exceptional events and fire policy office of air quality planning and standards phil lorang westar...

Exceptional Events and Fire Policy

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Phil LorangWESTAR Fall Business Meeting

November 6, 2013

Exceptional Events Background

Feedback from Listening Sessions

Anticipated Schedule

Update of the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland / Prescribed Fires

Questions / Comments

2

Overview of Presentation

Exceptional Events Background

EPA issued the Interim Exceptional Events Implementation Guidance in May 2013

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 address

wildfire-related events that may affect ozone concentrations Provide guidance on how air agencies can incorporate the Exceptional Events Rule

revisions into ozone / wildfire event demonstrations Discuss the range of technical tools available to support the Exceptional Events Rule

criteria

3

To further inform the rule revision process, EPA hosted two 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-only listening session in mid-November

Listening sessions focused on 12 questions identifying potential issues for consideration in rule revisions

Most listening session participants provided verbal feedback A few also provided written comments EPA is still open to receiving ideas regarding specific rule revisions

4


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

described in the Interim Guidance is appropriate

5


Should EPA maintain the position presented in the interim guidance that the historical fluctuations criterion is not a “test” but a weight-of-evidence analysis that informs “clear causal” and “but for”?

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

wind demonstration submittal process, but parties also stress the need for flexibility when 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)

6


Do the following High Wind elements provide streamlining and flexibility?

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

We heard: Air agencies generally believe that SIP measures should satisfy the “not reasonably

controllable or preventable” criterion and if these measures are insufficient, then EPA should do a SIP call

Air agencies generally support the concept that no control = reasonable controls for natural sources and international transport

NRDC does not support either of these elements

7


Would it be helpful to incorporate the following “not reasonably controllable or preventable” elements in rule language?

• Recently approved SIP measures meet “not reasonably controllable or preventable” requirements

• For natural sources and interstate/international transport no control = reasonable control

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

by definition Air agencies generally support a “weight of evidence” approach to “but for”

8


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

• Address adjustment of design values and daily values for events that are not “exceptional” by definition

• Revise definition away from “absolute” to more “weight of evidence”• Other suggestions?

We heard: Distinguish between natural and human events and consider separate criteria EPA would need new CAA authorizing language for requiring additional control beyond approved SIP as “reasonable” Define best smoke management practices and smoke management plan/program All parties are better served by clear definitions in regulation Definition of natural event in rule language is the same as the statutory definition so no one has additional insight into

what this really means “Reasonably controllable or preventable” is further discussed in preamble but not in the rule and what is said in the

preamble is not binding, This term should be more defined in the rule for clarity.

9


Does EPA need to provide definitions for the following terms?• Event/natural event• Recurrence of natural events• Reasonable• Other terms?

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

mitigation elements and Subpart H, particularly with respect to wildfires and prescribed fires or wildfires that are allowed to burn.

10


Should EPA address mitigation elements differently than in the current rule, including the relationship between 40 CFR Subpart H requirements for emergency episodes / contingency planning and Regional Haze Rule requirements?

We heard: All interested parties (air agencies and NRDC) want EPA decisions on

demonstrations to be final decisions Many want EPA to act more quickly than they have seen EPA act in the past

11


Would it be helpful to clarify those activities that constitute an EPA final agency action?

We heard: Interested parties seem to be split Some maintain that concurrences should be pollutant-specific (e.g., any EPA

concurrence means the data are excluded for all NAAQS for that pollutant) Others maintain that concurrences should be NAAQS-by-NAAQS

12


Does EPA need to clarify that concurrences are NAAQS-specific, not pollutant-specific?

We heard: The intent of the statute and rule is to exclude data associated with events

that are out of the control of the affected air agency Interested parties generally agree that air agencies should be able to request

exclusions when needed, even if after the general schedule or otherwise promulgated deadlines

13


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

We heard: Most interested parties support flagging of 24 1-hr values even if the event was shorter. At least one air agency cautioned against flagging all 24 1-hr values without evidence 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 time consuming, and agencies would prefer to flag the calculated 24-hour average instead.

14


Is EPA’s guidance on flagging and excluding multiple 1-hour PM2.5 measurements versus flagging and excluding single 24-hour measurements appropriate?

We heard: Interested parties generally agree that removing irrelevant language makes

sense Interested parties also generally believe that it makes sense to promulgate a

built-in schedule that applies when NAAQS are revised

15


Would it be helpful to “clean-up” the EER to address the following?• Scheduling provisions included in reg text that have been made irrelevant by the

passage of time (e.g., 50.14(c)(2)(iv) For PM2.5 data collected during calendar years 2004-2006….)

• Scheduling deadlines following promulgation of new NAAQS to avoid case-by-case revisions

We heard: Interested parties generally agree that the EER is intended to cover all exceptional

events. If wildfires, prescribed fires, agricultural burns can be “exceptional” events, then the rule revisions should address them.

While some interested parties believe that prescribed fires and agricultural burns can be exceptional events, others urge caution in expanding the statutory concept of exceptional events to include more human/ anthropogenic activities, such as agricultural burns.

At a minimum, rule revisions should define smoke management program elements and best smoke management practices if these concepts play a role in whether EPA will concur on a prescribed fire event.

16


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

General agreement that for some types of events the evidence is very compelling, so only a streamlined demonstration is needed.

There has been great progress in this direction for some types of high wind events in Arizona.

EPA shares states’ interest in streamlining for other types of events.

17

Overarching Comment: Streamline!

The concept of adjusting an air quality measurement instead of flagging it and completely setting it aside for regulatory purposes has been part of several comments.

The recently proposed 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements rule mentions this concept.

Some commenters favor this approach. Others have commented that there presently are no methods to make such

adjustments. The adjustment concept raises a number of issues in terms of the design and

operation of AQS, separate from any policy/legal issues.

18

Adjustment Concept

Schedule Rule revisions

Proposal – early 2014 Promulgation – early 2015

Guidance to support data exclusion requests for wildfire-related events that may affect ozone concentrations

Draft guidance – early 2014 Final guidance – early 2015

Public hearings Proposal language contains provision for public hearings based on

feedback If interested parties want a public hearing, we would consider a location in

the West

19

Anticipated Schedule

Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires

EPA has indicated its intent to revise the interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires to address agricultural burning

EPA has convened several conference calls with federal agencies to discuss possible changes but has made no decisions on possible changes

EPA wishes to meet with tribal governments, state agencies (Agriculture, Environment, and Forest Management), and the public to get ideas and input on changes

20

QUESTIONS / COMMENTS

21

exceptional events and fire policy office of air quality planning and standards phil lorang westar...

Documents

listening sessions

exceptional events rule

interim guidance

specific rule revisions

reasonable control slide

listening session participants

rule language

air agencies