Office of Air Quality Planning and StandardsInterim ExceptionalEvents Guidance andEventsGuidanceandNext StepsBeth W. PalmaWESTAR Spring Business MeetingWESTARSpringBusinessMeetingMay 22, 2013Overview of PresentationInterim Exceptional Events GuidanceContentDifferences from draft versionsNext StepsExceptional event rule revisions - potential contentWildfire / Ozone Implementation guidanceSchedulePrescribed Fire Exceptional Event Demonstration Case StudyyInterim Air Quality Policy on Wildland / Prescribed FiresQuestionsAppendixBackground Information–BackgroundInformation2Interim Exceptional Events GuidanceInterim Exceptional Events Implementation Guidance was signedon May 10, 2013, and distributedto EPA Regional Offices andother interested parties on May 13, 2013Interim Exceptional Events Implementation guidance includes:Memorandum to Regional Air Division DirectorsAttachment 1 - Frequently Asked Questions documentAttachment 2 - High Winds Guidance documentExamples of approved demonstrations,bestpractice components,andpp , p p ,publicly available analysis tools on Exceptional Events website athttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htmWith release of guidance documents, EPA also announced:Our intention to pursue revisions to the 2007 Exceptional Events RuleOur intention to develop exceptional event implementation guidance toaddress wildfire-related events that may affect ozone concentrations3Interim Exceptional Events Guidance“Not reasonably controllable or preventable”“Reasonable controls” must have been in placeat the time of the event, but “reasonable” iscase and area-specific (interim guidance clarifies how air agencies can address this issue)“Reasonable”balances air quality benefit and costbalancesairqualitybenefitandcost“Reasonable” considers the technical information available to the state at the time theevent occurred“Reasonable” could be no control“Reasonable” controls generally not expected for wind-blown dust from undisturbednatural landscapes or previously disturbed landscapes that are being allowed to returnnaturallandscapesorpreviouslydisturbedlandscapesthatarebeingallowedtoreturnto normal conditionsStates / Tribes are only responsible for the reasonableness of controls for sourceswithin their own jurisdiction“Extreme“ events requireless documentationWind Speed Threshold (High Winds Guidance document)WindSpeedThreshold(HighWindsGuidancedocument)Informs the “not reasonably controllableor preventable” assessment for very highwind speed eventsIf winds were above the threshold,the assessment is a low hurdle25 mph can serve as default ifarea shows it is appropriateVoluntary / Optional Programs (High Wind Action Plan and Prospective Controls Analysis) inVoluntary/OptionalPrograms(HighWindActionPlanandProspectiveControlsAnalysis)inHigh Winds Guidance documentFacilitate a common understanding between an air agency and the EPA regardingcontrol expectations and what constitutes “not reasonably controllable or preventable”Generally will be honored by EPA for 3 yearsClarification that measures in State Implementation Plan (SIP) may suffice asClarificationthatmeasuresinStateImplementationPlan(SIP)maysufficeas“reasonable controls” if SIP contains pollutant/source-specific controls and if EPA hasreviewed/approved SIP within the past 3 yearsClarification of relationship betweenUSDA / NRCS conservation managementpractices and RACM / BACM4Interim Exceptional Events Guidance“Exceptional” and “natural” events“Exceptional” does not necessarily mean “infrequent” for natural eventsAdditional clarification of the relationship between natural events andreasonably controlled anthropogenic sources of dustNo exceedance or violation “but for” the eventContinues to applyWeight of evidenceExplanations of useful types of evidenceExamples of successful demonstrationsExamplesofsuccessfuldemonstrations“In excess of normal historical fluctuations, includingbackground”Weight of evidence determination under the current ruleNo specified percentile for comparisonHelps inform “clear causal relationship,” “but for,” and “affects airquality” criteriay5Interim Exceptional Events GuidanceTiming of EER Demonstration Package Submittaland ReviewIdentify data affected by exceptional events in AQSAir agencies submitoptionalletter of intent to assist both the airagency and the EPA in the planning and prioritization processEPA d t i l tt f i t t ithi 60 d fEPArespondsto air agencyletter ofintentwithin60days ofreceipt, providing anticipated priority of demonstration packageand case-specific adviceAir agencysubmits demonstrationpackagey p