-------
-------
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the members of the Air Quality Management Work Group for their
contribution to this effort, including participation in numerous calls and meetings, as well as
countless hours spent reviewing the recommendations included in the final report. A special thank
you to Daniel Greenbaum and Michael Bradley, representing the Committee on Air Quality
Management in the United States, for their guidance throughout this process.
Janet McCabe, Co-Chair
Gregory Green, Co-Chair
-------
-------
by the Air Work Group
Table of Contents
Executive Summary v
Introduction 3
The Air Quality Management Work Group 7
Next Steps 10
Air Quality Management Work Group Recommendations 11
NRC 1: Strengthen Scientific and Technical Capacity 13
1.1 Emissions Measurements and Reporting 13
1.2 Emissions Factors and Estimation Methods 14
1.3 Uncertainty in Emissions Inventories and Modeling 15
1.4 Multipollutant Monitoring 15
1.5 Framework for Accountability 16
NRC 2: Expand National and Multistate Control Strategies 17
Sectors for Further Study and Possible National and Regional Regulations 19
2.1 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 19
2.2 Industrial Surface Coatings 20
2.3 Non-Industrial Solvents 20
2.4 Architectural Coatings 20
2.5 Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines 20
2.6 Emissions from Ships, Locomotives, and Aircraft, and Mobile Source Air
Toxics 21
Evaluation of Additional Emissions Reduction Potential and Cost-Effectiveness 22
2.7 Cement Manufacturing, Petroleum Refining, and Pulp and Paper 22
2.8 Residential Fossil Fuel Combustion 22
National Guidance for Local Controls 22
2.9 Guidance for Local Control Measures in Key Sectors 22
2.10 Residential Wood Smoke 23
2.11 Open Burning 24
2.12 High-Emitting Gasoline Vehicles 24
2.13 Conformity 25
NRC 3: Transform the SIP Process 25
Streamlining the SIP Process 26
3.1 Align SIP Submittal Dates 26
3.2 Protocol for SIP Development 26
3.3 Clearinghouse of Approved SIPs 27
3.4 Streamline Minor SIP Revisions 27
3.5 Timely EPA Guidance 28
3.6 Avoid Unnecessary Public Hearings 28
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
3.7 Facilitate Redesignation Process for Certain Areas 28
Measures to Improve Communication to the Public 29
3.8 Effective Communication with Constituencies 29
3.9 Co-Benefits of Innovative Measures 29
Steps to Increase Adoption of Innovative Measures 29
3.10 Innovative and Voluntary Measures 29
3.11 SIP Credits for Bundled Innovative Measures 29
Steps toward Transformation: Improving SIP Development and Evaluation 30
Increasing Collaboration in SIP Planning and Control-Strategy Development 30
3.12 Regional Approaches to SIP Planning 30
3.13 Federal and State Partnership 30
Steps to Improve Tracking and Evaluation of Results 31
3.14 Weight-of-Evidence Demonstrations 31
3.15 Periodic Assessments to Track Progress 32
3.16 Averaging, Banking, and Trading in Gasoline Sulfur Program 32
NRC 4: Develop Integrated Program for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants 33
4.1 SIPs to Address Multipollutant Impacts 33
4.2 Multipollutant Benefits and Disbenefits in Standards Setting 33
4.3 Greenhouse Gas Co-Benefits and Disbenefits 33
NRC 5: Enhance Protection of Ecosystems and Public Welfare 34
5.1 Program Review to Improve Ecosystem Protection 34
Unresolved Issues for Further Discussion 37
Looking Forward: Long-Term Realignment of the AQM System 41
Long-Term AQM Vision: Core Principles 43
Long-Term Framework Options 44
Option 1: National Technology-Based Standards 44
Option 2: Meeting Environmental Goals with Emissions Caps and Trading 45
Option 3: Multipollutant, Performance-Based Standards 46
Option 4: Continuous Improvement Program 46
Moving Forward: Continuing the Evaluation Process 46
Conclusions 49
-------
by the Air Work Group
Appendix A: Air Quality Management Work Group A-1
Organizational Structure for Response to CAAAC on MAS Report: A-3
Work Group Members: A-4
Appendix B: Recommendations Matrix & Background Papers B-1
Recommendations Matrix B-3
Recommendations: Background Papers B-11
Appendix C: Summary of Unresolved Issues For Further Discussion C-1
Appendix D: Letter Transmitting Final Report to EPA D-1
Appendix E: Commentaries from Clean Air Act Advisory Members E-1
-------
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Executive Summary
:: v
-------
-------
by the Air Work Group
Executive Summary
In June 2004, the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) formed the Air Quality
Management Work Group. The Work Group's task was to assess the recommendations made by
the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies in its 2004 report, Air Quality
Management in the United States,1 and to advise the CAAAC on ways to improve the U.S. air
quality management system, with an emphasis on activities that could be accomplished in the
next one to five years. The NRC report described the dramatic improvements in air quality
achieved in the U.S. since 1970, and the resulting improvements in human health and the
environment. Despite these improvements, however, the NRC found that air quality challenges
remain in many areas of the country, especially in heavily populated areas, with significant
implications for public health. It noted a number of areas in which the air quality management
system could be enhanced to allow progress to continue in a more effective and efficient manner.
Recognizing this, the CAAAC charged the Work Group with outlining concrete steps that could
promote change in the directions recommended by the NRC.
The Work Group formed two subgroups, the Science and Technology Subgroup and the Policy
and Planning Subgroup, to focus on the critical issues outlined in the NRC report. From June
through December 2004, the Work Group considered many options for change. The Work Group
included representatives from State and Local organizations, Tribal interests, regional
organizations, environmental and public health organizations, industry, and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In this report, the Work Group advances detailed recommendations. These recommendations
address the five main areas of concern of the NRC:
1) Strengthening scientific and technical capacity.
2) Expanding national and multistate control strategies.
3) Transforming the SIP process.
4) Developing an integrated program for criteria and hazardous air pollutants.
5) Enhancing protection of ecosystems and public welfare.
The overall objective of this Work Group is for these recommendations to be implemented by EPA,
States and others in order to make further improvements in air quality, which will result in improved
human health and ecosystem protection. The recommendations presented in this report are designed to
be implemented in the near term. Some of them require short-term process changes or alterations to
existing policies that can be accomplished relatively quickly and will result in substantial
improvements in efficiency and effectiveness of current programs. These recommendations will
streamline processes, improve resource allocation, and enhance scientific and technical capacity.
Other recommendations suggest initial steps that should be taken to form the basis for longer-term
initiatives to be carried forward into the future. These recommendations focus on larger-scale efforts
that would transform the air quality management system in more fundamental ways and further
strengthen its scientific and technical underpinnings. These latter efforts would, of course, require
more resources and time to implement fully. However, the Work Group regards them as critical steps
that must be taken soon so that long-term gains can be realized.
'http://www.nap.edu/books/0309089328/html.
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
Over the past six months, the Work Group also considered a variety of other issues on which it is
not prepared to make recommendations at this time. Some topics were so complex, resource
intensive, or controversial that the Work Group was unable to reach consensus and, therefore, has
decided not to try to resolve them at present. Additional discussion on these topics is expected in
the future. The Work Group has also begun considering options for the air quality management
system in the future. It evaluated the long-term challenges facing air quality management in the
U.S. from a number of perspectives and identified several criteria that may help guide discussions
on alternatives for reforming the current system in future years. To help begin this process, the
Work Group outlines four approaches reflecting different views that could serve as the basis for a
more complete transformation of the air quality management system. In addition, the Work
Group recommends that discussion of future options and unresolved issues be continued over the
next several months.
The Work Group advises that the recommendations contained in this report be implemented by
EPA, State, local, and Tribal environmental organizations, and other stakeholders in the
immediate future. Several of the recommendations are critical because of impending
implementation plans for ozone, PM2 5 and regional haze. The Work Group, however, is sensitive
to the level of resources needed to implement these recommendations and understands that EPA
should establish priorities that reflect practical constraints. All of these recommendations can be
implemented under the current authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Specifically, the Work Group recommends:
• A new CAAAC subcommittee should be established to continue the assessment and
development of recommendations for long-term changes to the air quality management
system and to address the issues on which the Work Group could not reach consensus.
Until the subcommittee is formed, the current AQM Work Group should continue
working to further define and resolve additional issues and long-term framework options.
• The Work Group recommends that EPA carefully consider the recommendations and
issue a response to CAAAC outlining a plan for implementation, and that EPA report
back to the CAAAC subcommittee periodically on its implementation efforts.
• The new subcommittee, in conjunction with existing CAAAC subcommittees, should be
assigned the responsibility for overseeing the implementation of, and any modifications
to, the recommendations contained in this report.
• Following its establishment, the new subcommittee should develop a timeline for delivery of
new recommendations and provide periodic progress reports to CAAAC. Discussion by the
subcommittee on remaining issues and options should be directed towards further
strengthening the U.S. air quality management framework over the next decade.
-------
Air Quality Management Work Group
Report to the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
-------
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Introduction
-------
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Introduction
In 2004, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies released a report
entitled Air Quality Management in the United States. In this report, the NRC outlined the many
substantial achievements of the United States air quality management (AQM) system over the
past 30 years. Controls on air pollution enacted under the Clean Air Act have led to dramatic
declines in emissions and air quality concentrations of a number of pollutants (Figure 1). The
NRC concluded that these controls have been highly cost effective and have promoted the
advancement of new technologies for pollution control.
A) National Average Air Quality Concentrations, 1980-2003
-Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average (185 Bttes)x 1000
- Ozone Annual 41h Max 84iour Average (299 sites) x 1 DO
Carbon Monoxkje Annual 2nd Max 8-hour Average (168 sites)
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average (94 sites) x 100
Note: For this 2^year period, trend sites must have at least 18 years of complete data and must not be missing more than 2 consecutive y<
ofdata. Mssing yeaiE ale iitefpolated from surrounding yeare. This procedure is performed to construct a consistent set of trend sites ow
B) National Emissions Estimates, 1970-2003
250
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003
-Lead
•PM2.5
•S02
CO (Y2)
PM10
Figure 1. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends for selected 'Criteria' Pollutants.
A) Long-term air quality trends and, B) national emissions trends illustrate the continuing improvement achieved
by air quality management under the Clean Air Act.
2 U.S. EPA Air Quality System (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs).
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Overall, the nation has achieved a 51 percent decrease in aggregate emissions of the six principal
air pollutants and their precursors since 1970, despite significant increases in population, energy
consumption, gross domestic product, and vehicle miles traveled (Figure 2). These successes
demonstrate that implementation of the Clean Air Act has resulted in significant progress toward
improving the nation's air quality and protecting the health of its citizens.
Comparison of Growth Areas and Emissions
200%
150% -
100% -
50% -
U
-50% -
Population
Aggregate Emissions
(Six Principal Pollutants)
—i—iV
70 80 90 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03
Figure 2. Comparison of Growth Areas and Emissions. Between 1970 and 2003, gross domestic product
increased 176 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 155 percent, energy consumption increased 45 percent,
and U.S. population grew by 39 percent. During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air
pollutants dropped by 51 percent.
Looking to how such successes can be sustained or expanded in the future, the NRC identified
areas where modifications to the AQM system could provide further benefits to human health and
the environment in the most effective and efficient manner (see Figure 3). Some of the NRC's
recommendations involve near-term changes with immediate impact. Other NRC
recommendations focus on more sweeping changes to the nation's approach to air quality
management over the mid- to long-term. Taken together, these recommendations provide the
NRC's vision of how AQM in the United States could be reshaped and improved to achieve
greater benefits more rapidly and at lower cost.
'http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtmd03/images/growth-and-emissions.gif.
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
The Challenges Ahead
Meeting National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for ozone
and participate matter at 2.5 pm
in diameter and reducing
regional haze
Designing and implementing
controls for hazardous air
pollutants
Protecting human health and
welfare in the absence of a
threshold exposure
Ensuring environmental justice
Assessing and protecting
ecosystem health
Mitigating intercontinental and
cross-border transport
Maintaining AQM system
efficiency in the face of
changing climate
The Long-Term Objectives
for AQM to Meet Future
Challenges
AQM Should Strive To:
• Identify and assess most
significant exposures, risks, and
uncertainties
• Take an integrated
multipollutant approach to
mitigating most significant risks
• Take an airshed-based
approach to controlling
emissions
• Emphasize results over
process, create accountability,
and dynamically adjust
To begin the evolution of AQM
toward these objectives in the
United States, five interrelated
Recommendations and related
Actions are proposed
RECOMMENDATION 1: Strengthen Scientific
and Technical Capacity
ACTIONS: Improve emissions tracking, enhance air
pollution monitoring, improve modeling, enhance exposure
assessment, improve health and welfare assessment, track
implementation costs, and invest in research and human and
technical resources
RECOMMENDATION 2: Expand National and
Multistate Control Strategies
ACTIONS: Expand federal emission controls, emphasize
technology-neutral standards, use market-based approaches,
reduce existing-sources emissions, and address multistate
regional transport
RECOMMENDATION 3: Transform the
SIP Process
ACTIONS: Replace state implementation plan with
integrated multipollutant air quality management plan and
reform process to focus on tracking results using periodic
reviews, encouraging innovative strategies, and retaining
conformity and federal oversight
RECOMMENDATION 4: Develop Integrated
Program for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollution
ACTIONS: Set priorities for pollutants, institute dynamic
review of pollutant classification, list potentially dangerous but
unregulated pollutants, address multipollutants in standard-
setting process, and enhance residual assessment
RECOMMENDATION 5: Enhance Protection of
Ecosystems and Public Welfare
ACTIONS: Conduct review of standards to protect public
welfare, develop ecosystem monitoring networks, establish
acceptable ecosystem exposure levels, promulgate
secondary standards, and track progress
Figure 3. NRC Vision for an Enhanced AQM System. To meet the major challenges that air quality
management efforts will face in the future, the NRC identified a set of overarching long-term objectives.
The Air Quality Management Work Group
Following the recommendation of the NRC to establish a stakeholder group to oversee
implementation of its recommendations,5 the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC), a
body chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, formed an Air Quality Management
Work Group (hereafter "Work Group"). This group was charged with evaluating the NRC's
recommendations and advising the CAAAC on ways to improve the AQM system in the near-
term. The Work Group included representatives from State and local organizations, Tribal
interests, regional organizations, environmental and public health organizations, industry, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For a list of the Work Group members, see Appendix A
of this report.
From June through December 2004, the Work Group considered many options to improve the
U.S. air quality management system consistent with the NRC report. To organize its discussion,
the Work Group formed two subgroups: one to address scientific and technological issues, and
the other to address policy and planning issues. The Science and Technology Subgroup worked in
' National Research Council, Air Quality Management in the United States, (Washington, B.C.; National Academies
Press, 2004), p. 10.
'NRC Report, p. 314.
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
a cross-disciplinary mode on most issues, but formed separate work teams that focused on health
and exposure, and ecosystem issues. The Policy and Planning Subgroup also subdivided into
teams that focused on: 1) improving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) process; 2) expanding
the use of regional and national strategies; and 3) encouraging innovation and developing
multipollutant approaches. A fourth team began to discuss longer-term visions of air quality
management. Members from both the Science and Technology Subgroup and the Policy and
Planning Subgroup, as well as outside academics, focused on developing more robust approaches
for health and ecosystem issues. For an organizational chart showing the subgroups and work
teams, see Appendix A.
All of these subgroups and teams met, separately and together, on numerous occasions to develop
a set of detailed recommendations responding to the NRC report. The teams took as their starting
point the four long-term objectives set forth in the NRC report (see Figure 3), and the five
overarching recommendations the NRC suggested as steps toward achieving those objectives.
Some of the recommendations outlined by the NRC that would require statutory change are not
feasible in the near-term and are not addressed in this report. The NRC clearly recognized that the
more significant changes embedded in its broad vision will take time to develop, and that some
more immediate actions are warranted to assist States as they develop new ozone (8-hour), fine
particle (PM2 5), and regional haze SIPs in the next few years. As the NRC wrote after outlining
its four long-term objectives,
"Immediate attainment of these objectives is unrealistic. It would require a level of scientific
understanding that has yet to be developed, a commitment of resources that would be difficult
to obtain in the short term, and a rapid transformation of the AQM system that is undesirable
in light of the system's past successes. The committee proposes, therefore, that the AQM
system be enhanced so that it steadily evolves toward meeting these objectives."6
In the pages that follow, the Work Group provides a series of recommendations intended to begin
this steady evolution. If implemented, these recommendations would build upon and strengthen
the current system, starting with important modifications in the methods and technologies used to
collect scientific data, as well as the ways those data are translated into control decisions. Though
some of the recommendations will require further development to become wholly effective, they
provide a necessary foundation for improving air quality programs. The Work Group agrees with
the NRC findings that both short- and long-term changes are needed. The Work Group is,
however, acutely aware of what is achievable within the next five years, and has, therefore,
focused on short-term, pressing concerns such as providing support for the development of the
upcoming SIPs. These actions include enhancing emissions inventories, redefining the role of air
quality modeling, assisting in the development of multipollutant planning and control strategies,
achieving reductions from mobile sources, and supporting innovative approaches to air quality
improvement.
As the Work Group developed recommendations, the need for three categories of
recommendations quickly became evident: 1) recommendations upon which there was substantial
consensus among Work Group members; 2) recommendations upon which there was not
consensus, but on which consensus might be reached with additional discussion by the Work
Group or a follow-on group; and 3) recommendations that relate to an overarching long-term
vision. This report presents the Work Group's recommendations in each of these categories.
6 NRC Report, p. 16.
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
As a way of illustrating graphically how the system currently operates to manage and improve air
quality and the performance of control programs, Figure 4 depicts the connections among the
major components of the air quality management system. In this report, the Work Group first lays
out a series of detailed recommendations that will improve how different components in the
system are managed and enhance the feedback loops between the components. In these 38
recommendations, the Work Group offers concrete suggestions on how to improve the scientific
and technical foundation of the AQM process, and how to enhance the policy and planning
activities built on the scientific and technical foundation.
I. Establish Goals
NAAQS
Acid Rain Caps
Visibility
V. Track and
Evaluate Results
Emissions
Rule Effectiveness
Monitoring (air quality)
Modeling
Record Keeping
Reporting
II. Determine
Emissions
Reductions
Monitoring
Emissions Inventories
Modeling
IV. Implement
Reduction
Strategies/
Enforcement
Sources Comply
Permits
III. Develop
Reduction
Programs
National Rules
Mobile Sources
Fuels
NSPS Stationary
MACT / Residual Risks
Acid Rain Program
Regional Programs
State/Local/Tribal Plans
Figure 4. Conceptual Diagram of the Air Quality Management Process. Air quality management should be
an iterative process of continuous improvement: (I) National goals are established by Congress or EPA. (II)
Scientific and technical information are key to determining what pollutants need to be reduced, by how much,
and over what scale and time. (Ill) Strategies are then developed to achieve needed pollution reductions. Over
time, the CAA Amendments have added emphasis on national controls for mobile sources and some stationary
sources. The States (SIP process) are responsible for developing additional reduction programs as needed. (IV)
SIPs are then adopted and enforced as sources implement reduction measures. (V) Finally, air quality and
emissions are tracked to determine how well the measures worked to improve air quality. Depending on the
outcome, the process may require further iterations.
