

From: Steven Neugeboren/DC/USEPA/US

To: Sylvia Horwitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Simma Kupchan/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Richard Witt/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gautam Srinivasan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lee

Schroer/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 03/31/2011 05:29 PMSubject: Fw: Request for responses to HOUSE Agriculture Committee Hearing Questions for the Record

Simma - can you take care of this?

Steve NeugeborenAssociate General CounselWater Law OfficeEPA Office of General Counsel202-564-5488fax 202-564-5477----- Forwarded by Steven Neugeboren/DC/USEPA/US on 03/31/2011 05:27 PM -----

From: Joel Beauvais/DC/USEPA/USTo: Steven Neugeboren/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lee Schroer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gautam

Srinivasan/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Grant MacIntyre/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Avi Garbow/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 03/31/2011 01:11 PMSubject: Fw: Request for responses to HOUSE Agriculture Committee Hearing Questions for the Record

Steve, Lee, Gautam -

OGC is going to have the lead on providing responses to the following QFRs from the 3/10 Ag Committee hearing. Deadline to provide draft responses to OCIR is COB Wednesday , April 13.

WLO should take responsibility for the QFRs in Peterson 18 (below). Responses, as you probably know, should be as concise and narrow as possible. I would like to have a chance to review and comment on draft responses before they go to OCIR, so if you can get them to me by COB Tuesday, April 12th, that would be great.

For Peterson 19 (below), I will take the lead in drafting a response, which I will circulate to the relevant law offices for comment. BTW, we will also have longer-term responsibilities in relation to the Peterson doc request for settlements dating from 2006 (Peterson 16 and 17 - not included below), but I will discuss those with you and mgmt for the other law offices separately.

Thanks - let me know if you have questions or concerns.

Joel

Peterson 18. The following questions relate to the settlement agreement that EPA signed with the Waterkeeper Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Sierra Club on May 25, 2010:

When was the proposed settlement agreement published for public comment? Is the final settlement agreement posted on either EPA’s or the Department of Justice’s

website? EPA has stated that its determinations on whether or not to settle with a petitioner are

based on case-by-case determinations of legal risk and the requirements of the law. Please explain in detail why EPA determined that it was necessary to settle with the environmental petitioners (Waterkeeper Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Sierra Club).

Why were the agricultural petitioners (National Pork Producers Council, National Chicken Council, and American Farm Bureau Federation) not included in the settlement negotiations? Did the Department of Justice or EPA make the decision not to include the agricultural petitioners in the settlement negotiations?

Since the settlement agreement was reached with the environmental petitioners, has EPA conducted settlement negotiations with the agricultural petitioners?

In negotiating and entering into this settlement agreement, what considerations did EPA make regarding the increased regulatory burden that would be placed on the owners or operators of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)?

EPA will soon be publishing a proposed rule to effectuate the policy changes that EPA agreed to implement in the settlement agreement. If there is a public comment period for the proposed rule, does EPA have the flexibility to make substantive changes to the proposed rule following the comment period, or is EPA legally bound to adhere to the settlement agreement? If EPA were to make substantive changes to the proposed rule, what legal effect would such changes have on the settlement agreement?

The settlement agreement requires EPA to collect detailed information from CAFO owners or operators. The information will be made public unless there is a showing that the information is a confidential trade secret, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1318(b). What does EPA consider to be a confidential trade secret? For instance, would owner/operator names, locations, numbers of animals, whether a CAFO has a nutrient management plan, or whether a CAFO has applied for an NPDES permit be made public?

How does EPA plan to use the information that it collects? On March 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5

th Circuit ruled that EPA could not

mandate that a CAFO that “proposes” to discharge obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. How will this ruling impact the settlement agreement and the expected proposed rule?

Peterson 19. When EPA is negotiating a settlement, and it becomes clear that the agency will propose a rule as a result of the settlement, does EPA conduct an economic analysis of the impact of the impending regulation during settlement negotiations? If not, does EPA conduct an economic analysis of the impact during the rulemaking process? If the economic analysis shows problems with the proposed rule, does EPA have the authority to change the rule, or would that negate the settlement agreement?

----- Forwarded by Joel Beauvais/DC/USEPA/US on 03/31/2011 12:50 PM -----

From: Grant MacIntyre/DC/USEPA/USTo: Leslye Fraser/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Steven Neugeboren/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard

Ossias/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary-Kay Lynch/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Joel Beauvais/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 03/31/2011 09:31 AMSubject: Fw: Request for responses to HOUSE Agriculture Committee Hearing Questions for the Record

Here is another set of QFRs. Please continue to work with your clients on these questions.

Joel may have additional follow-up requests.

Thanks,

Grant B. MacIntyreSpecial AssistantU.S. EPA Office of General Counsel----- Forwarded by Grant MacIntyre/DC/USEPA/US on 03/31/2011 09:26 AM -----

From: Sven-Erik Kaiser/DC/USEPA/USTo: Robin Kime/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gerard Kraus/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Randy

Deitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Fegley/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Megan Maguire/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gregory Peck/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Matthew Klasen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry Weinstock/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Douglas Parsons/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Grant MacIntyre/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Valerie Green/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gene Pontillo/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lawrence Elworth/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Greg Spraul/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Pamela Janifer <[email protected]>, Denis Borum <[email protected]>, Cheryl Mackay/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Diann Frantz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, [email protected], Carolyn Levine/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 03/30/2011 05:38 PMSubject: Request for responses to HOUSE Agriculture Committee Hearing Questions for the Record

DEADLINE: COB Wednesday, April 13, 2011

SUBJECT: Questions for the Record from the House Agriculture Committee Hearing on EPA and Agriculture

COMMENTS: Attached for response are Questions for the Record from the House Ag Committee hearing on March 10, 2011. Please send draft responses to OCIR by the deadline .

[attachment "QFR.HAG.3.10.11.docx" deleted by Joel Beauvais/DC/USEPA/US]

Legislative contacts -- Attached are Questions for the Record for the HOUSE Agriculture Committee Hearing held on 3/10/11.

The QFRs are provisionally assigned to AAships as follows. Please let me know if any questions. Thanks,Sven

Lucas1-4 OSWER5-12 OAR

Johnson1 OW

Roby1 OW2,5 OAR3-4 OSWER

Schmidt1,5-11 OCSPP2-4 OW & OGC

Cardoza1 OW2-3 OCSPP

Ribble1 OSWER

McIntyre1 Ag Advisor Elworth2 OAR3 OW

Huelskamp1 OSWER2 OAR

Kissel1 OAR2 OECA

Fortenberry1 OSWER2 OAR

Hultgren1-6 OW7 OSWER

Tipton1 OW, OAR, OCSPP2 OW, OAR, OCSPP, OSWER

Peterson1 OARM2 OCSPP3-4 OAR5-6 OW7 OCFO, OECA8-13 OAR14-15 OCSPP16-19 OECA

Rooney/Southerland1-5 OW

Sven-Erik KaiserU.S. EPAOffice of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (1305A)Washington, DC 20460202-566-2753

Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US

04/27/2010 08:14 AM

To Gina McCarthy

cc Peter Tsirigotis

bcc

Subject Re: NSPS

We will get you an updated list this morningGina McCarthy

----- Original Message ----- From: Gina McCarthy Sent: 04/27/2010 07:58 AM EDT To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Janet McCabe; Joseph Goffman Subject: NSPSJanet, Joe and I are mtg with the Administrator et al at 4:00 to talk more BACT and NSPS. I can't seem to put my hands on a short list of the NSPS petitions and court actions that involve GHGs, along with timelines. Do you have a list like that? If you do, can we work with Patricia to update this so I can characterize appropriately the legal issues and ost recent conversations with Sierra Club and others now that GHGs will be regulated in January?

Arvin Ganesan/DC/USEPA/US

01/17/2012 08:41 AM

To Gina McCarthy

cc

bcc

Subject Re: Fw: boiler MACT letter revised

she's up to speed and I believe a call will happen today.

Gina McCarthy 01/17/2012 08:39:59 AMArvin - Is the Administrator up to speed...

From: Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/USTo: [email protected]: 01/17/2012 08:39 AMSubject: Fw: boiler MACT letter revised

Arvin - Is the Administrator up to speed on this issue and has she made a call to Sierra Club? So we need to set up a time to walk her thru this?

----- Forwarded by Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US on 01/17/2012 08:39 AM -----

From: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US To: Arvin Ganesan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Avi Garbow/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lorie Schmidt/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Patricia Embrey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve

Page/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Phillip Brooks/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 01/16/2012 09:46 PM Subject: Re: boiler MACT letter revised

Take two... Phil--


-----Arvin Ganesan/DC/USEPA/US wrote: ----- To: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lorie Schmidt/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gina

McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Patricia Embrey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Avi Garbow/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPAFrom: Arvin Ganesan/DC/USEPA/USDate: 01/16/2012 06:46PMSubject: Re: boiler MACT letter revised

I don't see an attachment. Can you pls resend?

Sent from my Blackberry Wireless Device

From: Janet McCabe Sent: 01/16/2012 05:47 PM EST To: Lorie Schmidt; Gina McCarthy; Joseph Goffman; Patricia Embrey; Avi Garbow; Steve Page; Peter Tsirigotis; Arvin Ganesan Subject: boiler MACT letter revised

Attached is a revised version of the boiler letter, integrating everyone's comments. Please review and send comments so we can finalize

Janet McCabePrincipal Deputy Assistant AdministratorOffice of Air and Radiation, USEPARoom 5426K, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC [email protected] [attachment "Boiler letter 1-16-12 with changes.doc" deleted by Arvin Ganesan/DC/USEPA/US]

Arvin Ganesan/DC/USEPA/US

01/18/2012 09:42 AM

To Patricia Embrey, Janet McCabe

cc Avi Garbow, Phillip Brooks

bcc

Subject Re: a few more edits

I - as well as LPJ - have informed sierra club that this letter is coming.

Thx

Sent from my Blackberry Wireless DevicePatricia Embrey

----- Original Message ----- From: Patricia Embrey Sent: 01/18/2012 09:37 AM EST To: Janet McCabe Cc: Arvin Ganesan; Avi Garbow; Phillip Brooks Subject: Re: a few more editsA couple of fixes including to clarify that incinerators are also covered here. Avi -- Is there a plan to touch base with Sierra Club before sending this out, given the prior discussions that have occurred?

[attachment "boiler 10 PM 1-17-12 ogc.doc" deleted by Arvin Ganesan/DC/USEPA/US]

Janet McCabe 01/17/2012 10:39:29 PMThis version includes Avi's suggestions,...

From: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/USTo: Arvin Ganesan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Avi Garbow/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Patricia

Embrey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Phillip Brooks/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/17/2012 10:39 PMSubject: a few more edits

This version includes Avi's suggestions, and some very good but small edits from Lorie.

Janet McCabePrincipal Deputy Assistant AdministratorOffice of Air and Radiation, USEPARoom 5426K, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC [email protected][attachment "boiler 10 PM 1-17-12.doc" deleted by Arvin Ganesan/DC/USEPA/US]

Avi Garbow/DC/USEPA/US

11/30/2010 07:45 PM

To Gina McCarthy

cc

bcc

Subject Re: Boiler MACT

Will give you a call in about ten minutes, ok?Gina McCarthy

----- Original Message ----- From: Gina McCarthy Sent: 11/30/2010 07:43 PM EST To: Avi Garbow Subject: Re: Boiler MACTAvi - Can you call me or leave me your number? I am at 202-596-0247.

Gina McCarthy

----- Original Message ----- From: Gina McCarthy Sent: 11/30/2010 06:40 PM EST To: Avi Garbow Subject: Re: Boiler MACTAvi - happy to have you join. Let me see what I can arrange.

Avi Garbow

----- Original Message ----- From: Avi Garbow Sent: 11/30/2010 06:34 PM EST To: Gina McCarthy Subject: Boiler MACTGina

Just spoke with scott and understand that you may try to re-engage with jane williams at sierra club regarding our path forward. I am happy to join such conversation(s), and am also happy to engage directly with jim pew as a follow up. Avi

Avi Garbow/DC/USEPA/US

11/30/2010 08:05 PM

To Gina McCarthy

cc

bcc

Subject Re: Boiler MACT

Just left you a message. I can be reached at (home) or (bb cell).

AviGina McCarthy

----- Original Message ----- From: Gina McCarthy Sent: 11/30/2010 07:43 PM EST To: Avi Garbow Subject: Re: Boiler MACTAvi - Can you call me or leave me your number? I am at 202-596-0247.

Gina McCarthy

----- Original Message ----- From: Gina McCarthy Sent: 11/30/2010 06:40 PM EST To: Avi Garbow Subject: Re: Boiler MACTAvi - happy to have you join. Let me see what I can arrange.

Avi Garbow

----- Original Message ----- From: Avi Garbow Sent: 11/30/2010 06:34 PM EST To: Gina McCarthy Subject: Boiler MACTGina

Just spoke with scott and understand that you may try to re-engage with jane williams at sierra club regarding our path forward. I am happy to join such conversation(s), and am also happy to engage directly with jim pew as a follow up. Avi

(b) (6) (b) (6)

Beth Craig/DC/USEPA/US

08/06/2009 09:05 AM

To Drew McConville

cc Gina McCarthy

bcc

Subject Re: Fw: ltr from environmental grps

dear Gina,

I have ORIA and our communications folks working on talking points that can be shared with the Third Floor. The talking points will be short and sweet since this document is part of the Emmanual Memo review.

Jon Edwards has also given a heads up with the other program offices so they are not surprised.

Needless to say, there is history here. Beth

Drew McConville 08/06/2009 08:59:41 AMGina, Sorry if you didn't get my email y...

From: Drew McConville/DC/USEPA/USTo: Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Beth Craig/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 08/06/2009 08:59 AMSubject: Re: Fw: ltr from environmental grps

Gina,Sorry if you didn't get my email yesterday about this, but here's the summary:

The letter asks you, Mathy Stanislaus, Pete Silva, Scott Fulton, and Patricia Hirsch for a meeting to discuss 4 issues of concern (all from ORIA) that originated in the previous administration:

Weakened Protective Action Guides (PAGs) -- they say the proposed revisions would allow 1.radioactivity in drinking water far above SDWA and CERCLA levels and relax cleanup standards for the National Priorities List (they specifically ask that the AAs not make a decision on PAGs until meeting with them and completing the pending FOIA request)

Proposals for Federal Radiation Guidance Outside EPA 's Long-Held Acceptable Risk Range - they 2.urge the AAs to resist a push from ORIA to adopt guidance endorsing a 100 millirem/year radiation standard for the public (vs. 15 millirem/year)

Ignoring NAS Radiation Risk Findings - they say that ORIA's draft revision of the "Blue Book" for 3.cancer risk estimation proposes to ignore recent NAS findings re: low levels of ionizing radiation (BEIR VII). They also mention meddling with the SAB's Radiation Advisory Committee membership.

Allowing radioactive waste in landfills neither licensed nor designed for it - they don't provide many (if 4.any) details here.

Their document also includes hundreds of pages of attachments supporting the points in their letter.

Below I've pasted the text of the letter w/ a list of attachments (at the bottom). Let me know if you need anything else.

