Western States / EPA Exceptional Events Meeting

1. Western States / EPA Exceptional Events Meeting February 25-26, 2009

2. Audience EPA Headquarters Regional Offices Western State/Local Agencies Decision makers and managers with responsibility for implementing the Exceptional Events Rule.

3. Primary Meeting Objective ALL OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS RULE WOULD COME TO A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES IMPACTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RULE.

4. Meeting Objectives • Reach a common understanding of the definition of an exceptional event and identify examples of recurring natural events that may meet the definition. • Reach a common understanding of the role event parameters, such as statistical occurrence and magnitude, play in identifying qualifying exceptional events. • Reach a common understanding of the nature and extent of the documentation needed for a complete Exceptional Event demonstration, particularly for ozone.

5. Meeting Objectives (cont’d) • Discuss the elements of a “toolbox” states could use to document exceptional events, and the need for written guidance. • Discuss whether there would be utility in EPA developing a checklist of criteria for concurrence on event documentation, and its possible content. • Discuss consistency of review criteria between regions with similar exceptional events. • We want consistency – except when we don’t want it. • Discuss EPA concurrence/non-concurrence determination timeframes.

6. Meeting Outcome: Expectations • EPA’s expectations of what state and local agencies should do when an exceptional event occurs: • actions to take • content and scope of documentation • State/local expectations regarding the rigor and scope of analysis needed by EPA to approve an exceptional events flag.

7. Classification System • This is one possible solution to one of the issues – but nothing has been finalized. • Expedite the processing of exceptional events requests by screening them based on a variety of factors/criteria. • Classifying exceptional events into one of three “bins:” • Those requiring the simplest form of justification; • Those requiring a more rigorous analysis; and • Those requiring the most comprehensive justification package.

8. Implementation of Classification System • In order to implement this, we must answer these questions: • What factors/criteria will be used to classify events as “easy, medium, or hard?” • How will EPA apply the factors/criteria? • How will EPA’s expectations of state/local documentation of an event vary for each of the three classifications?

9. Other Issues Identified • On what basis will EPA determine that a state/local has met the requirement to take “appropriate and reasonable actions to protect public health?” • Will EPA approve exceptional event flags at levels below the NAAQS: • for limited maintenance plan areas; or • in the dataset used to calculate design values? http://www.westar.org/EERpage.htm

10. Now What? • This topic was discussed on a call of the air directors. • The air directors authorized a project to develop recommendations on improving the implementation of the exceptional events rule. • WESTAR’s recommendations would benefit from consultation with representatives from local air agencies, EPA, and federal land management agencies. • No decisions about the outcome have been made.

11. Exceptional Events Workgroup“New and Improved” • Dan Johnson WESTAR • Karen Magliano California • Dave McNeill Utah • Tammy Egan Florida • Shawn Kendall Arizona • Diane Arnst Arizona • Doug Schneider Washington • Julie Oliver Washington • Scott Nester San Joaquin Valley APCD • Jean-Paul Huys Clark County APCD • Pete Lahm USFS • Sim Larkin USFS • Tara Strand USFS • Gary Cursio North Carolina State Forestry • EPA Headquarters TBD • EPA Regions TBD