Office of Air Quality Planning and StandardsExceptional Events andFire PolicyPhil LorangWESTAR Fall Business MeetingWESTARFallBusinessMeetingNovember 6, 2013Overview of PresentationExceptional Events BackgroundgFeedback from Listening SessionsAnticipated ScheduleUpdate of theInterim Air Quality Policy on Wildland /Prescribed FiresPrescribedFiresQuestions / Comments2Exceptional Events BackgroundEPA issued theInterim Exceptional Events ImplementationG idi M 2013uanceinMay2013With release of guidance documents, EPA also announced:Intent to pursue revisions to the 2007 Exceptional Events RuleIntent to develop exceptional event implementation guidance to addresswildfire-related events that may affect ozone concentrationsProvide guidance on how air agencies can incorporate the Exceptional Events Rule revisionsinto ozone / wildfire event demonstrationsDiscuss the range of technical tools available to support the Exceptional Events Rule criteria3Feedback from Listening SessionsTo further inform the rule revision process, EPA hosted twolistening sessions in August 2013 for interested partiesAugust 26, 2013 – public sessionAugust 28, 2013 – state, local, and tribal co-regulatorsStill ahead: Arizona-onlylisteningsession in mid-NovembergListening sessions focused on 12 questions identifying potentialissues for consideration in rule revisionsMost listening session participants provided verbal feedbackA few also provided written commentsAfewalsoprovidedwrittencommentsEPA is still open to receiving ideas regarding specific rule revisions4Feedback from Listening SessionsShould EPA maintain the position presented in the interimguidance that the historical fluctuations criterion is not a“test”guidancethatthehistoricalfluctuationscriterionisnotabut a weight-of-evidence analysis that informs “clear causal” and“but for”?We heard:Interested parties seem to agree that the “weight-of-evidence” approachdescribed in the Interim Guidance is appropriatep5Feedback from Listening SessionsDo the following High Wind elements provide streamlining andflexibility?• Wind speed threshold• Prospective controls analysis• High Wind Action PlanWe heard:Interested parties generally agree that the wind speed threshold simplifies the highwind demonstration submittal process, butparties also stress the need for flexibilitywhen determining and setting area-specific thresholds.Feedback is mixed regarding the utility of both the prospective controls analysis (PCA)and the High Wind Action Plan (HWAP)6Feedback from Listening SessionsWould it be helpful to incorporate the following “not reasonablycontrollable or preventable”elements in rule language?controllableorpreventableelementsinrulelanguage?• Recently approved SIP measures meet “not reasonably controllable orpreventable” requirements• For natural sources and interstate/international transport no control =bl t lWe heard:Air agenciesgenerallybelieve that SIP measures should satisfythe “notreasonable controlg gy yreasonably controllable or preventable” criterion and if these measures areinsufficient, then EPA should do a SIP callAir agencies generally support the concept that no control = reasonablel f l di i lcontrolsfor naturalsources andinternationaltransportNRDC does not support either of these elements7Feedback from Listening SessionsHow should EPA address the “butfor” criterion? Examples mightinclude the following:includethefollowing:• Address adjustment of design values and daily values for events thatare not “exceptional” by definition• Revise definition away from “absolute” to more “weight of evidence”Oth ti ?We heard:EPA should address adjustment of design valuesfor events that are not “exceptional”•Other suggestions?by definitionAir agencies generally support a “weight ofevidence” approach to “but for”8Feedback from Listening SessionsDoes EPA need to provide definitions for the following terms?• Event/natural event• Recurrence of natural events• Reasonable• Other terms?We heard:Distinguish between natural and human events and consider separate criteriaEPA would need new CAA authorizinglanguage for requiringadditional control beyondgg q gapproved SIP as “reasonable”Define best smoke management practices and smoke management plan/programAll parties are better served byclear definitions in regulationD fi itif t l t i l l i th th t t t d fi itiDefinition ofnaturaleventin rulelanguageisthe same asthe statutorydefinition so noone has additional insight into what this really means“Reasonably controllable or preventable” is further discussed in preamble but not in therule and what is said in the preamble isnot binding, This term should be more definedin the rule for clarity.9Feedback from Listening SessionsShould EPA address mitigation elements differently than in thecurrent rule,including the relationship between40 CFR SubpartHcurrentrule,includingtherelationshipbetween40CFRSubpartrequirements for emergency episodes / contingency planning andRegional Haze Rule requirements?We heard:Not a lot of feedback for this questionOne commenter believes that EPA should clarify the relationship betweenmitigation elements and Subpart H, particularly with respect to wildfires andprescribed fires or wildfires that are allowed to burn.10Feedback from Listening SessionsWould it be helpful to clarify those activities that constitute anEPA final agency action?We heard:EPAfinalagencyaction?Weheard:All interested parties (air agencies and NRDC) want EPA decisions ondemonstrations to be final decisionsManywant