The Work Group recognizes that among the many suggestions for change outlined, virtually all
require an expenditure of resources by EPA, States/Locals/Tribes (S/L/T), or other organizations,
and, in some cases, may require large resource commitments over many years. Thus, either new
resources need to be identified for implementation of the recommendations in this report, or a
discussion needs to occur about reallocation of existing resources at the State and Federal level.
The Work Group is very sensitive to these resource considerations and understands that priorities
must be established which reflect the practical constraints. The Work Group lacked the time and
information to complete prioritization during the first phase of its discussion, but would like to
work with the CAAAC and EPA to assist them in setting priorities over the next few months. Key
considerations should include, but are not limited to: whether the change is needed to assist the
development of ozone, PM2s and regional haze SIPs; whether the action is one not currently
underway, but could greatly improve the current process if implemented by a certain time; and
whether the recommendation relates to critically needed improvements that will take multiple
years to accomplish and, therefore, needs to be initiated soon.
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
After presenting the recommendations on which the Work Group was able to reach substantial
consensus, the report highlights a number of other crucial issues that the Work Group has
discussed. Though the Work Group has not yet been able to reach consensus on these issues, it
has engaged in considerable debate and is now prepared to summarize that debate and outline a
suggested process for further discussion in the future.
For areas requiring longer-term or more fundamental changes, the Work Group has focused on
outlining possibilities and initial steps which could steer the AQM system in the desired direction.
The final section of this report lays out important criteria to consider when designing new air
quality management programs in the future, and outlines briefly four options for a revised AQM
framework that the Work Group considered, but upon which it has not reached final conclusions.
The Work Group recognizes, however, that even these four options do not address the universe of
potential changes, either minor or substantial, that could be considered in a comprehensive look at
the current AQM system.
Next Steps
The Work Group recommends that decisions on implementation of the recommendations in this
report, as well as discussion of future options and unresolved issues, be continued over the next
several months. These continuing discussions would also allow review and/or adjustment of the
near-term recommendations if warranted. Specifically, the Work Group recommends:
• A new subcommittee of CAAAC should be established to continue the assessment and
development of recommendations for long-term changes to the air quality management
system and the issues on which the Work Group could not reach consensus. Until this
subcommittee is formed, the current Work Group should continue working to resolve
additional issues and discuss long-term framework options. Following its establishment
under the CAAAC, the subcommittee should develop a timeline for preparing additional
recommendations and provide periodic progress reports to CAAAC. Discussion of all
remaining issues and options should be directed towards further strengthening the U.S.
air quality management framework over the next decade. The Work Group recommends
that the new subcommittee, in conjunction with existing subcommittees, also be given the
responsibility for overseeing the implementation of, and any modifications to, the
recommendations contained in this report.
• EPA should carefully consider the recommendations presented in this report, and should
issue a response to the CAAAC as soon as practical outlining a plan for implementing
those recommendations to the extent possible. The CAAAC should support EPA's
development of this plan. EPA should report back to the newly formed CAAAC
subcommittee periodically on its implementation efforts.
10 ::
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Air Quality Management Work Group
Recommendations
:: 11
-------
-------
by the Air Work Group
Air Quality Management Work Group Recommendations
In the next five sections of the report, the Work Group lays out 38 recommendations on which it
achieved substantial consensus (see Recommendations Matrix: Appendix B). These detailed
recommendations are organized according to the five overarching recommendations of the NRC
(see Figure 3, above). At the top of each section, a header identifies the relevant NRC
recommendation. The recommendations outlined in these five sections are also detailed in
background papers found in Appendix B, with more complete information about background,
supporting evidence, feasibility considerations, and preliminary resource estimates. For many of
the recommendations, the Work Group has defined an appropriate time frame for implementation,
with most starting as soon as possible. This set of recommendations, if implemented, will
strengthen the current AQM system by streamlining processes, improving the quality of data, and
enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of current control efforts.
NRC 1: Strengthen Scientific and Technical Capacity
The NRC noted that a key to improving air quality management in the United States is improving
our knowledge concerning the sources and emissions of air pollutants and their precursors, the
mechanisms of their fate and transport, and their impacts on human health and the environment.
Achieving these goals will require significant efforts on many fronts. First, the Work Group
recommends significant improvements in the collection, management, and analysis of emissions
and ambient air quality data. This step is critical for moving the nation's AQM system toward a
more performance-oriented approach, and for supporting a framework to track significant health-
and ecosystem-based outcomes. On the scientific and technical front, the Work Group makes the
five recommendations below.
The first two recommendations focus on improving the information we currently have about
emissions of air pollutants. Recent studies have noted many deficiencies in current emissions
inventories (e.g., NARSTO 2004), such as poorly defined emissions factors and inefficient
emissions reporting. Improved emissions inventories are needed to provide for more effective
planning for control strategies and to meet future air quality challenges. Therefore, the Work
Group recommends:
1.1 Emissions Measurements and Reporting - EPA, in conjunction with
States/Local/Tribes (S/L/T) and affected stakeholders, should pursue improved emissions
measurements and reporting to enhance emissions databases for more accurate air quality
assessments and tracking of progress. A strong national effort is needed to require emissions
measurements and reporting for as many major source categories as possible. The primary
objective of this recommendation is to produce accurate emissions data for supporting control
strategy planning and tracking progress (and establishing accountability mechanisms because
they reduce uncertainty in emissions inventories), enhancing opportunities to establish viable
emissions trading programs, supporting air quality modeling, and increasing certainty for
compliance purposes. In 2005 and 2006, EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected
stakeholders, should:
• Conduct a study to identify relevant existing emissions measurement methodologies,
categories for which these methodologies are necessary and appropriate, and protocols
for conducting these measurements.
:: 13
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Identify efforts needed to develop new emissions measurement methodologies and
technologies for other source categories (e.g., continuous emissions monitors (CEMs),7
"random" stack testing for minor sources and remote sensing).
Evaluate the need for and appropriateness of regulations to require emissions
measurements. As necessary and appropriate, EPA should undertake rulemaking to
establish these requirements as soon as possible.
Evaluate the need for and appropriateness of regulations to require reporting of emissions
measurements to a user-friendly central database, similar to EPA's Acid Rain database
for Electric Generating Units (EGUs). As necessary and appropriate, EPA should
establish these requirements through rulemaking as soon as possible.
Figure 5. Continuous
Emissions Monitor.
These instruments
provide high quality
information on air
emissions and exhaust
gas characteristics. See
Recommendation 1.1.
Photo credit: Inquest
Environmental, Inc.
1.2 Emissions Factors and Estimation Methods - Where emissions measurement-based
information is impractical to obtain for air quality assessments, or where improved projections
are needed, EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should improve
emissions factors and emission estimation methods. A strong national effort is needed to
improve emission estimation methods for major source categories, especially for sources that
are poorly characterized or whose emissions estimates are uncertain. The primary objective of
this recommendation is to produce better emissions inventories for supporting air quality
modeling and tracking progress. In 2005 and 2006, EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and
affected stakeholders, should:
• Review existing emissions factors to identify the most significant needs, recommend and
prioritize data collection and steps necessary for improving emissions factors, and
develop and implement procedures for quickly disseminating new emissions factors.
• Review existing source profiles used in source-based (and receptor-based) modeling to
identify the most significant source profile needs, and recommend and prioritize data
7 CEMs are already required by Title IV of the Clean Air Act for certain Electric Generating Units, by the Ozone
Transport Commission's (OTC) NOx Trading Program for several source categories, including industrial boilers,
turbines, and cement kilns, or by numerous NESHAPS or NSPS.
14 ::
-------
by the Air Work Group
collection and steps necessary for improving or developing source profiles for poorly
characterized sources.
• Conduct a study to reconcile current emissions inventories with ambient measurements.
Based on the study, EPA should work with the S/L/T and affected stakeholders to
improve emissions estimates.
Recommendation 1.3 seeks to improve the usefulness and acceptance of technical information for
air quality planning and decisionmaking. The Work Group recommends:
1.3 Uncertainty in Emissions Inventories and Modeling - EPA, in conjunction with
S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should quantify and take actions to reduce uncertainty in
emissions inventories and air quality modeling applications, provide guidance for
incorporating uncertainty assessments into SIP planning, and improve communication of
uncertainty to decision-makers. Technical analyses performed to support policy development
address complex and sometimes poorly understood problems. While serious attempts are made
to rely on the best science available at the time, there are limitations to these analyses. In 2005
and 2006, EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should conduct the
following actions to better characterize, quantify, and reduce uncertainty in existing emissions
inventories and modeling analyses:
• Conduct a study to evaluate sources of uncertainty in emissions inventories and modeling
analyses for all sources; identify needed data collection activities (and associated costs) to
reduce the most significant emissions uncertainties; and identify appropriate methods for
incorporating uncertainty in preparing emissions inventories and conducting modeling
analyses. Uncertainty also is present in monitoring data, but it can be better characterized.
• Provide guidance to S/L/T for incorporating uncertainty assessments in SIP and Tribal
Implementation Plan (TIP) planning.
Recommendation 1.4 seeks to provide more scientifically relevant and responsive data for air
quality planning and tracking progress, and to provide a more robust and spatially complete basis
for current and future air quality planning. Specifically, the AQM Work Group recommends:
1.4 Multipollutant Monitoring -EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders,
should promote and improve integrated, multipollutant monitoring. Over the past 30 years, the
air pollution situation has changed significantly as control programs have reduced emissions of
many pollutants and as science has identified emerging issues of concern. Accordingly, it is
important that air monitoring efforts be more dynamic and responsive to meet the current and
future public, regulatory, and scientific needs. To promote and improve monitoring over the
next 3 to 4 years, EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should:
• Finalize its proposed national ambient monitoring strategy, and S/L/T should, as
appropriate, work together on a regional scale to consider the need for, and, if appropriate
develop, regional monitoring strategies.
• Establish a minimum of six Level I (research-grade) NCore sites with reasonable
geographic coverage (e.g., one each in the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and South, and
two in the West), and in conjunction with S/L/T, establish the Level II (multipollutant)
NCore sites (see Figure 6).
• Support research and development to improve monitoring methods for several pollutants,
including PM2 5, PM-coarse, and air toxics.
:: 15
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
• Promote policies to avoid disincentives for monitoring.
• Promote co-location of atmospheric dry and wet deposition monitoring with long-term
monitoring of ecological conditions whenever possible.
Figure 6. Enhanced
Multipollutant Monitoring
Site. Ambient monitoring site
operated by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural
Resources in Mayville,
Wisconsin, which includes the
multipollutant measurements
associated with Level II NCore
sites.
At the core of the NRC recommendations for transforming the Air Quality Management system
in the U.S., was a call to create accountability for the results, and dynamically adjust and correct
the system in response to data from programs that track progress. The Work Group recognizes
that substantial information and tools already exist for expanding the role of tracking in the SIP
process and has made some recommendations for beginning to expand the role of tracking and
evaluation in the process (see Recommendations 3.14 and 3.15). Nevertheless, the kind of
comprehensive approach envisioned by the NRC will take a concerted effort that includes
assessing the available scientific information (e.g., identifying and expanding new research and
assessments programs). To promote understanding and characterization of the impacts of air
quality changes on health and ecosystem outcomes, and to improve the scientific basis for more
informed policy decisions, including the need for and nature of air quality standards, the Work
Group recommends:
1.5 Framework for Accountability - EPA, in conjunction with atmospheric scientists, health and
ecosystem experts, S/L/T, and affected stakeholders, should undertake a systematic effort to track air
quality achievements and evaluate air program results. This effort should begin by focusing on the
progression and associations of air emissions as they interact and ultimately affect human health and
the environment. In order to move beyond the current approach of relying predominantly on air quality
measurements, we need to further develop and apply the capacity to monitor, assess, and report on how
changes in emissions impact air quality, atmospheric deposition, exposure, and effects on human health
and ecosystems. Emphasis should be placed on developing and enhancing appropriate health and
ecosystem indicators, benchmarks, and subsequent analyses within this overarching accountability
framework. To establish greater accountability for protecting human health and the
environment, EPA should better track, assess, and communicate significant results of emissions
control programs, including changes in sources and emissions, air quality and atmospheric
deposition, exposures, and effects. Emphasis should be placed on systematically measuring
progress and assessing benefits of air quality management through enhancing and expanding
the suite of benchmarks and indicators of health and ecological outcomes. The Work Group
recommends a 3-part approach involving health effects, ecosystem effects, and SIP planning
16 ::
-------
by the Air Work Group
for systematically ensuring that air policies and programs are achieving intended results. Over
the next two years, the Work Group recommends:
• EPA should work with health effects experts (e.g., federal agencies under the Committee on the
Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) Air Quality Research Subcommittee; the Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee, the State/EPA/Center for Disease Control/EPA
environmental public health tracking partners, and the Health Effects Institute) to develop
measures to define and assess human health impacts of air pollution and ways to track and
evaluate progress in reducing those impacts. Specific actions include:
o Facilitating communications among health research and program accountability
efforts;
o Expanding on-going efforts into public health and air quality accountability; and
o Undertaking specific accountability efforts.
• EPA should work with others to develop benchmarks and measures to assess ecological
impacts of air pollution and improve ways to track and evaluate progress in reducing
those impacts. Specific actions include:
o Improving tracking and assessing the effects of multiple air pollutants on
ecosystems;
o Conducting and facilitating integrated assessments and research to develop and
implement an appropriate suite of measurements for detecting ecosystem
response;
o Facilitating and pursuing collaboration on integrated assessments; and
o Examining the possibility of using critical loads and thresholds.
• EPA should work with S/L/T to determine appropriate metrics which should be used to
more effectively track progress.
NRC 2: Expand National and Multistate Control Strategies
As the NRC has indicated, national and multistate approaches to pollution control have been
particularly effective in reducing emissions and should be implemented more widely. In addition,
national or regional approaches incorporating cap-and-trade provisions can be efficient
mechanisms for reducing regional air emissions. While recent initiatives such as the NOX SIP
Call, the proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the Heavy-Duty Diesel Rule and the Non-
Road Rule are expected to expand the use of regional and national strategies, the Work Group has
identified a number of significant stationary and mobile source categories with substantial
emissions which should be evaluated for potential controls.
States face an ambitious schedule for attaining the PM2 5 and 8-hour ozone standards (in 2010 for
PM2 5 and beginning in 2007 for ozone), and for meeting regional haze requirements. The NRC
report clearly states that regional and national controls are an integral part of any national strategy
for cost-effective attainment of these standards.
The NRC also recognized, however, that continued nonattainment for ozone and PM2 5 as
projected for 2010 (assuming implementation of currently planned emissions control measures),
will require a multipronged approach that includes innovative, federally supported local measures
as well as regional or national controls. The Work Group agrees that an approach combining a
:: 17
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
variety of different measures will be most effective in reducing air pollution nationwide and
solving the worst problems in nonattainment areas. Furthermore, a combination of local, regional,
and national approaches targeting particular sectors is likely to be the most effective in addressing
pollutants in a comprehensive and integrated fashion (see NRC Recommendation 4 on multiple
pollutants). Therefore, strong and timely regional and national approaches are needed to
complement State and local controls to help the nation achieve rapid improvements in air quality.
To help direct choices of control strategies in the next few years, the Work Group considered
future year (2010) regional and local (nonattainment area) emissions inventories, select source
apportionment studies, and modeling analyses. The future year regional emissions inventories
were used initially to screen a list of more than 40 categories of mobile, stationary, and area
sources, and to identify those with the more significant criteria pollutant emissions. The other
information (i.e., nonattainment area emissions inventories, source apportionment studies, and
modeling analyses) was then used to help determine whether these source categories are better
addressed at the national/regional level or the local level.
As a result of its deliberations over the past six months, the Work Group advances several
specific recommendations about particular sectors or strategies. Some of these recommendations
suggest regulations at the regional and/or national level as appropriate, while others concern
national guidance for potential application at the local level. Some of the recommendations apply
to mobile sources, while others focus on stationary or area sources.
Air emissions from the recommended categories are projected to continue to be substantial (see
Figure 7). However, a variety of factors must be considered in determining whether and how a
sector can be effectively regulated, including pollutant type, geographic location, dispersion
patterns, multipollutant interactions, control strategy availability, emissions reduction potential,
and cost-effectiveness. Some Work Group participants believe that adequate information exists to
begin the regulatory process now for certain source categories, while others believe that
additional data and data analyses are necessary. After extensive deliberations, the Work Group
recommends that each of the sectors listed below be addressed in some fashion by EPA. This
action may include, but should not be limited to, development of national and/or regional rules,
control technique guidelines, other guidance, and/or further study.
18 ::
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
8,000,000
7,000,000 -
^ 6,000,000 -
O 5,000,000 -
c 4,000,000 -
LLJ
3,000,000 -
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
«6
9«"
0* .^
F ^
O/
Figure 7. Projected 2010 National Emissions for Key Source Categories. In developing recommendations
relating to the source categories shown here, Work Group analysts examined projected emissions of five key
criteria pollutants to 2010 for 40 stationary and mobile categories. Excluding electricity generating units (EGUs)
and natural emission sources, the categories shown comprise over 70 percent of the national SOx and NOx
emissions and about 30% of the direct PM2 5 and VOC emissions. These projections include recognized
uncertainties in the current inventory and the forecast. Due to data limitations, the assessment did not include
estimates of air toxics emissions or ammonia.
In each case, EPA should review the contributions from these categories, assess the technical and
economic feasibility of further controls, and conclude this review process as soon as possible,
given the urgency of achieving effective air quality improvements. EPA should initiate
appropriate actions regarding the category consistent with the results of its analysis as soon as
possible. Because cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility are important considerations, EPA
should also consider whether market mechanisms or program design elements, such as cap-and-
trade provisions, can be employed to improve environmental results while maximizing flexibility
and efficiency.
Sectors for Further Study and Possible National and Regional Regulations
The Work Group recommends that EPA consider developing national and/or regional rules for
sectors identified as key contributors to nonattainment from a national or multistate perspective.
The Work Group acknowledges the importance of working more directly with these industry
sectors to further evaluate the emissions contributions from the respective categories.
Stationary and Area Source Categories
2.1 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers - EPA should complete as soon
as possible a review of the contributions from this category and the technical and economic
:: 19
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
feasibility of farther controls, given the high priority assigned to this sector. EPA should then
initiate development of a regional or national emissions control regulation for the category, or
take alternative action consistent with the results of its analysis.
2.2 Industrial Surface Coatings - EPA should complete as soon as possible a review of the
contributions from this category and the technical and economic feasibility of further controls.
EPA should then initiate development of a regional or national emissions control regulation
for the category, or take alternative action consistent with the results of its analysis.
2.3 Non-Industrial Solvents - EPA should initiate rulemaking efforts to establish minimum
performance standards (i.e., national rules) for this category using the volatile organic
compound (VOC) content limitations contained in, and regulating the products covered by, the
model rule developed by the Ozone Transport Commission.