Drew202-564-7437202-713-7823 (blackberry)

************

Center for Health, Environment & Justice · Clean Water ActionCommittee to Bridge the Gap · Environment America · Food and Water WatchFriends of the Earth · Greenpeace · Massachusetts Citizens for Safe EnergyNatural Resources Defense Council · Nuclear Information and Resource ServiceProfessor Richard Clapp · Public Citizen · Sierra Club

5 August 2009

The Honorable Gina McCarthyAssistant AdministratorOffice of Air and Radiation

The Honorable Mathy StanislausAssistant AdministratorOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

The Honorable Peter SilvaAssistant AdministratorOffice of Water

The Honorable Scott FultonActing Deputy Administrator and General Counsel-Nominee

The Honorable Patricia HirschActing General CounselOffice of General Counsel

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAriel Rios Building1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20460

Dear Assistant Administrators McCarthy, Stanislaus, and Silva, and Acting DeputyAdministrator Fulton and Acting General Counsel Hirsch:

We write to call to your attention several disturbing initiatives commenced duringthe prior Administration that are still pending before the agency and which woulddramatically weaken public protections and have wide impacts across EPA, includingarenas for which you have responsibility. Although all of these problematic proposalswere initiated within Office of Air and Radiation’s (OAR) troubled Office of Radiationand Indoor Air (ORIA), they would also have significant impacts for Office of SolidWaste and Emergency Response (OSWER), the Office of Water (OW), and the Office ofGeneral Counsel (OGC). We ask to meet with you personally to discuss these in detail,before any action is taken.

I. Astronomically Weakened Protective Action GuidesPerhaps the most pressing matter is a proposed revision to EPA’s ProtectiveAction Guides (PAGs) for radiological releases. The Bush Administration, literally in itslast days in office, transmitted these highly controversial PAGs to the Federal Registerfor publication. In its first days in office, the Obama Administration pulled them backbefore they could be published, pending review by its new team at EPA. We presumeeach of you will be involved in that review. We understand that those who pushed for thePAGs in the prior Administration are encouraging you to let them go forward. Thiswould be a serious blow to public protections and to the entire structure of EPAregulation.

The Bush Administration’s proposed PAG revisions would have permittedradioactivity concentrations in drinking water orders of magnitude higher thanEPA’s long-held drinking water standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act (theMCLs or maximum contaminant levels) or the emergency drinking water standardsemployed under CERCLA. (See the attached graph and table showing theextraordinary proposed increases in permissible concentrations of radioactivity indrinking water.) As reported by Doug Guarino of Inside EPA in an award-winning serieson the PAG controversy, this assault by ORIA on the agency’s long-held drinking waterstandards appears to be a sub rosa effort to weaken those standards even after theagency—affirmed by the court—had previously rejected such an effort, finding itviolated anti-backsliding requirements. (See attached news articles.)

The PAG revision proposal put together in the prior Administration, and which itsadvocates in ORIA presumably are hoping to get you to allow to still be issued, wouldalso enormously relax long-term cleanup standards. EPA, as you know, has historicallylimited acceptable cancer risks to a range of one in a million to one in ten thousand (10 -4to 10 -6). For example, the nation’s most contaminated sites, those on the NationalPriority List, must be cleaned up to within that range. However, the Bush ORIAproposed throwing out those historical limits and replacing them with a processknown euphemistically as “optimization,” allowing cleanup standards that couldresult in exposures to the public as high as 10 rem per year over 30 years, theequivalent of approximately 50,000 chest X-rays, with a cancer risk that EPA itselfestimates at a breathtaking one in four! More recent radiation risk estimates by theNational Academy of Sciences, discussed below, would place the cancer risk from dosesthat high at one in three (3 x 10-1). In either case, the risk would be orders of magnitudeoutside EPA’s historic acceptable risk range. (See attached table).

The controversial “optimization” proposal first arose in the context of a taskforcein which EPA participated during the last Administration to produce PAGs for dealingwith “dirty bombs.” EPA opposed the optimization plan and recommended generallyusing CERCLA cleanup standards. Subsequently, however, EPA succumbed to pressurefrom other agencies and reluctantly acceded to “optimization” in the dirty bomb PAGs,which were finalized a few months before the fall election by the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS). Scores of public health and environmental organizationsrepeatedly for years opposed the dirty bomb PAGs.It would be ironic were the Obama EPA to now adopt general PAGs withprovisions that the Bush Administration EPA had originally opposed as non-protective.

We urge that the proposed revised EPA PAGs of general applicability not be issued withthese troubling components, and that the dirty bomb PAGs issued by DHS with EPAreluctant concurrence be revised to remedy the problematic aspects therein.

The problems in the PAG revisions crafted by ORIA during the priorAdministration which are pending before you are discussed in more detail in the attachedcorrespondence and study, as well as past correspondence about the dirty bomb PAGs,and we urge you and your key advisors to review them carefully before making anydecisions about the controversial PAGs.

Additionally, we understand that EPA is preparing a response to a Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA) request about the proposed PAGs. Since the FOIA asks for alldocuments identifying concerns raised about the ORIA PAG proposal, and since we arenot confident that ORIA will voluntarily disclose to you the criticisms its proposal hasreceived, both from within and outside the agency, we urge you to not make a decision asto whether you will support release of the proposed PAGs until after you have met withus and also the FOIA response is complete so that you can be provided copies of relevantdocuments that identified expressed concerns about the proposed PAGs.

II. Proposals for Non-Protective Federal Radiation Guidance Outside EPA’s Long-Held Acceptable Risk Range

During the prior Administration, ORIA also initiated several other disturbingefforts which were not consummated but which it might attempt to get you to nowapprove. For example, it has been pushing for relaxing overall radiation standards for thepublic. EPA has historically said that doses over approximately 15 millirem per year areunacceptable, outside an acceptable risk range. It has specifically criticized pastproposals to allow public doses of 25 millirem per year or greater, deeming such doselimits “non-protective.” However, ORIA during the prior Administration pushed to throwout that long position of EPA and adopt guidance endorsing a 100 millirem/year radiationstandard for the public. Over 70 years, that would be a risk of about 1 in 125 (~1x10 -2)according to the National Academy of Sciences, two to four orders of magnitude higherrisk than the EPA permissible risk range of 10 -4 to 10 -6. This would be very destructiveof public protections and would undermine the entire EPA regulatory structure, as everymanufacturer or user of carcinogenic chemicals would also then come in and demand tobe permitted to expose the public to at least a hundred times higher concentrations thannow permitted by EPA. We enclose prior correspondence sent to EPA during the BushAdministration about this matter.

III. Ignoring National Academy of Sciences Recent Radiation Risk Findings

In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council issued itslong-awaited study, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation.Since the 1970s, federal agencies with radiation protection responsibilities have asked theNAS to, from time to time, review the status of the science on risks from radiation.Called the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) reports, they are to form thebasis for radiation protection regulations. The most recent NAS report, BEIR VII, hadbeen performed at the request of and with funding from EPA.

BEIR VII found low doses of ionizing radiation to be more dangerous thanpreviously thought. Its estimate of the number of cancers produced per unit of doseincreased by about a third from the figure EPA had been using prior to the issuance ofBEIR VII. EPA historically has relied upon the NAS’s BEIR findings for establishingand/or reviewing a wide range of rules and guidance, from the Office of Water’sMaximum Concentration Limits (MCLs) for drinking water to the Office of Solid Waterand Emergency Response’s CERCLA soil Preliminary Remediation Goals.

During the waning days of the last Administration, ORIA proposed to revise its“Cancer Risk Estimation from Exposure to Ionizing Radiation” (the so-called “BlueBook”) which is used to establish cancer “SLOPE” factors for radionuclides. The cancerrisk estimates from the Blue Book in turn drive many if not all radiation protection rulesand guidance within EPA. This proposed revision was purportedly undertaken to takeinto account the new scientific findings from BEIR VII. However, in fact, ORIAproposed ignoring many of BEIR VII’s central findings and instead suggested usingradiation risk figures almost uniformly lower than the National Academy ofSciences had recommended. See the table taken from ORIA’s draft revised Blue Book,comparing its proposed radiation cancer risk figures against what BEIR VIIrecommended, reprinted in the attached letter to RAC of 20 February 2009.(It should be noted that many of us have been critical of aspects of BEIR VIIwhich tend to underestimate risks and ignore numerous studies suggesting considerablyhigher risks from radiation than BEIR VII assumes. However, what is striking in theORIA proposal is that its departures from BEIR VII risk estimates are almost uniformlyin the direction of reducing the risks and consequently increasing permitted publicexposures.)

This Administration has rightly pledged to end the politicization of science soendemic in the prior one. Here we have a many-year study by the National Academy ofSciences, performed at EPA request, and then in the guise of incorporating its findingsinto EPA guidance and rules, ORIA under the Bush Administration proposed using lowerrisk estimates than the Academy recommended, which would result in higher publicexposures and more resulting cancers than would derive from the Academy’s scientificrecommendations.

Adding to concerns about the politicization of science by the prior Administrationwere issues raised about the composition and activities of the Science Advisory Board’sRadiation Advisory Committee (RAC), which reviews certain of ORIA’s proposals likeits contemplated revisions to the Blue Book. Questions were raised about apparent bias,

conflicts of interest, lack of balance, raising issues about compliance with the FederalAdvisory Committee Act. Subsequently, just as the Administration was changing, EPA“augmented” the RAC with new members and extended the terms of the augmentedRAC, in essence trying to lock in the tilt for years into the new Administration. Theholdover RAC is now about to sign off on, with one exception, ORIA’s proposedalterations of the National Academy’s findings. We have attached relevantcommunications about these matters as well.

IV. Allowing Radioactive Waste in Landfills Neither Licensed Nor Designed for It

Finally, during the prior Administration, proposals were being considered to allowradioactive wastes to be disposed of in landfills neither licensed nor designed to receiveradioactive wastes and materials. Given the sad history of leakage of radioactive wastesfrom improper disposal, such a move is extremely worrisome from an environmentalstandpoint.

Because these proposals from the prior Administration to weaken radiationprotections would impact other divisions of EPA—e.g., the Superfund and drinking waterprograms—and because we understand that the review of the controversial PAG proposalfrom the prior administration will include each of you, we would hope to be able to meetwith all of you during the same period of a couple of days. This is particularly importantsince several participants may have to travel from other parts of the country for themeetings.

So, we would very much appreciate an appointment for you to meet with us andseveral others who signed the associated attached letters. Whatever assistance can beprovided to coordinate meetings for the same period would be much appreciated. Ourpoint of contact is Daniel Hirsch at [email protected] or (831) 336-8003.These are very important issues. President Obama was elected on a platform ofchange, and the efforts undertaken by the prior Administration to relax environmentalprotections should be high priorities for such change. We look forward to meeting withyou and working with you to bring that about.

Sincerely,Anne RabeLois GibbsCenter for Health, Environment & JusticeLynn ThorpClean Water ActionDaniel HirschCommittee to Bridge the GapAnna AurelioEnvironment AmericaWenonah HauterFood and Water WatchErich Pica

Friends of the EarthJim RiccioGreenpeaceMary Elizabeth LampertMassachusetts Citizens for Safe EnergyGeoff FettusNatural Resources Defense CouncilDiane D’ArrigoNuclear Information and Resource ServiceProfessor Richard ClappBoston University School of Public HealthAllison FisherPublic CitizenDave HamiltonSierra ClubCc: Senator Boxer, Chair, Environment & Public WorksSenator Bernie SandersCongressman Henry Waxman, Chair, Energy & CommerceCongressman Ed Markey, Chair, Subcommittee on Energy & the Environment

ATTACHMENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSI. PROPOSED WEAKENING OF PROTECTIVE ACTION GUIDES (PAGs) FORRADIOLOGICAL RELEASES• Charts Showing How Much the Proposed PAGs Would Weaken CurrentProtections♦ PAG v. MCL Table (2 pgs)♦ PAG v. MCL Graph (3 pgs)♦ Cancer Risks from Proposed Long-Term Cleanup “Optimization” (1 pg)• Correspondence and Study Regarding EPA Proposed Weakened PAGs♦10/30/08 Group Letter to EPA Administrator Johnson re PAGs (12 pgs)♦10/08 CBG PAG Study “Proposed Relaxation of EPA Drinking WaterStandards for Radioactivity” (103 pgs)• Articles About the PAG Controversy♦ “Last Act: Bush ‘Sign Off’ Weakened Radiation Exposure Limits” (2pgs)♦ “Inside EPA” Award-Winning Series on PAG Controversy (19 pgs)• Correspondence Regarding DHS “Dirty Bomb” PAGs♦12/2/04 Group Letter to EPA Administrator Leavitt (17 pgs)♦1/27/05 Superfund Groups Letter to Administrator Leavitt (5 pgs)♦4/14/06 Group Letter to DHS (24 pgs)

II. PROPOSALS FOR NON-PROTECTIVE RADIATION GUIDANCE OUTSIDEEPA’S LONG-HELD ACCEPTABLE RISK RANGE♦4/4/05 Group Letter to Acting Administrator Johnson Regarding Proposed100 mrem Radiation Guidance (10 pgs)

III. ORIA PROPOSALS TO WEAKEN NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCESRADIATION RISK ESTIMATES♦2/20/09 Letter to EPA Radiation Advisory Committee Regarding ORIA DraftRevisions to “EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and Projections for the U.S.Population” (8 pgs)♦9/26/09 Group Letter to Radiation Advisory Committee Regarding ORIAWhite Paper “Modifying EPA Radiation Risk Models Based on BEIR VII”(3 pgs)

Drew McConvillePMF Special Assistant to the Assistant AdministratorOffice of Air and RadiationU.S. Environmental Protection Agencyoffice: 202.564.7437cell: [email protected]

Gina McCarthy 08/06/2009 08:47:17 AMDrew - can you summarize in an email f...

From: Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/USTo: "Drew McConville" <[email protected]>Date: 08/06/2009 08:47 AMSubject: Fw: ltr from environmental grps

Drew - can you summarize in an email for me. I can't read the letter. Thx

----- Original Message -----From: Daniel O Hirsch [[email protected]]Sent: 08/05/2009 10:06 AM MSTTo: Gina McCarthySubject: ltr from environmental grps

Dear Assistant Administrator McCarthy,

Please find attached a letter to you from the Center for Health, Environment & Justice; Clean Water Action; Committee to Bridge the Gap; Environment America; Food and Water Watch; Friends of the Earth; Greenpeace; Massachusetts Citizens for Safe Energy; Natural Resources Defense Council; Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Professor Richard Clapp; Public Citizen; and the Sierra Club.

The letter calls to your attention a number of troubling proposals by the prior Administration to weaken environmental protections, initiatives that remain under consideration within EPA, and requests a meeting with you to discuss them.

The letter contains supporting attachments about these matters.

If you have trouble opening the file, or have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (831) 336-8003.

Sincerely,

Daniel HirschCommittee to Bridge the Gap

[attachment "080509LetterToEPA.pdf" deleted by Drew McConville/DC/USEPA/US]

Bob Perciasepe/DC/USEPA/US

01/28/2010 05:14 PM

To "Gina McCarthy"

cc "Adora Andy"

bcc

Subject Fw: GREENWIRE (NYT): Final NO2 Rule Cuts Back on Roadside Monitors

I thought we were going to call these folks and explain the 40?

Can we call to correct this with the reporter and get to ALA and O'Donnell

Bob PerciasepeOffice of the Administrator(o)202 564 4711(c) 202

Adora Andy

----- Original Message ----- From: Adora Andy Sent: 01/28/2010 05:07 PM EST To: Richard Windsor; Seth Oster; Allyn Brooks-LaSure; Bob Sussman; Bob Perciasepe; Diane Thompson; David McIntosh; Arvin Ganesan; Gina McCarthy Cc: Betsaida Alcantara; Brendan Gilfillan; Michael Moats; Stephanie Owens Subject: GREENWIRE (NYT): Final NO2 Rule Cuts Back on Roadside Monitors

January 28, 2010

Final NO2 Rule Cuts Back on Roadside Monitors By ROBIN BRAVENDER of Greenwire

U.S. EPA's final air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) entails new requirements for measuring peak exposures near roads, but it would monitor fewer roadside locations than the agency's original proposal.

