Exceptional Events

Updates

US EPA

‐OAR

‐OAQPS

WESTAR Spring Meeting

April 2015
Overview of Presentation

• Relevant Background

• Outreach to assess lessons learned and best pra

for Exceptional Events demonstrations to date

• Update on Exceptional Events Rule Revisions an

Guidance (including communication plan and sc

• Schedule and Next Steps

• Arizona’s EE Process Improvement Analysis (ADE

• Discussion of key questions from EPA
Relevant Background

• States continue to express concerns about Exceptional Ev

Demonstrations. Concerns include:

• Resources needed for Exceptional Events demonstrations

• Lengthy and inconsistent reviews of Exceptional Events demonst

• Lack of and/or inconsistent communication concerning treatmen

processing of Exceptional Events demonstrations

• Ongoing discussions with EPA Regions and states to dete

what works well and what could work better to address cfor Exceptional Events demonstrations

• Are there opportunities to further standardize certain aspects of Exc

Events demonstrations?

• How can early and frequent coordination and communication, temp

other process aids be used to improve process efficiency?

• Are there other process improvements or technical tools EPA and st

consider?

• Technical tools and process aids identified as best practic

lessons learned will be used to complement the Exceptio

Rule revisions and Wildfire Ozone guidance

• See Appendix for additional background information
Outreach to Assess Lessons Learned an

Best Practices for EE Demonstrations

• Outreach Goals and Methodology:

• Goal: To better understand Exceptional Events‐related con

best practices from air agencies, for EPA to learn and prov

standardized and more efficient ways for states to address

Exceptional Events demonstrations

• Qualitative review based on standard set of questions (se

for list of questions)

• Talked in general with states and regional offices

• Results of outreach revealed best practices already being 

areas for improvement and requests to further clarify po

improve tools
Opportunities in Three Key Areas

• Best practices for communication/collaboration betw

EPA and air agencies

• Systematic communications process between air agenc

the reviewing EPA Regional office for exceptional eventduring and after exceptional events package developm

submittal and review

• Recommendations to clarify and simplify demonstra

• Recommendations for tools and consistency checks

• Tools and resources that will enhance collaboration am

regions and states and result in consistency in interpret

applying Exceptional Events Rule elements and level of 
Best Practices for Communication/Collaborat

Between EPA and Air Agencies

• Communicate often

• Communicate before, during and after development and sub

exceptional event packages

• During Initial meetings

• Spend time preparing for the initial meetings by prescreening flag

ensure they are of regulatory significance and are likely to become 

Events submissions, using shared criteria between EPA and air age

• Obtain clear understanding of regulatory significance, number and 

submissions from air agencies & EPA priority for action

• Discuss the critical path aspect of the Exceptional Events submissi

generating lots of maps, data and tables

• Obtain clear understanding on EPA timelines for action and ways t

submission

• Communicate throughout the development of Exceptional E

packages, sharing previous successful products for similar ev

templates for data and language, and review of drafts

• Communicate after submission and EPA actions to learn EPA’

criteria for that action and aspects of the project that worke

that could be improved
Recommendations to Clarify and 

Simplify Demonstrations

• Through Exceptional Events Rule Revisions and Guid

• Clarify “not reasonably controllable or preventable”

• Address “but for” concerns

• Flagging of data – duration of flags, descriptions, schedule 

events close to regulatory submissions

• Clarify the need and utility of historical fluctuations assess

• Provide boiler plates for “obvious” natural exceptional eve

provide ways to efficiently demonstrate for recurring natu

• Administrative changes – delegation of authority to EPA R

Air Director to act on packages, clarify use of Letter of Inte

specify timelines for EPA review of submitted packages

• Ozone – provide guidance, standard and level of effort on 

provisions for flagging values below the NAAQS, better to

“but for” and “clear causal relationship,” and regional effo

catastrophic events over large scales
Recommendations for Tools and 

Consistency Checks

• Tools and resources that enhance collaboration:

• Consistent interpretation of the rule and guidance for the set of 

discussion

• Consistent approach to dust controls in attainment/unclassifiabl

• Consistent approach to ‘not reasonably controllable or preventa

attainment and designated planning areas

• Consistent understanding of planning area requirements and ex

rules as it intersects with the Exceptional Events Rule

• Develop, share and adapt templates that simplify organiz

document to support EPA decision and action

• Provide demonstration outlines for wildfire ozone events

including order in which to address elements, and type o

information to support the conclusion

• Provide clarity on the types of technical tools that are ap

for each type of event
Current Thinking for Proposed 

Exceptional Events Rule Revisions
Current Thinking on Wildfire Ozone Guida

• Wildfire Ozone Guidance: Tiered/streamlined demonstration approach f

and/or close fires that affect high ozone concentrations

• No requirement to quantify fire impact on ozone concentration• Template(s) for demonstrations

• Demonstrations would include 3 elements to address clear causal/but fo

1. Fire characteristics and relationship to the affected monitor

• Fire emissions for the day(s)• Distance from the centroid of the fire to the affected monitor

• High ozone at the monitor

• Guidance would identify what combination of factors “passes” to show sufficient caus

2. Coincident back trajectories between fire and affected monitor

3. At least one type of additional evidence that smoke from the fire reached the 

monitor

• Visible satellite maps

• MODIS data and other satellite data of aerosol optical depth, NO2

• High CO or PM• Regional ozone concentration maps• Regional PM2.5 concentration maps

• Regional PM2.5 species maps/plots• Levoglucosan in PM

• Unusual concentrations of potassium.

• Unusual diurnal profile of concentrations 
EPA’s Communication Plan for th

Exceptional Events Rule

• Continued internal EPA coordination, including consisten

using internal EPA Exceptional Events Work Group

• Continued discussions with state/local/tribal air agencies 

other interested stakeholders

• Additional outreach for the new ozone wildfire guidance

EPA drafts full documents for wider review

• Webinars on content of the NPRM and draft guidance fo

NPRM and release of draft guidance

• Following final rule and release of new guidance:

• Internal EPA national consistency workshop

• Implementation workshop(s) for states, tribes, and other 

stakeholders
Schedule and Next Steps

• Exceptional Events Rule Revisions and Guidance Develop

• Anticipate proposing the rule revisions in Fall 2015 and promulgat

summer 2016

• Schedule provides promulgated rule revisions changes in adv

implementation activities (e.g., Governors’ recommendation

potential new or revised ozone NAAQS

• Schedule for wildfire ozone exceptional events guidance anticipat

parallel rule revision effort so guidance can reflect preamble/rule 

• Provide additional guidance, as needed, to support Exceptional Ev

revisions

• Continued development of Exceptional Events tools (e.g., website

templates, delegations)

• Web‐based quick reference matrix on Exceptional Events web

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exeventsguide.htm

• Implement EPA’s communication plan

• Exceptional Events Best Practices

• Continue to seek and incorporate input from EPA regions and stat

• Include best practices as recommendations in guidance, rule or w

resources

• Tools on an EPA website

• Continual improvement, dissemination, outreach, education

• Other questions/discussion
Arizona’s EE Process 

Improvement Analysis

Eric Massey
Roundtable Discussion
Question 1 – Communications

• How can we have effective

conversations/communication about particudemonstrations, before they are submitted a

while they are at EPA?

• What can EPA‐OAQPS and the Regional Offic

help?

• What can the states do?
Question 2 – Completeness

• Would it be useful to have a deadline for EPA 

make a completeness finding for a submitted

demonstration?

• Should a finding of incompleteness terminate EP

obligation to review?

• Should a finding of completeness bar EPA from a

for further information before acting on thedemonstration?
Question 3 – Multi‐State/ 

Multi‐Jurisdiction Events

• What rule changes, guidance or tools could E

provide (short of preparing demonstrations) 

facilitate the development of multi‐state / m

jurisdictional demonstrations?