2.4 Architectural Coatings - EPA should initiate rulemaking efforts to establish minimum
performance standards (i.e., national rules) for this category using the VOC content limitations
contained in, and regulating the products covered by, the model rule developed by the Ozone
Transport Commission.
Mobile Source Categories
In the mobile source area, the Work Group endorses the following recommendations made by the
Mobile Source Technical Review Subcommittee of the CAAAC:
2.5 Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines - EPA should reduce emissions from the existing fleet of
heavy-duty diesel engines by employing a multi-pronged approach. Over the last decade, EPA
has moved aggressively to strengthen federal emissions standards for a wide range of diesel
engines. While these standards will serve to dramatically lower emissions when fully
implemented, the full human health benefits will not be realized for 20 years or more. The
delay in achieving emissions reductions is attributable to two factors: the fact that emissions
standards do not take effect for new engines until 2004-2007, and the long lifespan of the
existing fleet of diesel engines. The Work Group recommends that EPA employ a variety of
strategies to monitor and reduce emissions from the in-use fleet. This is a high priority for
action within the next 3-4 years. Recommended actions include:
• Continue working with manufacturers to ensure heavy-duty compliance and supporting
initiatives such as heavy-duty inspection and maintenance programs, harmonized
nationwide on-board diagnostics requirements for heavy-duty vehicles, and development
of portable emissions measurement capabilities for diesel PM.
• Encourage voluntary programs for diesel retrofits, idling reductions, and other emissions
control strategies, concentrating on the construction, port, freight, and school bus sectors.
Some members of the Mobile Source Technical Review Subcommittee believe EPA should consider
expanding current federal programs through a mandatory program of accelerated retirements, retrofits,
repowering, replacement and anti-idling measures. These stakeholders believe EPA should encourage
retrofits for all heavy-duty diesel engines by 2012 by: (a) establishing mandatory measures to cut
pollution from existing diesel engines; and (b) seeking Congressional appropriations to expand
funding for programs aimed at reducing emissions from heavy-duty engines.
20 ::
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
2.6 Emissions from Ships, Locomotives, and Aircraft, and Mobile Source Air
Toxics -EPA should address emissions from ships, locomotives, and aircraft, and mobile
source air toxics through national emissions standards. While emissions from most categories
of mobile sources have stabilized or decreased over the past two decades, emissions from
ships, aircraft, and locomotives have increased and are forecast to continue to increase (Figure
8). Nationally, these sectors produce substantial emissions of both criteria pollutants and air
toxics, and they represent major sources of pollution at the local level. EPA should control
criteria and toxic pollutant emissions from ships, aircraft and locomotives, and other mobile
source air toxics by:
• Promulgating technology-forcing emissions standards for all new marine diesel engines,
all new and rebuilt locomotive engines, and all aircraft engines.
• Developing national rules to control mobile source air toxics and criteria pollutants
through fuel reformulation (e.g., national benzene cap, lower sulfur fuels).
• Developing strategies for reducing emissions at airports, seaports and rail yards that can
be employed at the S/L/T level, such as reducing engine idling and taxiing, imposing
differential landing fees, using gate-powered electricity, or reducing emissions from
ground service equipment.
EPA has already begun action for some of the source categories outlined above. Current plans
call for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on gasoline outboard, sterndrive, inboard and
personal watercraft engines in the Spring of 2005; an NPRM on locomotive and marine diesel
standards in mid-2005; an NPRM on air toxics in mid-2005; a final rule adopting the existing
International Civil Aviation Organization NOx standards for aircraft engines in 2005; and a final
rule on ocean-going marine diesel engines by mid-2007. EPA should give high priority to
continuing the development of these standards and adopting additional control strategies, as
necessary.
ii-,uuu,uuu -
-10 nnn nnn
1^,UUU,UUU
10,000,000 -
8nnn nnn
, DDL), DDL)
6nnn nnn
, DDL), DDL)
,000,000 -
,000,000 -
1996
2030
\
/
I u-
n on-highway
n nonroad-diesel
• other nonroad
• aircraft
• locomotives
• marine
Trains
Ships
Figure 8. Mobile Source NOX Emissions Projections. Over the next 30 years, highway emissions are projected
to decrease greatly, with the result that categories with limited controls - ships, locomotives, and aircraft - will
become of increasing relative importance for air pollution control strategies. See Recommendation 2.6.
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
Evaluation of Additional Emissions Reduction Potential and Cost-
Effectiveness
For some sectors, the Work Group did not reach consensus on whether there are sufficient data to
recommend that EPA consider national and/or regional strategies at this time. The Work Group
determined that additional research and consultation was necessary to clarify the timing and
levels of national or regional pollution-reduction measures that would be appropriate for the
following potentially important sectors:
2.7 Cement Manufacturing, Petroleum Refining, and Pulp and Paper - The cement
manufacturing, petroleum refining, and pulp and paper industrial source categories are
already under substantial regulation, but continue to be significant sources of pollutants and
warrant further consideration by EPA. EPA should evaluate potential national or regional
emissions reduction strategies for criteria pollutants and air toxics in these categories. This
should include improving emissions inventories if necessary and assessing their impacts on
nonattainment areas or other sensitive areas. EPA should carefully consider the cost-
effectiveness of imposing additional controls as it determines whether additional emissions
reductions are justified and should take action consistent with the results of this analysis.
2.8 Residential Fossil Fuel Combustion - EPA should evaluate the potential for
expanding the Energy Star voluntary program to gain additional criteria pollutant emissions
reductions (as well as improve energy efficiency) from the residential fossil fuel sector. As part
of this effort, EPA should continue to gather information on the characteristics of residential
fossil fuel emissions and their contributions to nonattainment, and the magnitude and cost of
potential emissions reductions under a voluntary program and/or expanded use of low-sulfur
fuel. EPA should also coordinate with Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) and
companies that produce lower-emitting appliances to assess the potential for programs that
promote the installation of such technologies.
National Guidance for Local Controls
National rules are complex and take several years, at minimum, to develop for any industrial
sector. Recognizing that many of the most severe air quality problems in the nation demand more
immediate action to assist S/L/T in developing their Implementation Plans for ozone, PM2 5, and
regional haze, the Work Group recommends that, in addition to developing national or regional
rules for the sectors discussed above, EPA should issue guidance as soon as possible for use at the
local level or offer additional federal support for existing local-level programs. Specifically:
2.9 Guidance for Local Control Measures in Key Sectors - EPA, in conjunction with
S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should prepare federal guidance for local (urban-scale)
control measures to support the upcoming round of ozone andPM2.s SIPs, and, if possible,
optimize multipollutant control benefits and opportunities for reducing criteria and toxic air
pollutants. Federal guidance is needed by October 2005 to assist States in preparing SIPs to
address ozone and PM2 5 nonattainment and regional haze milestones. Based on a preliminary
review of available ambient monitoring data, source apportionment studies (see Figure 9),
modeling analyses, and emissions inventories, the Work Group recommends that EPA, in
conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should issue guidance as soon as possible for
the following source sectors:
• Residential wood stoves and fireplaces;
• Open burning;
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
• Mobile sources (high-emitting vehicles and diesel retrofit programs); and
• Industrial operations (e.g. cement manufacturing, petroleum refineries, pulp and paper,
metals, and surface coating).
In prioritizing development of the guidance, EPA should consider factors such as emissions
reduction potential, timeliness, cost effectiveness, completeness of existing guidance, and
reactivity. Additionally, EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should
continue to assess other source categories that would benefit from local (urban-scale)
strategies. The identification of these categories should be based on the same factors cited
above (e.g. evaluation of ambient monitoring data, source apportionment studies, modeling
analyses, and future year emissions inventories). As appropriate, EPA should issue technical
guidance for other source categories.
At this time, the Work Group is advancing more detailed recommendations for three of the listed
sectors. In keeping with the NRC's recommendation to focus on areas with the highest risk, the Work
Group recommends the highest priority be placed on implementing local controls for these sectors in
areas that do not attain the ozone or PM2 5 standards, or that have air quality close to the standards:
3%
3%
18%
5%
36%
D Secondary sulfate
• Secondary nitrate
• Mobile
I Diesel
I Industrial
I Woodsmoke
I Soil
22%
13%
Figure 9. Fine Particle Source Apportionment. Estimated source contributions (%) to annual average PM2 5
concentrations in St. Louis, Missouri (2000-2003). Secondary ammonium sulfates and nitrates are formed from
reactions of SO2, NOX, and NH3 emissions from a variety of sources over large scales. The relative fraction of
source contributions can vary significantly among different urban areas. The apportionment results also may vary
with analysis methodology uncertainties and monitoring.
2.10 Residential Wood Smoke - EPA should further develop the Residential Wood Smoke
Reduction Initiative that includes working with S/L/T, industry, non-governmental
organizations and others to support and facilitate the changeout of dirty, inefficient,
"conventional" (pre-New Source Performance Standard or NSPS) woodstoves with new,
cleaner, and more efficient heating appliances (e.g., EPA certified woodstoves). Concurrent
with the development and implementation of changeout programs, EPA should commence
efforts to revise the NSPS. Residential wood smoke contains various types of toxic air
pollutants (e.g., polycyclic organic matter) and contributes 420,000 tons of direct PM2 5
emissions annually. Almost 80 percent of these emissions come from about 10 million
Center for Air Resources Engineering and Science, Analysis of 'Midwest PM-RelatedMeasurements (draft), Philip K.
Hopke, Jong Hoon Lee, Clarkson University.
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
woodstoves currently in use, 80 to 90 percent of which are pre-NSPS stoves. Many Tribes are
affected by wood smoke from dirty stoves causing serious health problems in Indian
communities. The voluntary residential wood smoke reduction initiative EPA began in 2004
should be expanded, with substantial increases in grants to States and Tribes to retrofit or
replace existing woodstoves. In parallel, on the national level, EPA should update the NSPS to
ensure that all woodstoves reflect the kind of clean technology available today (see Figure 10).
In addition, EPA should consider emission control opportunities for fireplaces and outdoor
wood boilers. While many of the aspects associated with this entire effort are local in nature,
some are national in scope and require a national effort.
a)
b)
Photo credit: Wood Heat Organization, Inc.
Figure 10. Woodstoves. The change out of a) an old, dirty, inefficient "conventional" woodstove with b) a new,
cleaner burning EPA-certified woodstove could potentially reduce emissions by 60 to 80 percent.
2.11 Open Burning - EPA should work with S/L/T to encourage more vigorous control of
open burning, especially in, and adjacent to, counties with Class I areas and counties
classified as nonattainment for fme particles or ozone. Open burning releases substantial
emissions of PM2 5, VOCs, carbon monoxide, and other pollutants of concern. Emissions from
open burning, released near the ground and most often in relative proximity to inhabited areas,
contribute to urban smog, regional haze, ozone, and elevated PM2 5 readings, and cause
periodic localized exposures in excess of acceptable risks. To encourage controls on open
burning, EPA and S/L/T should work cooperatively to develop guidance, model rules, and
communication strategies for deployment at the local level. In addition, EPA should develop
methods for crediting open burning control strategies in SIPs/TIPs. Open burning is of critical
interest to Tribes near or in urban areas, as well as rural areas. Agricultural concerns also need
to be considered.
2.12 High-Emitting Gasoline Vehicles - EPA and S/L/T should reduce emissions from
high-emitting gasoline vehicles that are believed to contribute a high fraction of mobile source
emissions. Increasingly stringent regulation of new vehicle emissions has had a large positive
24 ::
-------
by the Air Work Group
effect on overall fleet emissions reductions. As a result, an increasing portion of uncontrolled
mobile source emissions are produced by a relatively small fraction of high-emitting vehicles
(such as poorly maintained vehicles or older vehicles). Future emissions reductions in this
sector depend on identifying and controlling such vehicles. In the next 3-4 years, EPA should:
• Determine the impact of high-emitters on today's mobile source inventory, using new
data sources and improved analytical techniques.
• Encourage the continued development of on-road vehicle remote sensing or other
technologies to enhance high-emitter identification programs for pre-1996 vehicles.
• Continue to evaluate the effectiveness of on-board diagnostic systems, tailpipe emissions
testing, and new technologies to identify post-1996 high-emitting vehicles.
• Make use of new technology as it becomes available to improve detection of high-
emitters.
• Continue to support State and local inspection and maintenance programs and initiatives
designed to repair high-emitting vehicles or remove them from the road.
Implementing these recommendations will have significant, but variable, impacts on air quality
throughout the nation, depending on the proportion of high-emitters in local inventories.
2.13 Conformity - Conformity should be retained as part of the nation's AQM system. The
Work Group and the Mobile Source Technical Review Subcommittee wish to emphasize that,
in addition to other mobile source initiatives in local nonattainment areas, the overall
transportation planning approach embedded in the conformity program should continue to
receive substantial federal support. The NRC found that the transportation conformity program
has significantly reduced pollution levels in cities around the country, with the greatest impact
in nonattainment areas experiencing rapid growth. Furthermore, the program has "fostered
greater interaction" between transportation planning and air quality regulatory authorities,
resulting in knowledge transfer and mutual respect. Therefore, conformity's current key
requirements and schedules must be retained and effectively enforced. Additionally, future
administrative action should consider: (1) protecting sensitive populations from localized,
elevated particle pollution levels; and (2) expanding emissions budgets under the general
conformity program to limit emissions from other significant transportation sectors (e.g.,
marine ports, rails, airports and freight).
Even with the application of these complementary strategies at the national, regional and local
levels, the Work Group recognizes the possibility that certain nonattainment and emissions-
transport problems may not be resolved. Further analysis of nonattainment problems projected to
persist after implementation of these recommendations may suggest additional controls on certain
sectors, and/or alternative or supplementary approaches to improving air quality.
NRC 3: Transform the SIP Process
Among the most immediate and critical areas in which the NRC and the Work Group advocate
change is the way SIPs are developed, processed and evaluated. Recognizing that the SIP/TIP
process can be cumbersome and time-consuming for S/L/T, the Work Group proposes a number
of steps that would improve the SIP process and facilitate more integrated, comprehensive air
quality management. These recommendations fall into two categories: 1) immediate changes that
will provide incremental improvements by streamlining the SIP process; and 2) additional steps
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
that begin the longer-term task of transforming the SIP process in more substantial ways. Taken
together, these recommendations will improve accountability, promote innovative approaches to
air pollution problems, and help integrate key programs and approaches.
Streamlining the SIP Process
The Work Group recognizes that the SIP process itself (see Figure 11)—the procedures by which
the SIP is managed by S/L/T; the timing of key steps; and the way stakeholders are included in
the process—could be improved significantly in the near term. Part of creating accountability
mechanisms is ensuring that necessary procedural steps are carried out with maximum efficiency
and transparency. Here, the Work Group offers several recommendations for immediate actions
that could help expedite the SIP process, encourage innovation, and improve communication with
stakeholders.
Near-Term Procedural Changes to Expedite SIP Development and Processing
3.1 Align SIP Submittal Dates - Because ozone, PM2.s, and regional haze SIPs have
similar elements and are likely to contain similar control strategies, EPA, S/L/T and other
stakeholders should strive to align the submittal dates of the three SIPs. This recommendation
is not intended to suggest changes to any deadlines for attainment or implementation of control
strategies, or to imply that a single SIP should be required for ozone, PM2.s, and regional haze.
It is further recommended that, in the future, EPA should align designation dates as
appropriate to promote multipollutant SIP development. For many States, there is likely to be
overlap between the efforts necessary to address 8-hour ozone, PM2 5 and regional haze
problems. The resources saved from a holistic analysis and the development of a single
strategy as opposed to several incremental adjustments within a few months' time may be
significant. It is difficult for States to accelerate adoption of the PM25 and regional haze SIPs
(due in 2008) to coincide with the schedule for 8-hour ozone SIPs (due in 2007). Therefore,
EPA should identify incentives (e.g. modeling assistance) it could provide to States to
accelerate the preparation of regional haze and PM2 5 SIPs. It is critical that EPA take rapid
action—within the next 6 months—to provide guidance to States in time to impact the current
round of SIPs.
3.2 Protocol for SIP Development - Each State should work with the appropriate EPA
Regional Office to develop and implement a protocol for SIP development and processing that
would lay out responsibilities, expectations, and timelines for all parties. While a model
protocol should be developed, the EPA Regional Office and each State should have the
flexibility to design a protocol tailored to their specific needs. The lack of effective and
consistent communication between States and EPA historically has been an impediment to
development and processing of SIPs. To avoid delays in the SIP approval process and to limit
the insertion of new demands by EPA late in the process (after public hearings and legislative
action are well underway at the State level), EPA and the States should jointly foster the
development of a model protocol within the next six to nine months outlining the SIP process.
While the protocol can be tailored to fit each particular situation, it should generally:
• Be flexible enough to address all types of SIP submittals;
• Incorporate regular mechanisms for communication, expected turnaround for EPA review
of State materials, and more streamlined processes for simpler SIPs; and
• Include accountability mechanisms.
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
CAA or court case mandates plan submittal,
or State/Local decides to revise its own SIP
Return to State
State prepares draft SIP and rules
Public hearing on SIP and rules
State makes appropriate revisions and adopts SIP
State submits SIP to EPA Regional office
incomplete
EPA reviews SIP for completeness*
If complete SIP ... EPA proposes approval/disapproval in CFR
Figure 11. Major Steps in the
SIP Process. The Work Group
recommends a number of steps to
streamline aspects of SIP
processing to expedite procedures
and save significant resources
without sacrificing the benefits of
public participation and comment.
EPA considers public comments on SIP ... approves/disapproves plan*
After SIP approval, the plan becomes Federally enforceable
** If mandated SIP is disapproved or a complete SIP never submitted,
then EPA must promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
3.3 Clearinghouse of Approved SIPs - EPA should develop a website, similar to the Best
Available Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)
clearinghouse, containing interpretations of rules and other SIP/TIP approval-related issues.
This website could contain both policy and/or technical information depending on how it is
developed. Each EPA Regional Office should develop a website, to be updated every 12 months
on or about October 1, that identifies and provides links to all statutory and regulatory
requirements in the federally approved SIP, including associated State and federal legal
citations and effective dates. Because there is no central repository for information about
SIP/TIP approvability, the process for finding answers can be very time- and resource-
intensive. EPA should give medium priority to developing a clearinghouse that is accessible to
States and the public. Additionally, EPA regional offices should standardize the content and
quality of websites containing statutory and regulatory requirements for applicable SIPs. This
includes providing: (a) a citation of and link to every State statute and regulation; (b) the State
effective date; (c) the federal publication date; (d) the federal effective date; and (e) the
applicable federal register citation.
3.4 Streamline Minor SIP Revisions - For the SIP approval/disapproval phase of the air
quality management process, EPA should establish a de minimis level for SIP revisions and
streamline the processing of these revisions by the use of "letter approvals " or similar
expedited procedures signed by the Regional Administrator. EPA should, in consultation with
S/L/T and other stakeholders, develop a listing of the types of SIP actions that are eligible for
streamlined processing. Many SIP revisions submitted by States are minimal in their scope or
impact, yet such submittals must still undergo the full administrative process that is required of
::27
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
all Federal rulemaking actions. To streamline the revisions approval process and save
significant resources, EPA is advised to take action within the next 12-18 months to:
• Develop guidance defining what would be considered de minimis, in terms of subject
matter, emissions limits, and the process by which such actions would be approved.