The health-based NO2 standard (pdf) issued Monday introduces a new one-hour maximum standard for NO2 at 100 parts per billion (ppb), which EPA says will protect millions of Americans from peak short-term exposures. Because short-term exposures to NO2 occur primarily near major roads, the standard also requires new monitors to be placed along major roadways in some urban areas (Greenwire , Jan. 25).

EPA's initial proposal required urban areas with more than 350,000 people to install at least one monitor near a major road, which would have mandated about 167 roadside monitors in about 142 urban areas. But the final rule raises that threshold to 500,000 people, requiring about 126 new monitors along roads in 102 urban areas.

Environmental and public health advocates are concerned about EPA's decision to monitor pollution along fewer roads, while state and local air regulators are urging the agency to start off

(b) (6)

with an even smaller roadside network until questions about costs and implementation have been answered.

Debbie Shprentz, a consultant to the American Lung Association, said the change means that "people in communities with less than half a million people may be left unprotected."

Monitoring pollution along congested roadways is particularly important, said Clean Air Watch President Frank O'Donnell, because that's often where the highest concentrations of pollutants are found.

"By itself, the standard is not going to create anything unless the new monitoring system triggers areas that are out of compliance," O'Donnell added.

Under EPA's latest monitoring data, Chicago is the only large metropolitan area in the United States to consistently violate the new NO2 standard (Greenwire , Jan. 26).

State concerns

EPA changed the threshold after considering a range of public comments, including those from state groups concerned about funding, problems with state implementation plans that target major roadways and other issues, according to the rule.

Administrator Lisa Jackson concluded that using the 500,000 threshold provides a sufficient network of roadside monitors that supports the intent of the revised standard and continues to meet the monitoring objectives of the network, EPA said in the final rule.

Areas with populations of 350,000 or more contain about 71 percent of the total U.S. population, EPA said, while areas with 500,000 or more contain about 66 percent of the population.

EPA also stipulated in the final rule that regional agency chiefs have the authority to site 40 additional monitors in whatever areas they deem necessary to protect vulnerable communities, meaning that the total numbers of monitors in the proposed and final rules are generally equivalent.

Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said that while state and local air regulators support a robust monitoring network, "It will not be easy near roadways to administer a comprehensive monitoring network and obtain results that will be easily understood."

Air regulators are also concerned about whether they will have sufficient federal funding to purchase and run the monitors, Becker said, adding that the capital and maintenance costs "will be far more than what EPA suggests."

Becker said his group is advocating a small initial network of five to 10 near-road monitors to determine the best course of action, including defining the ultimate size and location of the network.

White House role?

Environmental and public health advocates are also concerned about possible White House influence over the thresholds. An e-mail dated Jan. 18 from an EPA air quality official to an official in the White House Office of Management and Budget indicates that OMB was involved in discussions about the roadside monitoring requirements the week before the final rule was issued.

"There's a negotiation going on between EPA and OMB. We don't know what else was on the table, but we know that this change occurred," Shprentz said.

EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy declined to specify what role OMB played in the deliberations, saying, "The new one-hour standard for nitrogen dioxide resulted from a successful deliberative process and will yield a far greater level of monitoring and protection than ever before."

Becker said that White House officials did not discuss the matter with his group, but added, "OMB understands the funding implications of this, and by raising the threshold, they were able to require less monitors than they otherwise would."

Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

Adora Andy Press Secretary U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Public [email protected]

From: Steven Cook <[email protected]>To: Cathy Milbourn/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: John Millett/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 03/10/2011 12:21 PMSubject: Synthetic Minor Permit for Avenal

Hi Cathy.

The Sierra Club wrote a letter attached below to EPA Feb. 25saying that Avenal Power Center has a synthetic minor permitalmost finalized that would allow it to move forward withtheir power plant and not require EPA to grandfather theplant's emissions.

Can you tell me why EPA is pursuing grandfathering forAvenal when they already have a synthetic minor permit?

Thanks.

Steven CookBNADaily Environment Report1801 S. Bell St.Arlington, Va., 22202Phone: 703.341.3714Fax: 703.341.1679

(See attached file: Synthminlet022511.pdf)[attachment "Synthminlet022511.pdf" deleted by Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US]

To: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Avi Garbow/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Brian Doster/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Deborah

Jordan/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Julie Walters/R9/USEPA/US@EPADate: 03/14/2011 04:00 PMSubject: Re: Q from BNA: Synthetic Minor Permit for Avenal

Hi All -- Just picking this up again from Friday -- Is this as far as we want to go in answering this question?

Q -- Can you tell me why EPA is pursuing grandfathering for Avenal when they already have a synthetic minor permit?

A --

Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~John MillettOffice of Air and Radiation CommunicationsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency5411 Ariel Rios Building NorthWashington, DC 20460Phone: 202/564-2903Cell: 202/510-1822

Janet McCabe 03/11/2011 07:28:01 AMThanks Brian. I would not add the seco...

From: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/USTo: Brian Doster/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Deborah Jordan/R9/USEPA/US@EPACc: John Millett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Julie Walters/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Avi

Garbow/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 03/11/2011 07:28 AMSubject: Re: Q from BNA: Synthetic Minor Permit for Avenal

Thanks Brian. I would not add the second statement.

Brian Doster

----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Doster Sent: 03/11/2011 06:42 AM EST To: Deborah Jordan Cc: Janet McCabe; John Millett; Julie Walters; Avi Garbow Subject: Re: Q from BNA: Synthetic Minor Permit for AvenalFirst, the background, which would not all be in a public statement.

(b)(5) ACP

. Brian--do you agree as a legal matter? Deb may have other stuff to add.


John Millett 03/10/2011 12:29:45 PMHi Brian and Janet -- Steve Cook's ques...

From: John Millett/DC/USEPA/USTo: Brian Doster/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 03/10/2011 12:29 PMSubject: Q from BNA: Synthetic Minor Permit for Avenal

Hi Brian and Janet -- Steve Cook's question to the press office is below. Could either of you take a quick look and let me know how to respond?

Thanks --

John


----- Forwarded by John Millett/DC/USEPA/US on 03/10/2011 12:22 PM -----

From: Steven Cook <[email protected]>To: Cathy Milbourn/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: John Millett/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 03/10/2011 12:21 PMSubject: Synthetic Minor Permit for Avenal

Hi Cathy.

The Sierra Club wrote a letter attached below to EPA Feb. 25saying that Avenal Power Center has a synthetic minor permitalmost finalized that would allow it to move forward withtheir power plant and not require EPA to grandfather theplant's emissions.

Can you tell me why EPA is pursuing grandfathering for

Avenal when they already have a synthetic minor permit?

Thanks.

Steven CookBNADaily Environment Report1801 S. Bell St.Arlington, Va., 22202Phone: 703.341.3714Fax: 703.341.1679

(See attached file: Synthminlet022511.pdf)[attachment "Synthminlet022511.pdf" deleted by Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US]

Brian Doster/DC/USEPA/US

09/14/2010 12:09 PM

To Joseph Goffman

cc

bcc

Subject Re: Time Sensitive: Johnson memo litigation item. Deadline 9/15.

No, we can talk after 3 if that works best for you. I'm sorry I was not more clear. Thanks for the effort to get back to me.

Joseph Goffman 09/14/2010 11:28:16 AMDoes this have to be before 2? -----...

From: Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/USTo: Brian Doster/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 09/14/2010 11:28 AMSubject: Re: Time Sensitive: Johnson memo litigation item. Deadline 9/15.

Does this have to be before 2?

Brian Doster

----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Doster Sent: 09/14/2010 10:27 AM EDT To: Joseph Goffman Subject: Time Sensitive: Johnson memo litigation item. Deadline 9/15. Joe,

Would you have a moment to chat (10-15 minutes tops) at some point today about a GHG litigation issue that is arising as a follow up to the earlier discussions you and I had about holding the environmental groups claims against the Johnson memo in abeyance?

We have a lawyers call with the environmental groups at 2 pm today, . Sorry for the time pressure, which is entirely my fault. This

issue snuck up on us while we were focussing on opposition to the industry motions last week.

Brian

202-564-1932.

(b)(5) ACP

Brian Doster/DC/USEPA/US

09/14/2010 07:13 PM

To Richard Ossias, Kevin McLean, Patricia Embrey, Carol Holmes, Elliott Zenick, Howard Hoffman, Joseph Goffman

cc

bcc

Subject Fw: GHG Litigation - Update on possible severance of environmental groups challenge to PSD trigger date for GHGs

CBD sent us the following message this evening.

* * * Thanks for the thoughtful conversation today. We have decided not to proceed with a motion to sever our petitions tomorrow. Best regards, Vera P. PardeeCenter for Biological Diversity351 California Street, Suite 600San Francisco, Ca 94104Tel: (415) 436-9682 ext. 317www.biologicaldiversity.org

----- Forwarded by Brian Doster/DC/USEPA/US on 09/14/2010 07:13 PM -----

From: Brian Doster/DC/USEPA/USTo: Richard Ossias/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin McLean/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Patricia

Embrey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Carol Holmes/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Elliott Zenick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Howard Hoffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/14/2010 05:23 PMSubject: GHG Litigation - Update on possible severance of environmental groups challenge to PSD trigger

date for GHGs

After DOJ and I talked to the environmental petitioners today, the ball is in their court to sort out what they want to in terms of filing procedural motions to keep their claims against the PSD Interpretive Memo, Reconsideration, and codification of the same in the Tailoring Rule on hold.

I will update as I hear anything further.

Joe, sorry we haven't connected yet, please let me know if you have any preference about how EPA approaches this issue at this point.

Cathy Milbourn/DC/USEPA/US

01/30/2013 06:10 AM

To Victoria Rivas-Vazquez, John Millett

cc Alisha Johnson, David Bloomgren, Julia Valentine, "Molly Hooven", "Stacy Kika"

bcc

Subject Re: 1/30,11am Media Event/American Lung Association

If Julia is back from Gina's panel discussion she can listen in. If not Molly Hooven or Stacy. --------------------------Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Victoria Rivas-Vazquez Sent: 01/30/2013 05:23 AM EST To: John Millett Cc: Alisha Johnson; David Bloomgren; Cathy Milbourn; Julia Valentine Subject: Re: 1/30,11am Media Event/American Lung Association

Can someone from OAR or OMR listen in on the 11am tele briefing?

-----John Millett/DC/USEPA/US wrote: -----To: Alisha Johnson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Victoria Rivas-Vazquez/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, David Bloomgren/DC/USEPA/US@EPAFrom: John Millett/DC/USEPA/USDate: 01/29/2013 05:06PMSubject: 1/30: Media Event/American Lung Assoc

11 am - - Tier 3 related -- Media Alert attached below --

Tier 3 went over to OMB today, so it's apt to appear on OMB's web site as "under review" --

We typically say something like --

"The proposal is under interagency review, and the agency will issue it once that review is complete."


----- Forwarded by John Millett/DC/USEPA/US on 01/29/2013 04:55 PM -----

From: Justin Cohen/DC/USEPA/USTo: Julia Valentine/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, John Millett/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Cathy Milbourn/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nate McMichael/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Lynn/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/29/2013 04:02 PMSubject: Fw: Media Event/American Lung Assoc

heads-up on an email to agency management about a 1/30 press event -- looks Tier 3 related....

Justin CohenU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Transportation and Air Qualityphone: (202) 564-1643fax: (202) 564-1686

----- Forwarded by Justin Cohen/DC/USEPA/US on 01/29/2013 04:00 PM -----

From: Tanya Meekins/DC/USEPA/USTo: Justin Cohen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Christopher Mylan/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/29/2013 03:55 PMSubject: Media Event/American Lung Assoc

FYI

(See attached file: Paul Billings_media briefing.pdf)

Tanya MeekinsOffice of Transportation and Air Quality202-564-6002 (office)202-564-1686(fax)

[attachment "Paul Billings_media briefing.pdf" removed by Victoria Rivas-Vazquez/DC/USEPA/US]

Cynthia Browne/DC/USEPA/US

10/11/2011 12:14 PM

To Sam Napolitano

cc Richard Wayland, Joseph Goffman, Michael Cohen, Michael Ling

bcc

Subject Re: CSAPR SNPR Follow-up

Ok, thanks, I will set it up for 1:00 - 2:00 tomorrow, 10/12

Cynthia BrowneOffice of Air and RadiationARN Room 5426U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEmail: [email protected]: 202-564-7400

Sam Napolitano 10/11/2011 11:29:57 AMBest time for me is 1:00-2:30, but i coul...

From: Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/USTo: Cynthia Browne/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael

Cohen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Ling/RTP/USEPA/US@EPADate: 10/11/2011 11:29 AMSubject: Re: CSAPR SNPR Follow-up

Best time for me is 1:00-2:30, but i could also do 11-12, and 4-5.

Cynthia Browne 10/11/2011 11:22:18 AMHi All, Since 3:00 today is not going to...

From: Cynthia Browne/DC/USEPA/USTo: Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPACc: Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Cohen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael

Ling/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 10/11/2011 11:22 AMSubject: Re: CSAPR SNPR Follow-up

Hi All,

Since 3:00 today is not going to work, here are some options for tomorrow, Wednesday, 10/12:

Between 10:30 - 12:00 noon; 01:00 - 2:30; 3:30 - 5:00

Will any one time work for all?

Thank you,

Cynthia BrowneOffice of Air and RadiationARN Room 5426U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEmail: [email protected]: 202-564-7400

Richard Wayland 10/11/2011 07:57:44 AMJoe, I can't do 3pm today as we have...

From: Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/USTo: Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: [email protected], Michael Cohen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael

Ling/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 10/11/2011 07:57 AMSubject: Re: CSAPR SNPR Follow-up

Joe,

I can't do 3pm today as we have a briefing with Janet while she is down here in RTP on the Sierra Club suit on ozone and PM modeling for PSD. I can work time tomorrow or perhaps other times today. With Gina and Janet down here today., my calendar is pretty full today.

Chet

Joseph Goffman 10/10/2011 08:48:50 PMThanks for this. I think it would make s...

From: Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/USTo: Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Ling/RTP/USEPA/US@EPACc: Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Cohen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

[email protected]: 10/10/2011 08:48 PMSubject: Re: CSAPR SNPR Follow-up

Thanks for this. I think it would make sense to do a quick call about this tomorrow or Wednesday. 3:00 might work tomorrow. Thanks, again.

Joseph GoffmanSenior Counsel to the Assistant AdministratorOffice of Air and RadiationUS Environmental Protection Agency202 564 3201

Sam Napolitano 10/07/2011 05:28:05 PMJoe: Earlier in the week, I spoke to you...

From: Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/USTo: Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Cohen/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 10/07/2011 05:28 PMSubject: CSAPR SNPR Follow-up

Joe:

Earlier in the week, I spoke to you about summarizing for Gina where staff are in the review of comments on the SNPR and our recommendation to Gina for proceeding.

A short paper laying this out is attached.

Have a good, very well deserved weekend.

Sam

[attachment "CSAPR SNPR Paper 10-7-11.docx" deleted by Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US]

Daniel Hopkins/DC/USEPA/US

12/06/2012 11:30 AM

To Gina McCarthy

cc Don Zinger, Larke Williams

bcc

Subject Noon Meeting Materials

Hi Gina,

Attached are the revised meeting materials for the noon meeting with the Deputy Administrator. We've copied and pasted the SSM materials and put them directly in this e-mail. Feel free to contact us if you have any questions/need anything. Thanks!