gEPA prioritizes demonstration submittal, generally reviewingfirst those packages that affect near-term regulatory decisionsInitial review within 120-days of submittalFinal action within 18 monthsFinalactionwithin18monthsEPA commitment to increased communication throughout thedevelopment, submittal, and review process6Interim Exceptional Events GuidanceOther Changes in Interim GuidanceClarification of EPA’s intention to provide recommendations and toindicate EPA’current thinking on exceptional event issues ratherindicateEPA scurrentthinkingonexceptionaleventissues,ratherthan conveying requirements not already stated in the Clean Air Actand / or the Exceptional Events RuleChanges to reflect elements included in the December 14, 2012,promulgation of the PM2 5NAAQSpromulgationofthePM.Q&A 16 – addresses the relationshipbetween temporary activities andexceptional events (monitoring changesrelated to NAAQS comparison)Q&A 28b – use of data from non-regulatory monitors in demonstrationsQ&A 29 - Parityfor flaggingconcurrences of PM2 5and PM10filter basedy gg g2.510(single 24-hour value) versuscontinuous (24 1-hour values)Editorial changes reflecting terminology consistent with the ongoingozone 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 definitionsof “prescribed fire” and “wildfire”Clarify approach to support a claim thatemissions from wildfires are “notreasonably controllable or preventable”Incorporate language from “Report to Congress on Black Carbon” whendescribing the intent of Smoke Management Programs7Next StepsExceptional Event Rule Revisions – Potential ContentShould we maintain thepositionpresented in the interimguidance that thep ghistorical fluctuations criterion is not a “test” but a weight-of-evidenceanalysis that informs “clear causal” and “but for”?Do the following High Wind elements provide streamlining and flexibility?Wind speed thresholdProspective controls analysisHigh Wind Action PlanWould it be helpful to incorporate the following“not reasonablyWoulditbehelpfultoincorporatethefollowingnotreasonablycontrollable or preventable” elements in rule language?Recently approved SIP measures meet“not reasonably controllable orpreventable” requirementsFor natural sources and interstate/international transport no control =reasonable control8Next StepsExceptional Event Rule Revisions – Potential ContentHow should we address the “but for” criterion? Examples might include thegfollowing:Address adjustment of design values anddaily values for events that are not“exceptional” by definitionRevise definition away from“absolute”to more“weight of evidence”RevisedefinitionawayfromabsolutetomoreweightofevidenceOther suggestions?Do we need to provide definitions for the following terms?Event/natural eventEvent/naturaleventRecurrence of natural eventsReasonableOther terms?Should we address mitigation elements, including the relationshipbetween Subpart H emergency episodes / contingency planning andexceptional events?9Next StepsExceptional Event Rule Revisions – Potential ContentWould it be helpful to clarifythose activities that constitute an EPA finalyagency action?Do we need to clarify that concurrences are NAAQS-specific, not pollutantspecific?Should we address whether EPA can consider a request for exclusioneven if the air agency makes the request after the deadline?Have air agencies experienced difficulty when flagging concurrences ofPMand PMfilter based (single 24hour value) versus continuous (242.510filterbased(single24-hourvalue)versuscontinuous(241-hour values)? Has this created a difference in design values?Would it be helpful to “clean-up” the EER to address the following?Scheduling provisions included in reg text that have been made irrelevant bySchedulingprovisionsincludedinregtextthathavebeenmadeirrelevantbythe passage of time (e.g., 50.14(c)(2)(iv) For PM2.5data collected duringcalendar years 2004-2006....)Scheduling deadlines following promulgation of new NAAQS to avoid case-bycase revisionscaserevisionsDo we need to tackle fire-related components?10Next StepsGuidance to Support Data Exclusion Requests for Wildfirerelated Events that May Affect Ozone ConcentrationsProvide guidance on how air agencies can incorporate the exceptionalProvideguidanceonhowairagenciescanincorporatetheexceptionalevents rule revisions into ozone / wildfire event demonstrationsDiscuss the range of technical tools available to support the exceptionalevent rule criteriaeventrulecriteriaScheduleRule revisionsProposal–late 2013 / early 2014late2013/early2014Promulgation – late 2014 / early 2015Guidance to support data exclusion