• Group in one rulemaking action a series of SIP submittals which meet the de minimis
criteria.
3.5 Timely EPA Guidance - EPA guidance should be issued in sufficient time for States to
meet their SIP development deadlines. EPA should involve S/L/T and other appropriate parties
in its guidance development process. In cases where guidance is delayed, EPA should take into
consideration States' efforts to meet deadlines without the benefit of the appropriate policy
guidance. Frequently, States must prepare SIPs under a specific deadline, but are dependent on
EPA to develop guidance for the SIP. Delay by EPA in preparing guidance can cause States to
be rushed or late in meeting their deadlines, or to develop SIPs which have to be revised later.
This can lead to strained relationships between EPA and the States, public criticism of the
States, and possibly sanctions against the States. Furthermore, greater communication between
EPA and other stakeholders in the development of guidance can help reduce implementation
problems, resource expenditures, and litigation. Therefore, within the next six months, EPA
should institute a new, collaborative process for developing guidance in a more timely fashion.
In any Federal Register notice for a final rulemaking, EPA should clarify if and when any
additional guidance will be forthcoming. The Work Group hopes that this notice would serve
as a deadline to prompt EPA action.
3.6 Avoid Unnecessary Public Hearings - EPA should work with the States and Tribes to
develop a model regulation that would require a public hearing for SIP revisions only if one is
requested after public notice. This recommendation is not intended to restrict public comment
in any way; it is meant only to eliminate those hearings that no one attends. The CAA has long
been interpreted to require that a public hearing be held by States for all SIPs and SIP revisions
prior to their submittal to EPA. Holding public hearings is resource-intensive, and while the
use of State resources is completely justifiable when interested parties testify at the hearing, in
many instances no comments or testimony are offered. A work group comprised of members of
EPA's Office of General Counsel, EPA Regional Counsels, States' Attorneys General, and
Tribal attorneys should undertake a review to determine whether holding a public hearing only
upon request could satisfy CAA requirements for SIP revisions. If so, the work group should
also develop a model regulation for States to adopt for SIP approval that provides the
circumstances and procedures for holding SIP revision hearings only upon request.
3.7 Facilitate Redesignation Process for Certain Areas - For those areas that have not
pursued and been granted redesignation when initially eligible, and have continued to
demonstrate violation-free ambient air quality data for several years, EPA should expedite the
redesignation process. EPA should ensure that all Regions and States are aware of the
simplified procedures. This recommendation is not intended to change the requirements for
redesignation under the CAA. All EPA Regional Offices should disseminate and provide any
needed assistance on the implementation of both the May 10, 1995 Clean Data Policy (CDP)
and the "Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PMi0 Nonattainment Areas,"
commonly referred to as the Limited Maintenance Plan Policy (LMPP). The CDP allows the
Part D SIP requirements of an approved attainment demonstration, rate of progress plan and
their associated contingency measures to be waived in areas with three or more years of
violation free data. Similarly, the LMPP can exempt an area from modeled maintenance
-------
by the Air Work Group
demonstration. These policies change and simplify the technical requirements for
redesignation, not the legal requirements.
Measures to Improve Communication to the Public
3.8 Effective Communication with Constituencies - EPA, along with S/L/T, should
develop a menu of options for effective communication to build support with a wide variety of
constituencies for clean air plans at the S/L/T level. The SIP/TIP planning process is
cumbersome, lengthy and difficult for the public to comprehend, which hinders plan
development and air quality improvements. Successfully engaging the public early in the
SIP/TIP development process builds general understanding and support. Some States and
Tribes have done this successfully, but other States could improve their outreach efforts,
particularly by fostering collaboration at the local level. EPA should also develop outreach
materials for diverse audiences explaining the SIP/TIP process and the health effects of air
pollution.
3.9 Co-Benefits of Innovative Measures - EPA and S/L/T should work collectively to
communicate the co-benefits associated with innovative measures. In keeping with the previous
recommendation, it is important for S/L/T to tailor their communication strategies to the
concerns of their audience(s). The public is concerned with basic goals, such as improving
public health and increasing economic and environmental benefits, when considering pollution
control alternatives. Overemphasis on receiving SIP credit for new and innovative types of
pollution control initiatives limits public understanding and support for such initiatives.
Therefore, EPA and S/L/T should communicate how proposed strategies and innovations
would improve quality of life more generally.
Steps to Increase Adoption of Innovative Measures
3.10 Innovative and Voluntary Measures - EPA should encourage States' and Tribes'
efforts to implement innovative measures by providing enhanced flexibility, SIP/TIP credit
guidance, technical support, and funding for innovative andvoluntary programs. Some areas
have implemented most of the readily available traditional emissions control strategies, but still
have not met air quality goals. As areas consider new strategies to attain the NAAQS, EPA
should continue to develop policy and technical guidance to provide States with the flexibility
to utilize innovative emission reduction strategies in their SIPs. The Work Group recommends
that within 6 to 9 months EPA should: 1) clarify and expand the channels through which States
may gain SIP/TIP credit for innovative measures by issuing additional enabling guidance and
by balancing the level of effort required for approval (recordkeeping, reporting, etc.) with the
level of environmental benefits; 2) create a clearinghouse for information on new technologies,
innovative approaches, mentoring resources, and "off-the-shelf measures, pilot projects, and
quantification techniques; 3) develop sector-based guidance that would synthesize and clarify
innovative technological approaches to reducing pollution in key sectors; and 4) continue to
offer targeted funding to promote innovation.
3.11 SIP Credits for Bundled Innovative Measures - EPA should incentivize innovative
pollution control strategies by offering SIP/TIP credit for "bundled and discounted" measures.
States and Tribes are often discouraged from adopting innovative measures because those
measures are typically too small scale to result in significant SIP/TIP credit. In addition, results
of those measures may be hard to quantify or verify individually. In the aggregate, however,
such measures can provide significant air quality benefits. EPA has recently increased the
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
amount of presumptive SIP credit States can earn for stationary-source innovative measures to
6 percent through its guidance on Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a SIP
(September 2004). The Work Group recommends that EPA build upon this initiative by
granting States and Tribes SIP/TIP credit upfront for a "bundle" of small, innovative measures,
with an appropriate discount to deal with the uncertainty embedded in these untested measures.
The impact of the bundled measures on air quality should be evaluated in the aggregate. Each
approval of "bundled" measures in a SIP will need to be conducted through full notice-and-
comment rulemaking in the context of a particular State SIP revision.
Steps toward Transformation: Improving SIP Development and Evaluation
In addition to the near-term steps for streamlining SIPs outlined above, the Work Group
recommends a number of other changes regarding the development of SIPs that should be
initiated now and pursued over the course of the next several years. These more fundamental
changes can only be accomplished over a longer time period. These recommendations focus on
the nature of the federal/State/Tribal partnership, and on increasing the role of tracking progress
and mid-course corrections. Specifically, the Work Group recommends that the current SIP
process can be transformed in the following ways:
Increasing Collaboration in SIP Planning and Control-Strategy Development
3.12 Regional Approaches to SIP Planning - For many areas, planning for new SIPs or
major revisions to existing SIPs for two or more separate nonattainment areas that are both
part of the same regional-scale air quality problem should be coordinated. If requested by a
State, EPA should work with the different nonattainment areas, Tribes and combinations of
multistate organizations and other stakeholders, as appropriate, to assist in the development of
regional approaches to planning. This could include technical assistance such as modeling,
national or regional control strategies, model SIPs, and model rules as templates for S/L/T
adoption. State-by-State planning without proper coordination can result in a patchwork of
regulations and numerous stakeholder conflicts. As discussed in the previous section of this
report, the nature of many areas' 8-hour ozone and PM2 5 problems increasingly calls for the
development and implementation of regional control strategies. In several areas, Regional
Planning Organizations (RPOs) and Multi-Jurisdictional Organizations (MJOs) are being used
successfully to develop model SIPs for regional haze (e.g. the Western Regional Air
Partnership) or ozone (e.g. the Ozone Transport Commission). The Work Group recommends
expanding such efforts within the next year to aid States in developing their ozone and PM2 5
SIPs. Specifically, RPOs and MJOs can assist with developing model rules and SIPs, and
developing standardized technical support documents. EPA should encourage flexibility in the
use of grant funds allocated to RPOs and MJOs so they address multiple ambient air pollution
problems under the "one atmosphere" approach, ensuring that the most scientifically valid and
cost-effective approaches are evaluated and implemented.
3.13 Federal and State Partnership - EPA should participate with S/L/T in the SIP/TIP
development process to identify and pursue emissions reductions from important source
categories, especially those that only the federal government has the ability to address, such as
federal and international sources. The level of control sought from these sources should be
commensurate with their impact on the nonattainment area. As warranted by the nature of the
source, control strategy development should be carried out by S/L/T working either directly
with EPA or with EPA and other federal agencies. For attainment demonstration purposes,
States should be able to take appropriate credit for anticipated reductions from these sources
30 ::
-------
by the Air Work Group
(whether the reductions are from regulatory or incentive programs) so long as the control
strategy and its anticipated impact are found to be consistent with EPA regulation and
guidance. States and Tribes often struggle to control existing sources, such as mobile sources,
federal sources, or international sources, over which they have limited regulatory authority.
The Work Group suggests that EPA and S/L/T could collaborate more successfully to control
such sources so that the 8-hour ozone and PM2 5 standards can be met. Specifically, within each
nonattainment area, EPA should work with S/L/T to:
• Identify and reduce emissions from national and international sources, in part by
cooperating with international standards-setting bodies and participating in international
agreements with neighboring countries;
• Reduce relevant emissions from federal sources, cooperating with other federal agencies
as necessary;
• Expedite the approval of new technologies that can be applied to existing local mobile
source fleets; and
• Develop new strategies, including multijurisdictional strategies, targeting sources that are
difficult to control at the State or Tribal level in order to help local areas achieve
attainment.
Steps to Improve Tracking and Evaluation of Results
As the NRC report stressed, it is important to push the current AQM system towards a more
performance-oriented approach, one that measures both outputs and outcomes and ties them
together in meaningful ways. While the comprehensive vision outlined by the NRC will require
the kinds of assessment and research outlined in Recommendation 1.5, the Work Group believes
that there are important steps that can be taken to improve methods and metrics for tracking
pollution outputs, translating them into impacts, and creating feedback loops to adjust policies
and programs to make them more effective in improving public health and welfare. Specifically,
the Work Group recommends:
3.14 Weight-of-Evidence Demonstrations - In order to move beyond the current
approach of relying on air quality modeling, EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected
stakeholders, should modify its guidance to promote weight-of-evidence (WOE) demonstrations
for both planning and implementation efforts. In particular, these demonstrations should
reduce reliance on modeling data as the centerpiece for SIP/TIP planning, and should increase
use of monitoring data and analyses of monitoring data, especially for tracking progress. The
current system is top-heavy on modeling for planning purposes, especially during the
preparation of an attainment demonstration, and light on tracking progress. Enhanced tracking
and ambient monitoring data is a better use of available resources than intensive local
modeling. As such, EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T, should:
• Incorporate a WOE approach in planning efforts to provide the most technically
defensible basis for a control plan and to satisfy any statutory requirement for a
demonstration of attainment. The WOE approach should include three elements:
o A prospective modeling analysis to identify the appropriate control path;
o Analyses of air quality data; and
o Summaries of current actual and expected future year emissions.
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
• Consider WOE elements such as retrospective modeling analysis (as necessary), analyses
of air quality data, and summaries of actual emissions in implementation efforts (i.e.,
periodic progress assessments, as discussed in Recommendation 3.15).
• Issue WOE guidance, which clarifies the proper role of modeling for SIP planning,
establishes standard WOE procedures, and identifies appropriate data analysis methods
(e.g., estimating statistically significant trends).
3.15 Periodic Assessments to Track Progress - S/L/Tand EPA should conduct periodic
assessments to ensure that areas are on track to meet NAAQS, air toxics, and visibility goals,
and make mid-course adjustments, as necessary. To lay the foundation for a performance-
oriented approach, and to help build a stronger framework for accountability, over the next two
years:
• States, Tribes, and EPA should work together on tracking progress, including a review of
changes in actual emissions and air quality concentrations, as described in
Recommendation 3.14.
• If actual progress differs "substantially" from the expected trend for a given metric, then
S/L/T should reexamine effectiveness of that attainment measure. If attainment will be
later than the statutory attainment date, then the S/L/T authorities should determine
whether it is necessary to modify the SIP.
• EPA should report annually on health and ecosystem impacts (i.e., indicators and
benchmarks established pursuant to Recommendation 1.5).
• EPA should report annually on major control programs that it is coordinating (e.g., Title
IV and NOX SIP Call).
In accordance with this recommendation to improve program evaluation, the Mobile Source
Technical Review Subcommittee recommended the Work Group highlight one particular program
for detailed evaluation:
3.16 Averaging, Banking, and Trading in Gasoline Sulfur Program - EPA should
evaluate the averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) provisions included in the Tier II gasoline
sulfur regulation to see if they are effective. Averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) provisions
have been widely used by EPA to provide flexibility to industry while aggressively addressing
environmental problems. EPA should evaluate the effectiveness of these provisions in the
gasoline sulfur program as that program develops over the next few years. The evaluation
should consider the distribution of credits; the volume and nature of trading; the impact of
trading on firm-level performance; and the overall administrative performance of the program.
The evaluation should include annual analysis of available information and a complete report
when the program has been fully implemented and patterns of credit usage are well established.
EPA should consider conducting a similar analysis for ABT when it implements the diesel
sulfur program.
In addition to the specific example of program evaluation noted above, the detailed text of
Recommendation 1.5 in Appendix B notes several other programs that EPA should consider for
evaluation, such as the NOX SIP call and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
All of the above recommendations on SIP processing, SIP development, planning,
communications, innovations, and tracking will help improve the current SIP process by making
it more efficient and more effective. These changes should all be implemented in the near term,
32 ::
-------
by the Air Work Group
some because they are designed to help S/L/T with the upcoming round of SIPs for ozone, PM2 5
and regional haze, and others because they represent initial steps that will form the basis for
longer-term initiatives necessary to transform the SIP process as the NRC recommended.
NRC 4: Develop Integrated Program for Criteria and Hazardous Air
Pollutants
The Work Group believes it is also possible to take immediate steps toward controlling criteria
and toxic air pollutants (also known as hazardous air pollutants or HAPs) in a more integrated
fashion. The Work Group agrees with the NRC that this is a critical task in the air quality
management arena, and one that has often been neglected in the past. While fully integrated
pollution control is a difficult task that will take many years and substantial reorganization of the
entire air quality management framework to accomplish fully, the earlier recommendations for
sector-based approaches and multipollutant control strategies (2.1 - 2.13) represent some of these
steps. The following additional steps will also promote greater integration of programs designed
to control criteria and toxic air pollutants:
4.1 SIPs to Address Multipollutant Impacts - For the SIPs States are required to submit
over the next several years, EPA and S/L/T should promote the consideration of multipollutant
impacts, including the impacts of air toxics, and where there is discretion, select regulatory
approaches that maximize benefits from controlling key air toxics, as well as ozone, PM2.s, and
regional haze. The SIP process provides an opportunity for many urban areas to include key
toxic air pollutants in a comprehensive, multipollutant air quality plan. While in no way
reducing federal responsibilities for air toxics, this recommendation envisions SIPs/TIPs as
providing an opportunity to see how S/L/T efforts are also reducing key air toxics, to identify
what actions could be taken at the S/L/T level to supplement current federal efforts, and to help
identify priorities for federal action. EPA should focus on developing a "short list" of critical
toxic air pollutants and other widespread pollutants that pose the highest risk to human health
in urban areas. In developing this list, EPA should consider including benzene, acrolein and
diesel PM, and other widespread pollutants. EPA should encourage S/L/T in developing their
SIPs/TIPs for PM2 5, regional haze and ozone, to evaluate opportunities for achieving co-
benefits through simultaneous reduction of these key "urban risk driver" air toxics and any
other air toxics which are of high risk in their area. Because of the urgency of this task, EPA
should work with stakeholders to develop and test a model integrated SIP as a pilot project by
the end of 2005.
4.2 Multipollutant Benefits and Disbenefits in Standards Setting - EPA should
explicitly outline and quantify multipollutant benefits and disbenefits when setting emissions
standards. As part of its attempts to encourage integrated air quality planning, EPA should
utilize the ongoing air toxics standards-setting process (e.g., remaining Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT), residual risk, and area source standards) to explicitly consider
multipollutant effects of proposed control strategies in selecting options. Specifically, when
conducting engineering reviews to support emissions standards efforts, EPA should assess how
options identified for controlling air toxics reduce and/or increase direct PM2 5 emissions, and
emissions of PM and ozone precursors such as VOC, NOX and SO2. Furthermore, engineering
reviews for air toxic standards should catalog available control options that would reduce direct
PM, SO2, VOC and NOX emissions even if those options would not reduce air toxics.
4.3 Greenhouse Gas Co-Benefits and Disbenefits - EPA should assist States, and
localities, in quantifying the potential greenhouse gas co-benefits and disbenefits of emissions
::33
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
reduction measures primarily designed to address ozone, PM2.5, regional haze and air toxics.
In evaluating control measures, EPA should assist States and localities in quantifying potential
greenhouse gas emissions increases and decreases. Many States and localities have adopted
policies to assess and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under this recommendation, where
requested, EPA should support a State's or localities efforts to determine how pollution
reduction alternatives might also impact greenhouse gas emissions.
These multipollutant measures are very important to advancing the core goals outlined at the
beginning of this report. These recommendations promote integration of air quality programs and
approaches, thus addressing one of the main points of the NRC report. They also enhance
accountability by providing more meaningful data about emissions and their likely impact on
health and the environment. Combined with some of the measures discussed earlier about
improving tracking, monitoring, and health/ecosystem indicators, these recommendations will
help us measure progress toward desirable outcomes and design more effective and efficient
pollution control strategies.
NRC 5: Enhance Protection of Ecosystems and Public Welfare
Finally, the Work Group agrees with the NRC that a great deal of work remains to be done in the
areas of ecosystem protection and public welfare improvements. These are, in essence, the most
fundamental goals of the air quality management system, and while substantial progress has been
made on both fronts in the past thirty years, there are important gaps which require new
approaches and new resources to address. The Work Group has focused on identifying a list of
critical needs that could serve as the foundation for long-term progress in the protection of
ecosystems and public welfare.
5.1 Program Review to Improve Ecosystem Protection - EPA should, in parallel with
recommended scientific and technical work, begin now to examine current and alternative
clean air related policies and programs to develop approaches that would advance the
protection of ecosystems from the adverse effects of air pollution. Alternatives that should be
evaluated include a regional cap-and-trade program, protection of ecosystems based on
critical loads, and a State-wide planning program for protecting and enhancing air quality in
areas that attain the NAAQS (including National Parks and Wilderness Areas). The NRC
stated that the system of air quality management in the United States does not go far enough in
protecting ecosystems and other aspects of public welfare from the impacts of air pollution.