- Daniel

Our cell phone numbers in case you need us (we are in a SCOUT meeting) Dan's Cell Phone: 202 379 8531Larke Cell Phone: 202 713 8429

SSM SIP Call RulemakingBriefing for the Deputy Administrator

December 6, 2012

We are acting on a petition from the Sierra Club, consistent with a settlement agreement that resolved litigation to avoid a contempt finding on previous EPA actions, on infrastructure SIPS with respect to provisions for the treatment of excess emissions that occur during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).

The proposed action will:

States know this is coming; regions will work closely with them.

Industry may raise concerns that the elimination of open-ended emergency exemptions will affect operations under their permits.

RICE NESHAP Recons 12_6_12 FINAL.pptx SSM SIP Call Rulemaking.docxSSM SIP Call Rulemaking.docx

Daniel J. Hopkins Special Assistant to the Assistant AdministratorOffice of Air and Radiation US Environmental Protection Agency Phone: 202-564-3277Cell Phone: 202 379 8531

Daniel Hopkins/DC/USEPA/US

01/16/2013 06:59 PM

To Nancy Ketcham-Colwill

cc Larke Williams

bcc

Subject Re: Fw: Thursday, January 17, 2013 SCOUT Meeting

Sorry Nancy, we answered it off line. The deadline was incorrectly listed in SCOUT as 1/24. The correct deadline is 1/31 and the entry was fixed in SCOUT.


Nancy Ketcham-Colwill 01/16/2013 06:58:33 PMWhat was the answer to Mike's...

From: Nancy Ketcham-Colwill/DC/USEPA/USTo: OAR Special AssistantsDate: 01/16/2013 06:58 PMSubject: Fw: Thursday, January 17, 2013 SCOUT Meeting

What was the answer to Mike's question. This hasn't been on my radar screen . . . Thanks!----- Forwarded by Nancy Ketcham-Colwill/DC/USEPA/US on 01/16/2013 06:57 PM -----

From: Michael Geller/DC/USEPA/USTo: Daniel Hopkins/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larke Williams/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Nancy Ketcham-Colwill/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/16/2013 11:12 AMSubject: Fw: Thursday, January 17, 2013 SCOUT Meeting

See below Fort Berthold Indian Reservation FIP for Oil and Gas Well Production (SAN 5650)

Date of Administrator signature is listed as 1/24/13 even though deadline is 1/31/13. Is 1/24 the date we are expected to have the Administrator sign?____________________________Michael D. Geller, Ph.D.Special Assistant, Office of the AdministratorUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyMailing Address: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Mail Code 1102A, Washington, DC 20460Tel: (202) 564-2234 / Fax: (202) 501-1490----- Forwarded by Michael Geller/DC/USEPA/US on 01/16/2013 11:07 AM -----

From: Ruthw Morgan/DC/USEPA/USTo: Tom Eagles/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Michael Geller/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/16/2013 09:35 AMSubject: Thursday, January 17, 2013 SCOUT Meeting

For your information!!!

Ruth W. Morgan, Program AnalystEnvironmental Protection AgencyOffice of Air & Radiation (OAR)

Office of Program Management Operation (OPMO)1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NWMail Code: 6102A Room 6358F AR NorthWashington, DC 20460Phone: (202) 564-1326Fax: (202) 564-1696

----- Forwarded by Ruthw Morgan/DC/USEPA/US on 01/16/2013 09:34 AM -----

From: Donald Cooke/R1/USEPA/USTo: Daniel Hopkins/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Cynthia Browne/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ruthw

Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Dawn Roddy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Allison Dennis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larke Williams/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/16/2013 08:59 AMSubject: Thursday, January 17, 2013 SCOUT Meeting

Attached Upcoming Regional Actions and Signed Regional Actions :

[attachment "Regional Update_01172013.doc" deleted by Michael Geller/DC/USEPA/US]

One new additions to the list : Region 8 - Approval and Promulgation of Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Well Production Facilities;

Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations), North Dakota SAN 5650. EPA-R0 8-OAR-2012-0479.

One pager attached. [attachment "Final R8 FBIR FIP Regulatory Action Update 1-10-13.docx" deleted by

Michael Geller/DC/USEPA/US]

Next Regional Action January 20, 2013 (There is no court order associated with this date.)Region 8 - North Dakota Regional Haze Reconsideration Proposal Notice . SAN 5691. EPA–R08–

OAR–2010–0406. Please see screen shot below

Regional Action January 31, 2013Region 8 - FIP Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Well Production Facilities ; Fort Berthold Indian

Reservation (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations), North Dakota. SAN 5650. EPA-R0 8-OAR-2012-0479. Please see

screen shot below

Donald O. Cooke, Environmental ScientistU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEPA New England Regional Office Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit5 Post Office Square - Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2)Boston, MA 02109 - 3912

Telephone (617) 918-1668Fax # (617) 918-0668 E-Mail [email protected]

EPA Priority Action Milestone

Action Title: North Dakota Regional Haze SIP & FIP - Reconsideration (SAN 5691)Full Title: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Dakota; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze

Milestone: Administrator's Signature (Prog Office to OP)

Stage: NPRM

Projected Date: 02/21/2013; Thursday

OMB Significance for : Exempt (OMB Confirmed)

Overarching Action

Initiating Office : Region08 / OAR/OAR Contact: Gail Fallon/R8/USEPA/US, 303-312-6281

Action Type: Regulation Management Level : YELLOWYELLOWSAN: SAN 5691

RIN: RIN: Not Assigned

Tier: Tier 4

Action Abstract :

Milestones:

Stage Milestone Date CommentNPRM Administrator's Signature (Prog Office

to OP)02/21/2013 projected Comment Period projected to end: 4/12/2013

Final Action Administrator's Signature (Prog Office to OP)

05/01/2013 projected

Deliberative...Not Agency Policy...Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute

EPA Priority Action Milestone

Action Title: Fort Berthold Indian Reservation FIP for Oil and Gas Well Production (SAN 5650)Full Title: Oil and Gas Well Production Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (FBIR)

Milestone: Administrator's Signature (Prog Office to OP)

Stage: Final Action

Projected Date: 01/24/2013; Thursday

OMB Significance for : Exempt (OMB Confirmed)

Overarching Action

Initiating Office : Region08 / OAR Contact: Carl Daly/R8/USEPA/US, 303-312-6416

Action Type: Regulation Management Level : YELLOWYELLOWSAN: SAN 5650

RIN: RIN: Not Assigned

Tier: Tier 4

Action Deadlines : Completed - 8/26/2012 - Compliance Date deadline for Interim Final - Current Administrative Orders on Consent expire 8/26/2012. FIP or replacement AOC must be signed by that date.

Action Abstract :

Milestones:

Stage Milestone Date CommentNPRM RA Signature 08/01/2012 completed FR Published: 8/15/2012

Comment Period ended; 10/15/2012

Interim Final Administrator's Signature 08/01/2012 completed FR Published: 8/15/20128/26/2012 - Compliance Date - Current Administrative Orders on Consent expire 8/26/2012. FIP or replacement AOC must be signed by that date.

Final Action Administrator's Signature (Prog Office to OP)

01/24/2013 projected

Deliberative...Not Agency Policy...Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute

Darrel Harmon/DC/USEPA/US

04/12/2012 10:09 AM

To Don Zinger

cc

bcc

Subject Re: Fw: Government to Government Communication: EPA BART Determination Proposal for Reid Gardner (Nevada): Moapa Tribal Chairman to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

no worries Don, I'll keep AIEO in the loop as well.

thanks.....Darrel

Don Zinger 04/12/2012 10:07:04 AMAll, Gina and Janet are willing to take th...

From: Don Zinger/DC/USEPA/USTo: Noah Dubin/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Cindy Huang/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Darrel Harmon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gary

Waxmonsky/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 04/12/2012 10:07 AMSubject: Re: Fw: Government to Government Communication: EPA BART Determination Proposal for Reid

Gardner (Nevada): Moapa Tribal Chairman to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

All,Gina and Janet are willing to take the meeting. The date - April 17 - however may be difficult to schedule. We are planning to announce final rules for controlling emissions from oil and gas activities that day and Gina could very well be tied up with press calls and other roll out duties. Darrel, could you work with Cindy and Emily and we'll do the best we can with scheduling. Thanks.

Noah Dubin 04/12/2012 09:17:10 AMCindy and Don, Please see OITA's com...

From: Noah Dubin/DC/USEPA/USTo: Cindy Huang/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Don Zinger/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Darrel Harmon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gary Waxmonsky/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 04/12/2012 09:17 AMSubject: Fw: Government to Government Communication: EPA BART Determination Proposal for Reid


Cindy and Don,

Please see OITA's comments on this mtg request. LPJ will not take this meeting, and given the short amt of time between now and their requested dates, we'd appreciate it if OAR would reach out directly. Please keep Gary in the loop to ensure that OITA is able to participate in the mtg as well.

Thanks.

Noah DubinSchedulerOffice of the Administrator | US EPAOffice: (202) 564-7314Cell: (202) 309-3687----- Forwarded by Noah Dubin/DC/USEPA/US on 04/12/2012 09:15 AM -----

From: Gary Waxmonsky/DC/USEPA/USTo: scheduling@EPACc: Elle Beard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, JoAnn Chase/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Noah

Dubin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeff Besougloff/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Darrel

Harmon/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 04/12/2012 08:59 AMSubject: Re: Fw: Government to Government Communication: EPA BART Determination Proposal for Reid


This is largely an OAR issue; we've consulted with them, and our joint recommendation is that they handle this at AA or DAA level with OITA participation. Can OAR reach out to the requester, given the short lead time available?

GRW

scheduling 04/11/2012 04:10:10 PMIt would be very difficult to accommodat...

From: schedulingTo: Gary Waxmonsky/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, JoAnn Chase/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Elle Beard/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 04/11/2012 04:10 PMSubject: Fw: Government to Government Communication: EPA BART Determination Proposal for Reid

Gardner (Nevada): Moapa Tribal Chairman to EPA Administrator Lisa JacksonSent by: Noah Dubin

It would be very difficult to accommodate this meeting on the 17th. Can you give us your thoughts on it, regardless of logistical complications though?

----- Forwarded by Noah Dubin/DC/USEPA/US on 04/11/2012 04:09 PM -----

From: Daniel Galpern <[email protected]>To: scheduling@EPACc: LisaP Jackson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Veronica Burley/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 04/11/2012 03:20 PMSubject: FW: Government to Government Communication: EPA BART Determination Proposal for Reid


April 11, 2012

USEPA Headquarters EPA Scheduling office

cc: Veronica Burley, Scheduling

Regarding: Meeting with Administrator Jackson for April 17, 2012

By email

Dear Administrator Jackson:

I represent the Moapa Band of Paiutes, a federally recognized Tribe in Moapa, Nevada, and the Sierra Club, the nation's largest and most effective grassroots environmental organization, in matters relating to the Reid Gardner coal fired power plant and its manifold edifices of coal ash waste.

Here, I write on behalf of William Anderson, Chairman of the Tribal Business Council, and Bill Corcoran, Western Regional Campaign Director for the Beyond Coal Campaign of the Sierra Club.

On April 3, 2012, I conveyed to you a letter from the Tribe that, among other things, strongly criticized a new draft rule on BART for Reid Gardner issued by Region 9 (but not yet published in the Federal Register). The letter also invited you to the Reservation to discuss this matter and to learn how this facility is severely my client's very way of life. [See below and attached.] We have not yet heard back from you on this, and time is of the essence. As noted, this is a critical issue for the Tribe, a matter of environmental injustice that, if not corrected, will yield substantial and avoidable injury to the people.

We recently secured a meeting to discuss these issues with Senate Majority Leader Reid, namely for the afternoon of Tuesday, April 17, 2012, in the Capitol.

Though it is very short notice, may we now request to meet with you that day? Anytime prior to 2:45pm on 4/17 would work for us. After 5pm might also work, if necessary.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely yours,

Dan Galpern

‐‐ Dan Galpern, Attorney Western Environmental Law Center 1216 Lincoln Street Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 359‐3243 [email protected]

From: Daniel Galpern <[email protected]>Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:11:20 ‐0700To: Lisa Jackson <[email protected]>Subject: Government to Government Communication: EPA BART Determination Proposal for Reid Gardner (Nevada): Moapa Tribal Chairman to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

Administrator Lisa JacksonUSEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Mail Code: 1101A Washington, DC 20460

Sent by email

April 3, 2012

Dear Administrator Jackson,

I write on behalf of the Moapa Band of Paiutes.

Please consider the attached letter from the Tribe’s Chairman, William Anderson. It is with respect to a proposal signed yesterday by Region 9 of EPA with respect to the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for Reid Gardner, a coal‐fired power plant whose toxic pollution impairs the very way of life of my clients.

The Tribe fervently seeks your direct intervention in this matter.

Thank you very much for your consideration. Please let me know if I can be of assistance to you with respect to your Agency's pending final decision.

Sincerely yours,

Dan GalpernWestern Environmental Law Center 1216 Lincoln Street

Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 359‐3243 [email protected] www.westernlaw.org

The Western Environmental Law Center is a non‐profit public interest law firm that works to protect and restore western wildlands and advocates for a healthy environment on behalf of communities throughout the West. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law as attorney‐client and work‐product confidential or otherwise confidential communications. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or other use of a transmission received in error is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify us at the telephone number above.[attachment "Moapa Chairman to Administrator Jackson 2012_04_03.pdf" deleted by Gary Waxmonsky/DC/USEPA/US]

Darrel Harmon/DC/USEPA/US

04/11/2012 04:59 PM

To "Don Zinger"

cc

bcc

Subject Fw: Government to Government Communication: EPA BART Determination Proposal for Reid Gardner (Nevada): Moapa Tribal Chairman to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

Hi Don: this just in. Any ideas what we should do or is it old news? Thanks...Darrel

Marissa McInnis

----- Original Message ----- From: Marissa McInnis Sent: 04/11/2012 04:43 PM EDT To: Darrel Harmon Cc: Jeff Besougloff; Karin Koslow; JoAnn Chase Subject: Fw: Government to Government Communication: EPA BART Determination Proposal for Reid Gardner (Nevada): Moapa Tribal Chairman to EPA Administrator Lisa JacksonDarrel,

Just received this from the AO scheduling office. FYI, we never saw the original April 3rd request referenced below.

After quickly discussing with Jeff, we wanted to forward along to you, as this meeting appears to be OAR issue-focused. We haven't had a chance to discuss with Karin and JoAnn yet, but wanted to send to you in order to get OAR's feedback ASAP.

Thanks in advance for your quick help on this!~Marissa

Marissa McInnisAmerican Indian Environmental OfficeOffice of International and Tribal AffairsU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyPhone: (202) 564-2467

Please visit our website at: www.epa.gov/tribalwww.epa.gov/ecoambassadors/tribal

----- Forwarded by Marissa McInnis/DC/USEPA/US on 04/11/2012 04:39 PM -----

From: Gary Waxmonsky/DC/USEPA/USTo: Karin Koslow/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeff Besougloff/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, David

Guest/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Marissa McInnis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lakita Stewart/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 04/11/2012 04:30 PMSubject: Fw: Government to Government Communication: EPA BART Determination Proposal for Reid


This is rather time-sensitive, so I thought you should see it straightaway. Pls consult with JoAnn and advise ASAP.

