Office of Air Quality Planning and St

Exceptional Events an

Fire Policy

Phil Lorang

WESTAR Fall Business Meeting WESTAR Fall Business Meeting

November 6, 2013
Overview of Presentat

 Exce

p g tional Events Back

ground

 Feedback from Listening Sessions Anticipated Schedule Update of the Interim Air Quality Policy on W

Prescribed Fires Prescribed Fires

 Questions / Comments
Exceptional Events Backg

 EPA issued the Interim Exceptional Events Implementa

G id u ance i M 2013 in 

May 2013

 With release of guidance documents, EPA also announc

 Intent to pursue revisions to the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule Intent to develop exceptional event implementation guidance t

wildfire-related events that may affect ozone concentrations 

 Provide guidance on how air agencies can incorporate the Exceptional Eve

into ozone / wildfire event demonstrations

 Discuss the range of technical tools available to support the Exceptional Ev
Feedback from Listening Se

 To further inform the rule revision process, EPA hosted 

listening sessions in August 2013 for interested parties 

 August 26, 2013 – public session August 28, 2013 – state, local, and tribal co-regulators Still ahead: Arizona-onl

y g listenin

g session in mid-Novembe

r

 Listening sessions focused on 12 questions identifying 

issues for consideration in rule revisions

 Most listening session participants provided verbal feed

 A few also provided written comments A few also provided written comments EPA is still open to receiving ideas regarding specific rule revis
Feedback from Listening Se

Should EPA maintain the position presented in the interim guidance that the historical fluctuations criterion is not a guidance that the historical fluctuations criterion is not

a

but a weight-of-evidence analysis that informs “clear cau“but for”?

We heard: Interested parties seem to agree that the “weight-of-evidence” ap

described in the Interim Guidance is app p ro

priate
Feedback from Listening Se

Do the following High Wind elements provide streamlininflexibilit

y

?

• Wind speed threshold• Prospective controls analysis• High Wind Action Plan

We heard: Interested parties generally agree that the wind speed threshold simplifies 

wind demonstration submittal process, but parties also stress the need fo

when determining and setting area-specific thresholds.

 Feedback is mixed regarding the utility of both the prospective controls an

and the High Wind Action Plan (HWAP)
Feedback from Listening Se

Would it be helpful to incorporate the following “not reascontrollable or preventable controllable or preventable

” elements in rule language? elements in rule language?

• Recently approved SIP measures meet “not reasonably contr

preventable” requirements

• For natural sources and interstate/international transport no c

bl t l

We heard: Air a

gencies 

generall

y believe that SIP measures should satisf

y 

reasonable control

g gy y

reasonably controllable or preventable” criterion and if these meainsufficient, then EPA should do a SIP call

 Air agencies generally support the concept that no control = reas

control f l di i l ls for natural sources an

d international transport

 NRDC does not support either of these elements
Feedback from Listening Se

How should EPA address the “but for” criterion? Examplinclude the following: include the following:

• Address adjustment of design values and daily values for eve

are not “exceptional” by definition

• Revise definition away from “absolute” to more “weight of evid

Oth ti ?

We heard: EPA should address adjustment of design values for events that are not “

• Other suggestions

?

by definition

 Air agencies generally support a “weight of evidence” approach to “but fo
Feedback from Listening Se

Does EPA need to provide definitions for the following te

• Event/natural event• Recurrence of natural events• Reasonable• Other terms?

We heard: Distinguish between natural and human events and consider separate cri

 EPA would need new CAA authorizin

g gg q g lan

gua

ge for re

quirin

g additional c

approved SIP as “reasonable”

 Define best smoke management practices and smoke management plan/ All parties are better served by clear definitions in regulation

 D fi iti D

efi

nition of t l t i l l i th th t t t d 

f natural event in rule language is the same as the statutory 

d

e

one has additional insight into what this really means

 “Reasonably controllable or preventable” is further discussed in preamble 

rule and what is said in the preamble is not binding, This term should be m

in the rule for clarity. 
Feedback from Listening Se

Should EPA address mitigation elements differently than current rule, current rule, including the relationship between including the relationship between 40 CFR S

40 CFR S

requirements for emergency episodes / contingency planRegional Haze Rule requirements?

We heard: Not a lot of feedback for this question One commenter believes that EPA should clarify the relationship 

mitigation elements and Subpart H, particularly with respect to wiprescribed fires or wildfires that are allowed to burn.
Feedback from Listening Se

Would it be helpful to clarify those activities that constituEPA final agency action?

We heard:

EPA final agency action?

We heard: All interested parties (air agencies and NRDC) want EPA decisio

demonstrations to be final decisions

 Man

y qy y 

 want EPA to act more 

quickl

y than the

y have seen EPA ac
Feedback from Listening Se

Does EPA need to clarify that concurrences are NAAQS-snot pollutant

-specific

?