The NRC noted specific policy-related deficiencies in secondary NAAQS, tracking of
ecosystem outcomes from air quality changes, and accounting for ecosystem effects in cost-
benefit analyses. The Work Group agrees with this assessment, and recommends that, in
addition to developing innovative benchmarks and measures to assess the ecological impacts of
air pollution and improving ways to track and evaluate progress (see Recommendation 1.5),
EPA should also assess the current and potential effectiveness of major clean air programs in
providing ecosystem protection. In its assessment, EPA should consider a number of features
of each program:
a) policy mandates, objectives, goals, definitions of ecosystem protection, and
historic/legal interpretation;
b) characteristics of the air pollutant(s) regulated, and potential magnitudes of impact;
c) existing measures for reporting program progress and ecosystem impacts;
34 ::
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
d) desirable modifications to existing tracking efforts to support their application to
different regulatory programs;
e) current and future opportunities or impediments to expanding the use of ecological
science in the policy context; and
f) policy innovations or revisions that would help translate ecosystem science into
effective ecosystem protection policies.
EPA should also assess the impact of non-regulatory programs, such as the Sustainable
Environment for Quality of Life (SEQL) project in Charlotte, NC, on the protection of
ecosystems. This project involves innovative efforts to integrate air pollution effects with other
ecological concerns, and may serve as a model for future regulatory approaches.
Figure 12. Wetland
Ecosystem in NY.
Regional air deposition is
a significant source of
pollution to aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems in
some areas of the U.S.
Photo credit:
K. Mirza/S.Olson
::35
-------
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Unresolved Issues
for Further Discussion
::37
-------
-------
by the Air Work Group
Unresolved Issues for Further Discussion
Given sufficient resources, most of the recommendations outlined in this report so far could be
implemented within the next 1 to 5 years under the current statutory framework. Such short-term
changes are desirable, even critical, for helping S/L/T meet the air quality challenges they
currently face. In addition to these recommendations, the Work Group also discussed a number of
other changes to the AQM system that might be beneficial. While some of these issues provoked
controversy within the Work Group, and no consensus was reached on how to handle them, they
represent opportunities for further improvements in the near- or long-term and deserve mention
here. The Work Group expects discussion of these issues to continue, and hopes to make
additional recommendations over the next several months.
Included in this group of topics for future discussion were scientific and technical issues such as:
increasing the number and distribution of air quality monitors; implementing more short-term
monitoring programs; improving the process through which emissions inventories are developed;
and promoting the use of multipollutant and multimedia technical tools.
In the policy and planning arena, the Work Group also had a number of unresolved issues.
Among them were: improving the transparency and consistency of the SIP process; the possible
role of geographically dispersed emissions reductions and whether they should be counted in SIPs
for nonattainment areas; improving the communication of technical information to policymakers;
integrating programs for criteria pollutants and toxic air pollutants more fully; and accounting for
pollutant tradeoffs from different emissions control technologies during permitting at individual
facilities. Many of these issues were considered medium or low priority compared to the
recommendations listed in this report, or were so complex that the Work Group believed that it
was premature to attempt to make recommendations at this time. Pending further discussion,
additional recommendations may be forthcoming in these areas at a future date.
The Work Group discussed at length the electricity generating unit (EGU) sector because of the
large contribution that this sector makes to multiple air quality problems, but was unable to reach
consensus. Many on the Work Group believed that the active rulemaking underway on the Clear
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) provided the proper forum for considering what this sector ought to do
for the next 15 years or more; others did not. Since no agreement could be reached on a
recommendation regarding this sector, the Work Group recommends that discussions continue by
the new CAAAC subcommittee. Regardless of the outcome of any future discussions, many of
the stakeholders involved saw value in S/L/T and utilities consulting with each other after final
promulgation of the CAIR (or new legislation) to share compliance plans, evaluate likely
emissions reductions and their geographic distribution, and apply that information to further
planning activities.
All of these issues deserve further consideration and remain on the Work Group's agenda for the
future. While some of them may involve irreconcilable conflicts among stakeholders, it is the
Work Group's hope that gathering additional evidence and continuing deliberations may produce
a number of follow-up recommendations that would accompany those outlined in this report.
::39
-------
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Looking Forward:
Long-Term Realignment
of the AQM System
-------
-------
by the Air Work Group
Looking Forward: Long-Term Realignment of the
AQM System
Among its many tasks, the Work Group also considered more sweeping changes to the AQM
framework in the United States. Such a broad-scale endeavor is necessarily a long-term project,
requiring a great deal of discussion and negotiation among stakeholders. Still, the Work Group
believes it is possible to outline some aspects of a new long-term vision. These aspects must be
taken up in greater detail in the upcoming months as the reevaluation of AQM in the United
States moves forward.
In its discussions about long-term issues, the Work Group focused on identifying core principles
around which future air quality programs should be organized. These core principles offer the
opportunity to build highly effective programs to address emerging and future air quality
problems by capturing past successes and incorporating new approaches. On top of these core
principles, the Work Group drafted a series of Framework Options: approaches to air quality
management that implement the core principles in different ways. Below, the core principles are
described, followed by a brief description of four possible Framework Options. These options
need further evaluation and discussion before any recommendations can be made by the Work
Group to the CAAAC.
Long-Term AQM Vision: Core Principles
Members of the Work Group identified ten major principles that should be further considered in
future deliberations of the long-term vision.
1. Expand application of and develop national and/or regional measures for all source
sectors (stationary, area, and mobile) to address air pollution in a nationally and/or
regionally consistent manner.
2. Integrate multipollutant considerations when addressing emissions reduction
requirements and developing control programs.
3. Include emissions reductions approaches from "non-traditional" sources and "non-
traditional" (i.e., innovative) approaches (as well as from traditional sources and
approaches) when developing plans and programs to achieve clean air goals.
4. Make the SIP process simpler, more effective and more efficient.
5. Ensure periodic review of progress to determine whether public health and environmental
protection goals are being achieved.
6. Ensure that innovative and market-based programs yield the desired levels of public
health and environmental protection, as well as being economically efficient.
7. Incorporate land use and transportation planning in clean air planning efforts.
8. To the extent feasible, integrate health risk during control strategy program design.
9. Maintain and protect States' and Tribes' authority to reduce emissions in order to protect
public health and the environment, and meet and maintain air quality standards.
10. Integrate air quality management with national energy policy to ensure coordination and
mutual support between energy policy and air quality policy.
::43
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
The Work Group did not presume that the CAA would necessarily need to be changed in order to
move in the direction of these principles, although some approaches would likely not be
achievable without statutory change. The NRC report recognized that the current AQM system
has been and continues to be effective in many aspects. The current system provides a firm
foundation to address present challenges and flexibility to adapt to developments in science and
changes in policy. Consideration of changes to the current system warrant serious and thoughtful
discussion in light of the goals to be achieved and the ultimate goal of continued progress towards
clean air.9
The Work Group envisions that future AQM efforts will involve a heightened role for the federal
government to issue national or regional programs covering multiple source sectors. These
programs and this approach will be necessary to support State, local and Tribal governments as
they address their nonattainment problems by assisting them in addressing multipollutant
interactions and pollution transport. Under the CAA, the federal government has largely an
oversight role. State, local, and Tribal governments are responsible for nearly all air quality
implementation tasks. Furthermore, the current system does not currently implement mechanisms
and processes adequate to address the significant impact of sources outside nonattainment
boundaries. The mechanisms provided by the CAA to address pollution transport to date (SIP
calls and petitions) can result in individual progress. Federal technology-based controls targeting
various industrial sectors could achieve more integrated planning and address multipollutant
interactions.
Even with a greater federal presence, S/L/T will still have considerable work ahead in order to
meet their air quality challenges and responsibilities—they hold ultimate authority and
responsibility for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS and protecting public health. By
streamlining the currently burdensome SIP process, incorporating innovative and multipollutant
solutions, developing better ways to track progress, enhancing States' and Tribes' ability to
address transported pollution, and crafting new controls on sources that only the federal
government can regulate, the AQM system can promote cleaner air across the nation.
Long-Term Framework Options
The Work Group has developed four options for a new long-term AQM framework. These
options share some of the core principles discussed above; in this sense, there is some overlap in
the approaches described. However, in other respects the options are quite distinctive, both from
the current AQM approach and from one another. These options are all in their infancy: while
they have been subject to much discussion within the Work Group, that discussion served to
highlight the complexity of the decision the nation faces in altering the current AQM system in
any significant way. Therefore, rather than attempting to flesh out any "favored" option and
recommend its adoption, the Work Group chose only to outline the four options. By presenting
the options in this manner, the Work Group hopes to carry forward its internal discussions into
the wider public sphere where these and other options will be given more considered attention.
Option 1: National Technology-Based Standards
Under this option, all stationary sources nationwide that emit above a specified threshold of a
criteria pollutant or HAP would be required to reduce emissions of the full set of pollutants. New
sources would be required to install state-of-the-art controls equivalent to LAER, while emissions
9 NRC Report, p. 22.
-------
by the Air Work Group
from existing sources would be capped at a level that reflects the nationwide installation of
technology no less stringent than BACT with existing sources required to meet a specified
minimum level of control.
Individual States would not need to go through the standard-setting process, but would retain
their authority to adopt more stringent standards as necessary. To enhance flexibility, the option
would incorporate emissions trading for some pollutants and would offer the possibility of
reduced NSR obligations. A similar, national performance standard approach would be used for
area sources. For mobile sources, EPA would expand its existing mobile source programs by
regulating all HAPs from mobile sources and their fuels, and establish new national standards for
remaining source categories, such as locomotives, marine engines and aircraft. Further reductions
could come from a national mandatory diesel retrofit program and other restrictions on mobile
sources and fuels.
States and localities would be responsible for conducting ambient monitoring of criteria
pollutants and F£APs to identify where unacceptable pollution levels persist after the application
of national performance standards, and for ultimate attainment and maintenance of the air quality
standards. In fulfilling these responsibilities, they would be subject to a "SIP lite" requirement,
whereby they would develop local plans to address remaining air pollution problems.
Option 2: Meeting Environmental Goals with Emissions Caps and Trading
Modeled after the successful CAA Title IV acid rain trading program, a second option would be
to set caps for emissions from certain source categories and allow trading. As in Option 1, the
federal government would take the lead in controlling sources, with States responsible for
addressing hotspots, residual risk, and transportation and land use planning measures. This
approach is probably most amenable to large and medium stationary sources, but could also be
applicable to some smaller stationary and area sources, if minimum criteria for participation in a
trading program could be met.
This approach's coverage would be national and involve all major air pollutants, but could be
regional for a given pollutant if certain demonstrations were made. In general, control programs
should cover most sources within a source category, controlling 90 percent of emissions of each
major pollutant from the category. Most sources would have an emissions control obligation, but
would not necessarily need to make reductions on-site. Individual emitting sources would not be
able to opt out of regulation altogether, but could receive compliance flexibility in a sector that is
not regulated with emissions trading.
Trading would be allowed across participating stationary and area sources for criteria pollutants.
Trading might be restricted for air toxics to prevent hotspots, and trading between mobile and
stationary sources would not be permitted. Initial caps/reduction targets would be set quickly
(within five years) based on cost-effective control levels and adjusted periodically (every eight to
ten years) considering emissions reductions needed to meet environmental goals. This would
provide long lead times for technology advancement and a high degree of certainty to industry
while providing a mechanism for continuous improvement towards environmental goals.
Allowance allocations would also be used to encourage technology advancement. All new
sources would be required to meet state-of-the-art controls.
::45
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
Option 3: Multipollutant, Performance-Based Standards
A third option would establish innovative technology-promoting programs and national or
regional multipollutant performance standards. The program would be national or regional,
depending upon the sector and the air quality objective, and would cover criteria pollutants and
toxic air contaminants. The multipollutant performance standards would be designed to achieve
attainment and other appropriate air quality objectives (e.g., visibility, risk reduction) in most
parts of the country. The States would be responsible for addressing residual nonattainment.
The program would apply to most sectors, including stationary, mobile and area sources. New
sources would be required to install "best integrated control technology," which EPA would
establish on a sector-by-sector and multipollutant basis after consideration of several factors,
including the technology's impact on criteria pollutant and toxic air pollutant emissions, and any
adverse macroeconomic impacts. Most existing sources would be required to comply with a
multipollutant emissions reduction obligation set by EPA based on various sector-specific
considerations, including public health, ecosystem, energy, technical, economic, and market
considerations.
The program would also include demand-side and incentive-based strategies to encourage the
development and use of clean technologies. These strategies include a pre-certified credit
program; a clean air investment fund; and retail choice, transportation mode choice and energy
choice programs. This option would also include measures to ensure that trading does not
interfere with risk-reduction or public health benefits.
Option 4: Continuous Improvement Program
A fourth option, based on the Toxics Release Inventory, would set reporting standards for all
major stationary sources and require an annual report of all relevant air emissions (HAPs, criteria
pollutants, and criteria precursors). The reporting could be done by source category or on a
national basis. The program would provide a metric to determine the relative pollution efficiency
of the facility (pollution per unit of production).
A threshold would be set above which facilities would be required to control emissions within a
three- to five-year period. Emissions trading would be permitted and sources that went beyond
compliance could bank the credits in accordance with national rules. The program would be
adjusted on a cycle set forth in the rule (three to five years). Annual reports would serve as a
benchmark to let everyone know how a facility ranks, thus creating a reduction incentive. New
major sources would be required to install state-of-the-art control equipment. Because of the
continuous improvement features of the program, NSR requirements could be lessened or
removed. Program safeguards for attainment demonstrations and increased risk to the public from
HAPs would have to be established.
Certain area sources (e.g., consumer products and solvents) could be controlled by this approach,
while others would be controlled using traditional CAA programs. Innovative programs could be
implemented at the national and local levels to effectively address these sources. Area sources
that represented a large portion of the national inventory may require rule making at a regional or
national level.
Moving Forward: Continuing the Evaluation Process
These options represent four models out of many that could be developed as alternative futures
for air quality management efforts in the United States. Though each option has some strong
46 ::
-------
by the Air Work Group
features, in each case many questions about a new AQM framework remain unanswered,
including:
1. How the federal and S/L/T governments would interact under a scheme that envisions
sharing the responsibilities previously reserved for S/L/T governments, and how
jurisdictional responsibilities would be defined;
2. How risk and economics would be factored into the decision-making process;
3. What is the role of energy, land use and transportation planning under the new paradigm;
4. How innovative solutions (including pollution prevention) are incorporated into the
approach;
5. How the responsibility of various sources/sectors is determined under this process; and
6. How the various pollutants relate to each other and the environment in a multipollutant
program.
These challenging questions should be addressed in any future discussions on recommendations
for a long-term course of reform. Answering these questions and properly evaluating all of the
nuances and implications of the options described above, as well as other possible options, will
require detailed consideration by the CAAAC and an extensive dialogue between stakeholders.
The Work Group recommends that this process of evaluation be carried forward during the next
year, along with the implementation of the near-term recommendations outlined in this report.
::47
-------
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Conclusions
::49
-------
-------
by the Air Work Group
Conclusions
The Clean Air Act has been one of the most successful and cost-effective environmental statutes
enacted since 1970. As described at the outset of this report, over the last three decades the nation
has achieved major reductions in air pollution while population, energy consumption, gross
domestic product, and vehicle miles traveled have expanded. The Clean Air Act provides a strong
foundation for the protection of public health and the environment, offering powerful control
mechanisms to combat serious pollution problems while also remaining flexible enough to
accommodate advances in scientific knowledge and new policy priorities.
Despite the substantial improvements in air quality over the past 30 years, however, there are
important challenges ahead. As the most obvious pollution problems have been solved, other
problems have moved into the spotlight. Advancing scientific research indicates that human
health is threatened at very low levels of pollutant exposure, and toxic hotspots continue to affect
localized populations. The impact of air pollution on ecosystems also needs further scientific
study and policy action.
In order to address these challenges, we must adopt new approaches to air pollution control. In
addition, we must acknowledge that traditional approaches to controlling air pollution, while
effective, have not always been efficient. Recent experience with cap-and-trade mechanisms and
other market-based approaches has shown that there is room to improve the efficiency with which
pollution reductions are achieved. As we move forward with air quality management efforts, we
must look for additional opportunities to streamline processes and enhance program efficiency.
The recommendations presented in this report offer concrete opportunities to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of current air quality programs. These recommendations build on the
existing Clean Air Act and help enhance the current framework. They also serve as building
blocks for potential long-term change. The report only begins to describe some of the possibilities
before us as we move into a new era in air quality management. With the success of the past
thirty years behind us, we should carefully consider the opportunities for improving air quality in
the future, and move forward deliberately and enthusiastically to address new challenges.
-------
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Appendix A:
Air Quality Management
Work Group
:: A-1
-------
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Appendix A: Organizational Structure for Response
to CAAAC on MAS Report:
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC)
Air Quality Management
Work Group
Co-Chair: Janet McCabe (IN)
Co-Chair: Greg Green (EPA/OAQPS)
Policy & Planning Subgroup
Co-Chair: David Shaw (NY)
Co-Chair: Lydia Wegman (EPA-OAQPS)
Science & Technology Subgroup
Co-Chair: Mike Koerber (LADCO)
Co-Chair: Peter Tsirigotis (EPA/OAQPS)
Work Teams
Short-Term SIP Process
Co-chairs: Janet McCabe (IN) and Bill Baker (EPA)
Regional/National Strategies
Co-chairs: John Hornback (Metro 4/SESARM/VISTAS)
and Sam Napolitano (EPA)
Innovative and Multi-pollutant Approaches
Co-chairs: Patrick Cummins (WGA), Penny Lassiter
(EPA)
Long-term AQM Framework
Co-chairs: Bill Becker (STAPPA/ALAPCO), Dave Shaw
(NYSDEC)
Work Teams
Emissions, Monitoring & Modeling
All Subgroup members are providing input on these
three topics
Ecosystems
Co-chairs: Paul Stacey (CT/DEP) and Rona Birnbaum
(EPA)
Health and Exposure
Co-chairs: Dr. Elaine Barren (JAC PDN AQ), John
Bachmann (EPA)
:: A-3
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
Air Quality Management Work Group
Janet McCabe, Co-Chair
Indiana Dept of Environmental Management
Greg Green, Co-Chair
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Members:
Tad Aburn
Maryland Department of the Environment
Praveen Amar
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
William M. Auberle, P.E. (CAAAC)
Northern Arizona University
Robert V. Avant, Jr., P.E. (CAAAC)
Texas Food & Fibers Commission
John Bachmann
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
William Baker
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Elaine Barren, M.D. (CAAAC)
Joint Advisory Committee Paso Del Norte Air Quality
S. William (Bill) Becker (CAAAC)
Amy Royden-Bloom
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO)
Don R. Clay (CAAAC)
Koch Industries Inc.