GRW----- Forwarded by Gary Waxmonsky/DC/USEPA/US on 04/11/2012 04:27 PM -----

From: schedulingTo: Gary Waxmonsky/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, JoAnn Chase/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Elle Beard/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 04/11/2012 04:10 PMSubject: Fw: Government to Government Communication: EPA BART Determination Proposal for Reid

Gardner (Nevada): Moapa Tribal Chairman to EPA Administrator Lisa JacksonSent by: Noah Dubin

It would be very difficult to accommodate this meeting on the 17th. Can you give us your thoughts on it, regardless of logistical complications though?

----- Forwarded by Noah Dubin/DC/USEPA/US on 04/11/2012 04:09 PM -----

From: Daniel Galpern <[email protected]>To: scheduling@EPACc: LisaP Jackson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Veronica Burley/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 04/11/2012 03:20 PMSubject: FW: Government to Government Communication: EPA BART Determination Proposal for Reid


April 11, 2012USEPA Headquarters EPA Scheduling office cc: Veronica Burley, SchedulingRegarding: Meeting with Administrator Jackson for April 17, 2012By emailDear Administrator Jackson:I represent the Moapa Band of Paiutes, a federally recognized Tribe in Moapa, Nevada, and the Sierra Club, the nation's largest and most effective grassroots environmental organization, in matters relating to the Reid Gardner coal fired power plant and its manifold edifices of coal ash waste. Here, I write on behalf of William Anderson, Chairman of the Tribal Business Council, and Bill Corcoran, Western Regional Campaign Director for the Beyond Coal Campaign of the Sierra Club.On April 3, 2012, I conveyed to you a letter from the Tribe that, among other things, strongly criticized a new draft rule on BART for Reid Gardner issued by Region 9 (but not yet published in the Federal Register). The letter also invited you to the Reservation to discuss this matter and to learn how this facility is severely my client's very way of life. [See below and attached.] We have not yet heard back from you on this, and time is of the essence. As noted, this is a critical issue for the Tribe, a matter of environmental injustice that, if not corrected, will yield substantial and avoidable injury to the people.We recently secured a meeting to discuss these issues with Senate Majority Leader Reid, namely for the afternoon of Tuesday, April 17, 2012, in the Capitol. Though it is very short notice, may we now request to meet with you that day? Anytime prior to 2:45pm on 4/17 would work for us. After 5pm might also work, if necessary.Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely yours,Dan Galpern-- Dan Galpern, Attorney Western Environmental Law Center 1216 Lincoln Street Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 359-3243 [email protected] From: Daniel Galpern <[email protected]>Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:11:20 -0700To: Lisa Jackson <[email protected]>Subject: Government to Government Communication: EPA BART Determination Proposal for Reid Gardner (Nevada): Moapa Tribal Chairman to EPA Administrator Lisa JacksonAdministrator Lisa JacksonUSEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Mail Code: 1101A Washington, DC 20460

Sent by emailApril 3, 2012

Dear Administrator Jackson,

I write on behalf of the Moapa Band of Paiutes.

Please consider the attached letter from the Tribe’s Chairman, William Anderson. It is with respect to a proposal signed yesterday by Region 9 of EPA with respect to the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for Reid Gardner, a coal-fired power plant whose toxic pollution impairs the very way of life of my clients.The Tribe fervently seeks your direct intervention in this matter. Thank you very much for your consideration. Please let me know if I can be of assistance to you with respect to your Agency's pending final decision.Sincerely yours,

Dan GalpernWestern Environmental Law Center 1216 Lincoln Street Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 359-3243 [email protected] www.westernlaw.org

The Western Environmental Law Center is a non-profit public interest law firm that works to protect and restore western wildlands and advocates for a healthy environment on behalf of communities throughout the West. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law as attorney-client and work-product confidential or otherwise confidential communications. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or other use of a transmission received in error is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify us at the telephone number above.[attachment "Moapa Chairman to Administrator Jackson 2012_04_03.pdf" deleted by Gary Waxmonsky/DC/USEPA/US]

Darrin Larson/R6/USEPA/US

03/02/2012 12:40 PM

To Betsaida Alcantara

cc John Millett

bcc

Subject Fw: WSJ -- LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass?

Betsaida,

The air info. is below - we should have water info. soon.

Darrin LarsonActing Director, Office of External and Government AffairsU.S. EPA Region 6Office: 214-665-7115Mobile: 972-467-5509----- Forwarded by Darrin Larson/R6/USEPA/US on 03/02/2012 11:39 AM -----

From: Thomas Diggs/R6/USEPA/USTo: John Millett/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Darrin Larson/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, [email protected], Austin

Vela/R6/USEPA/US@EPADate: 03/02/2012 11:36 AMSubject: Re: Fw: WSJ -- LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass?

John:This has crossed our paths. The company received an Air Permit and a Title V operating permit from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Since their issuance of the permits, we have received a Title V petition from the Sierra Club, local citizens and the Gulf Coast Environmental Labor Coalition a few weeks ago. Region 6 also had considerable comments on the permit ourselves when it was at notice.

If you have further questions, our permitting point of contact is Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permitting Section or give me a call or email.Tom

Thomas DiggsAssociate Director - AirUS EPA Region 6214-665-3102fax [email protected]

John Millett 03/02/2012 10:46:08 AMfyi -- has this crossed your paths? ~~~~...

From: John Millett/DC/USEPA/USTo: Darrin Larson/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Thomas Diggs/R6/USEPA/US@EPADate: 03/02/2012 10:46 AMSubject: Fw: WSJ -- LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass?

fyi -- has this crossed your paths?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~John MillettOffice of Air and Radiation CommunicationsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

5411 Ariel Rios Building NorthWashington, DC 20460Phone: 202/564-2903Cell: 202/510-1822

----- Forwarded by John Millett/DC/USEPA/US on 03/02/2012 11:44 AM -----

From: Brendan Gilfillan/DC/USEPA/USTo: Betsaida Alcantara/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: "David Bloomgren" <[email protected]>, "Andrea Drinkard"

<[email protected]>, "John Millett" <[email protected]>, Travis Loop/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, John Senn/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 03/02/2012 10:41 AMSubject: Re: Fw: WSJ -- Question for you

+OW as well.

Betsaida Alcantara 03/02/2012 10:23:05 AMSee below ----- Original Message -----

From: Betsaida Alcantara/DC/USEPA/USTo: "John Millett" <[email protected]>, "Andrea Drinkard"

<[email protected]>Cc: "Brendan Gilfillan" <[email protected]>, "David Bloomgren"

<[email protected]>Date: 03/02/2012 10:23 AMSubject: Fw: WSJ -- Question for you

See below

From: "Johnson, Keith" [[email protected]] Sent: 03/02/2012 10:17 AM EST To: Betsaida Alcantara Subject: WSJ -- Question for you

Hi Betsaida I’ve got a question for you: I am trying to see where the EPA Clean Air and Clean Water review of the proposed LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass stands. My understanding is that, in addition to the environmental assessment that FERC is wrapping up, EPA has those two Act assessments of the terminal to finish up as well. That may not be your strict bailiwick – but could you point me towards the best people (or even a place in the public record)? Muchas graciasKeith202‐862‐6628


03/02/2012 02:51 PM


cc John Millett

bcc

Subject Re: Fw: WSJ -- LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass?

The permit was issued by LDEQ (final). We will be reviewing it based on the petition.

Darrin LarsonActing Director, Office of External and Government AffairsU.S. EPA Region 6Office: 214-665-7115Mobile: 972-467-5509

Betsaida Alcantara 03/02/2012 01:08:49 PMok so what's the status of the air per...

From: Betsaida Alcantara/DC/USEPA/USTo: Darrin Larson/R6/USEPA/US@EPACc: John Millett/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 03/02/2012 01:08 PMSubject: Re: Fw: WSJ -- LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass?

ok so what's the status of the air permit ? Are we reviewing it based on the Sierra Club petition?

Darrin Larson 03/02/2012 12:40:26 PMBetsaida, The air info. is below - we sho...

From: Darrin Larson/R6/USEPA/USTo: Betsaida Alcantara/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: John Millett/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 03/02/2012 12:40 PMSubject: Fw: WSJ -- LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass?

Betsaida,





John:This has crossed our paths. The company received an Air Permit and a Title V operating permit from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Since their issuance of the permits, we have received a Title V petition from the Sierra Club, local citizens and the Gulf Coast Environmental Labor Coalition a few

weeks ago. Region 6 also had considerable comments on the permit ourselves when it was at notice.











+OW as well.





See below


Hi Betsaida I’ve got a question for you: I am trying to see where the EPA Clean Air and Clean Water review of the proposed LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass stands. My understanding is that, in addition to the environmental assessment that FERC is wrapping up, EPA has those two Act assessments of the terminal to finish up as well. That may not be your strict bailiwick – but could you point me towards the best people (or even a place in the public record)? Muchas graciasKeith202‐862‐6628


03/02/2012 03:36 PM


cc John Millett

bcc


That hasn't been determined yet.Betsaida Alcantara

----- Original Message ----- From: Betsaida Alcantara Sent: 03/02/2012 03:04 PM EST To: Darrin Larson Cc: John Millett Subject: Re: Fw: WSJ -- LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass? How long will review take

Darrin Larson

----- Original Message ----- From: Darrin Larson Sent: 03/02/2012 01:51 PM CST To: Betsaida Alcantara Cc: John Millett Subject: Re: Fw: WSJ -- LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass?The permit was issued by LDEQ (final). We will be reviewing it based on the petition.

Darrin LarsonActing Director, Office of External and Government AffairsU.S. EPA Region 6Office: 214-665-7115Mobile: 972-467-5509

Betsaida Alcantara 03/02/2012 01:08:49 PMok so what's the status of the air per...

From: Betsaida Alcantara/DC/USEPA/USTo: Darrin Larson/R6/USEPA/US@EPACc: John Millett/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 03/02/2012 01:08 PMSubject: Re: Fw: WSJ -- LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass?

ok so what's the status of the air permit ? Are we reviewing it based on the Sierra Club petition?

Darrin Larson 03/02/2012 12:40:26 PMBetsaida, The air info. is below - we sho...

From: Darrin Larson/R6/USEPA/USTo: Betsaida Alcantara/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: John Millett/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 03/02/2012 12:40 PMSubject: Fw: WSJ -- LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass?

Betsaida,





John:This has crossed our paths. The company received an Air Permit and a Title V operating permit from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Since their issuance of the permits, we have received a Title V petition from the Sierra Club, local citizens and the Gulf Coast Environmental Labor Coalition a few weeks ago. Region 6 also had considerable comments on the permit ourselves when it was at notice.











+OW as well.





See below


Hi Betsaida I’ve got a question for you: I am trying to see where the EPA Clean Air and Clean Water review of the proposed LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass stands. My understanding is that, in addition to the environmental assessment that FERC is wrapping up, EPA has those two Act assessments of the terminal to finish up as well. That may not be your strict bailiwick – but could you point me towards the best people (or even a place in the public record)? Muchas graciasKeith202-862-6628


04/26/2012 12:20 PM

To John Millett

cc

bcc

Subject Re: ACTION: newspaper reporter, Oklahoma, re clean air

Hi John,

I'm sure Diane got back to you already, but I wanted to let you know that David's detail ended and he's back as the PAD this week.

I enjoyed working with you again, and perhaps we'll work together again some time.John Millett

----- Original Message ----- From: John Millett Sent: 04/25/2012 05:18 PM EDT To: Darrin Larson Cc: Diane Taheri; Alison Davis Subject: Fw: ACTION: newspaper reporter, Oklahoma, re clean air

Hey Darrin and Diane -- Checking in with you quickly to see if this will fly and won't step on any toes -- we got the question below thru Enesta from the OK Journal record -- response then question below -- if okay -- we'll pass along -- thanks!

Oklahoma meets current federal standards for both ozone and particle pollution. Air quality protection is a federal-state partnership, and EPA is committed to continue its work with the state of Oklahoma to ensure air quality in the state continues to protect Oklahomans -- through federal smokestack and tailpipe rules, and by providing tools such as the Air Quality Index, which helps people protect their health from air pollution on a daily basis. For daily air quality forecasts, visit www.airnow.gov

From: Brian Brus [[email protected]] Sent: 04/25/2012 07:37 PM GMT To: Enesta Jones Subject: newspaper reporter, Oklahoma, re clean air

Hello, Ms. Jones. Brian Brus here at the Journal Record newspaper in Oklahoma. Can you spare a moment to call today, please? (405) 278-2837. I’m working on a story prompted by the American Lung Association’s annual clean air report, released today. http://www.stateoftheair.org/2012/assets/state-of-the-air2012.pdf and for brief overview http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/state-of-the-air-2012-american-lung-association n 1446786.html?ref=mostpopular#s903073&title=3 Los AngelesLong . I’d like to put this in context for our readers, which might involve some sort of cost benefit analysis or an alternative set of clean air data. (Our newspaper’s primary focus is Oklahoma.) Does your agency have anything that might help? Thanks for anything you can provide. -BB


03/02/2012 12:43 PM

To John Millett

cc Jennah Durant

bcc


We're happy to.John Millett

----- Original Message ----- From: John Millett Sent: 03/02/2012 12:40 PM EST To: Thomas Diggs Cc: Darrin Larson; "Robinson Jeffrey" <[email protected]>; Austin Vela Subject: Re: Fw: WSJ -- LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass?Thanks, Tom!

Darrin, do you want work with Betsaida on this?

John MillettEPA Office of Air and Radiation CommunicationsDesk: 202/564-2903Cell: 202/510-1822

Thomas Diggs

----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas Diggs Sent: 03/02/2012 11:36 AM CST To: John Millett Cc: Darrin Larson; [email protected]; Austin Vela Subject: Re: Fw: WSJ -- LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass?John:This has crossed our paths. The company received an Air Permit and a Title V operating permit from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Since their issuance of the permits, we have received a Title V petition from the Sierra Club, local citizens and the Gulf Coast Environmental Labor Coalition a few weeks ago. Region 6 also had considerable comments on the permit ourselves when it was at notice.











+OW as well.





See below


Hi Betsaida I’ve got a question for you: I am trying to see where the EPA Clean Air and Clean Water review of the proposed LNG Export facility in Sabine Pass stands. My understanding is that, in addition to the environmental assessment that FERC is wrapping up, EPA has those two Act assessments of the terminal to finish up as well. That may not be your strict bailiwick – but could you point me towards the best people (or even a place in the public record)?

Muchas graciasKeith202-862-6628

Deborah Banks/DC/USEPA/US

08/28/2009 08:33 AM

To Pat Scoville, Karen Orehowsky, Joseph-J Dougherty, Mary Henigin, Patricia Grim, Brenda Millar, Lula Melton, Laura Bunte, Teresa Clemons, Debra Lee, Tricia Crabtree, Pam Long, Donald Cooke, Meg Victor, Jeremy Arling, Raymond Lee, Dennis OConnor

cc OAR-OPAR, Ruthw Morgan, Dawn Roddy

bcc

Subject Fw: SAN 3492 - NEW TSCA Section 21 Petition - EXPEDITED Schedule

TO OAR REG CONTACTS

Please let me know by Friday, September 4 if your office wants to participate on the workgroup for SAN 3492: TSCA Section 21 Petition (see info below).