requests for wildfire-related eventsthat 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?11Prescribed Fire Exceptional EventDemonstration Case StudyOn November 27, 2012, Kansas Department of Health and Environment(KDHE)submitted an exceptional event demonstrationpackage for) p pgprescribed fires in the Flint Hills region of Kansas for 3 event days in2011 (6 exceedances of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb)EPA concurred with KDHE’s request to exclude data on December 28,2012.Demonstration and concurrence posted on EPA Exceptional Eventswebsite athttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htmDemonstration SummaryDemonstrationSummaryKDHE began implementingits 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 SkyGatewaymodeling(CMAQ)with/without Flint Hills firesy g ( Q)Included model performance evaluation“Unlikely to Recur” criterion compared and contrasted the natural firereturn interval with the frequencyof the prescribed fires“Not reasonably controllable or preventable” criterion included discussion of “No Fire” alternativesKDHE recei ed onl 2 comments d ring the p blic comment period (Sierra Cl b and Oklahoma DEQ)KDHEreceivedonly2commentsduringthepubliccommentperiod(SierraClubandOklahomaDEQ)12Interim Air Quality Policyon Wildland and Prescribed FiresEPA has indicated its intent to revise the interim Air QualityPolicy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires to includePolicyonWildlandandPrescribedFirestoincludeagricultural 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 onchanges13QUESTIONS OR COMMENTSQUESTIONSORCOMMENTS14APPENDIXBACKGROUND INFORMATIONBACKGROUNDINFORMATION15Background - 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 qualitystandards (NAAQS) and includes general schedule for identifying dataand submitting demonstrationsandsubmittingdemonstrationsElements of the Exceptional Events RuleEstablishes procedures and criteria for identifying evaluatingEstablishesproceduresandcriteriaforidentifying,evaluating,interpreting, and using air quality monitoring data affected byexceptional eventsProvides a mechanism bywhich airqualitydata can be excluded fromqyregulatory decisions and actionsAffects design value calculations, NAAQS designation decisions,attainment determinations, and State / Tribal Implementation Pland leveopment16Background - EERCriteria To Be an Exceptional EventThe event affects air qualityTh t i t bl t ll bl t blThe eventis notreasonably controllable or preventableThe event is caused by human activitythat is unlikely to recur at thatlocation or is a natural eventThere is a clear causal relationship between the event and theit d t timonitoredconcentrationThe event is associated with a measured concentration in excess ofnormal historical fluctuationsThere would have been no exceedance or violation but for the eventExamples of Exceptional EventsHigh Wind EventsWildfi E tWildfireEventsVolcanic and Seismic ActivitiesChemical Spills and Industrial Accidents17Background - EEREER ProcessAiragencyidentifiespotentialevent-relatedexceedancecy de t es pote t a e e tated e ceeda ceAir agency flags data in Air Quality System (AQS) and providesEPA with initial event descriptionAir agency prepares demonstration package and providespublic notice and opportunity to commentpublicnoticeandopportunitytocommentAir agency submits demonstration package to support dataexclusionEPA reviews submittal and either approves or disapproves theppexceptional event claimIf EPA agrees that event is “exceptional,” then data are excludedIf EPA does not agree with air agency claim, then data remain andare used in regulatory determinationsareusedinregulatorydeterminations18Background – Guidance DevelopmentSince 2007 EER promulgation, stakeholders have encouraged EPAto:Identify and clarify“reasonable”expectationsIdentifyandclarifyreasonableexpectationsStreamline the implementation processSince promulgation stakeholders have also:Sincepromulgation,stakeholdershavealso:Identified desired implementation improvementsAsked for rule changes, guidance, andincreased collaboration during thedemonstration development processEPA’s ResponseInitiated implementation improvement process in 2010I d d ft id t t t / l l / t ib l i i d th i M 2011Issueddraftguidanceto state/local/tribalair agencies andothersinMay2011Issued revised draft exceptional events guidance documents via a July 6, 2012Federal RegisterNotice of Availability (FR NOA)and a 60-day public comment period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/exevents.htmPrepared Interim Exceptional Events Guidance19