Office of Air Quality Planning and St

Interim Exceptional 

Events Guidance and Events Guidance and

Next Steps

Beth W. Palma

WESTAR Spring Business Meeting WESTAR Spring Business Meeting

May 22, 2013
Overview of Presentati

 Interim Exceptional Events Guidance

 Content Differences from draft versions

 Next Steps

 Exceptional event rule revisions - potential content Wildfire / Ozone Implementation guidance Schedule

 Prescribed Fire Exce

p 

tional Event Demonstration Cas

 Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland / Prescribed Fir Questions Appendix – Background Information Background Information
Interim Exceptional Events Gu

 Interim Exceptional Events Implementation Guidance w

on May 10, 2013, and distributed to EPA Regional Office

other interested parties on May 13, 2013

 Interim Exceptional Events Implementation guidance in

 Memorandum to Re

gional Air Division Directors

 Attachment 1 - Frequently Asked Questions document Attachment 2 - High Winds Guidance document Exam

p pp , p p 

les of approved demonstrations, best 

practice com

pone

publicly available analysis tools on Exceptional Events website http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htm

 With release of guidance documents, EPA also announc

 Our intention to pursue revisions to the 2007 Exceptional Even Our intention to develop exceptional event implementation gui

address wildfire-related events that may affect ozone concentr
Interim Exceptional Events Gu

 “Not reasonably controllable or preventable”

 “Reasonable controls” must have been in place at the time of the event, but “rea

case and area-specific (interim guidance clarifies how air agencies can address 

 “Reasonable” balances air quality benefit and cost balances air quality benefit and cost “Reasonable” considers the technical information available to the state a

event occurred

 “Reasonable” could be no control “Reasonable” controls generally not expected for wind-blown dust from u

natural landscapes or previously disturbed landscapes that are being allonatural landscapes or previously disturbed landscapes that are being allo

to normal conditions 

 States / Tribes are only responsible for the reasonableness of controls fo

within their own jurisdiction

 “Extreme“ events require less documentation

 Wind Speed Threshold (High Winds Guidance document) Wind Speed Threshold (High Winds Guidance document)

 Informs the “not reasonably controllable or preventable” assessment for v

wind speed events

 If winds were above the threshold, the assessment is a low hurdle 25 mph can serve as default if area shows it is appropriate

 Voluntary / Optional Programs (High Wind Action Plan and Prospective Control

Voluntary / Optional Programs (High Wind Action Plan and Prospective Control

High Winds Guidance document

 Facilitate a common understanding between an air agency and the EPA 

control expectations and what constitutes “not reasonably controllable or 

 Generally will be honored by EPA for 3 years

 Clarification that measures in State Implementation Plan (SIP) may suffic

Clarification that measures in State Implementation Plan (SIP) may suffic

“reasonable controls” if SIP contains pollutant/source-specific controls anreviewed/approved SIP within the past 3 years 

 Clarification of relationship between USDA / NRCS conservation manage

practices and RACM / BACM
Interim Exceptional Events Gu

 “Exceptional” and “natural” events

 “Exceptional” does not necessarily mean “infrequent” for natu Additional clarification of the relationship between natural eve

reasonably controlled anthropogenic sources of dust

 No exceedance or violation “but for” the event

 Continues to apply Weight of evidence Explanations of useful types of evidence Examples of successful demonstrations Examples of successful demonstrations

 “In excess of normal historical fluctuations, including 

background”

 Weight of evidence determination under the current rule No specified percentile for comparison Helps inform “clear causal relationship,” “but for,” and “affects 

q y ualit

y” criteria
Interim Exceptional Events G

 Timing of EER Demonstration Package Subm

and Review Identify data affected by exceptional events in AQS Air agencies submit optional letter of intent to assist bot

agency and the EPA in the planning and prioritization p

 EPA d t i l tt f i t t ithi 60 d 

EPA respon

ds 

to air agency letter o

f in

ten

t within 60

da

receipt, providing anticipated priority of demonstration pand case-specific advice

 Air a

gy p g enc

y submits demonstration 

packa

g

e

 EPA prioritizes demonstration submittal, generally revie

first those packages that affect near-term regulatory dec

 Initial review within 120-days of submittal Final action within 18 months Final action within 18 months