----- Forwarded by Deborah Banks/DC/USEPA/US on 08/28/2009 07:54 AM -----

From: Peterj Smith/DC/USEPA/USTo: RSC Core@EPACc: Angela Hofmann/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Melissa Chun/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jonah

Richmond/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lisa Verdonik/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Christina Wadlington/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Maria Doa/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tala Henry/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jackie Mosby/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/27/2009 07:06 PMSubject: SAN 3492 - NEW TSCA Section 21 Petition - EXPEDITED Schedule

Dear RSC Colleagues,

We've received another TSCA §21 Petition. EPA has only 90 days to respond to the petition. These petitions are generally tiered under SAN 3492 and follow a strict time schedule. As with past petitions, we agreed to notify the RSC membership whenever we receive a petition in order that your Office could identify whether or not you have an interest and whom you 'd like to represent your Offic e. If the response to the petition involves the initiation of rulemaking, that effort will be tiered separately AFTER the petition response is issued. Please notify let me know ASAP if your office wishes to participate and who will be assigned to the response workgroup. The first workgroup meeting will NOT be held on Friday, 8/27, as previously indicated.

Here is a brief summary of this particular petition :

EPA received a petition under TSCA §21 from the National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH), the Alliance for Healthy Homes and the Sierra Club, on lead-based paint and dust lead standards. The petitioners have called on EPA to use its TSCA §6 authority to: (1) lower dust lead hazard standards at 40 CFR 745 .65(b), 40 CFR 745 .227(e)(8)(viii), and 40 CFR 745 .227(h)(3)(i) from 40 micrograms of lead per square foot of surface area (ug/ft2) to 10 ug/ft2 or less for floors and from 250 ug/ft2 to 100 ug/ft2 or less for window sills; and, (2) modify the definition of lead-based paint in 40 CFR 745.101 and 745 .22-31 for previously applied paint or other surface coatings in housing, child-occupied Facilities, public building and commercial buildings to reduce the lead levels from 0.5 percent by weight (5,000 parts per million (ppm)) to 0.06 percent by weight (600 ppm) with a corresponding reduction in the 1.0 milligram per square centimeter standard.

Overview of key milestones (The petition is being tracked in Scout - additional details in draft timeline attached):

Who we are already in contact withOGC - Andy SimonsOPEI - Charlotte Bertrand and Fred TalcottORD - Dennis Utterback

Who to ContactIf you have any questions about the process, please call me at 564-0262 or Angela Hofmann at

564-0258. If you have questions about the petition itself, please call Christina Wadlington, the workgroup lead, at 202-566-1859.

Peter SmithRegulatory Coordination Staff (MC 7101M)Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic SubstancesUS Environmental Protection AgencyWashington, DC 20460

(202) 564-0262 - phone(202) 564-0263 - faxhttp://www.epa.gov/oppts

Don Zinger/DC/USEPA/US

03/26/2009 04:27 PM

To Beth Craig

cc

bcc

Subject Re: Fw: ALA and EDF letters and responses

Beth,These letters are ready to go to Lisa. However, we still have not seen the UT letter and I thought your plan was to give Lisa H. all 3 responses at the same time, preferably tomorrow. I think you should get 20 minutes on Lisa's calendar tomorrow and take all 3 letters to her and have a discussion on the next steps, ie, how to get the Administrator to make a decision. I can ask Shela to schedule that if you like.

Beth Craig 03/26/2009 03:06:17 PMDear Don, how do these look? Do you t...

From: Beth Craig/DC/USEPA/USTo: "Don Zinger" <[email protected]>Date: 03/26/2009 03:06 PMSubject: Fw: ALA and EDF letters and responses

Dear Don, how do these look? Do you think I can send to Lisa H tonight? Beth-----------------Sent by EPA Wireless E-Mail Services

From: Bill Harnett Sent: 03/26/2009 11:38 AM EDT To: [email protected] Subject: Fw: ALA and EDF letters and responses

----- Forwarded by Bill Harnett/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/26/2009 11:37 AM ----- Bill Harnett/RTP/USEPA/US

03/26/2009 10:51 AM

To Don Zinger/DC/USEPA/US cc Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject ALA and EDF letters and responses

Dear Don,

Attached are the incoming letters and the latest responses. OGC edited . Let me know

when to put these in CMS.

Bill

Don Zinger/DC/USEPA/US

10/25/2010 04:55 PM

To Daniel Gerasimowicz

cc Cindy Huang, David McIntosh, Gina McCarthy, Heidi Ellis

bcc

Subject Re: Fw: Requesting Phone conversation with Administrator Jackson

Dan,Janice Nolen's email came to you around 3. Independent of her request, at around 3:45 today, we scheduled a meeting for Gina to meet with ALA (Janice Nolen) and reps from other enviro groups on the subject of the ozone NAAQS. It may be that Janice will now withdraw her request to have the Administrator talk to her CEO.

Daniel Gerasimowicz 10/25/2010 03:05:45 PMHi Gina, David and Don - Please s...

From: Daniel Gerasimowicz/DC/USEPA/USTo: Don Zinger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, David

McIntosh/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Cindy Huang/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Heidi Ellis/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 10/25/2010 03:05 PMSubject: Fw: Requesting Phone conversation with Administrator Jackson

Hi Gina, David and Don -

Please see below for a request from ALA CEO Charles Connor - any recommendation would be appreciated.

Thank you!

----- Forwarded by Daniel Gerasimowicz/DC/USEPA/US on 10/25/2010 03:05 PM -----

From: Janice Nolen <[email protected]>To: Daniel Gerasimowicz/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Heidi Ellis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, Paul

Billings <[email protected]>, Barbara McCoy Spriggs <[email protected]>Date: 10/25/2010 03:03 PMSubject: Requesting Phone conversation with Administrator Jackson

Hello Daniel,My President and Chief Executive Officer Charles Connor would like to schedule a phone conversation with Administrator Jackson to discuss the ozone national ambient air quality standard. These are times this week that would work for him. Thank you for your help getting this call scheduled. Wednesday, the 27

th

—9 AM to 9:30 AM12 noon to 3 PM Thursday, the 28

th

— 9 AM to 10 AM

12 noon to 1:15 PM3 PM to 4:30 PM Let me know if you have questions. Thanks so much for your help,Janice Janice E. NolenAssistant Vice PresidentNational Policy and AdvocacyAmerican Lung [email protected] 1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 800Washington, DC 20004-1725P 202-785-3355C 202-486-0285F 202-452-1805

Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US Sent by: Donald Maddox

01/20/2010 05:33 PM

To

cc

bcc

Subject Schedule for Residual Risk Rulemaking in the Sierra Club/Earth justice Litigation

Meeting

Date 01/21/2010Time 03:00:00 PM to 03:45:00 PMChair Janet McCabe

InviteesRequired Amy Branning; Ken Hustvedt; Patricia Embrey; Peter Tsirigotis; Steve Page;

Wendy BlakeOptional

FYI Drew McConville; Eric Ginsburg; Jean Walker; Lala Alston; Maddox.donald; Penny Lassiter; Ross Natoli; Steve Fruh; Tanya Johnson; Teri Porterfield

Location 5415 Conference Room - Call in number: Code:

Purpose: Meeting to obtain a decision on the schedule and resource commitments in support of EPA's couteroffer to Sierra Club.

POC - Eric Ginsberg (919-541-0877)

2232

Ellen Kurlansky/DC/USEPA/US

05/11/2010 09:00 PM

To Janet McCabe

cc Drew McConville

bcc

Subject Re: Fw: Meeting with Gina McCarthy

Yes. Drew is correct and Janice is reflecting an understanding based on the meeting she attended a couple of weeks ago which was focused on utilities. I will make sure that she knows that it is broader than utilities only. Ellen

Ellen (Brown) KurlanskyOffice of Air and RadiationUS Environmental Protection Agency1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20460202-564-1669

Janet McCabe 05/11/2010 08:50:07 PMProbably so.....Drew--do you want to ch...

From: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/USTo: Drew McConville/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Ellen Kurlansky/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 05/11/2010 08:50 PMSubject: Re: Fw: Meeting with Gina McCarthy

Probably so.....Drew--do you want to check with Gina about having these two sesions back to back?

Janet McCabeOffice of Air and Radiation, USEPARoom 5426K, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC [email protected]

Drew McConville 05/11/2010 06:37:00 PMYes, same meeting -- a general one wi...

From: Drew McConville/DC/USEPA/USTo: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Ellen Kurlansky/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 05/11/2010 06:37 PMSubject: Re: Fw: Meeting with Gina McCarthy

Yes, same meeting -- a general one with the health groups (before we'd have a utility-focused one, if we do).

Drew

Janet McCabe 05/11/2010 06:29:10 PMMy first inclination was that it would be...

From: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/USTo: Ellen Kurlansky/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Drew McConville/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/11/2010 06:29 PMSubject: Re: Fw: Meeting with Gina McCarthy

I want to make sure we're talking about the same meeting though, and I'm including Drew because he had been working on a meeting wiht public health folks as well.

Are we talking about the same meeting?


Ellen Kurlansky 05/11/2010 05:26:51 PMWhat do you think about having this me...

From: Ellen Kurlansky/DC/USEPA/USTo: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 05/11/2010 05:26 PMSubject: Fw: Meeting with Gina McCarthy

What do you think about having this meeting (with the public health folks) right after their meeting with the Administrator on the O3 NAAQS ? That is coming right up so we would need to get the invitations out right away.


----- Forwarded by Ellen Kurlansky/DC/USEPA/US on 05/11/2010 05:24 PM -----

From: Janice Nolen <[email protected]>To: Ellen Kurlansky/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 05/11/2010 12:20 PMSubject: RE: Meeting with Gina McCarthy

Hi Ellen,

Sorry to take so long, but trying to nail down our meeting with the Administrator on May 20th at 4 PM to discuss Ozone NAAQS. Gina will be able to join us. It's at 4 PM, so if she is available for a meeting at 4:45 with them, we can be there. Below are the key folks I'm working with who are coming to the 20th meeting and they MAY also be able to stay to meet with Gina on power plants if that works for her. Several will also be bringing a volunteer leader or other key staff (my CEO is joining me), but these are the folks to contact. I don't have full list of attendees yet. My CEO, Charles Connor,

will also be there with me.

If you think this is likely, I can ask them to save time for the second meeting as well.

Cindy Pellegrini, Assistant Director of Federal Affairs, American Academy of Pediatricians, [email protected] Ewart, American Thoracic Society, [email protected] Bill Rom, MD, Volunteer, American Thoracic Society (through Gary)Donald Hoppert, Director of Government Relations, American Public Health Association, [email protected] Susan K. Bishop, American Heart Association, [email protected] Welker-Hood, ScD MSN RN, Director, Environment and Health Programs, Physicians for Social Responsibility, [email protected] Charlotte Collins, JD, Director of Public Policy and Advocacy, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, [email protected] Bill McLinn, President and CEO of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, (through Charlotte)

I'm also reaching out to Debra Cohn, American Medical Association, [email protected]. AMA has supported strengthening the ozone and PM standards in the past and she attended prior meeting with the previous Administrator.

Some of these folks have connections to others. These additional people are not likely to be able to attend a DC-meeting, but may be willing to add their voice in support. They are best reached through folks attending the meeting. The most connected person is Gary Ewart at ATS, who has gotten sign on to letters from the American Academy of Chest Physicians, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the American College of Preventative Medicine and others.

Thank you,Janice

Janice E. NolenAssistant Vice PresidentNational Policy and AdvocacyAmerican Lung [email protected] 1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 800Washington, DC 20004-1725P 202-785-3355C 202-486-0285F 202-452-1805

-----Original Message-----From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 5:25 PMTo: Janice NolenSubject: Re: Meeting with Gina McCarthy

Janice, Just a reminder about a list for a meeting. Gina is reallylooking forward to doing it soon. Ellen

Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/US

01/30/2013 05:11 PM

To Janet McCabe

cc

bcc

Subject Gina will attend the Sierra Club Meeting 2/6 at 12pm and Pre brief on 2/5 at 2pm

Just want to circle back and let you know Gina will attend the prebrief and meeting.

----- Forwarded by Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/US on 01/30/2013 05:10 PM -----

From: Cindy Huang/DC/USEPA/USTo: Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Nancy Ketcham-Colwill/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/30/2013 10:15 AMSubject: Re: Fw: Sierra Club Meeting Request for 2/6 at 12pm

I can check when she gets back. Thanks!!

Cindy Huang(202) 564-7404

Emily Atkinson 01/30/2013 09:24:23 AMCindy and Nancy, Janet would like to kn...

From: Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/USTo: Cindy Huang/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nancy Ketcham-Colwill/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/30/2013 09:24 AMSubject: Fw: Sierra Club Meeting Request for 2/6 at 12pm

Cindy and Nancy,

Janet would like to know if Gina would like to join her for a meeting next week with the Sierra Club on S02 NAAQS. I see she has a meeting scheduled at this same time on 2/6 at 12pm but it is internal and perhaps could be moved. The Sierra Club contact is eager to get this meeting locked in sometime today. Do you think it is something we could run by Gina when she returns around 1pm today?

Thanks.Emily----- Forwarded by Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/US on 01/30/2013 09:20 AM -----

From: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/USTo: Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/30/2013 02:02 AMSubject: Re: Sierra Club Meeting Request for 2/6 at 12pm

Thanks emily. It may be that Gina wants to join the meeting as well--can you check to see if that day/time works for her too? We should include steve, mike, michael ling and kevin mclean and whoever else from ogc he wants to include.

Thanks

Emily Atkinson 01/29/2013 05:05 PM ESTJanet, I just want to confirm that it is o...

From: Emily Atkinson

To: Janet McCabeCc:Date: 01/29/2013 05:05 PM ESTSubject: Sierra Club Meeting Request for 2/6 at 12pm

Janet,

I just want to confirm that it is ok to schedule this meeting with the Sierra Club. Joe Goffman had put John Coequyt in touch with me about coordinating times for the meeting and next week on Wednesday, February 6 at 12pm works for Sierra Club. Joe is suggesting that it be just you that meets with them. Is that ok? Any staff I should include on the invite?

Emily

Fw: Meeting request

Emily Atkinson to: Joseph Goffman 01/28/2013 03:11 PM

Cc: Cynthia Browne

I believe he wants Janet to do this meeting - if you scroll down the email exchange between him and John, this is what he told John::

"Schedules are very tight around here in the next couple of weeks. I think it would be best to start with Janet McCabe and see if we can get this on her calendar for early next week. Emily can work with you to find a time. Thanks."

Cynthia

Emily Atkinson 01/29/2013 04:25:24 PMDoes he want Janet to just do the meeti...

From: Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/USTo: Cynthia Browne/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/29/2013 04:25 PMSubject: Re: Fw: HOLD | S02 and NAAQS Meeting with Sierra Club

Does he want Janet to just do the meeting -or- should this meeting not happen at all?

Cynthia Browne 01/29/2013 04:22:23 PMEmily, I just talked with Joe and he clea...

From: Cynthia Browne/DC/USEPA/USTo: Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/29/2013 04:22 PMSubject: Fw: HOLD | S02 and NAAQS Meeting with Sierra Club

Emily,

I just talked with Joe and he clearly stated that he does not need to be in this meeting.

Thank you,

Cynthia


From: Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/USTo: Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Cynthia Browne/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/28/2013 03:11 PMSubject: Fw: Meeting request

Joe,

It looks like Wednesday, 2/6 from 12 - 1pm works for the Sierra Club and it is open on your and Janet's calendars. They have asked for an hour - is that ok? What is the title for this meeting and should anyone else be on the invite?

Emily


From: John Coequyt <[email protected]>To: Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/28/2013 03:08 PMSubject: Re: Meeting request

Emily:We can do Wednesday from 12 to 1. Thanks for helping.

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:47 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:John,

Nice talking to you this afternoon. As I mentioned, Janet is on travel this week but is in town the following week. Below are a few times the week of February 4 - 8 both Janet McCabe and Joe Goffman are available for a one hour meeting. Let me know what could work on your end and then I can get the meeting confirmed.

