WESTAR and WRAP Spring Business Meeting 

April 19-20, 2016 

Incline Village, NV 

All agenda times are Pacific Daylight Time 

Tuesday, April 19 

 7:00-9:00 am WESTAR Breakfast Buffet (provided) Cutthroat Saloon 

 8:00–10:00 am Executive Session Martis Peak AB 

 8:00-10:00 am Tribal Caucus Martis Peak C 

10:15–11:45 am Business Regency DEF 

 Opening of WESTAR - WRAP meeting 

o WESTAR Council welcome – Bryce Bird, UT DAQ, 

President 

o WRAP Board welcome – Randy Ashley, Confederated 

Salish, Pend d’Oreilles, and Kootenai Tribes, Tribal CoChair 

o Introductions around the room and on the phone 

o Logistics 

 Review/approval of previous meeting summary |LINK|

 Location of fall WESTAR/WRAP meeting |LINK|

 Nomination Committee recommendations – WESTAR Board 

|LINK|

 Review of WRAP Board terms and members (Tom Moore, 

WESTAR-WRAP) |LINK|

 Staff reports (Tom Moore, Bob Lebens, Jeff Gabler, WESTARWRAP) |LINK|

 Committee reports (Tina Suarez-Murias, CARB |LINK|; Clint 

Bowman, WY ECY |LINK|; Gordon Pierce, CDPHE |LINK|) 

 Financial report (Will Allison, CDPHE) |LINK|

11:45 am-1:15 pm Lunch (on your own) 

1:15–2:15 pm OAQPS Overview (Anna Wood, EPA) |LINK|

2:15-3:15 pm Ozone NAAQS implementation 

 SIP process (Anna Wood, EPA) |LINK|

 EPA Interstate transport technical issues (Chet Wayland, EPA) |LINK|

 Western state comments on background ozone white paper/workshop 

(Frank Forsgren, NV DEP) |LINK|

3:15-3:30 pm Break 
3:30-5:00 pm Hot topics:

 SO2 NAAQS overview (Anna Wood) |LINK| and roundtable

(Roundtable questions provided |LINK|)

 E-permitting panel (Tim Franquist, AZ DEQ |LINK|; Charlene 

Albee, Washoe County Health District |LINK|) 

5:00-6:00 pm Tribal Caucus, as needed Martis Peak C

6:00 pm No Host dinner-Azzara’s 930 Tahoe Blvd., Suite 101, Incline Village

Wednesday, April 20

 7:00-8:00 am WESTAR Breakfast Buffet (provided) Cutthroat Saloon

 8:00 – 9:30 am Exceptional Events Rulemaking and Wildfire/Ozone Guidance Regency

DEF

 OAQPS update (Anna Wood, EPA) |LINK|

 Overview of WESTAR comments (Adele Malone and Danilo Dragoni, 

NV DEP) |LINK|

 Regional Scale Technical Tools (Tom Moore, WESTAR-WRAP)

|LINK|

 Roundtable comments: (Roundtable questions provided) |LINK|

 9:30-10:00 am Smoke Management and Fire (Pete Lahm, USFS) |LINK|

10:00-10:15 am Break

10:15 – 11:00 am Regional haze planning

 EPA proposal (Anna Wood, EPA) |LINK|

 Regional Haze workgroup and workplan update (Tina SuarezMurias, CARB) |LINK|

11:00 am-12:00 pm WRAP Workplan (Julie Simpson, Nez Perce Tribe) |LINK|

12:00-1:15 pm Lunch (provided) Regency Foyer West

1:15 – 2:15 pm Oil and Gas: rules, state experiences and technologies (Will Allison, 

CDPHE; Terry O’Clair, ND DOH; Darla Potter, WY DEQ)

2:15-3:00 pm Climate Change initiatives roundtable (Roundtable questions |LINK|)

3:00-4:00 pm Efficiency Improvements Roundtable (Roundtable questions |LINK|)
4:00 pm Adjourn—please fill out evaluation form |LINK|
5/5/2016

1

1

Beth Palma

2

 Exceptional Events Rule Revisions and Wildfire Guidance Development

 November 10, 2015 – sign Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for rule revisions and Notice of

Availability for draft guidance

 November 20, 2015 – publication in Federal Register (80 FR 72840)

 December 8, 2015 – public hearing in Phoenix, Arizona

 February 3, 2016 – close of comment period

 Summer 2016 – sign final rule and issue final guidance document

 Communication and Outreach

 Summer/Fall 2016

 Additional draft guidance document(s) available for stakeholder review  

 Revisions to 2013 Interim Exceptional Events Implementation Guidance

 Continued development of exceptional events tools (e.g., website, templates)

 Implementation workshop(s)/webinars for states, tribes, and other affected stakeholders

following promulgation

Exceptional Events
5/5/2016

2

3

 Environmental community not supportive of majority of proposed revisions

 States/industry generally supportive of streamlining efforts and asked for additional measures to

improve efficiency

 Restructuring 6 criteria in 2007 Rule to 3 (includes removing “but for”)

 Presumption that event‐related emissions originating outside of jurisdiction are not reasonably controllable or preventable

 Relying on EPA‐approved attainment/maintenance SIPs to satisfy not reasonably controllable or preventable

 Removing flagging and demonstration submittal deadlines

 Clarification regarding components of a demonstration package

 States/Industry generally do not support:

 Allowing Federal Land Managers to submit demonstrations

 Not relying on infrastructure SIPs to satisfy not reasonably controllable or preventable

 Using Air Quality Control Region boundaries to define the bounds for an area subject to event recurrence

 General timelines for EPA response (prefer promulgated timelines)

 Lack of a formal dispute resolution process  

Exceptional Events: Comments on the NPRM

4

• Commenters generally support tiering concept, but believe identified approach is

too restrictive

• Commenters do not fully support the Q/D methodology proposed as a key factor for

defining a Tier 2 demonstration. Commenters note the difficulty in calculating Q/D

and the limitations of identified tools (e.g., SMARTFIRE/BlueSky)

• Commenters ask for prescribed fire guidance  

Exceptional Events: Comments on Guidance
WESTAR Spring Business Meeting

April 19-20, 2016

Incline Village, Nevada

1
2

WESTAR Comments on EER

History of involvement with EPA regarding EE. Appreciate 

EPA’s responsiveness to WESTAR’s ongoing concerns –

addressing them through rule revisions.