Jeanette Clute
Jerry Roussel
Ford Motor Company
Kenneth A. Colburn (CAAAC)
Leah Weiss
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
-------
by the Air Work Group
Patrick Cummins
Western Governor's Association
Pamela M. Giblin (CAAAC)
Baker & Botts L.L.P
Eric Ginsburg
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Lisa P. Gomez (CAAAC)
Sempra Energy
Charles H. Goodman (CAAAC)
Southern Company Generation
Ned Helme (CAAAC)
Stacey Davis
Center for Clean Air Policy
Jim Hendricks (CAAAC)
Duke Energy
Ben G. Henneke, Jr. (CAAAC)
Clean Air Action Corporation
John E. Hornback
Metro 4, Inc./Southeastern States Air Resource Managers, Inc.
Carter Keithley (CAAAC)
John Crouch
Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association
Mike Koerber
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
Douglas A. Lempke (CAAAC)
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Mark MacLeod
Vickie L. Patton (CAAAC)
Environmental Defense
Patricia Mariella (CAAAC)
Gila River Indian Community
Dennis McLerran
Jim Nolan
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Jeffrey M. Mears
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
:: A-5
-------
by the Air Work Group
J. Mark Morford
Stoel Rives LLP
Chuck Mueller (CAAAC)
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Jeff Muffat (CAAAC)
3M Corporation
Sam Napolitano
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Brock Nicholson
North Carolina Division of Air Quality
Janice E. Nolen
American Lung Association®
John A. Paul (CAAAC)
Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
Margie Perkins
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Kimber Scavo
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jim Scherer
Lorie Schmidt
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mary Gade (CAAAC)
John Seitz
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal
David Shaw
New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Paul Stacey
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Eugene M. Trisko, Esq. (CAAAC)
Attorney at Law
Peter Tsirigotis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jeff Underbill
New Hampshire
James Vickery
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A-6 ::
-------
by the Air Work Group
Phillip J. Wakelyn
National Cotton Council
Lydia Wegman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Roger Westman, Manager
Allegheny County Health Department
Richard D. (Dick) Wilson (CAAAC)
National Environmental Strategies
Catherine Witherspoon (CAAAC)
Lynn Terry
CA Air Resources Board
Robert A. Wyman, Esq. (CAAAC)
Latham and Watkins
:: A-7
-------
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Appendix B:
Recommendations Matrix &
Background Papers
:: B-1
-------
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Appendix B: Recommendations Matrix
& Background Papers
Recommendations Matrix
NRC 1: Strengthen scientific and technical capacity
Number
Recommendation
Priority
1.1
Emissions Measurements and Reporting - EPA, in conjunction with
S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should pursue improved emissions
measurements and reporting to enhance emissions databases for more
accurate air quality assessments and tracking of progress.
High
1.2
Emissions Factors and Estimation Methods - Where emissions
measurement-based information is impractical to obtain for air
quality assessments, or where improved projections are needed,
EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should
improve emissions factors and emission estimation methods.
High
1.3
Uncertainty in Emissions Inventories and Modeling - EPA, in
conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should quantify and
take actions to reduce uncertainty in emissions inventories and air
quality modeling applications, provide guidance for incorporating
uncertainty assessments into SIP planning, and improve communication
of uncertainty to decision-makers.
High
1.4
Multipollutant Monitoring - EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and
affected stakeholders, should promote and improve integrated,
multipollutant monitoring.
High
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
1.5
Framework for Accountability - EPA, in conjunction with atmospheric
scientists, health and ecosystem experts, S/L/Ts, and affected
stakeholders, should undertake a systematic effort to track air quality
achievements and evaluate air program results. This effort should begin
by focusing on the progression and associations of air emissions as they
interact and ultimately affect human health and the environment. In order
to move beyond the current approach of relying predominantly on air
quality measurements, we need to further develop and apply the capacity
to monitor, assess, and report on how changes in emissions impact air
quality, atmospheric deposition, exposure, and effects on human health
and ecosystems. Emphasis should be placed on developing and
enhancing appropriate health and ecosystem indicators, benchmarks, and
subsequent analyses within this overarching accountability framework.
High
NRC 2: Expand national and multistate control strategies
Number
2.1
2.2
2.3
Recommendation
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers - EPA should
complete as soon as possible a review of the contributions from this
category and the technical and economic feasibility of further
controls, given the high priority assigned to this sector. EPA should
then initiate development of a regional or national emissions control
regulation for the category, or take alternative action consistent with
the results of its analysis.
Industrial Surface Coatings - EPA should complete as soon as
possible a review of the contributions from this category and the
technical and economic feasibility of further controls. EPA should
then initiate development of a regional or national emissions control
regulation for the category, or take alternative action consistent with
the results of its analysis.
Non-Industrial Solvents - EPA should initiate rulemaking efforts to
establish minimum performance standards (i.e., national rules) for
this category using the volatile organic compound (VOC) content
limitations contained in, and regulating the products covered by, the
model rule developed by the Ozone Transport Commission.
Priority
High
Medium
Medium
B-4::
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Architectural Coatings - EPA should initiate rulemaking efforts to
establish minimum performance standards (i.e., national rules) for
2.4 this category using the VOC content limitations contained in, and
regulating the products covered by, the model rule developed by the
Ozone Transport Commission.
Medium
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines - EPA should reduce emissions from
2.5 the existing fleet of heavy-duty diesel engines by employing a multi-
pronged approach.
High
2.6
Emissions from Ships, Locomotives, and Aircraft, and Mobile
Source Air Toxics - EPA should address emissions from ships,
locomotives, and aircraft, and mobile source air toxics through
national emissions standards.
High
2.7
Cement Manufacturing, Petroleum Refining, and Pulp and Paper -
The cement manufacturing, petroleum refining, and pulp and paper
industrial source categories are already under substantial regulation, but
continue to be significant sources of pollutants and warrant further
consideration by EPA. EPA should evaluate potential national or
regional emissions reduction strategies for criteria pollutants and air
toxics in these categories. This should include improving emissions
inventories if necessary and assessing their impacts on nonattainment
areas or other sensitive areas. EPA should carefully consider the cost-
effectiveness of imposing additional controls as it determines whether
additional emissions reductions are justified and should take action
consistent with the results of this analysis.
Medium
2.8
Residential Fossil Fuel Combustion - EPA should evaluate the
potential for expanding the Energy Star voluntary program to gain
additional criteria pollutant emissions reductions (as well as improve
energy efficiency) from the residential fossil fuel sector. As part of
this effort, EPA should continue to gather information on the
characteristics of residential fossil fuel emissions and their
contributions to nonattainment, and the magnitude and cost of
potential emissions reductions under a voluntary program and/or
expanded use of low-sulfur fuel. EPA should also coordinate with
Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) and companies that
produce lower-emitting appliances to assess the potential for
programs that promote the installation of such technologies.
Medium
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
Guidance for Local Control Measures in Key Sectors - EPA, in
conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should prepare
guidance for local (urban-scale) control measures to support the
upcoming round of ozone and PM25 SIPs, and, if possible, optimize
multipollutant control benefits and opportunities for reducing criteria
and toxic air pollutants.
Residential Wood Smoke - EPA should further develop the
Residential Wood Smoke Reduction Initiative that includes working
with S/L/T, industry, non-governmental organizations and others to
support and facilitate the changeout of dirty, inefficient,
"conventional" (pre-New Source Performance Standard or NSPS)
woodstoves with new, cleaner, and more efficient heating appliances
(e.g., EPA certified woodstoves). Concurrent with the development
and implementation of changeout programs, EPA should commence
efforts to revise the NSPS.
Open Burning - EPA should work S/L/T to encourage more
vigorous control of open burning, especially in, and adjacent to,
counties with Class I areas and counties classified as nonattainment
for fine particles or ozone.
High-Emitting Gasoline Vehicles - EPA and S/L/T should reduce
emissions from high-emitting gasoline vehicles that are believed to
contribute a high fraction of mobile source emissions.
Conformity - Conformity should be retained as part of the nation's
AQM system.
High
High
Medium
Variable
Low
NRC 3: Transform the SIP process
Number
3.1
Recommendation
Align SIP Submittal Dates - Because ozone, PM25, and regional haze
SIPs have similar elements and are likely to contain similar control
strategies, EPA, S/L/T and other stakeholders should strive to align the
submittal dates of the three SIPs. This recommendation is not intended to
suggest changes to any deadlines for attainment or implementation of
control strategies, or to imply that a single SIP should be required for
ozone, PM2 5, and regional haze. It is further recommended that, in the
future, EPA should align designation dates as appropriate to promote
multipollutant SIP development.
Priority
High
B-6::
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Protocol for SIP Development - Each State should work with the
appropriate EPA Regional Office to develop and implement a
protocol for SIP development and processing that would lay out
3.2 responsibilities, expectations, and timelines for all parties. While a
model protocol should be developed, the EPA Regional Office and
each State should have the flexibility to design a protocol tailored to
their specific needs.
High
3.3
Clearinghouse of Approved SIPs - EPA should develop a website,
similar to the Best Available Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) clearinghouse, containing
interpretations of rules and other SIP/TIP approval-related issues.
This website could contain both policy and/or technical information
depending on how it is developed. Each EPA Regional Office
should develop a website, to be updated every 12 months on or
about October 1, that identifies and provides links to all statutory
and regulatory requirements in the federally approved SIP, including
associated State and federal legal citations and effective dates.
Medium
3.4
Streamline Minor SIP Revisions - For the SIP
approval/disapproval phase of the air quality management process,
EPA should establish a de minimis level for SIP revisions and
streamline the processing of these revisions by the use of "letter
approvals" or similar expedited procedures signed by the Regional
Administrator. EPA should, in consultation with S/L/T and other
stakeholders, develop a listing of the types of SIP actions that are
eligible for streamlined processing.
High
3.5
Timely EPA Guidance - EPA guidance should be issued in
sufficient time for States to meet their SIP development deadlines.
EPA should involve S/L/T and other appropriate parties in its
guidance development process. In cases where guidance is delayed,
EPA should take into consideration States' efforts to meet deadlines
without the benefit of the appropriate policy guidance.
High
Avoid Unnecessary Public Hearings - EPA should work with
States and Tribes to develop a model regulation that would require a
3.6 public hearing for SIP revisions only if one is requested after public
notice. This recommendation is not to restrict public comment in any
way; it is meant only to eliminate those hearings that no one attends.
High
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
3.7
Facilitate Redesignation Process for Certain Areas - For those
areas that have not pursued and been granted redesignation when
initially eligible, and have continued to demonstrate violation-free
ambient air quality data for several years, EPA should expedite the
redesignation process. EPA should ensure that all Regions and
States are aware of the simplified procedures. This recommendation
is not intended to change the requirements for redesignation under
the CAA.
Low
3.8
Effective Communication with Constituencies - EPA, along with
S/L/T should develop a menu of options for effective
communication to build support with a wide variety of
constituencies for clean air plans at the S/L/T level.
Medium
3.9
Co-Benefits of Innovative Measures - EPA and S/L/T should work
collectively to communicate the co-benefits associated with
innovative measures.
High
3.10
Innovative and Voluntary Measures - EPA should encourage
States' and Tribes' efforts to implement innovative measures by
providing enhanced flexibility, SIP/TIP credit guidance, technical
support, and funding for innovative and voluntary programs.
High
3.11
SIP Credits for Bundled Innovative Measures - EPA should
incentivize innovative pollution control strategies by offering
SIP/TIP credit for "bundled and discounted" measures.
High
3.12
Regional Approaches to SIP Planning - For many areas, planning
for new SIPs or major revisions to existing SIPs for two or more
separate nonattainment areas that are both part of the same regional-
scale air quality problem should be coordinated. If requested by a
State, EPA should work with the different nonattainment areas,
Tribes and combinations of multistate organizations and other
stakeholders, as appropriate, to assist in the development of regional
approaches to planning. This could include technical assistance such
as modeling, national or regional control strategies, model SIPs, and
model rules as templates for S/L/T adoption.
High
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
3.13
Federal and State Partnership - EPA should participate with S/L/T
in the SIP/TIP development process to identify and pursue emissions
reductions from important source categories, especially those that
only the federal government has the ability to address, such as
federal and international sources. The level of control sought from
these sources should be commensurate with their impact on the
nonattainment area. As warranted by the nature of the source,
control strategy development should be carried out by S/L/T
working either directly with EPA or with EPA and other federal
agencies. For attainment demonstration purposes, States should be
able to take appropriate credit for anticipated reductions from these
sources (whether the reductions are from regulatory or incentive
programs) so long as the control strategy and its anticipated impact
are found to be consistent with EPA regulation and guidance.
High
3.14
Weight-of-Evidence Demonstrations - In order to move beyond the
current approach of relying on air quality modeling, EPA, in conjunction
with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should modify its guidance to
promote weight-of-evidence (WOE) demonstrations for both planning
and implementation efforts. In particular, these demonstrations should
reduce reliance on modeling data as the centerpiece for SIP/TIP planning,
and should increase use of monitoring data and analyses of monitoring
data, especially for tracking progress.
High
3.15
Periodic Assessments to Track Progress - S/L/T and EPA should
conduct periodic assessments to ensure that areas are on track to
meet NAAQS, air toxics, and visibility goals, and make mid-course
adjustments, as necessary.
High
3.16
Averaging, Banking and Trading in Gasoline Sulfur Program - EPA
should evaluate the averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) provisions
included in the Tier II gasoline sulfur regulation to see if they are effective.
Low
NRC 4: Develop an integrated program for criteria pollutants
and hazardous air pollutants
Number
Recommendation
Priority
4.1
SIPs to Address Multipollutant Impacts - For the SIPs States are
required to submit over the next several years, EPA and S/L/T
should promote the consideration of multipollutant impacts,
including the impacts of air toxics, and where there is discretion,
select regulatory approaches that maximize benefits from controlling
key air toxics, as well as ozone, PM2s, and regional haze.
High
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Work Group
4.2
Multipollutant Benefits and Disbenefits in Standards Setting -
EPA should explicitly outline and quantify multipollutant benefits
and disbenefits when setting emissions standards.
High
4.3
Greenhouse Gas Co-benefits and Disbenefits - EPA should assist
States and localities in quantifying the potential for greenhouse gas
co-benefits and disbenefits of emissions reduction measures
primarily designed to address ozone, PM2 5, regional haze and air
toxics.
High
NRC 5: Enhance protection of ecosystems and public welfare
Number
Recommendation
Priority
5.1
Program Review to Improve Ecosystem Protection - EPA
should, in parallel with recommended scientific and technical
work, begin now to examine current and alternative clean air
related policies and programs to develop approaches that would
advance protection of ecosystems from the adverse effects of air
pollution. Alternatives that should be evaluated include a
regional cap-and-trade program, protection of ecosystems based
on critical loads, a State-wide planning program for protecting
and enhancing air quality in areas that attain the NAAQS
(including National Parks and Wilderness Areas).
High
-------
by the Air Work Group
Recommendations: Background Papers
1.1 Emissions Measurements and Reporting: EPA, in conjunction with S/L/Tand
affected stakeholders, should pursue improved emissions measurements and reporting to enhance
emissions databases for more accurate air quality assessments and tracking of progress.
Background/Explanation: Recent studies have noted many deficiencies with current emissions
inventories (e.g., "Improving Emission Inventories for Effective Air Quality Management Across
North America: A NARSTO Assessment," September 30, 2004). The NARSTO report, as well as
the NRC recommendations, notes the benefits of collecting actual emissions data using emissions
measurement techniques, such as the continuous emissions monitors (CEMS) for electrical
generating units (EGUs) mandated by Title IV of the Clean Air Act. Improved emissions
inventories are needed to provide for more effective control strategy planning and to meet future
air quality management challenges.
Recommended Actions: A strong national effort is needed to require emissions measurements
and reporting for as many major source categories as possible. The primary objective of these
measurements is to produce accurate emissions data for supporting control strategy planning and
tracking progress. The Work Group recommends that this can best be accomplished by the
following actions:
1) EPA should conduct a study to identify:
a) relevant existing emission measurement methodologies for criteria pollutants (and
their precursors) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), source categories for which
these methodologies can be applied, and protocols for conducting these
measurements,
b) efforts needed to develop new emission measurement methodologies and
technologies for other source categories (especially, those for which current emission
estimates are highly uncertainty), and
c) costs to conduct emission measurements.
Emissions measurement methodologies that should be considered include CEMs (which,
as noted above, are already required by Title IV for EGUs, by the OTC's NOX Trading
Program for several source categories, including industrial boilers, turbines, and cement
kilns, and by numerous NESHAPS and NSPS); "random" stack testing (which may be
appropriate for minor sources); and remote sensing.
2) EPA should evaluate the need for and appropriateness of regulations to require emissions
measurements for as many source categories as possible. As necessary, EPA should
undertake rulemaking as soon as possible.
3) EPA should evaluate the need for and appropriateness of regulations to require reporting
of emissions measurements to a user-friendly central data base, similar to EPA's Acid
Rain database for EGUs. This would satisfy the compliance reporting requirements of
Title V and place the information in a location where all entities could have access to it
promptly. As necessary, EPA should undertake rulemaking as soon as possible.
-------
by the Air Work Group
Benefits: Collecting actual emissions data will reduce uncertainty in emissions inventories,
enhance ability to participate in emissions trading programs, support air quality modeling, and
increase certainty for compliance purposes. These data are also important to the success of most
of the other Work Group recommendations. Making these data available through a central
database will allow easier and more widespread access to the data.
Feasibility: This recommendation has a medium feasibility for implementation because it can be
completed under existing statutory authority, but will require a study to identify the source
categories and will take some time to implement.
Timing: The study can be performed in the next 6-9 months. The timeframe for establishing
emissions monitoring requirements and for implementing these requirements could take several
years.
Resources: The identification of source categories can be performed by EPA technical staff (or
by a contractor for less than $50K). The costs to conduct the emissions measurements (and report
the data), however, are unknown, but are likely to be substantial.
Priority Level: High
-------
by the Air Work Group
1.2 Emissions Factors and Estimation Methods: Where emissions measurement-
based information is impractical to obtain for air quality assessments, or where improved
projections are needed, EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should
improve emissions factors and emission estimation methods.
Background/Explanation: Recent studies have noted many deficiencies with current emissions
inventories (e.g., "Improving Emission Inventories for Effective Air Quality Management Across
North America: A NARSTO Assessment," September 30, 2004). The NARSTO report, as well as
the NRC recommendations, note numerous weaknesses with current emission estimates.
Improved emissions inventories are needed to provide for more effective control strategy
planning and to meet future air quality management challenges.
Recommended Actions: A strong, systematic national effort is needed to improve emission
estimation methods for all major source categories, especially poorly characterized sources or
those for which there is uncertainty in current emission estimates. The primary objective of these
improvements is to produce better emissions inventories for supporting control strategy planning
and tracking progress. The Work Group recommends that this can best be accomplished by the
following actions:
1) EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should review existing
emissions factors and consider the results of EPA's recent emissions factor workshop
("Revamping the Emissions Factor Program - A Workshop," August 25-26, 2004) to:
a) identify the most significant emissions factor needs,
b) recommend and prioritize data collection and steps necessary for improving
emissions factors.