 EPA commitment to increased communication througho

development, submittal, and review process
Interim Exceptional Events G

 Other Changes in Interim Guidance

 Clarification of EPA’s intention to provide recommendations a

indicate EPA indicate EPA s’ current thinking on exceptional event issues r

current thinking on exceptional event issues, r

than conveying requirements not already stated in the Clean Aand / or the Exceptional Events Rule

 Changes to reflect elements included in the December 14, 20

promulgation of the PM promulgation of the PM2 5. NAAQS

 Q&A 16 – addresses the relationship between temporary activitie

exceptional events (monitoring changes related to NAAQS comp

 Q&A 28b – use of data from non-regulatory monitors in demonst Q&A 29 - Parit

y for flaggin

g concurrences of PM2 5 and PM10 y gg g filte

2.5 10 (single 24-hour value) versus continuous (24 1-hour values)

 Editorial changes reflecting terminology consistent with the on

ozone NAAQS review

 Policy Relevant Background = North American Background

 Changes to fire-related language in Q&A 20b and Q&A 21:

 Use U.S. Forest Service definitions of “prescribed fire” and “wildf

 Clarify approach to support a claim that emissions from wildfires 

reasonably controllable or preventable”

 Incorporate language from “Report to Congress on Black Carbon

describing the intent of Smoke Management Programs 
Next Steps

 Exceptional Event Rule Revisions – Potential Content

 Should we maintain the pp g osition presented in the interim guida

historical fluctuations criterion is not a “test” but a weight-of-evanalysis that informs “clear causal” and “but for”?

 Do the following High Wind elements provide streamlining and 

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

 Would it be helpful to incorporate the following Would it be helpful to incorporate the following “not reasonably not reasonably

controllable or preventable” elements in rule language?

 Recently approved SIP measures meet “not reasonably controllab

preventable” requirements

 For natural sources and interstate/international transport no contr

reasonable control
Next Steps

 Exceptional Event Rule Revisions – Potential Content

 How should we address the “but for” criterion? Examp g les migh

following:

 Address adjustment of design values and daily values for events t

“exceptional” by definition

 Revise definition away from Revise definition away from “absolute absolute” to more to more “weight of evidenc

weight of evidenc

 Other suggestions?

 Do we need to provide definitions for the following terms?

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

 Should we address mitigation elements, including the relations

between Subpart H emergency episodes / contingency planninexceptional events?
Next Steps

 Exceptional Event Rule Revisions – Potential Content

 Would it be help y ful to clarify those activities that constitute an E

agency action?

 Do we need to clarify that concurrences are NAAQS-specific, n

specific?

 Should we address whether EPA can consider a request for ex

even if the air agency makes the request after the deadline?

 Have air agencies experienced difficulty when flagging concur

PM2.5 and PM10 filter based (single 24 filter based (single 24-hour value) versus cont

hour value) versus cont

1-hour values)? Has this created a difference in design values

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

 Scheduling provisions included in reg text that have been made ir

Scheduling provisions included in reg text that have been made ir

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

calendar years 2004-2006....)

 Scheduling deadlines following promulgation of new NAAQS to av

case revisions case revisions

 Do we need to tackle fire-related components?
Next Steps

 Guidance to Support Data Exclusion Requests for Wildf

related Events that May Affect Ozone Concentrations

 Provide guidance on how air agencies can incorporate the exc

Provide guidance on how air agencies can incorporate the exc

events rule revisions into ozone / wildfire event demonstrations

 Discuss the range of technical tools available to support the ex

event rule criteria event rule criteria

 Schedule

 Rule revisions

 Proposal – late 2013 / early 2014 late 2013 / early 2014 Promulgation – late 2014 / early 2015 

 Guidance to support data exclusion requests for wildfire-relate

that may affect ozone concentrations

 Draft guidance – late 2013 / early 2014 Final guidance – late 2014 / early 2015

 Outreach efforts

 Is additional outreach needed? If yes, should the outreach efforts focus on specific elements? 
Prescribed Fire Exceptional 

Demonstration Case Stu

 On November 27, 2012, Kansas Department of Health and Envi

( ) p pg KDHE) submitted an exce

ptional event demonstration 

packa

ge 

prescribed fires in the Flint Hills region of Kansas for 3 event day2011 (6 exceedances of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb) 

 EPA concurred with KDHE’s request to exclude data on Decem

2012.