We heard: Interested 

parties seem to be s

plit

not pollutant specific

?

p p

 Some maintain that concurrences should be pollutant-specific (e.

concurrence means the data are excluded for all NAAQS for that 

 Others maintain that concurrences should be NAAQS-by-NAAQS
Feedback from Listening Se

Should EPA address whether EPA can consider a request exclusion even if the air agency makes the request after t

We heard:

exclusion even if the air agency makes the request after t

deadline?

We heard: The intent of the statute and rule is to exclude data associated wi

that are out of the control of the affected air agency

 Interested parties generally agree that air agencies should be abl

Interested parties generally agree that air agencies should be abl

exclusions when needed, even if after the general schedule or otpromulgated deadlines 
Feedback from Listening Se

Is EPA’s guidance on flagging and excluding multiple 1-hPM2.5 measurements versus flagging and excluding sing

Wh d

PM2.5 measurements versus flagging and excluding singhour measurements appropriate?

We 

hear

d:

 Most interested parties support flagging of 24 1-hr values even if 

was shorter.

 At l t i ti d At least one air agency cautione

d agai t fl i ll 24 1 inst flagging all 24

1-h l 

hr valu

evidence to support exclusion of all values. This air agency thoug“valid” data could be grounds for litigation.

 Flagging and providing an initial event description for 24 1 Flagging and providing an initial event description for 24

1-hr valu

hr valu

consuming, and agencies would prefer to flag the calculated 24-hinstead.
Feedback from Listening Se

Would it be helpful to “clean-up” the EER to address the follow

• Scheduling provisions included in reg text that have been made irrele

passage of time (e.g., 50.14(c)(2)(iv) For PM2.5 data collected during 

years 2004-2006....)

• Scheduling deadlines following promulgation of new NAAQS to avoid 

case revisions

We heard: Interested 

p g yg g g 

arties 

generall

y a

gree that removin

g irrelevant lan

gua

sense

 Interested parties also generally believe that it makes sense to pr

built-in schedule that applies when NAAQS are revised
Feedback from Listening Se

Does EPA need to tackle fire-related components when it the Exceptional Events Rule?

We heard: Interested parties generally agree that the EER is intended to cov

exceptional events. If wildfires, prescribed fires, agricultural burns 

the Exceptional Events Rule?

exceptional events. If wildfires, prescribed fires, agricultural burns 

“exceptional” events, then the rule revisions should address them

 While some interested parties believe that prescribed fires and ag

burns can be exceptional events, others urge caution in expandin

statutory concept of exceptional events to include more human/ anthropogenic activities, such as agricultural burns.

 At a minimum, rule revisions should define smoke management p

elements and best smoke management practices if these concepelements and best smoke management practices if these concep

role in whether EPA will concur on a prescribed fire event.
Overarching Comment: Strea

 General a

g yp reement that for some types of events 

evidence is very compelling, so only a streamlinedemonstration is needed.

 Th h b t i thi di ti f There 

has 

been grea

t progress in this direction 

fo

types of high wind events in Arizona.

 EPA shares states EPA shares states’ interest in streamlining for oth

interest in streamlining for oth

of events.
Adjustment Concept

 The conce

p j g qy t of adjustin

g an air 

qualit

y measurem

instead of flagging it and completely setting it asiregulatory purposes has been part of several com

 Th tl d 2008 NAAQS SIP The recently propose

d 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP

Requirements rule mentions this concept.

 Some commenters favor this approach. Some commenters favor this approach.

 Others have commented that there presently are 

methods to make such adjustments.

 The adjustment concept raises a number of issue

terms of the design and operation of AQS, separany policy/legal issues. any policy/legal issues.
Anticipated Schedule

 Schedule

 Rule revisions

 Proposal – early 2014 Promulgation – early 2015 

 Guidance to support data exclusion requests for wildfire-relate

may affect ozone concentrations

 Draft guidance – early 2014 Final guidance – early 2015

 P bli h i P

ublic 

hearings

 Proposal language contains provision for public hearings base

feedback 

 If interested parties want a public hearing we would consider a 

If interested parties want

a public hearing, we would consider

a 

the West
Interim Air Quality Polic

on Wildland and Prescribed 

 EPA has indicated its intent to revise the interim Air 

Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires to address Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires to address

agricultural burning

 EPA has convened several conference calls with fed

agencies to discuss possible changes but has made decisions on possible changes

 EPA wishes to meet with tribal governments, state 

agencies (Agriculture Environment and Forest agencies (Agriculture, Environment, and Forest

Management), and the public to get ideas and input changes 
QUESTIONS / COMMENT

QUESTIONS

/ COMMENT