EPA should develop and implement procedures for quickly disseminating new emissions
factors.
2) EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should review existing source
profiles used in source-based (and receptor-based) modeling to:
a) identify the most significant source profile needs,
b) recommend and prioritize data collection and steps necessary for improving or
developing source profiles for poorly characterized sources.
3) EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should conduct a study to
reconcile current emissions inventories with ambient measurements. The study should
build-upon the "top-down" evaluations summarized in the NARSTO emissions inventory
assessment. Based on the study, EPA should work with S/L/T and affected stakeholders
to improve emission estimates. Examples of emission estimation improvements include
methods for mobile sources, ammonia sources (especially livestock operations, fertilizer
applications, soil, and urban sources), and unusual or infrequent events (e.g., forest fires,
dust storms, chemical spillage or upsets, unusually hot days).
Benefits: Developing improved emission estimation methods will allow States and local agencies
with interest and resources to apply those methods to create inventories that are more accurate
and hence more useful for purposes of air quality modeling platform development and validation,
attainment planning, and progress tracking. The improved State and local inventories would also
be incorporated into the National Emissions Inventory used by EPA in developing effective
national or regional strategies. Some of the listed improvements in methods - those dealing with
-------
by the Air Work Group
non-point source categories - could also be applied directly by EPA in developing the National
Emissions Inventory.
Feasibility: These recommendations have medium to high feasibility for implementation because
they can be completed under existing regulatory authority. For some of the recommended actions,
specific steps towards have already been taken and EPA is currently making further progress.
However, later steps will require substantial resources above current efforts.
Timing: Most of the desired methods, models, and guidance documents will take several years to
complete, even assuming resources are available.
Resources: The needed funding for this work is uncertain, but in the aggregate may likely exceed
a few million dollars per year over several years.
Priority Level: High
-------
by the Air Work Group
1.3 Uncertainty in Emissions Inventories and Modeling: EPA, in conjunction with
S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should quantify and take actions to reduce uncertainty in
emissions inventories and air quality modeling applications, provide guidance for incorporating
uncertainty assessments into SIP planning, and improve communication of uncertainty to
decision-makers.
Background/Explanation: Technical analyses performed to support policy-making need to
address complex and sometimes poorly understood problems. While serious attempts are made to
rely on the best science available at the time, there are, generally, limitations with these analyses.
For example, emissions inventories for some source categories are developed using emissions
factors of variable quality. Another issue with these analyses is that they may reflect
simplifications to facilitate communication with policy makers. For example, modeling analyses
of a given control scenario will generate a single, best estimate, rather than dealing with the actual
probability of success. An effort should be made to deal with the associated uncertainty in the
technical analyses, especially with regard to emissions inventories and modeling applications.
There is also uncertainty with monitoring data, but it can be better characterized.
Recommended Actions: The Work Group recommends the following actions to address
uncertainty in existing emissions inventories and modeling analyses:
1) EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should conduct a study to:
a) evaluate sources of uncertainty in emissions inventories and modeling analyses for all
sources,
b) identify needed data collection activities (and associated costs) to reduce the most
significant emissions uncertainties,
c) identify appropriate methods for incorporating uncertainty in preparing emissions
inventories, and
d) identify appropriate methods for incorporating uncertainty in conducting modeling
analyses. Particular attention should be paid to probabilistic approaches in evaluating
the likelihood of "success" (i.e., meeting the NAAQS) as part of the attainment
demonstration.
2) EPA should provide guidance to S/L/T for incorporating uncertainty assessments in SIP
planning. In addition, EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should
improve communication of uncertainty to decision makers and the general public.
Benefits: Air quality management decisions are more likely to achieve intended goals at least
cost if the decisionmakers have some information on the uncertainties in emissions estimates -
and on the uncertainty in other estimates derived from them such as pollutant concentration
estimates-versus having no such information. Public and industry acceptance may also be greater
if it is known that uncertainties have been responsibly addressed. Also, knowledge of
uncertainties can help target resources towards information collection that will have the largest
payoff in terms of reducing bias and uncertainty in the emissions estimates, leading again to
better air quality management decisions. Because real world experiences in using explicit
uncertainty characterizations to make air quality management decisions are at best rare and
narrow in scope, it is not yet possible to say by how much or in what specific areas the air quality
management process is most likely to be affected.
-------
by the Air Work Group
Feasibility: Implementation of these recommended actions in the near term (i.e., next five years)
will be difficult, given that there is so much source-by-source uncertainty characterization work
to be done. The recommendations can be considered to have medium feasibility for the longer
term, if resources are present, because they can be completed within existing statutory authorities.
Resources: Resource needs are uncertain, but may be high, if all important sources of uncertainty
are to be characterized objectively, especially if this is attempted retroactively (e.g., to
characterize the uncertainty of a "legacy" emission factor). Resources needs would be lower if
well informed, but subjective expert opinion is considered sufficient. Also, resource needs will be
less, if the need to characterize uncertainty is part of the original data objectives for development
of new emissions factors, models, etc.
Priority Level: High
-------
by the Air Work Group
1.4 Multipolllltant Monitoring: EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected stakeholders,
should promote and improve integrated, multipollutant monitoring.
Background/Explanation: Ambient monitoring data are an essential part of the nation's air
quality program. Monitoring objectives include determining compliance with federal air quality
standards, developing emission control plans, tracking effectiveness of these plans, and providing
information for the public, regulators, and affected stakeholders on the quality of the air. Over the
past 30 years, the air pollution situation has changed significantly, as control programs have
reduced emissions of many pollutants and as science has identified emerging issues of concern.
Accordingly, it is important that air monitoring efforts be dynamic and responsive to meet the
current and future public, regulatory, and scientific needs.
Recommended Actions: The Work Group recommends the following actions to promote and
improve monitoring:
1) EPA should finalize its proposed national ambient monitoring strategy, and S/L/T should,
as appropriate, work together on a regional-scale to consider the need for, and, if
appropriate develop, regional monitoring strategies. The existing monitoring networks
are top-heavy on determining attainment/nonattainment and light on addressing other
monitoring objectives, especially control strategy development and tracking progress. An
assessment of the existing networks, either through a national or regional monitoring
strategy, is needed to support redistribution of monitoring resources to address current
policy- and program-relevant objectives. In the longer term, EPA should consider
adopting a more inclusive and holistic national monitoring strategy which considers all
types of monitoring pursuant to health and non-health (e.g., ecosystem) objectives.
2) As initial efforts in implementing the national monitoring strategy, EPA should:
a) Establish six Level I (research-grade) NCore sites with reasonable geographic
coverage (e.g., one each in the NE, SE, MW, and S, and two in the W). Additionally,
EPA should work with the Level I researchers to prepare and implement a data
management and analysis plan. Funding for the operation and maintenance of these
sites, and the data management and analysis work, should be provided by EPA
(ORD). EPA should also sponsor a workshop every three years to report on the
lessons learned and to promote technology transfer from the Level I sites.
b) Establish, in conjunction with S/L/T, the Level II (multipollutant) NCore sites. (The
appropriate number and location of these sites should be determined by the S/L/T and
the respective EPA Regional Offices.) Additionally, EPA should work with the
S/L/T, to prepare and implement a data management and analysis plan. Any resource
savings from network changes provided by a regional monitoring strategy should be
directed to help pay for the operation and maintenance of these sites, and the data
management and analysis work.
3) EPA should support research and development (for example, through the Level I NCore
sites) to improve monitoring methods for:
a) PM2 5-mass: Establish a continuous federal equivalent method for PM2 5-mass (i.e.,
resolve difference between current filter-based FRM for PM2 5-mass and continuous
PM2 5-mass methods).
b) PM2 5-species: Establish a consistent filter-based method for measuring and reporting
OC and EC (i.e., adopt the IMPROVE methodology for both rural and urban
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
measurements), identify appropriate measurement methods for supporting source
apportionment studies for OC, and establish reliable continuous methods for
individual PM2 5 species. EPA should recognize and report the uncertainty in these
measurements.
c) PM2.5 & PMi0: Investigate the potential for over-sampling with the PMi0 and PM2 5
FRM samplers in areas where the mass median diameter (MMD) of the PM is larger
than the size of interest (10 or 2.5 AED) and determine whether additional research,
altered inlets, or implementation guidance should be provided.
d) PM-coarse (PMc): Establish a federal reference method for PMc. Using the
difference between PM10 and PM2 5 as measured with PM10 and PM2 5 FRM samplers
is not acceptable. The method should be capable of determining the amount of crustal
material.
e) Air Toxics: Need reliable methods for acrolein, hexavalent chromium, and other
species. A portion (e.g., 10 percent) of federal funding for the national air toxics
monitoring program should be used for methods development.
f) Dry deposition measurements, particularly for mercury species (see Recommendation
1.5).
4) EPA should promote policies to avoid disincentives for monitoring. The necessary
changes in ambient monitoring networks, as called for by the national and regional
monitoring strategies, should proceed without any negative ramifications. Specific
actions include:
a) Support concept of performance-based measurement systems (PBMS) in EPA's
national monitoring strategy (i.e., monitoring intended for investigative, not
compliance, purposes). Although these measurements should meet minimum data
quality requirements (developed through the Data Quality Objectives process), these
data will not be used to assess attainment or nonattainment with the NAAQS. Note,
this concept is similar to the FACA recommendation to "decouple the use of research
data for regulatory purposes for a period of several years." Prior to deploying PBMS
(including untested, research-grade monitors), states and the EPA regional office
should document in writing the non-compliance monitoring objectives and the
appropriate response to any measured values in excess of the level of the NAAQS
(e.g., deployment of an FRM monitor).
b) Acknowledge EPA's Exceptional Events policy, which avoids counting (for
compliance purposes) high pollution events due to certain unusual or extreme
conditions.
c) Avoid monitors taking "root" by having state and local agencies specify monitoring
objectives for their existing networks (including the expected period of sampling to
meet these objectives) in their regional monitoring strategy. For any new monitoring,
encourage identification of the monitoring objectives up-front (including expected
period of sampling to meet objectives). Provide the agencies with discretion in
moving monitors upon completion of the intended sampling period.
d) Promote the concept of sharing monitoring data in a timely manner with potential
sources as a means to help identify and minimize pollution problems rather than a
strict enforcement tool. This would require the expansion of real-time monitoring and
data transfer capabilities at existing and new monitoring sites. This effort and the
-------
by the Air Work Group
resulting data could be utilized, with appropriate input on potential pollution
emission activities and sources, for targeting more cost-effective control strategies.
5) EPA should, whenever possible, promote co-location of atmospheric dry and wet
deposition monitoring with long-term monitoring of ecological conditions (see
Recommendation 1.5).
Benefits: Implementation of the national monitoring strategy will demonstrate EPA's
commitment to a multipollutant air quality management framework, given that the developing a
measurements infrastructure is a critical component upon which further technical and program
adjustments can be based. From a strict technical perspective, the national monitoring strategy
will broaden the scope of monitoring services beyond the historical regulatory emphasis and
allow for more credible program accountability assessments, air quality model evaluation,
support to forecasting venues such as AIRNow, and enhanced support to the research community,
especially in the health effects area. Support for Level I sites would demonstrate EPA leadership
in bridging the gap between research and applications and engaging the nation's scientific
expertise directly into its air program infrastructure.
Feasibility: Implementation of the national monitoring strategy is underway and most
components of the Level II NCore sites should be implemented within current resource
allocations. There are no currently identified resources for the Level I sites. Failure to fund these
sites will jeopardize successful implementation of the strategy.
Timing: EPA could finalize the national monitoring strategy, and S/L/T could work together and
prepare regional monitoring strategies during CY2005. Assuming the availability of funding,
EPA could establish these sites in CY2006. EPA's national strategy implementation plan targets a
phased implementation of the NCore Level II sites in 2007.
Resources: A minimum base of $3M per year would be needed to fund basic operations for six
Level I sites. EPA's national strategy implementation plan recommends an outlay of $10M per
year (OAR or ORD) to support these sites. Internal OAQPS funding of approximately
$150K/year for FY05 and FY06 is estimated to be needed to support training needs associated
with implementing the strategy.
Priority Level: High
-------
by the Air Group
1.5 Framework for Accountability: EPA, in conjunction with atmospheric scientists,
health and ecosystem experts, S/L/T, and affected stakeholders, should undertake a systematic
effort to track air quality achievements and evaluate air program results. This effort should begin
by focusing on the progression and associations of air emissions as they interact and ultimately
affect human health and the environment. In order to move beyond the current approach of
relying predominately on air quality measurements, we need to further develop and apply the
capacity to monitor, assess, and report on how changes in emissions impact air quality,
atmospheric deposition, exposure, and effects on human health and ecosystems. Emphasis should
be placed on developing and enhancing appropriate health and ecosystem indicators,
benchmarks, and subsequent analyses within this overarching accountability framework.
Background/Explanation: To guide future improvement of the air quality management system,
the NRC identified as a longer-term objective the need for a results-oriented approach which
emphasizes "performance rather than the process" in determining the efficacy of air policies and
programs. Building on the current paradigm of accountability, EPA could better track, assess, and
communicate significant results of emission control programs, including changes in
source/emissions, air quality/atmospheric deposition, exposures, and effects. Emphasis is placed
on systematically measuring progress and assessing benefits of air quality management through
enhancing and expanding the suite of benchmarks and indicators of health and ecological
outcomes. It is important to recognize that public health and ecosystem responses to emissions
reductions occur overtime and not always in the same time context as program assessments. The
plan would, in a very general fashion, be based on the framework described above. That is,
ideally accountability efforts would follow the "source/emissions - to air quality - to exposure -
to dose - to effect" paradigm producing an improved understanding of cause/effect associations
and input for meaningful program changes (or mid-course adjustments). It may be impossible to
establish these links for health or ecosystem effects following strictly this linear progression.
Plans for accountability will need to grapple with the difficult issue of tracking what are often
small changes in health effects, on a relative basis, in large populations.
Recommended Actions: The Work Group recommends a 3-part approach involving health
effects, ecosystem effects, and SIP planning for systematically ensuring that air policies and
programs are achieving intended results.
For public health, the Work Group recommends that EPA work with health effects experts (e.g.,
federal agencies under the CENR Air Quality Research Subcommittee, CASAC/NAS,
State/CDC/EPA environmental public health tracking partners, and HEI) to develop measures to
define and assess human health impacts of air pollution and by developing ways to track and
evaluate progress in reducing those impacts. Specific actions include:
1) Strengthen the partnership among atmospheric science, health research, and program
accountability efforts.
a) Produce a summary report on air quality and health accountability as a first
assessment of findings/capability
b) Sponsor a collaborative workshop to promote involvement in developing the
overarching framework.
2) Expand on-going efforts into public health and air quality accountability.
a) Assign a specific group to focus on public health and air quality accountability.
-------
by the Air Work Group
b) Study effects of AQI advisories on exposure-reduction behaviors and whether
behaviors lead to health benefits.
c) Fund grants to State/local health departments in collaboration with State/local
environmental agencies to assess health impact of specific environmental
regulations/actions and whether they align with projected health impacts.
d) Develop methodologies to detect changes in human health indicators/responses, as a
result of changing from meeting 1-hr ozone standard to meeting a more stringent 8-hr
ozone standard.
e) Develop methods and collect data to better assess population exposure to air
pollutants of ambient origin, considering indoor exposure and variables impacting
personal exposure (time spent indoors, exercising, etc.).
f) Enhance exposure assessment activities through expanded collection of air pollution
biomarker data and development of additional biomarker detection methods for
priority air pollutants.
g) Develop further epidemiological and biostatistical approaches in assessment of
exposure and dose, selection of health outcomes, and study design and data analysis.
h) Review/critique the PHASE project (this winter), learn from PHASE and expand
indicators work, and consider expanding PHASE into a functional air quality-public
health tracking program.
i) Identify additional projects, additional research, and explore further: building tools
and develop methods for making air quality-public health linkage, expanding the
NATA connection to criteria pollutant analyses, building on NATA and Criteria
Document preparation to develop indicators and protocols, and ensuring
appropriateness of ambient and health monitoring systems for public health tracking.
3) Undertake specific accountability efforts.
a) Undertake "intervention" studies for cities with largest expected, overall air quality
improvements.
b) Examine the usefulness and implementation of accountability measures in the context
of "natural" experiments.
c) Design and implement a study of accountability measures for changes in multiple air
compositions.
d) Study health indicators for ozone and particle air quality in areas with contemporary
improvements.
e) Study particle and CO effects in areas with winter time programs to reduce pollution
from wood stoves.
f) Develop processes to identify and implement accountability research for health
effects resulting from long term air quality improvement trends. Methodologies may
need to be developed to account for life-style and other interferences.
g) Develop/improve biological indicators or biomarkers of early effects for long-term
and acute exposures.
For ecosystems, the Work Group recommends that EPA work with others to develop benchmarks
and measures to assess ecological impacts of air pollution, and improve ways to track and
evaluate progress in reducing those impacts. Specific actions include:
-------
by the Air Group
4) Improve tracking and evaluation of the effects of multiple air pollutants on aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems to assess the response to air pollution control policies.
a) Identify a comprehensive suite of air quality—ecosystem indicators or measurements
for tracking status and trends in exposure and condition consistently across broad
regions of the U.S.
b) Increase the density and spatial coverage of long-term ambient air quality and
atmospheric deposition monitoring stations in rural, remote forest, agricultural, and
coastal areas.
c) Co-locate long-term measurements of ambient air quality and atmospheric deposition
with long-term ecological research studies to answer key policy questions over time
and a range of scales.
5) Conduct and/or facilitate integrated assessments and research to develop and implement
an appropriate suite of measurements for detecting ecosystem response to air pollution
control programs within a long-term monitoring and assessment framework.
a) Improve methods for monitoring atmospheric inputs to ecosystems and ecosystem
response. Consider developing routine methods for measuring ammonia, organic
nitrogen, dry deposition of mercury, and various dry measurements in a network
mode (e.g., NADP, CASTNET), including in under-represented areas, such as coastal
and western ecosystems.
b) Improve methods to evaluate the status, trends, and response to air pollution control
over regional scales, such as total nitrogen deposition rates and loadings, delivery of
atmospheric loads to ecosystems relative to other sources, and simple, effective
indicators of ecological condition.
c) Improve models for characterizing the transfer of air pollutants through water, soil,
and food chains over time.
6) Collaborate with federal and State agencies, and the academic research community to
pursue focused, integrated assessments and the integration of ecologically-relevant
monitoring networks.
a) Identify and develop institutional arrangements to initiate focused air quality-
ecosystem, integrated environmental assessments.
b) Identify and leverage existing models of successful collaboration in atmospheric,
aquatic, and terrestrial environmental monitoring and assessment.
c) Standardize data collection activities across agencies, where possible, and look for
ways to offer air-quality ecosystem datasets in centralized locations.
7) Examine the possibility of using critical loads and thresholds, and other environmental
benchmarks to quantify impacts on ecosystems.
a) Initiate a series of focused technical workshops with stakeholder groups on the state-
of-the-science to inform the development of environmental benchmarks or measures
which define and assess the impacts of air pollution on ecosystems, and the expected
time scales of recovery.
b) Synthesize the results of the workshops for possible EPA policy development
consideration; begin to develop a framework or strategy for applying the scientific
assessment information.