Tuesday, 2/5 from 11am - 12pm or 4 - 5pmWednesday, 2/6 from 12 - 1pm or 5 - 6pmThursday, 2/7 from 10 - 11am or 11am - 12pmFriday, 2/8 from 11am - 12pm or 1 - 2pm or 2 - 3pm

Emily AtkinsonStaff AssistantImmediate Office of the Assistant AdministratorOffice of Air and Radiation, USEPARoom 5426K, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC 20460Voice: 202-564-7403Email: [email protected]

Joseph Goffman---01/28/2013 02:36:08 PM---Schedules are very tight around here in the next couple of weeks. I think it would be best to start

From: Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US

To: John Coequyt <[email protected]>Cc: Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/28/2013 02:36 PM

Subject: Re: Meeting request

Schedules are very tight around here in the next couple of weeks. I think it would be best to start with Janet McCabe and see if we can get this on her calendar for early next week. Emily can work with you to find a time. Thanks.


John Coequyt ---01/28/2013 02:05:43 PM---Can you all do friday morning some time for the meeting? On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:10 AM, <Goffman.

From: John Coequyt <[email protected]>To: Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/28/2013 02:05 PM


Can you all do friday morning some time for the meeting?

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:10 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:> Sure thing. Let's talk, too.>>> ----- Original Message -----> From: John Coequyt [[email protected]]> Sent: 01/28/2013 08:08 AM EST> To: Joseph Goffman> Subject: Meeting request>>>> Switching to email. Can a few of us come talk to you and Gina about> so2 naaqs. Happy to discuss on phone before too.>

> John Coequyt> 202.669.7060

-- John CoequytSierra ClubC: (202) 669-7060O: (202) 675-7916


Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/US

01/29/2013 05:05 PM

To Janet McCabe

cc

bcc

Subject Sierra Club Meeting Request for 2/6 at 12pm

Janet,

I just want to confirm that it is ok to schedule this meeting with the Sierra Club. Joe Goffman had put John Coequyt in touch with me about coordinating times for the meeting and next week on Wednesday, February 6 at 12pm works for Sierra Club. Joe is suggesting that it be just you that meets with them. Is that ok? Any staff I should include on the invite?

Emily

Fw: Meeting request

Emily Atkinson to: Joseph Goffman 01/28/2013 03:11 PM

Cc: Cynthia Browne

I believe he wants Janet to do this meeting - if you scroll down the email exchange between him and John, this is what he told John::

"Schedules are very tight around here in the next couple of weeks. I think it would be best to start with Janet McCabe and see if we can get this on her calendar for early next week. Emily can work with you to find a time. Thanks."

Cynthia

Emily Atkinson 01/29/2013 04:25:24 PMDoes he want Janet to just do the meeti...

From: Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/USTo: Cynthia Browne/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/29/2013 04:25 PMSubject: Re: Fw: HOLD | S02 and NAAQS Meeting with Sierra Club

Does he want Janet to just do the meeting -or- should this meeting not happen at all?

Cynthia Browne 01/29/2013 04:22:23 PMEmily, I just talked with Joe and he clea...

From: Cynthia Browne/DC/USEPA/USTo: Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/29/2013 04:22 PMSubject: Fw: HOLD | S02 and NAAQS Meeting with Sierra Club

Emily,

I just talked with Joe and he clearly stated that he does not need to be in this meeting.

Thank you,

Cynthia


From: Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/USTo: Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Cynthia Browne/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/28/2013 03:11 PMSubject: Fw: Meeting request

Joe,

It looks like Wednesday, 2/6 from 12 - 1pm works for the Sierra Club and it is open on your and Janet's calendars. They have asked for an hour - is that ok? What is the title for this meeting and should anyone else be on the invite?

Emily


From: John Coequyt <[email protected]>To: Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/28/2013 03:08 PMSubject: Re: Meeting request

Emily:We can do Wednesday from 12 to 1. Thanks for helping.

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:47 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:John,

Nice talking to you this afternoon. As I mentioned, Janet is on travel this week but is in town the following week. Below are a few times the week of February 4 - 8 both Janet McCabe and Joe Goffman are available for a one hour meeting. Let me know what could work on your end and then I can get the meeting confirmed.

Tuesday, 2/5 from 11am - 12pm or 4 - 5pmWednesday, 2/6 from 12 - 1pm or 5 - 6pmThursday, 2/7 from 10 - 11am or 11am - 12pmFriday, 2/8 from 11am - 12pm or 1 - 2pm or 2 - 3pm

Emily AtkinsonStaff AssistantImmediate Office of the Assistant AdministratorOffice of Air and Radiation, USEPARoom 5426K, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC 20460Voice: 202-564-7403Email: [email protected]

Joseph Goffman---01/28/2013 02:36:08 PM---Schedules are very tight around here in the next couple of weeks. I think it would be best to start

From: Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/USTo: John Coequyt <[email protected]>Cc: Emily Atkinson/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/28/2013 02:36 PM


Schedules are very tight around here in the next couple of weeks. I think it would be best to start with Janet McCabe and see if we can get this on her calendar for early next week. Emily can work with you to find a time. Thanks.


John Coequyt ---01/28/2013 02:05:43 PM---Can you all do friday morning some time for the meeting? On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:10 AM, <Goffman.

From: John Coequyt <[email protected]>To: Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/28/2013 02:05 PM


Can you all do friday morning some time for the meeting?

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:10 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:> Sure thing. Let's talk, too.>>> ----- Original Message -----> From: John Coequyt [[email protected]]> Sent: 01/28/2013 08:08 AM EST> To: Joseph Goffman> Subject: Meeting request>>>> Switching to email. Can a few of us come talk to you and Gina about

> so2 naaqs. Happy to discuss on phone before too.>> John Coequyt> 202.669.7060



Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US

06/28/2011 07:05 PM

To Jim Jones

cc

bcc

Subject Re: meeting with Green Groups

No issue. Thanks. Jim Jones

----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jones Sent: 06/28/2011 06:45 PM EDT To: Gina McCarthy Subject: Re: meeting with Green GroupsGina, it included all settlements and court ordered regs. Most are Sierra Club but not all. Unfortunately I don't have break out by plaintiff with me. Jimto -----------------\Sent by EPA Wireless E-Mail Services.

Gina McCarthy

----- Original Message ----- From: Gina McCarthy Sent: 06/28/2011 06:01 PM EDT To: Jim Jones Subject: Re: meeting with Green GroupsSure. Jim, do you know if the list of court deadlines that you sent along was just Sierra club or was it all deadlines coming up for rules?

Jim Jones

----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jones Sent: 06/28/2011 05:58 PM EDT To: Gina McCarthy Subject: meeting with Green GroupsGina, I plan to call in to the 8 pm conference call with the Green Groups tonight. I hope that's ok.

Jim JonesDeputy Assistant AdministratorEPA Office of Air and RadiationRoom 5426E Ariel Rios North1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington DC 20460202 564-7400

Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US

10/21/2009 09:17 AM

To Steve Page

cc

bcc

Subject Re: Fw: Sierra Club letter re: Two Elk power plant, Wyoming

I guess we can see how this plays out.

Steve Page 10/21/2009 06:00:18 AMGina, Per your request. Let me know if...

From: Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/USTo: Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: [email protected]: 10/21/2009 06:00 AMSubject: Fw: Sierra Club letter re: Two Elk power plant, Wyoming

Gina,Per your request. Let me know if you want to discuss this.-----Forwarded by Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US on 10/21/2009 05:58AM -----

To: Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US@EPAFrom: Bill Harnett/RTP/USEPA/USDate: 10/21/2009 02:09AMcc: Michael Ling/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Juan Santiago/RTP/USEPA/US@EPASubject: Fw: Sierra Club letter re: Two Elk power plant, Wyoming

Dear Steve

Here is some information on the permit in Wyoming based on discussions with Region 8

Bill

----- Forwarded by Bill Harnett/RTP/USEPA/US on 10/21/2009 02:08 AM -----

From: Janet McDonald/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Bill Harnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Michael Ling" <ling [email protected]>, "Janet Mcdonald" <[email protected]>, "Juan Santiago" <[email protected]>

Date: 10/20/2009 04:49 PM

Subject:

Re: Fw: Sierra Club letter re: Two Elk power plant, Wyoming

I spoke to Carl Daly this morning.

R8 has not seen a permit modification or notice of public comment on the permit modification.

The Sierra letter claims are accurate, with additional detail I obtained from Wyoming docket items as follows

1. 2003 permit is currently in place.

2. Since June 30, 2005, the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council has required status reports on construction activity at Two Elk.

3. On August 22, 2007, the Wyoming DEQ Air Director concluded that construction had stopped and that the 2003 permit was not valid. On November 13, 2007, Two Elk submitted an application for a permit modification.

4. There was a November 21, 2007 settlement agreement between Wyoming DEQ and Two Elk in which WDEQ concluded that construction had not been interrupted based on confidential information submitted by Two Elk. It requires construction status reports and states that an application for a permit modification had been submitted. The settlement also requires a subsequent permit modification if the construction schedule is extended beyond December 2012. The settlement agreement is attached. The Wyoming Environmental Quality Council subsequently upheld this decision that construction had not stopped and closed the case on March 7, 2008. Sierra Cllub appealed to the Wyoming District Court, which dismissed the case on August 31, 2009.

According to Sierra, the permit modifcation was submitted in January 2008. None of the permits or permit applications appear to be available online.

Janet McDonaldOffice of Air and RadiationOffice of Air Quality Planning and StandardsAir Quality Policy DivisionOperating Permits Group109 TW Alexander Dr., MD C504-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711Phone: 919 541-1450 Fax: 919 [email protected]

Bill Harnett---10/20/2009 08:52:06 AM---Please gather info asap ----- Original Message -----

From: Bill Harnett/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Janet Mcdonald" <[email protected]>

Cc: "Michael Ling" <[email protected]>, "Juan Santiago" <[email protected]>

Date: 10/20/2009 08:52 AM

Subject: Fw: Sierra Club letter re: Two Elk power plant, Wyoming

Please gather info asapSteve Page

----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Page Sent: 10/20/2009 08:15 AM EDT To: Michael Ling Cc: Bill Harnett; Juan Santiago Subject: Fw: Sierra Club letter re: Two Elk power plant, WyomingI would like to give gina some more info on this if we can check quickly with the region. Do you know anything about this or can you talk with the region about it?----- Forwarded by Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US on 10/20/2009 08:14 AM -----

From: Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Peter South/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 10/20/2009 07:43 AM


----- Forwarded by Jean Walker/RTP/USEPA/US on 10/20/2009 07:43 AM -----

From: Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US

To: "Steve Page" <[email protected]>

Cc: "Don Zinger" <[email protected]>

Date: 10/19/2009 08:43 PM


Fyi. Not sure what this is about but would like to see what the region has to say.

From: Elena.Saxonhouse Sent: 10/19/2009 11:50 AM MST To: Gina McCarthy; Cynthia Giles-AA Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Carol Rushin; Adam Kushner Subject: Sierra Club letter re: Two Elk power plant, Wyoming

Dear Administrators McCarthy and Giles,

Please see the attached letter from Sierra Club and Powder River Basin Resource Council regarding the proposed construction of a coal-fired power plant in Wyoming on an expired PSD permit. We look forward to discussing this matter with you at your earliest convenience and would be happy to provide more information upon request.

Elena Saxonhouse Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law Program85 Second St., 2nd FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105(415) 977-5765(415) 977-5793 (fax) [attachment "2009-10-19 Two Elk EPA letter.pdf" deleted by Janet McDonald/RTP/USEPA/US]

[a tachment "Two Elk pdf" dele ed by Gina McCa thy DC/USEPA/US]

Jan Cortelyou-Lee/RTP/USEPA/US

10/12/2012 10:34 AM

To Andrea Drinkard, John Millett

cc

bcc

Subject Fw: the SSM Settlement Agreement extension is official

FYI - See note below from Geoff Wilcox. I think you guys are aware of this - the most recent deadline we had negotiated was October 15 -

The newly agreed upon date is December 14th for a proposal and final action in late June 2013.

The Sierra Club petitioned EPA to find the state plans inadequate and then direct the 39 states to correct their State Implementation Plans under section 110 of the Clean Air Act because provisions in these plans regarding exemptions and enforcement provisions for excess emissions during startup, shutdown, malfunction, and/or maintenance that Sierra Club considers to be contrary to the Clean Air Act.

Jan Cortelyou-LeeUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Air Quality Planning and StandardsMD-C404-03109 TW Alexander DriveResearch Triangle Park, NC 27709phone: 919-541-5393FAX: 919-541-2464----- Forwarded by Jan Cortelyou-Lee/RTP/USEPA/US on 10/12/2012 10:14 AM -----

From: Lora Strine/DC/USEPA/USTo: Jan Cortelyou-Lee/RTP/USEPA/US@EPADate: 10/11/2012 05:40 PMSubject: Fw: the SSM Settlement Agreement extension is official

Lora StrineSenior Policy AdvisorEPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 202-564-1521 desk919-741-7862 cell----- Forwarded by Lora Strine/DC/USEPA/US on 10/11/2012 05:40 PM -----

From: Geoffrey Wilcox/DC/USEPA/USTo: Lisa Sutton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kristin Riha/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Phil

Lorang/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich Damberg/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Krishna Viswanathan/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Anna Wood/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jenny Noonan/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Alison Davis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lora

Strine/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Sara Schneeberg/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin McLean/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kaytrue

Ting/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 10/11/2012 05:38 PMSubject: the SSM Settlement Agreement extension is official

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

Gang:

G


01/08/2013 04:47 PM

To Daniel Hopkins

cc Alan Rush, Nancy Ketcham-Colwill, OAR Special Assistants

bcc

Subject Re: Fw: revised Luminant summary for the WHW

Daniel - we don't yet -

Jan Cortelyou-LeeUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Air Quality Planning and StandardsMD-C404-03109 TW Alexander DriveResearch Triangle Park, NC 27709phone: 919-541-5393FAX: 919-541-2464

Daniel Hopkins 01/08/2013 04:07:41 PMAlan and Jan, Thank you for the revise...

From: Daniel Hopkins/DC/USEPA/USTo: Alan Rush/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Jan Cortelyou-Lee/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nancy Ketcham-Colwill/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, OAR

Special AssistantsDate: 01/08/2013 04:07 PMSubject: Re: Fw: revised Luminant summary for the WHW

Alan and Jan,

Thank you for the revised blurb. Question: do you know how EPA plans to respond to the petition? It is not explained in the write-up.


Alan Rush 01/08/2013 03:05:32 PMDaniel, If you can slip this in to the curre...

From: Alan Rush/DC/USEPA/USTo: OAR Special AssistantsCc: Nancy Ketcham-Colwill/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan Cortelyou-Lee/RTP/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/08/2013 03:05 PMSubject: Fw: revised Luminant summary for the WHW

Daniel,

If you can slip this in to the current White House Weekly, we think it a better explanation.

Alan----- Forwarded by Alan Rush/DC/USEPA/US on 01/08/2013 03:03 PM -----

From: Jan Cortelyou-Lee/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Alan Rush/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jenny Noonan/RTP/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/08/2013 03:01 PMSubject: revised Luminant summary for the WHW

Alan ‐ here is a simplified version. Do you want to replace the one from yesterday with this or would you like me to work with daniel and linda on that?

Luminant Title V:



01/31/2013 10:13 AM

To John Millett

cc Jenny Noonan, "Nate McMichael", Allison Dennis

bcc

Subject SSM Materials

Here is the updated roll-out plan. The only thing that has changed since Allison (and I'm pretty sure Janet) reviewed back in December is the dates.

FYI: No real feedback from OMB on this yet.

