Status of Exceptional Events Implementation Guidance Janet McCabe Deputy Assistant Administrator US EPA, Office of Air and Radiation WESTAR Spring Meeting.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
National Implementation Assistance Ideas Reducing Emissions and State SIP Burdens NACAA Spring Membership Meeting, May 19, 2010 Greg Green, Director OAQPS/Outreach.
Advertisements

Exceptional Events Elements of an Effective Demonstration Darren Palmer US EPA Region 4.
How Will Georgia-Florida Wildfires Affect Regional Air Quality Planning? Wes Younger Georgia Environmental Protection Division.
What options do states have? What is Georgia planning to do? What are some of the other states doing? What are the possible implications to permit fees?
1 An Update on EPA Attainment Modeling Guidance for the 8- Hour Ozone NAAQS Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS/EMAD/AQMG November 16, 2005.
Issues on Ozone Planning in the Western United States Prepared by the WESTAR Planning Committee for the Fall Business Meeting, Tempe, AZ October 31, 2011.
Tribal Benefits from State Implementation Plan (SIP) Process Involvement Rosanne Sanchez New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau.
Exceptional Events and Fire Policy Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Phil Lorang WESTAR Fall Business Meeting November 6, 2013.
Update on EPA Oil and Gas Activities Greg Green, Outreach and Information Division, OAQPS.
1 OAR Guidance on -- “Consulting with Indian Tribal Governments” May 21, 2012.
Literature Review and Parts of Proposal
1 WRAP Fire Tracking Systems Draft Intent of WRAP FTS Policy – Assist states/tribes to address emissions inventory and tracking associated with fire in.
1 WRAP Policy Fire Tracking Systems Draft December 9, 2002 FEJF Meeting December 10-11, 2002 Jackson, WY.
Proposed Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations, and Proposed FY2007 Air Monitoring Guidance WESTAR Spring Business Meeting March 28, 2006.
An Update on the Colorado Regional Haze SIP Process and Outcomes Presented at: WRAP – Implementation Work Group San Francisco, CA March 2005.
WRAP Committee and Forum Updates WRAP Board Meeting Salt Lake City, UT October 15, 2003.
EER Workgroup Conference Call August 27, 2009 Call Outline 1.Review prior discussions on process and goal (10 min) 2.Overview of draft recommendations.
Treatment of Natural Events WESTAR Planning Committee & WESTAR NEP Workgroup March 28, 2006.
Department of Energy June 16, 2015 Executive Order (EO) 13673: Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Jean Seibert Stucky Assistant General Counsel for Labor and.
SPS policy – Information Presentation Presentation to ROS June 16, 2004.
Sound solutions delivered uncommonly well Understanding the Permitting Impacts of the Proposed Ozone NAAQS Pine Mountain, GA ♦ August 20, 2015 Courtney.
Exceptional Events Meredith Kurpius US EPA Region 9.
Exceptional Events and Fire Matthew Lakin, Ph.D. Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office U.S. EPA, Region 9 Interagency Air and Smoke Council Meeting May.
SIP Improvement: Current initiatives Anna Marie Wood Director Air Quality Policy Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. EPA WESTAR.
EPA’s DRAFT SIP and MODELING GUIDANCE Ian Cohen EPA Region 1 December 8, 2011.
Special Railways Phase III Proposed approach to regulatory changes Jakarta 16 May 2011.
Designations for 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS: Overview and Guidance Amy Vasu PM2.5 Workshop June 20-21, 2007.
Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule Briefing for NTAA EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards April 17, 2007.
Revisions to Primacy State Underground Injection Control Programs Primacy State Implementation of the New Class V Rule.
1 Brian Finneran, Oregon DEQ WRAP IWG Meeting, Santa Fe December 2006 Update on Regional Haze 308 SIP Template.
1 Exceptional Events Rulemaking Proposal General Overview March 1, 2006 US EPA.
1 Modeling Under PSD Air quality models (screening and refined) are used in various ways under the PSD program. Step 1: Significant Impact Analysis –Use.
1 Status of SO 2 Implementation and Modeling Issues Michael Ling Associate Director, Air Quality Policy Division U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning.
NSR and Title V Activities WESTAR Business Meeting May 2005.
1 Brian Finneran, Oregon DEQ WRAP IWG Meeting, Portland August 2006 Suggested Changes to IWG Section 308 SIP Template.
Exceptional Events and Fire Policy Presented by Don Hodge, U.S. EPA Region 9 Interagency Air and Smoke Council meeting May 2, 2012 Disclaimer: Positions.
Update: AUL Guidance Revisions Summary of Comments June 23, 2011 Peggy Shaw Workgroup Chair.
OAQPS Update WESTAR Fall Meeting October 2, 2008.
Clean Air Act Section 111 WESTAR Meeting Presented by Lisa Conner U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation November 6, 2013.
PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation Interactive Session NACAA Annual Meeting May 8, 2013 St. Louis, MO 1.
REVISIONS TO THE FEDERAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS RULE JILL CSEKITZ, TECHNICAL SPECIALIST TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
1 The Exceptional Events Rule (EER) Overview Tom Link EPA – OAQPS Geographic Strategies Group Westar Meeting, San Francisco, February 25, 2009.
OAQPS Update WESTAR April 3,  On March 12, 2008, EPA significantly strengthened the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level.
SIP Reform The Need for the EPA Regional Offices to be Consistent Marcia L. Spink EPA Region 3.
Miscellaneous Stuff William Harnett WESTAR Spring Meeting April 3, 2007.
E XCEPTIONAL E VENTS AND R EGION 9 AMTAC A PRIL 12,
Western States / EPA Exceptional Events Meeting February 25-26, 2009.
Department of Air Quality Exceptional Event Streamlining, Standardization & Coordination CDAWG November, 2015 Clark County.
Climate: ANPR, SIPs and Section 821 WESTAR October 2, 2008.
Stages of Research and Development
Requirements for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Minimization Plans Rich Janati, M.S., Chief Division of Nuclear Safety PA Dept. of Environmental Protection.
Exceptional Events Rule
Daily Screening for Wildfire Impacts on Ozone using a Photochemical Model A Proposal to the Texas Near-Nonattainment Areas Greg Yarwood
WESTAR Recommendations Exceptional Events EPA response
WESTAR Increment Recommendations
Part C State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report:
Alignment of Part 4B with ISAE 3000
CAIR Replacement Rule and Regional Haze
Transport Panel Discussion
WESTAR Fall Meeting October 2, 2008
Tom Wolf, Governor Patrick McDonnell, PA DEP Secretary
Exceptional Events Rulemaking Proposal
Designations for Indian Country
Exceptional and Natural Events Rulemaking
Vascularized Composite Allograft Transplantation Committee Fall 2014
1915(c) WAIVER REDESIGN 2019 Brain Injury Summit
Stakeholder Engagement: Webinar Part I: The Regulatory Development Process for the Government of Canada Part II: Making Technical Regulations Under.
Status of Exceptional Events Implementation Guidance
Uinta Basin General Conformity
Presentation transcript:

