Exceptional and Natural Events Rulemaking

1. Exceptional and Natural Events Rulemaking Briefing For WESTAR September 22, 2005

2. Objectives For The Briefing • To discuss the need to develop a rule on exceptional and natural events. • To provide a schedule for receiving comments related to the rule.

3. Why Are We Doing A Rule On Exceptional and Natural Events? • We are currently considering the proposal of a PM Coarse NAAQS which may emphasize the control of urban emissions and a tightening of the 24-hour PM fine standard. • Because of this concerns have been voiced related to the identification and treatment of data affected by exceptional and natural events. • The way that we handle data under the rule could affect whether areas attain or violate the PM Fine or PM Coarse standards. • SAFE-TEA, which revises section 319 of the Act, has language which directs EPA to do a rule on exceptional events.

4. We Believe A Similar Approach To Addressing Exceptional and Natural Events Should Be Pursued • We believe that maintaining a similar approach or philosophy would preserve continuity in terms of the resolution of these types of issues. • So, we plan to develop the rule by building off of our current guidance and policies on the issue. • However, we do need to address issues that have been identified by the Regional Offices, States, other Federal Agencies, as well as environmental groups over the years that are aimed at improving the process. • We need to clarify the policy on specific issues such as the time frame for resolving data issues, the level of documentation, and the development of a mitigation plan.

5. The Current EPA Policies That Address Exceptional and Natural Events Are: • The 1986 Exceptional Events Policy. • No mitigation plan required. • The 1996 PM-10 Natural Events Policy. • Mitigation plan required. • The 1998 interim Wildland and Prescribed Fire Policy. • Mitigation plan required. • The 1998 ozone Mexican Fire Policy. • No mitigation plan required.

6. Definition of Exceptional and Natural Events • Natural event: An event that produces emissions due to non-anthropogenic causes, which either causes or contributes to an exceedance or violation of the NAAQS. • Examples: (1) Wild fire, (2) High wind events, and (3) Volcanic and seismic activities. • Exceptional event: An emission producing event that is not expected to occur routinely at a given location, is not reasonably controllable or preventable, but causes or contributes to an exceedance or violation of the NAAQS. • Examples: (1) Stratospheric ozone intrusion, (2) Chemical spills, and (3) Clean ups after major disasters, ect.

7. The Treatment Of Stagnation and Inversion Events In the Rule • Definition: Stagnation and inversion events are meteorological occurrences that do not produce emissions but affect the concentration levels of a pollutant. • The rule will state, as our current policy already states, that these types of events are not be discounted for regulatory purposes. • The language in SAFE-TEA is also consistent with this position.

8. The Process For Treatment Of Data Affected By Exceptional And Natural Events • The reporting agency must: • Submit monitoring data to EPA. • The data must be flagged as an exceptional or natural event. • Supporting documentation must be submitted. • The Region must concur on the flag for the event. • As appropriate, the reporting agency must submit a mitigation plan related to the event in question.

9. Key Issues That Need To Be Addressed In The Rule • What types of events should receive special consideration as being exceptional or natural events. • What level of documentation should be required to support a claim of an exceptional or natural event. • What should the time frame be for addressing issues related to data affected by exceptional or natural events. • How should international events be addressed. • How should disputes between the States and the Regional Offices be resolved.

10. Examples Of The Issues That Need To Be Resolved In the Rule • What types of events should be provided special consideration: • We believe that many of the event flags currently in the AQS database should be preserved. • However, we also believe that the system should allow for consideration of other types of events on a case-by-case basis. • The process should consider issues related to the proposed NAAQS for PM fine and PM Coarse. • Example: Should emissions from fireworks be flagged as an exceptional event? • Example: Should data affected by Sahara or Glacial dust be flagged? • Example: Should emissions from Mexican and Central American forest fires be flagged?