SSM SIP_Roll Out and Cal ListV5.docxSSM SIP_Roll Out and Cal ListV5.docx

Here also are other draft materials - I'll send out to our folks again for input as we start to hear from OMB. We have some "heads-up" talking points for the regions to use but since the timing of those calls wouldn't happen before the rule is signed on the 12th - I'll change them.

SSM SIP_Fact Sheet_V8.docxSSM SIP_Fact Sheet_V8.docx SSM SIP Call _QAV5.docxSSM SIP Call _QAV5.docx


John Millett 01/31/2013 09:10:02 AM+ nate Good question -- I'll ask. Expect t...

From: John Millett/DC/USEPA/USTo: Jenny Noonan/RTP/USEPA/US@EPACc: Jan Cortelyou-Lee/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Nate McMichael"

<[email protected]>Date: 01/31/2013 09:10 AMSubject: Re: SO2 Implementation & 120-day Letters Rollout

+ nate

Good question -- I'll ask. Expect that SOTU may push this off.

On SSM -- . John MillettEPA Office of Air and Radiation CommunicationsDesk: 202/564-2903Cell: 202/510-1822

Jenny Noonan 01/31/2013 08:50 AM ESTJohn -- Will the timing Janet suggests...

From: Jenny NoonanTo: John Millett

Cc: Jan Cortelyou-LeeDate: 01/31/2013 08:50 AM ESTSubject: Fw: SO2 Implementation & 120-day Letters Rollout

John --

Will the timing Janet suggests below be acceptable in relationship to the 12th?

As for the SSM proposal, we plan to post the info on the web on the morning of the 13th.

Thanks,Jenny

******************Jenny NoonanPolicy Analysis and CommunicationsEPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards919/541-0193 (w)919/358-9562 (c)----- Forwarded by Jenny Noonan/RTP/USEPA/US on 01/31/2013 08:48 AM -----

From: Jan Cortelyou-Lee/RTP/USEPA/USTo: Jenny Noonan/RTP/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/31/2013 08:34 AMSubject: Fw: SO2 Implementation & 120-day Letters Rollout

See highlighted in blue below -

Jan Cortelyou-LeeUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Air Quality Planning and StandardsMD-C404-03109 TW Alexander DriveResearch Triangle Park, NC 27709phone: 919-541-5393FAX: 919-541-2464----- Forwarded by Jan Cortelyou-Lee/RTP/USEPA/US on 01/31/2013 08:32 AM -----

From: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/USTo: Nate McMichael/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Jan Cortelyou-Lee/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John Millett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike

Koerber/RTP/USEPA/US@EPADate: 01/30/2013 04:59 PMSubject: Re: SO2 Implementation & 120-day Letters Rollout

Your note is timely. Another person from Sierra Club (john coequyt) contacted Joe about this topic asking for a meeting.

Obviously, this is still a bit in flux. I'll try to pin it down with Gina asap.


-----Nate McMichael/DC/USEPA/US wrote: ----- To: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPAFrom: Nate McMichael/DC/USEPA/USDate: 01/30/2013 10:50PMCc: John Millett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan Cortelyou-Lee/RTP/USEPA/US@EPASubject: SO2 Implementation & 120-day Letters Rollout

Hi Janet,

I hope your trip to Brussels is going well! OAQPS has been working on the SO2 implementation strategy/120 day letter rolloutt plan and we have a few questions for you. Mainly, we'd like to know how you would like to handle stakeholder calls. Our options are to do a group conference call or individual notifications. The key people/groups that we would like to reach out to are:

Also, would you rather make calls the day before (2/5) or the day of (2/6)?

Finally, the current draft comm plan is attached below.

Thank you,-Nate

(See attached file: SO Implementation Comm PlanV7.docx)

______________________________Nate McMichael

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Air and RadiationOffice: (202) 564-0382Cell: (202) 236-4176

[attachment "SO Implementation Comm PlanV7.docx" removed by Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US]

Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US

04/05/2012 07:07 AM

To "Gina McCarthy", "Joseph Goffman"

cc

bcc

Subject Fw: Fw: Sierra Club et al vs. Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Clean air, et al Refinery greenhouse gas emissions

Here's where RX are on addressing the SIP Dennis McLerran

----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis McLerran Sent: 04/04/2012 08:01 AM PDT To: Janet McCabe Cc: "Dennis Mclerran" <[email protected]>; Rick Albright Subject: Re: Fw: Sierra Club et al vs. Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Clean air, et al Refinery greenhouse gas emissionsJanet:

I know this is confusing.

Dennis

Janet McCabe 04/03/2012 05:31:14 PMHi guys.... I'm kind of confused by this n...

From: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/USTo: "Dennis Mclerran" <[email protected]>, Rick Albright/R10/USEPA/US, Date: 04/03/2012 05:31 PMSubject: Fw: Sierra Club et al vs. Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Clean air, et al Refinery

greenhouse gas emissions

Hi guys....

I'm kind of confused by this note.

Gina McCarthy

----- Original Message ----- From: Gina McCarthy Sent: 04/03/2012 02:30 PM EDT To: Janet McCabe; Joseph Goffman Subject: Fw: Sierra Club et al vs. Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Clean air, et al Refinery greenhouse gas emissionsShould we find time to talk about this?

----- Forwarded by Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US on 04/03/2012 02:29 PM -----

From: Mark Asmundson <[email protected]>To: Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 04/03/2012 02:23 PMSubject: Sierra Club et al vs. Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Clean air, et al Refinery

greenhouse gas emissions

Dear Ms. McCarthy, It was a genuine pleasure meeting with you and Janet McCabe recently, at the Region X office in Seattle. You may recall that one of the issues of concern I mentioned at the meeting related to a recent District Court interpretation of the scope of Federally enforceable terms (unrelated to NAAQS) contained within a SIP. If “Inside EPA” is to be believed, my fears and concerns may be justified. I have pasted a copy of a recent article to this email. The last paragraph is quite troubling. We will be submitting a SIP revision request to EPA later this year. Regards,Mark AsmundsonMark AsmundsonExecutive Director

Northwest Clean Air Agency1600 S 2nd StreetMount Vernon, WA 98273360.428.1617 ext 0www.nwcleanair.org

"Passionate in the Pursuit of Clean Air”

The Inside Story

Washington Weighs RACT Appeal Posted: April 2, 2012 Washington state is considering appealing a recent federal court order requiring it to issue within 26 months first-time reasonably available control technology (RACT) greenhouse gas (GHG) limits for refineries, saying it disagrees with the underlying findings in the decision.Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in a March 27 order gave the state just over two years to craft the RACT, agreeing with the state that it needed more than the five-and-a-half-month deadline activists sought. The standards could set a precedent, even though they will only be binding in Washington. The order follows Pechman's Dec. 1 decision in the case finding the state must craft the RACT GHG standard under Washington's state implementation plan (SIP).States have wide discretion in determining RACT, a level of pollution control that applies in areas not meeting EPA national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) -- though the agency does not have a NAAQS for GHGs, so there is no federal RACT for GHGs. EPA is working on a new source performance standard to cut refineries' GHGs, but that effort has stalled.

Environmentalists sued Washington, claiming state law requires RACT for GHGs because a 2009 executive order by Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) defined GHGs as “air contaminants” and therefore the state should have included RACT for refinery GHGs in its SIP for meeting EPA's NAAQS -- an argument Pechman agreed with in her Dec. 1 decision in the lawsuit Washington Environmental Council, et al. v. Theodore Sturdevant, et al.A state source says while Washington is happy the judge recognized its need for 26 months to promulgate the RACT, “We still have issues with the original ruling. We now have 30 days from the issuance of the order to examine and think about our options, and one option is to appeal.”A source with the Western States Petroleum Association, which intervened on the state's behalf and opposes GHG limits under RACT, says the group is also reviewing legal options.But an environmentalist attorney says activist groups are pleased with the ruling, even if they lost their pitch for a quick schedule of just over five months for issuing the rule. The source expects the state to ultimately mandate efficiency measures to lower refinery GHGs under RACT when it develops the rule. “That's okay, we've got a deadline. They're going to be doing it,” the source says.The source adds that environmentalists are already looking at other state programs to see if they share similar RACT requirements in their SIPs, where the federal court precedent can be expanded. “Certainly, if other states have this language, or similar language, in their SIP then it is an enforceable obligation. It will be [determined] state-by-state depending on what's in their plan . . . and other organizations are” undertaking such reviews now, the source adds.Related News: Air Climate Change Litigation

Jeffrey Clark/RTP/USEPA/US

08/13/2009 12:48 PM

To Gina McCarthy

cc Rob Brenner

bcc

Subject Re: LG&E TP

Great. Thanks. Rob is calling Bumpers.

Jeff ClarkDirector, Policy Analysis and Communications StaffOffice of Air Quality Planning and StandardsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency919 541-5557

Gina McCarthy 08/13/2009 12:34:18 PMMade all calls except Bumpers. Someo...

From: Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/USTo: Jeffrey Clark/RTP/USEPA/US@EPADate: 08/13/2009 12:34 PMSubject: Re: LG&E TP

Made all calls except Bumpers. Someone else can call him if a heads up is advisable. Thanks

Jeffrey Clark 08/11/2009 06:52:21 PMHi Gina, As I understand it, you were lo...

From: Jeffrey Clark/RTP/USEPA/USTo: Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US@EPACc: Rob Brenner/DC/USEPA/US@EPADate: 08/11/2009 06:52 PMSubject: LG&E TP

Hi Gina,

As I understand it, you were looking for phone numbers and talking points for heads up calls on LG&E.

Rob and Jenny Noonan of my staff pulled together the following list and talking points. I copied most of the attachment text into the body of this email so you can read it.

Jeff

Jeff ClarkDirector, Policy Analysis and Communications StaffOffice of Air Quality Planning and StandardsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency919 541-5557----- Forwarded by Jeffrey Clark/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/11/2009 06:42 PM -----

From: Jenny Noonan/RTP/USEPA/USTo: [email protected]: Rob Brenner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Juan Santiago/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]: 08/11/2009 04:42 PMSubject: LG&E TP

Cell: 919-358-9562

Jennifer Snyder/RTP/USEPA/US

02/10/2010 03:30 PM

To Janet McCabe

cc Joseph Mangino, Michael Ling

bcc

Subject Re: Fw: Sierra and CATF comments on tailoring

Hi Janet,

Here's the CATF comments. There were 18 attachments to this as well, several of which are copyrighted and are not in the docket online, and others which are very large. Please let me know if you are interested in any/all of these. The core comments are included in the document above.

Here are Sierra Club's comments as part of the Alliance for Climate Protection, et. al. There were also a number of mass mailings from Sierra Club members, which were not considered substantive. This covers not only the Alliance for Climate Protection, but also the Clean Air Task Force, Climate Solutions, Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC, Penn Future, and Sierra Club. This comment also has a number of attachments, including Sierra Club's comments on other rules. Please let me know if those are of interest as well.

Thanks,Jennifer

Jennifer R. SnyderOperating Permits GroupOffice of Air Quality Planning & Standards, US EPA Research Triangle Park, NC 27711Phone: 919-541-3003 email: [email protected]

Michael Ling 02/10/2010 02:53:06 PMCan you help Janet and let me know wh...

From: Michael Ling/RTP/USEPA/USTo: Jennifer Snyder/RTP/USEPA/US@EPACc: Joseph Mangino/RTP/USEPA/US@EPADate: 02/10/2010 02:53 PMSubject: Fw: Sierra and CATF comments on tailoring

Can you help Janet and let me know when you found them?

Michael LingAssociate DirectorAir Quality Policy DivisionU.S. EPA - OAQPS(919) 541-4729

----- Forwarded by Michael Ling/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/10/2010 02:52 PM -----

From: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/USTo: Michael Ling/RTP/USEPA/US@EPADate: 02/10/2010 02:46 PM

Subject: Sierra and CATF comments on tailoring

Michael--is there someone other than you who could direct me to, or send me, the comments that Sierra club and Clean Air Task Force submitted on the tailoring rule? Even with all the spare time I have today, I don't think I can scroll through the 19230 records on the regulations.gov site to find them....

Thanks.


----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Wayland Sent: 06/15/2011 08:12 AM EDT To: Janet McCabe Cc: Scott Mathias; Steve Page Subject: Re: Sierra Club Meeting request with Gina on SO2 modelingI would agree.

Chet

Janet McCabe 06/15/2011 01:05:15 AMMy inclination is not to have Gina in the...

From: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/USTo: OAR Invitations@EPACc: Addie Johnson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott

Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPADate: 06/15/2011 01:05 AMSubject: Re: Sierra Club Meeting request with Gina on SO2 modeling

My inclination is

Steve, Scott, Chet--what do you think?


-----Cindy Huang/DC/USEPA/US wrote: ----- To: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPAFrom: OAR InvitationsSent by: Cindy Huang/DC/USEPA/US

Date: 06/14/2011 02:37PMCc: Addie Johnson/DC/USEPA/US@EPASubject: Sierra Club Meeting request with Gina on SO2 modeling

Hi Janet,

Here's the second one, Sierra Club wants to meet with Gina to discuss SO2 Modeling of unscrubbed coal plants. I haven't asked Gina if she wants to take the meeting yet and they are requesting in the next two weeks to meet with her. Would you like to meet with them or should I send this to OAQPS?

Thanks,Cindy

----------------------------Office of Air and Radiation, Immediate OfficeU.S. Environmental Protection [email protected] Forwarded by Cindy Huang/DC/USEPA/US on 06/14/2011 02:33 PM -----

From: Josh Stebbins <[email protected]>

To: OAR Invitations@EPA

Date: 06/14/2011 09:57 AM

Subject: Sierra Club Meeting With AA McCarthy -- SO2 Modeling

Dear Cindy -

It was a pleasure to speak with you on the phone. As I explained, Sierra Club is seeking a meeting with Assistant Administrator McCarthy for several reasons. First, I would like to make general introductions as I am the Senior Attorney for Sierra Club in Washington, replacing David Bookbinder.

Second, Sierra Club is undertaking a significant push on a national level to conduct 1 Hour SO2 modeling of unscrubbed coal plants. In this regard, we are very interested in better understanding the direction EPA is taking in developing SO2 modeling protocols. In addition, we would like to be sure that the modeling we are doing will be taken into consideration in establishing the initial attainment/nonattainment designations for the 1 Hour SO2 NAAQS standard this coming year.

As we are in the midst of the 1 Hour SO2 modeling process, it would be ideal if we could meet with Assistant Administrator McCarthy, and any EPA staff she thinks would be relevant, sometime in the next two weeks or so, if that is at all possible.

Thank you

Josh

Joshua Stebbins Senior Attorney

Sierra Club 555 11th Street NW Suite 600 Washington DC 20004 202 675 6273 202 835 2072 fax

Mailing address: Joshua Stebbins Senior Attorney Sierra Club 408 C Street, NE Washington DC 20002

Seth Oster/DC/USEPA/US

08/28/2009 11:26 AM

To jfreeman

cc Gina McCarthy

bcc

Subject PSD

Jody,

Good to talk with you earlier.

Attached is a document with the two stories we discussed. The first, from “Inside EPA”, was not a leak, as I mentioned. It resulted from the footnote that was included in the response to the petition for permit from Louisville Gas & Electric. The second story came from David Bookbinder of the Sierra Club.

I also talked with Gina about the additional examples you’ve requested on sources that will not be regulated under the rule. She’s going to circle back with you sometime today.

Seth

Seth OsterAssociate AdministratorOffice of Public AffairsEnvironmental Protection Agency(202) [email protected]

hi janet, please see information below re: a settlement ...attachment "2011 ozone naaqs nsr...

Documents