EPA to act morequicklythan theyhave seen EPA act in thepastqy y p11Feedback from Listening SessionsDoes EPA need to clarify thatconcurrences are NAAQS-specific,notpollutant-specific?We heard:Interestedparties seem to be splitnotpollutantspecific?p pSome maintain that concurrences should be pollutant-specific (e.g., any EPAconcurrence means the data are excluded for all NAAQS for that pollutant)Others maintain that concurrences should be NAAQS-by-NAAQS12Feedback from Listening SessionsShould EPA address whether EPA can consider a request forexclusion even if the air agency makes the request after theWe heard:exclusioneveniftheairagencymakestherequestafterthedeadline?Weheard:The intent of the statute and rule isto exclude data associated with eventsthat are out of the control of the affected air agencyInterested parties generally agree that air agencies should be able to requestInterestedpartiesgenerallyagreethatairagenciesshouldbeabletorequestexclusions when needed, even if after the general schedule or otherwisepromulgated deadlines13Feedback from Listening SessionsIs EPA’s guidance on flagging and excluding multiple 1-hourPM2.5 measurements versus flagging and excluding single 24-Wh dPM2.5measurementsversusflaggingandexcludingsingle24hour measurements appropriate?Weheard:Most interested parties support flagging of 24 1-hr values even if the eventwas shorter.At l t i ti di t fl i ll 24 1h l ith tAtleastone air agency cautionedagainstflagging all241-hr values withoutevidence to support exclusion of all values. This air agency thought excluding“valid” data could be grounds for litigation.Flagging and providing an initial event description for 24 1-hr values is timeFlaggingandprovidinganinitialeventdescriptionfor241hrvaluesistimeconsuming, and agencies would prefer to flag the calculated 24-hour averageinstead.14Feedback from Listening SessionsWould it be helpful to “clean-up” the EER to address the following?• Scheduling provisions included in reg textthat have been made irrelevant by thepassage of time (e.g., 50.14(c)(2)(iv) For PM2.5data collected during calendaryears 2004-2006....)• Scheduling deadlines following promulgation of new NAAQS to avoid case-bycase revisionsWe heard:Interestedpartiesgenerallyagree that removingirrelevant language makesg yg g g gsenseInterested parties also generally believe that it makes sense to promulgate abuilt-in schedule that applies when NAAQS are revised15Feedback from Listening SessionsDoes EPA need to tackle fire-related components when it revisedthe Exceptional Events Rule?We heard:Interested parties generally agree that the EER is intended to cover allexceptional events. If wildfires, prescribed fires,agriculturalburns can betheExceptionalEventsRule?exceptionalevents.Ifwildfires,prescribedfires,agriculturalburnscanbe“exceptional” events, then the rule revisions should address them.While some interested parties believe that prescribed fires and agriculturalburns can be exceptional events, others urge caution in expanding thestatutory concept of exceptional events to include more human/anthropogenic activities, such as agricultural burns.At a minimum, rule revisions should define smoke management programelements and best smoke management practices if these concepts play aelementsandbestsmokemanagementpracticesiftheseconceptsplayarole in whether EPA will concur on a prescribed fire event.16Overarching Comment:Streamline!General agreement that for some types of events theypevidence is very compelling, so only a streamlineddemonstration is needed.Th h b t i thi di ti fTherehasbeen greatprogressinthisdirectionfor sometypes of high wind events in Arizona.EPA shares states’interest in streamlining for other typesEPAsharesstatesinterestinstreamliningforothertypesof events.17Adjustment ConceptThe concept of adjustingan airqualitymeasurementj g qyinstead of flagging it and completely setting it aside forregulatory purposes has been part of several comments.Th tl d 2008 NAAQS SIPThe recently proposed2008ozoneNAAQSSIPRequirements rule mentions this concept.Some commenters favor this approach.Somecommentersfavorthisapproach.Others have commented that there presently are nomethods to make such adjustments.The adjustment concept raises a number of issues interms of the design and operation of AQS, separate fromany policy/legal issues.anypolicy/legalissues.18Anticipated ScheduleScheduleRule revisionsProposal – early 2014Promulgation – early 2015Guidance to support data exclusion requests for wildfire-related events thatmay affect ozone concentrationsDraft guidance – early 2014Final guidance – early 2015P bli h iPublichearingsProposal language contains provision for public hearings based onfeedbackIf interested parties want a public hearing we would consider a location inIfinterestedpartieswantapublichearing,wewouldconsideralocationinthe West19Interim Air Quality Policyon Wildland and Prescribed FiresEPA has indicated its intent to revise the interim Air QualityPolicy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires to addressPolicyonWildlandandPrescribedFirestoaddressagricultural burningEPA has convened several conference calls with federalagencies to discuss possible changes but has made nodecisions on possible changesEPA wishes to meet with tribal governments, stateagencies (Agriculture Environment and Forestagencies(Agriculture,Environment,andForestManagement), and the public to get ideas and input onchanges20QUESTIONS / COMMENTSQUESTIONS/COMMENTS21