• Example 1: Event occurs in one state but affects

monitor(s) in other state(s)

• Example 2: Event occurs on state lands but affec

federal/tribal operated monitor
Appendix
Relevant Background

• March 2007 – Exceptional Event Rule promulgated• May 2013 ‐ EPA finalized interim exceptional events implementation 

• Memorandum to Regional Air Division Directors with 2 attachme

• Attachment 1 ‐ Frequently Asked Questions document

• Attachment 2 ‐ High Winds Guidance document

• May 2013 – EPA announced intent to revise the Exceptional Events R

develop wildfire/ozone implementation guidance

• Anticipated schedule – Fall 2015/promulgation Summer 2016

• August thru November 2013 – Stakeholder outreach and listening ses

related to rule revisions

• December 2014 – Exceptional events website redesign and

development/publication of exceptional events criteria/pollutant malinked examples

• Mid‐2014 thru early 2015 – Focused best practices sessions with regi

and states
Relevant Background

• EPA did not have exceptional events implementation guidance until 2013.

• As a result, air agencies had limited guidance re: the level of documentation an

support event claims and in many cases, states submitted unnecessary docum

• States also submitted documentation for claims that never had any potential r

significance, or that might have had regulatory significance depending on later 

but ultimately were shown not to have significance.

• The situation has improved since our 2013 guidance, but problems remain bec

operating within the constraints of the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule.

• Regions with exceptional events backlogs have prioritized these submittals, focusing 

affect a near‐term regulatory decision and often formally or informally deferring tho

not affect a regulatory decision or have “aged‐out” (i.e., the affected data years are 

used for regulatory purposes).

• Feedback from air agencies indicates that some regions may not effectively co

status these demonstrations, leaving submitters unsure of what would make a 

approvable.

• Since 2010, all EPA regions have participated in a national workgroup to improve con

share demonstrations and experiences, but the demonstration review and decision 

still varies somewhat from region to region.

• The vast majority of the exceptional event demonstrations submitted since promulg

Exceptional Events Rule focus on PM and high wind events, but states have also sub

demonstrations for wildfires affecting both ozone and PM concentrations, stratosph

intrusion, volcanic activity, fireworks, and prescribed rangeland burning.
Questions for Best Practices/Lesson

Learned Discussions

• In terms of the process, what has worked well and what could be imp

make the EE demonstration and review process more efficient?

• What process aids have you developed or used to assist with the pre

and submission of EE demonstrations?

• What technical tools are you using to support EE demonstrations?

• Do you use a notice of intent to file an EE demonstration, a template 

checklist such as provided in EPA’s EE High Wind Event guidance? If n

and what suggestions do you have to make these types of process aid

useful?

• How are the AQS EE flags used by your agency? How useful are the E

general schedule for data flagging and the additional data flag option

• How do you track, manage and communicate with EPA about the EE demonstrations you intend to or actually do submit? How does your 

communicate with you about EE demonstrations that you have subm

do you have suggestions for improvement?

• What other process aids or technical tools do you think EPA could dev

provide to help standardize the EE demonstration process and reduce inefficiency for use by all states for different types of events (as appro

• Any other ideas you think EPA should consider regarding EE demonst

would help you and EPA process the demonstrations more efficiently
Recent Federal Register Notices of

Potential Interest

• Ozone NAAQS NPRM (December 17, 2014)• Ozone SIP Requirements Final Rule (March 6, 2015)• PM2.5 SIP Requirements NPRM (Signed March 10, 20• Key points in these notices:

• Wildfire challenges and consequences

• Need for and benefits of using prescribed fire to man

wildfire fuel loads

• RACM concept:

• Prescribed fire as potential RACM to reduce wildfire em

• BSMP as potential RACM to reduce prescribed fire emiss

• Ideas about attainment plan budgets for fire emissio• “Depending on the nature and scope of interstate em

events affecting downwind air quality, the EPA may b

assist states in developing approvable exceptional ev

demonstrations.”