11. Examples Of The Key Issues • What level of documentation should be required to support the flagging of an event: • Should the rule be more specific and detailed about the type and the level of documentation required. • Our current guidance provides the State flexibility in terms of the type and level of documentation to submit. • In order to provide special treatment related to flagged data we must have sufficient documentation that shows a clear causal relationship between the event and the measurement at the monitoring site. • We believe that a contribution assessment should be provided to show the level of impact on the monitor from the event. • We’d like your comments on how we can make the rule clearer related to documentation and the data that can be flagged.

12. Examples Of The Key Issues • What should the time frame be for the data to be addressed by the reporting agency and the Regional Offices. • Our current policy provides State, local, or Tribal agencies 180 days following an event to flag the data in AQS and submit documentation to EPA. EPA then has 60 days to concur or non-concur on the flag. • We believe that the data should be addressed quickly to minimize loss of data related to the event, and to take appropriate action to protect public health. • In some cases long periods of time have elapsed between the occurrence of an event and a State or Regional Office taking action to resolve the issue with the data. • Some States have suggested that a longer period of time is needed to adequately document the events and take appropriate action. We would like your comments on this point.

13. Examples Of The Key Issues • Options for the time frame considered by OAQPS: • Option 1: States flag data and submit documentation no later than 90 days following the end of the quarter that the event occurred. • EPA has a 90 day concurrence period. (No automatic concurrence) • Option 2: States flag the data within 60 days of the end following the end of the quarter that the event occurred. Submit documentation no later than 180 days following the end of the quarter that the event occurred. States can make a written request for additional time if a adequate technical justification is provided for the additional time. The Region must approve the extension.

14. Examples Of The Key Issues • Determining how to address international events. • Our current policies do not address the discounting of data due to international events. • Recent designations for ozone and PM have highlighted the need for a policy on this issue. • The magnitude of impact from these types of events is highly variable and tenuous. • Example events: (1) Mexican and Central American forest fires, (2) Sahara dust, (3) Glacial dust, and (3) Mexican dust (Imperial Valley, CA • To address these types of events EPA believes that the documentation must be sufficient to show a clear causal relationship between the event and the measurement at the monitoring site.

15. Examples Of The Key Issues • What type of dispute resolution process should there be for disagreements between the Regions and the States. • There is currently no formal consistency process. • Under current rules the Regional Administrator has the authority to make final decisions concerning the data. • Some States have advocated an appeals process on decisions made by the Regions. • SAFE-TEA requires that a dispute resolution process be developed which allows issues to be raised to the EPA Administrator for resolution.

16. How Should Natural Events Be Addressed • We propose that natural events be addressed similar to our current policy for PM-10. • The natural events covered by the rule should continue to be: (1) Wild Fires, (2) High Wind Events, and (3) Volcanic and Seismic Activity. Other types of events may be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In order for data to be considered for discounting a plan should be developed to mitigate the impact of the event on the public. • We also recommend treating data affected by international events in a similar manner. • Prescribed fires and wildland fires will continue to be covered under the “Interim Wildland and Prescribed Fire Guidance Policy Document” drafted in 1998.

17. How Should Exceptional Events Be Addressed • We believe that data affected by an exceptional event should be treated similar to the way we currently treat natural events. • In order for data to be considered for discounting the reporting agency must develop a mitigation plan. • We believe the current types of flags addressed in the AQS database should be reviewed, given our plans to propose the PM Fine NAAQS and the PM Coarse standards.

18. Proposed Rule On Exceptional and Natural Events • A separate rulemaking will be proposed at the same time as the PM NAAQS proposals for PM Fine and PM Coarse. • The rule will contain general language related to exceptional and natural events and will apply to all pollutants. • Appendices in 40 CFR Part 50 will address the handling of data affected by exceptional and natural events for individual pollutants. • The rule will apply to pollutants other than PM Fine and PM Coarse as we do NAAQS reviews for each pollutant.

19. Next Steps • Draft a rule taking into consideration comments from the Regional Offices, States, USDA, FWS, and FS. • Submit a draft of the rule to OMB for review this Fall. • Propose the rule in December.