1. EER Workgroup Conference Call August 27, 2009 Call Outline 1.Review prior discussions on process and goal (10 min) 2.Overview of draft recommendations (10 min) 3.Section by section review of draft recommendations (60 min) 4.Wrap-up, next steps (10 min)

2. Process Details Gather data Document: Monitor specific info Meteorology Background info about the event (exceptional or natural) Pictures News accounts Info from other area monitors Flag data in AQS Initial flag (by 7/1): Apply initial flag when data is submitted to AQS Document initial description of event Request concurrence Submit justification for exclusion (within 3 years) Meets definition Clear causal relationship Greater than normal historical fluctuations No exceedance but for the event Public comment process Showing that reasonable actions were taken to protect public health Review for completeness Data has been QA’d Data was flagged by the applicable deadline Documentation of all items listed under the “Request Concurrence” step Evaluate request Conceptual model (courtesy Scott Bohning): Did the event occur? Did the event impact the area/monitor? Did the event cause a NAAQS exceedance? Request additional information State/local action EPA action Process Steps

3. Streamlining the Review Process The OLD Metaphor Green light: package is complete and pre- conditions are all met Yellow light: package is complete and some, but not all, pre-conditions are met Red light: Package is incomplete and/or several pre-conditions are not met

4. Streamlining the Review Process The NEW Metaphor 1. Expedited review when package is complete and all preconditions are met 2. If preconditions are not met, clearly communicate the deficiency and what is needed 3. Clearly communicate the likelihood on non- concurrence when evidence is seriously lacking

5. Draft Recommendations - Overview 1.Cover letter 2.General background 3.Specific recommendations 1.Showing that event meets definition 2.Showing of clear causal relationship 3.The but-for showing 4.The excess of normal historical fluctuation showing 5.Public comment process showing 6.Showing that reasonable actions were taken

6. General Background Section General overview including: – Problems encountered – Mutual goal to streamline the process – Introduce general approach to identify the simple requests and to clearly indicate what will be needed on the more difficult requests

7. Showing 1: Meets definition of EE Key points: Definition restricts the application of the rule Recommend either of 2 options: – Revise the definition in the rule – Allow exclusion of data under monitoring rules

8. Showing 2: Clear Causal Relationship Key points: EPA should differentiate between simple and more detailed situations, facilitating expedited review of the simpler requests. Recommended outline for making this showing. Recommended bright-line tests/preconditions for expedited review.

9. Showing 3: The “but-for” test Key points: Reiterate concerns about the restrictions EPA imposed in their definition of an exceptional event. Notwithstanding the above concern, recommend bright-line tests/preconditions for expedited review of request.

10. Showing 4: Excess of normal historical fluctuation Key points: EPA should amend the rule to remove this restriction – Rule should allow exclusion of recurring dust and fire events regardless of historical context If the rule is not amended, suggest a top quartile threshold for expedited review.

11. Showing 5: Public comment process Key points: This has not been a problem.

12. Showing 6: Reasonable actions to protect public health Key points: Mitigate impacts through public awareness: – We agree and recommend NEAP or NEAP-like approach “Reasonable” emission controls to protect public health: – Equivalent to an assessment of whether a state is meeting its obligations under §110 of the CAA – If a state is not meeting its §110 obligations, SIP call citing deficiency

13. Other Recommendations Key points: Learn from previous efforts. Periodic status reports Clear communications on deficiencies