Status of Exceptional Events Implementation Guidance Janet McCabe Deputy Assistant Administrator US EPA, Office of Air and Radiation WESTAR Spring Meeting April 25, 2011 Disclaimer: Positions and views expressed here represent draft EPA guidance

Purpose Present draft Exceptional Events guidance products Discuss key points Get more detailed input through calls and written comments in the next 60 days Get your input on a broader review process for these documents 2

Overview Planned Guidance Products Key Elements in the Draft Guidance Next Steps Feedback and Questions 3

Planned Guidance Products Draft Guidance Products Available Now Memo from Gina McCarthy to Regional Offices 2 Attachments Frequently asked questions (~ 30 pages) High Winds Guidance Document (~60 pages) Website Draft Guidance Products Under Development Guidance document on wildfire events and ozone Replacement for EPA’s Interim Fire Policy Anticipate components to clarify treatment of agricultural burning and better define “basic smoke management practices” Reconsidering the purpose of and approach to other sections, in light of interagency review comments 4

Key Elements in the Draft Guidance 1.“Not reasonably controllable or preventable” When addressing event emissions, states must demonstrate that: Reasonable controls were in place (e.g., anthropogenic dust sources) AND/OR There are no controls that would have been reasonable to have in place (e.g., volcanic emissions) Additional considerations when determining whether reasonable controls were in place: Burden vs. air quality benefit Among other factors to consider, reasonableness needs to be judged in light of the technical information available to the state at the time the event occurred. EPA would expect for nonattainment areas to already have the technical information needed to reasonably control sources within their jurisdiction. States not held accountable for emissions originating outside of their jurisdiction Will need to defend that the controls in place were reasonable in individual cases For high wind dust events: High Wind Guidance Document introduces a wind speed threshold to inform the “reasonableness” assessment for very high wind speed events Exceedances at lower wind speeds will require additional justification because evidence may indicate uncontrolled sources or lack of implementation Will need to explain appropriate wind speed in individual cases 2.“Exceptional” and “natural” events “Exceptional” does not necessarily mean “infrequent” for natural events 5

Key Elements in the Draft Guidance 3.No exceedance or violation “but for” the event Continues to apply Weight of evidence Explanations of useful types of evidence Examples of successful demonstrations 4.Events that do not satisfy “but for” can get special treatment for purposes of area classifications and/or SIP attainment demonstrations on a case-by-case basis 5.“In excess of normal historical fluctuations, including background” We will treat this as a weight of evidence determination under the current rule 6.Clearer criteria for assessing high wind events No requirement to be infrequent, or to be above any wind speed floor, but must show “but for,” “clear causal relationship,” and “not reasonably controllable or preventable” Wind speed threshold Will need to explain appropriate wind speed in individual cases Optional High Wind Action Plan, to avoid the “EPA will know it when they see it” problem Provides examples of approvable demonstration components 6

Key Elements in the Draft Guidance 7.Clear expectations and timeframe for administrative process Encourage states to submit a letter of intent within 12 months of event occurrence. EPA will respond with whether/when EPA plans to act on the event. EPA will generally give priority to demonstration packages that affect near-term regulatory decisions EPA may defer review of demonstration packages that are not associated with near-term regulatory decisions Regions intend to respond within 120 days, including a target date for final action Window for adding to and/or revising the demonstration package Final action within 18 months if a regulatory decision hangs on the outcome 8.Transparency in EPA expectations and actions Guidance materials are detailed and clear Website with final EPA actions on submitted demonstrations Note: EPA anticipates following the draft guidance during the review period. 7

Next Steps DateStep 1-2 weeksEPA will distribute draft guidance documents via EPA will initiate more in-depth conference calls under WESTAR and NAACA sponsorship to orient reviewers and to respond to initial questions Tribal outreach 60 daysComment period for state/local/tribal agencies and FLMs Phone calls as needed May be able to provide the wildfire/ozone draft during this period June 30, 2011Comments due to EPA Respond to July 31, 2011Next draft version(s) of guidance documents 60 daysBroader outreach and comment process NovemberFinalize and distribute products Schedule rulemaking, if appropriate 8

What About Rule Changes? Some issues of remaining potential concern may be resolvable by shaping the final guidance Possible advantages Some future EPA approvals might be more legally secure in the case of litigation if the rule text were clarified A rule amendment might allow a High Wind Action Plan to be a more definite “shield” for future events, with respect to the reasonable controls question Possible disadvantages The current rule was controversial and any amendments likely will be too Zero-sum work load situation for all of us 9

Starting Questions for WESTAR and NACAA reviewers With what other groups should we engage via meetings or conference calls to invite broad public comment? Is a 25 mph wind speed potential threshold reasonable and helpful? Do you have evidence to support another threshold value in your area/region? Is the concept of a voluntary, negotiated High Wind Action Plan to clarify expectations for “not reasonably controllable or preventable” an option that may be useful to you? Do you foresee implementation challenges if EPA issues guidance but does not issue a rule revision? Any missing important questions? 10