MEMORANDUM UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TR IANGLE PARK , NC 27711


## FEB 2 8 2011

SUBJECT: Summary of Outreach and Consultation with Tribal Governments FROM: Laura McKelvey, Group Leader Community & Tribal Programs Group Outreach & Information Division O FFI CE OF AlA QUALITY P LANN I N G AND STAN DARD S

TO: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Uti lity Steam Generating Units (EGUs) Docket 

### # EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 1.0 INTRODUCTION Subject to Executive Order (E.O.) l3 175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that impo ses substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute; unless , the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement. E.O. 13175 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." The EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal impli cations. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt trib al law. This proposed rule wou ld impose requirements on owners and operators ofEGUs. EPA is aware of three coal-fired EGUs located in Indian country. EPA is not aware of any EGUs owned or operated by tribal entities. 2.0 OUTREACH AND CONSULTATION The EPA offered consu ltation with tribal officials earl y in the process of developing this proposed regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. Consultation letters were sent to 584 tribal leaders. The letters provided information regarding

Intemet Address (URL)

. http ://www .epa .gov RecycledIRecyc lab le • Print ed wHh Veg etab le 0 11 B ased Ink s on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Poslco nsumer) 

### ,.2 EPA's development ofNESHAP for EGUs and also offered consultation. Three consultation meetings were requested and held:
• December 7, 2010, with the Upper Sioux Community of Minnesota; • December 13,2010, with Moapa Band of Paiutes, Forest County Potawatomi, Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council, Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa; and • January 5, 2011, with the Forest County Potawatomi and a representative from the National Tribal Air Association. In these meetings, EPA presented the authority under the CAA, used to develop these rules, and an overview of the industry and the industrial processes that have the potential for regulation. Tribes expressed concerns about the impact ofthe utilities on the reservations. Their particular concerns were on potential mercury deposition and the impact on the water resources ofthe tribe, with specific worries about the impact on subsistence lifestyles for fishing communities, the cultural impact of impaired water quality for ceremonial purposes, and the economic impact on tourism. In light of these concerns, the tribes expressed interest in an expedited implementation of the rule. They also expressed concerns about how the Agency would consider variability in setting the standards and use tribal specific fish consumption data from the tribes in our assessments. The tribes were not supportive ofusing work practice standards as part ofthe rule and asked the Agency to consider going beyond the floor to offer more protection for the tribal communities. A more specific list of comments can be found in the Docket. In addition to these consultations, EPA also conducted outreach on this rule through presentations at the National Tribal Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and on National Tribal Air Association calls. EPA specifically requested tribal data that could support the appropriate and necessary analysis and the regulatory impacts analysis for this rule. We will also hold additional meetings with tribal environmental staff to inform them of the content of this proposal as well as provide additional consultation with tribal elected officials where it is appropriate. Attached are materials provided by the Forest County Potawatomi Community (FCPW) that SUppOit their comments. Attachments: 1. FCPC Follow-up Materials to Utilities MACT Consultation with EPA 2. FCPC Comments on EPA's CAMR Rulemaking 3. Watras Study

- Devils Lake

- Mercury Final Report

- June 06