The proposed rule revisions include a number of important 

improvements that we support, such as:

• Removing the “but-for” criterion

• Incorporating the “affects air quality” and “historical 

fluctuations” criteria into assessment of the broader 

clear causal demonstration

• Removing deadlines for data flagging, initial event 

descriptions and demonstration submittals

• Advocating early and frequent communication to 

establish mutual expectations . . . and more
Not Reasonably Preventable and Controllable

(V.E.2)

• Support EPA’s proposal to consider control measures in 

recently approved nonattainment and maintenance SIPs 

sufficient to meet requirement.

• During 5-year window after approval of the SIP, control 

measures in SIP satisfy the not reasonably preventable 

and controllable criterion. 

• Urge EPA to extend this presumption to all SIPs approved 

by EPA, including CAA 110(a)(1) and(2) SIPs, aka 

“infrastructure” SIPs. 

3
Submittal of EE Requests by FLMs (V.A.2)

Support collaboration with FLMs on the preparation of a 

request. However, land management agencies and air quality 

agencies have different functions and priorities. Responsibility 

for submitting a request should remain with the state air 

quality agency. 

Smoke Management Plans (V.F.2)

• Air agencies need a role in deciding when a prescribed fire is 

allowed to burn as a wildfire (become eligible for EE status). 

• Support requirements for SMPs that define up front what 

appropriate practices should be followed to protect air 

quality, rather than asking fire managers to confirm 

afterwards they implemented BSMPs.

4
Mitigation (VI.B)

Support retaining current practices (40 CFR 51.930), which 

provide flexibility and deference to states on appropriate 

mitigation and public notification. These appear to be working 

satisfactorily. “If it ain’t broken...” 

Scope and Applicability (V.C.2) Understand the need to 

manage EE demonstration submittals and the current backlog, 

but:

• Concerned with EPA’s proposal to restrict review to only 

specific types of EEs. If EPA imposes this limitation, EPA must 

also include a provision to allow states and regions, on a 

case-by-case basis, to pursue other types of requests.

• Concerned that EPA has announced it does not expect to act 

on demonstrations in unclassifiable or attainment areas, 

unless the area could become nonattainment. 

5
Timing (V.G.7)

• EPA needs to establish in rule a time frame for a 

completeness review of a submittal; response time for 

states to supply any requested additional information; and 

a deadline for acting on a submittal. Recommend a 12 

month timeline from initial submittal to final action.

• EE submittal backlog: It is essential that states be allowed to 

review the back-log of exceptional events and retain 

packages that may still have compelling reasons for acting.

Dispute Resolution (V.G.8)

Support early and regular communication and proposal for 

initial notification of EE requests. However – disagreements 

may still arise. Continue to recommend EPA develop an 

administrative dispute resolution process; WESTAR offers to 

work with EPA to develop one. 

6
WESTAR Spring Business Meeting

April 19-20, 2016

Incline Village, Nevada

7
Tiered approach to streamline EE demonstration

1. Tier 1 – simple case, addressed with very simple analysis

2. Tier 2 - based on the intensity and emission from the fires and 

the distance of the affected monitor

3. Tier 3 – more complex cases to be addressed with advanced 

analyses and/or modeling (e.g., CMAQ/CAMx)

WESTAR welcomes the tiered approach and the attempt to 

streamline the preparation of the EE... BUT

The tiered system does not address the complexity typical of the 

western US (e.g., several wildfires going on at the same time)

Some rigidity in the definition of the tiers may lead to situations 

where a large majority of the cases will fall under tier 3, 

especially in the West
Tier 1

Very clear effect of the fire, possibly during low O3 season so that the 

spike in concentrations is 5-10 ppb higher than during non-event 

conditions (ideally, a time-series should be enough to show the effect of 

the fire on the monitor)

• Rigid and simplistic approach (low O3 season and threshold)

• States should not be restricted on the magnitude or on the type of 

analyses required to quantify the effect of the wildfire on the 

monitor. 

• If a baseline of non-event data needs to be constructed

o What about all the events (potential EEs) that affected the 

baseline but do not fall in a regulatory determination?

o What about the backlog of EE submissions that EPA is planning 

to terminate?

• Needs for at least 5 years of data to determine the baseline. 
Based on the ratio between emissions (Q) and distance between the fire and the 

monitor (D). EPA set this ratio to be at least 100 (tpd/km)

Guidance on the Preparation of Exceptional Events Demonstrations for Wildfire Events that May Influence Ozone 

Concentrations – Draft November 2015

Tier 2
• The threshold of 100 tpd/km appears to be arbitrary and could 

just create a 2 tiered system (1and 3)

• The determination of Q becomes highly uncertain and the tools 

proposed are limited for the purpose of assessing Q 

(SMARTFIRE/BlueSky, NEI ...) 

• Ignores the efforts from WRAP Fire Emissions Tracking System 

(FETS), or WRAP Tools analysis platform.

• Needs for at least 5 years of data to determine the base-line for 

assessing the impact of the wildfire over the monitor

Tier 2
Some of the analyses required for Tier 3 demonstrations may place 

an undue burden on smaller agencies with limited resources

Tier 3