 Demonstration and concurrence posted on EPA Exceptional Eve

website at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htm

 Demonstration Summary Demonstration Summary

 KDHE began implementing its Smoke Management Plan in December 2010 Demonstration clearly addressed: “clear causal relationship” and “historical fluctuations” “But for” analysis used matching of similar days and photochemical modeling

 Blue Sk

y y g ( Q) Gatewa

y modelin

g (CMAQ) with/without Flint Hills fires

 Included model performance evaluation

 “Unlikely to Recur” criterion compared and contrasted the natural fire return interval with th

of the prescribed fires

 “Not reasonably controllable or preventable” criterion included discussion of “No Fire” alte KDHE recei ed onl 2 comments d ring the p blic comment period (Sierra Cl b and Okla

KDHE recei

ved only 

2 comments

d

uring the

p

ublic comment period (Sierra Cl

u

b and Okla
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 include Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires to include

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 OR COMMEN

QUESTIONS OR COMMEN
APPENDIX

BACKGROUND INFORMATBACKGROUND INFORMAT
Background - EER

 Origin of the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule

 Required by statute (Section 319 of the Clean Air Act) Replaced previous EPA policies/procedures Applies to all criteria pollutants and national ambient air qualit

standards (NAAQS) and includes general schedule for identifyand submitting demonstrations and submitting demonstrations

 Elements of the Exceptional Events Rule

 Establishes procedures and criteria for identifying evaluating Establishes procedures and criteria for identifying, evaluating

interpreting, and using air quality monitoring data affected by exceptional events

 Provides a mechanism b

y qy which air 

qualit

y data can be exclud

regulatory decisions and actions 

 Affects design value calculations, NAAQS designation decisio

attainment determinations, and State / Tribal Implementation d l eve opment
Background - EER

 Criteria To Be an Exceptional Event

 The event affects air quality Th t i t bl t ll bl t bl The event is not reasonably controll

able or preventabl

e

 The event is caused by human activity that is unlikely to recur 

location or is a natural event

 There is a clear causal relationship between the event and the 

monit d t ti itore

d concentration

 The event is associated with a measured concentration in exc

normal historical fluctuations 

 There would have been no exceedance or violation but for the 

 Examples of Exceptional Events

 High Wind Events Wildfi E t Wildfire 

Events

 Volcanic and Seismic Activities  Chemical Spills and Industrial Accidents
Background - EER

 EER Process

 Air age cy de t es pote t a e e t ncy ide

n

tifies pote

n

tial e

v

e

n

t-r

e ated e ceeda ce lated

e

xceeda

nce

 Air agency flags data in Air Quality System (AQS) and p

EPA with initial event description

 Air agency prepares demonstration package and provide

public notice and opportunity to comment public notice and opportunity to comment

 Air agency submits demonstration package to support d

exclusion

 EPA reviews submittal and either app pp roves or disapprov

exceptional event claim

 If EPA agrees that event is “exceptional,” then data are ex If EPA does not agree with air agency claim, then data rem

are used in regulatory determinations are used in regulatory determinations
Background – Guidance Deve

 Since 2007 EER promulgation, stakeholders have encou

to:

 Identify and clarify Identify and clarify “reasonable reasonable” expectations expectations Streamline the implementation process

 Since promulgation stakeholders have also: Since promulgation, stakeholders have also:

 Identified desired implementation improvements Asked for rule changes, guidance, and increased collaboration during 

demonstration development process

 EPA’s Response

 Initiated implementation improvement process in 2010 I d d ft id t t t / l l / t ib l i i d th i 

Issue

d

draft guidance to state 

/ local / trib

al air agencies an

d others in 

 Issued revised draft exceptional events guidance documents via a Ju

Federal Register Notice of Availability (FR NOA) and a 60-day public c

 Revisions addressed comments on the May 2011 version Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0887 Posted revised draft guidance on website: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/e

 Prepared Interim Exceptional Events Guidance