-------
by the Air Work Group
c) Conduct air quality-ecosystem benchmark assessments (e.g. critical loads) to better
characterize air to ecosystem effects.
Finally, the Work Group recommends that EPA work with S/L/T to determine appropriate
metrics which should be used to more effectively track progress. Specific actions include:
8) For the major control programs in a given SIP, determine quantifiable metrics for
characterizing the program (e.g., for the NOX SIP Call, the change in monthly or seasonal
average NOX concentrations from rural/regional ambient monitors, and the monthly or
seasonal average NOX emissions from power plants).
9) Determine emissions or ambient measurement methods (and measurement plan) for each
metric (e.g., for the NOX SIP Call, a regional network of ambient NOX monitors and
CEMs on power plants). Note, this may require enhancing or expanding emissions or
ambient measurement activities, such as rural measurements for total reactive nitrogen
(NOy), nitric acid and ammonia, and PM2 5 speciation to better detect measurable progress
of ozone and PM precursors in support of major national rules and in concert with
Recommendation #1.4.
Benefits: A science-based framework to track and evaluate air quality achievements will enable
EPA to allocate resources effectively. Shared data/information and joint prioritization of
cooperative projects with other agencies allow resources to be used more effectively. Partnerships
among the air quality community can support agency planning efforts, facilitate coordination
activities, help to resolve issues between agencies, and improve involvement of non-federal
organizations.
Feasibility: This recommendation is considered to be feasible given that models already exist for
tracking program outcomes used throughout EPA, states, and by health and ecosystem experts.
The likelihood this recommendation can be successfully implemented is enhanced by building on
the existing "accountability" infrastructure under the current CAA authority, including health and
ecosystem monitoring and assessment, and leveraging known effective models of collaboration.
Timing: Develop multi-year, high intensity indicators in years 1-3 that track effectiveness and
progress of emission control programs in concert with the established framework. Indicator
application is a complex process that will require additional time to further define ecosystem and
health changes and expected time-scales of recovery.
Resources: EPA has a number of projects underway that support tracking and assessing the
results of emission control programs. Several activities can build on these efforts and begin
immediately with relatively little additional resources. Some of the recommended health and
ecosystem actions entailing developing new metrics and performing integrated assessments, in
particular, would necessitate additional staff resources and funds in OAR. Additional resources
may be available and leveraged through collaboration with other EPA programs and non-EPA
partners, such as states, non-governmental organizations, and industry.
Priority Level: High
-------
by the Air Group
2.1 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers: EPA should complete as soon
as possible a review of the contributions from this category and the technical and economic
feasibility of further controls, given the high priority assigned to this sector. EPA should then
initiate development of a regional or national emissions control regulation for the category, or
take alternative action consistent with the results of its analysis.
Background/Explanation: Industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) boilers combust coal,
oil or gas to produce heat and process steam in numerous sectors, including chemical
manufacturing, petroleum refining, commercial buildings, hospitals, and universities. ICI boilers
should be evaluated by EPA for possible regulation due to: 1) their significant contribution to
projected 2010 criteria pollutant emissions; 2) the availability of cost-effective control measures;
and 3) the likely contributions to nonattainment of the national ozone and fine particle standards
as well as the other environmental impacts associated with boiler emissions.
Recommended Actions: To determine whether regulation of ICI boilers is warranted and to
improve existing ICI boiler inventories and data, EPA should:
1) Evaluate the ICI boiler sector in detail using the agency's existing authorities under the
Clean Air Act. EPA should identify which measures are likely to be cost-effective for
specific boiler sizes and types and identify the total emissions reductions this would
imply for the sector.
2) Close data gaps pertaining to characterization of the ICI boiler population and emissions,
potentially by hiring a technical consultant to improve the quality and completeness of
the ICI boiler inventory and to develop a realistic emissions baseline. The consultant
would seek to integrate data from available data sources, including data in the NEI, data
reported as a result of the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule, and data pulled
together to support MACT regulation and the OTAG effort. The goal would be to create a
comprehensive and systematic database listing key unit-level data for all states that is
properly maintained and updated over time.
3) Support a mechanism for reporting emissions from ICI boilers, potentially by maintaining
and fully implementing the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule or developing a new
Information Collection Request.
4) Demonstrate the effect of reductions from ICI boilers on attainment (through air quality
modeling or other means deemed appropriate) to ensure that any action proposed for this
sector will help meet the desired air quality objective.
5) Develop improved, peer-reviewed estimates of the cost-effectiveness of the various
emission reduction measures that might be used with ICI boilers. This effort should
include estimates for a range of sizes and should reflect recent experiences with NOX and
SO2 control technologies in the ICI boiler and similar sectors (e.g., electric power sector).
6) Make a final determination regarding whether and/or how to regulate ICI boilers that
includes consideration of the potential penetration of cost-effective control measures.
7) Issue regulations, if warranted, that are national or regional in scope due to the broad-
based distribution of ICI boilers and the potential for emissions transport. Emissions
trading should be utilized where appropriate due to the successes in using this approach
in the NOX SIP Call and the ability of this source to use continuous emissions monitors
(CEMs). Any regulation of this sector should include requirements for CEMs or other
reliable emissions monitoring methods. EPA could also consider alternative regulatory
-------
by the Air Work Group
approaches for smaller ICI boilers, considering administrative and emissions
measurement costs and other factors.
Benefits: Emissions reductions from the ICI boiler sector have the potential to achieve significant
reductions in criteria pollutants nationwide. In 2010, ICI boilers are projected to account for over
16 percent (2.7 million tons) of total NOX, 16 percent (2.4 million tons) of total SO2, and 5
percent (0.3 million tons) of total PM2 5 emissions nationwide.10 The projected 2010 SO2 and NOX
emissions from ICI boilers are second only to the projected emissions from the power sector
(without CAIR). Emissions of NOX, SO2 and PM2 5 contribute to an array of environmental
problems, including ground level ozone, acid rain, fine particle pollution, eutrophication and
regional haze. Reducing emissions from ICI boilers could therefore contribute to reducing the
impacts of these emissions on human health. A comparison of projected emissions from ICI
boilers and nonattainment areas also suggests a potential relationship between regulation of ICI
boilers and improving local air quality. In fact, ICI boilers are expected to represent a sizeable
share of emissions in many States that are projected to have one or more counties in
nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone and fine particle standards in 2010.
ICI boilers are a potentially cost-effective source for additional emission reductions. Preliminary
data indicate that control technologies for industrial boilers can achieve emissions reductions
cost-effectively—often well below current allowance prices for NOX and SO2, and in many cases,
below the levels deemed to be "highly cost-effective" under the proposed CAIR rule for the
electric power sector ($1,300 per ton of NOX and $700 per ton of SO2 in 2010).n
Feasibility: There do not appear to be any major technical or legal barriers to the proposed
analyses or other measures to close information gaps. In addition, if regulation of ICI boilers is
deemed appropriate, we do not see any barriers because authorities exist under Sections 110, 111,
and potentially other sections of the Clean Air Act. The main hurdle is anticipated to be the
likelihood of industry lobbying and legal action. This can be mitigated in part by providing a
reasonable horizon within the framework of the fine particle and ozone attainment deadlines and
by offering as much compliance flexibility as possible through emissions trading or other means.
Timing: Implementation of an emissions reduction program would need to take place no later
than the 2010 to 2012 timeframe to help States meet attainment for ozone and fine particle
national ambient air quality standards.12 Consequently, the suggested improvements to the data
and rule development should begin as soon as possible to give the industry a long lead time for
compliance, if regulation is deemed appropriate.
Resources: EPA staff time would be required to develop peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness
estimates, study the effects of ICI boiler control on attainment, and oversee the database
development consultant. Funds would also need to be set aside to compensate the consultant. If
10 Note that these percentages assume only existing regulations—they do not assume implementation of the proposed
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) that would control emissions from the power sector. If implementation of CAIR
were assumed, industrial, commercial and institutional boilers would constitute an even greater share of 2010
emissions. For example, with implementation of CAIR, the ICI boiler share of 2010 SO2 emissions would be
expected to increase to 22%.
1' It should be noted that EPA did not assume reductions from ICI boilers in the CAIR because they did not believe
there was sufficient information to determine that controls met the highly cost effective criteria.
12 Attainment deadlines are as early as 2007 in some cases. In most cases, the NAAQS compliance deadline is April 15,
2009. However, extensions may be granted through April 15, 2014 or even April 15, 2016, if the required showings
are made. The limited number of areas designated "severe" for the 8-hour ozone standard have even longer to meet
attainment. States will need to know whether national/regional measures are going to be successful several years
before the final deadlines so that they can ramp up additional programs of their own, where needed.
B-25
-------
by the Air Group
national or regional regulation is deemed to be appropriate, EPA staff time would be needed to
develop proposed and final rules and design the trading program infrastructure or other regulatory
approach. The State role would be limited to monitoring and source permitting.
The cost of implementation would depend on the type of regulation used and the number of
sources covered. For example, the cost of administering an emissions trading program would be
generally lower than a command-and-control approach. In addition, costs would be expected to
increase somewhat if all ICI boilers are included versus those accounting for the majority of
pollutants or those exceeding a boiler size or throughput threshold.
Priority Level: High
-------
by the Air Work Group
2.2 Industrial Surface Coatings: EPA should complete as soon as possible a review of the
contributions from this category and the technical and economic feasibility of further controls.
EPA should then initiate development of a regional or national emissions control regulation for
the category, or take alternative action consistent with the results of its analysis.
Background/Explanation: VOCs from industrial surface coating represent about 11% of
national VOC emissions. Reductions beyond current Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG)
recommendations and New Source Performance Standards have been demonstrated and achieved
by sources in all previously regulated industrial surface coating categories. While scheduled area
source, residual risk rules, and 112(d)(6) review may result in further emissions reductions in this
sector, there may still be significant emissions from facility maintenance operations and surface
coating of miscellaneous wood products that have not been regulated previously. There exist two
primary approaches for addressing these emissions - the use of low-VOC/low-HAP coatings, and
the use of capture and control equipment.
Recommended Actions: EPA should: (1) review nonattainment contributions from this category;
(2) assess the technical and economic feasibility of a more stringent performance standard and
revised CTGs; and (3) proceed with the appropriate action(s) based on this review and analysis.
Feasibility: It would probably require 2 to 3 years to develop a new standard for this category.
Resources would be devoted to review and analysis, necessary data collection and rule
development.
Timing: Any regulatory effort would take 2 to 3 years at a minimum. However, updates to
existing CTGs could be completed in shorter timeframe.
Resources: EPA resources would be required to undertake the required research and possible
promulgation of a new NSPS, and also for the development of relevant CTGs. At the local level,
resources associated with the adoption and enforcement of CTGs would potentially be required.
Priority Level: Medium
e-27
-------
by the Air Group
2.3 Non-industrial Solvents: EPA should initiate rulemaking efforts to establish minimum
performance standards (i.e., a national rule) for this category using the VOC content limitations
contained in, and regulating the products covered by, the model rule developed by the Ozone
Transport Commission.
Background/Explanation: Non-industrial solvents are projected to be responsible for 16% of
nationwide VOC emissions in 2010. NIS/CCP are specifically subject to Section 183(e) with
regard to VOC emissions. There is an existing national rule (40 CFR 59 subpart C) that regulates
24 categories of household consumer products. In addition, there are Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTG) and alternative control techniques documents pertaining to categories such as
cutback asphalt paving and agricultural pesticide application. The non-industrial nature of the
products generally removes many of them from the authority of sections 111 and 112. There is no
known authority to directly regulate HAP emissions from the use of consumer products.
The existing federal consumer products rule regulates only 25 categories of products. This rule is
estimated to have reduced VOC emissions from these categories of household and institutional
products by approximately 20 percent, or 90.000 tons per year nationwide, from a 1990 baseline.
These reductions were achieved at a cost effectiveness of about $250/ton. California and several
other States have regulated, or are in the process of regulating, many more categories of products,
and at lower VOC limits than the federal rule requires. As discussed above, several northeast
States have been developing rules based on an Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rule
for consumer products. The basis for the OTC model rule was the existing California rule.
It is possible that further regulation might not result in appreciable reductions. The reason for this
is that most consumer products are manufactured and distributed nationwide, and that the major
manufacturers formulate their products to be distributed nationwide. Accordingly, nationally
distributed products must meet the most stringent requirements. This results in "compliant"
products being distributed and used nationwide, even in areas with no regulations. However,
smaller, regionally distributed products should be affected by further federal action. In proceeding
with this recommendation, EPA should quantify the potential achievable emissions reductions
associated with tightening VOC content limitations.
Recommended Actions: EPA should research the potential to gain additional VOC reductions
from non-industrial solvents, focusing on:
• potential gains from regulation of additional product categories at the federal level and
the of updating current standards;
• potential reductions from updating existing CTGs to reflect tighter State limits; and
• the extent to which regionally distributed products (from areas with no additional
standards) contribute to total national VOC emissions and the magnitude of potential
reductions from this group of products
Following its review, EPA should take regulatory action consistent with its analysis.
Feasibility: Further regulation of consumer products beyond the existing federal rule is possible
and has been pursued by California and by some of the northeast States using an Ozone Transport
Commission model rule based on California's rule.
Timing: Any regulatory effort would take 2 to 3 years at a minimum. However, updates to
existing CTGs could be completed in shorter timeframe.
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Resources: Either a regulatory action or a revised CTG would probably require less than 1 FTE
and $25K to $100K per year per category on EPA's part, depending on how much work was
performed in-house. At the local level, resources associated with the adoption and enforcement of
CTGs will be required.
Priority Level: Medium
:: B-29
-------
by the Air Group
2.4 Architectural Coatings: EPA should initiate rulemaking efforts to establish minimum
performance standards (i.e., a national rule) for this category using the VOC content limitations
contained in, and regulating the products covered by, the model rule developed by the Ozone
Transport Commission.
Background/Explanation: VOCs from architectural surface coating represent about 4% of
national VOC emissions. While this sector is already regulated under the national VOC rule
(183(e)), California has adopted a more stringent standard for VOC content and OTC States are
adopting rules based on the California rules. These standards could be extended nationwide.
There currently exist near-zero VOC content materials for some content categories (e.g., flat
interior wall coatings).
Recommended Actions: Research the magnitude of potential reductions that could be gained
beyond existing rules, and if significant reductions could be achieved cost-effectively, adopt a
more stringent national VOC content standard for this sector.
Feasibility: Implementation of additional controls for this industrial sector is a realistic
expectation. It would require revisiting the current VOC content standard in place under section
183(e). The existence of State standards that are well below the national standard and the
development of extremely low-VOC content materials, suggest that this activity would be
worthwhile.
Timing: It would probably require 1-2 years to develop a new standard for this category.
Resources would be devoted to necessary data collection and rule development.
Resources: EPA resources would be required to undertake the required research and rule
development for further regulatory action.
Priority Level: Medium
B-30 ::
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
2.5 Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines: EPA should reduce emissions from the existing fleet of
heavy-duty diesel engines by employing a multi-pronged approach.
Background/Explanation: Over the last decade, EPA has moved aggressively to strengthen
federal emission standards for a wide range of diesel engines. While these standards will serve to
dramatically lower emissions when fully implemented, the full human health benefits will not be
realized for 20 years or more. The figure below graphically shows the national particulate
pollution under the phase-in of the federal emission standards for diesel trucks and buses, and
nonroad engines.
Particulate Pollution Under
Phase-in of Federal Standards for
Diesel Trucks, Buses and Machinery
o o
'
E §
LU a
400000
350000 -
300000 -
250000 -
200000 -
150000-
100000 -
50000 -
0
Figure 1. National PM2 5
emissions under phase-in of
federal standards for on road
diesel trucks and buses, and
nonroad diesel equipment.
(Estimated from EPA, 2000
and EPA, 2004a)
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
The delay in achieving emissions reductions is attributable to two factors. The first factor is the
lapse in time before the emissions standards take effect for new engines. The standards finalized
in 2001 for highway engines take effect in 2007, while the new standards for nonroad diesel
engines are phased in based on engine size, beginning in 2008 with engines smaller than 25 hp.
Final standards for nonroad engines greater than 750 hp will not be effective until 2015. The
second factor that contributes to the lag in effectiveness of the diesel rules is the long lifespan of
diesel engines. Under typical operating loads and levels of use, large diesel engines can last for
more than one million miles and/or decades.
The ultimate consequence of the time lag in emissions reductions for diesel engines is a
corresponding lag in achieving the projected health benefits. EPA has estimated that by 2030, the
highway diesel rule will avoid 8,300 premature deaths per year, which otherwise would have
been caused by exposure to particulate pollution from diesel emissions (EPA, 2000, Table VII-
19). The rule is also projected to prevent more than 7,000 hospital admissions, 360,000 asthma
attacks and more than 1.5 million lost work days in 2030 (EPA, 2000, Table VII-19). The
nonroad rule similarly projects tremendous health benefits in 2030, including the avoidance of
12,000 premature deaths and 8,900 hospital admissions per year from particulate pollution
exposure (EPA, 2004a, Table 9-11). The nonroad rule is also projected to avoid 200,000 cases of
exacerbated asthma in children in 2030 (EPA, 2004a, Table 9-11). These projected health
benefits in 2030 are extremely important. However, the fact is that the same kinds of health
impacts that will be avoided in 2030 are occurring now, and will continue to occur until today's
high-polluting diesel engines and equipment are replaced or cleaned up.
:: B-31
-------
by the Air Work Group
Policy action is needed to accelerate the transition to cleaner diesel engines and realize more
immediate public health protection. In principle, emissions from these existing engines can be
reduced either by incentivizing their early retirement, by improving their current emissions
performance (e.g., by add-on emissions control system, changes in the engines themselves, repair
of high-emitting engines or improved fuels), or by limiting the time that these engines operate
(e.g., through idling reduction programs and/or otherwise). Each approach has merit under certain
conditions and programs, and should be part of an implementation strategy. For example,
centrally operated and fueled fleets (e.g., school and transit buses and refuse trucks) are good
candidates for retrofit technologies or engine repowers. Some of these fleets can be excellent
candidates for replacement with advanced technologies (e.g., hybrids) or alternative fuels. In
addition, some mid-1990s engines can achieve lower emissions limits by reprogramming of
engine control systems. Finally, programs aimed at reducing idling time can lower pollution,
achieve substantial ancillary benefits from reduction of fuel consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions, and lower operating costs.
Recommended Actions: EPA will continue to employ a variety of strategies to monitor and
reduce emissions from the in-use fleet and enforce its emissions standards. These strategies are
outlined below:
Heavy-Duty Compliance Programs
• Continue to work with manufacturers to ensure compliance with existing and new
emissions standards through manufacturer testing of new and in-use engines and effective
EPA enforcement.
• Ensure that manufacturers of consent decree engines reprogram control systems to reduce
NOX emissions.
• Develop, evaluate and provide guidance to the States on a heavy-duty vehicle testing
approach that will be appropriate for use in heavy-duty vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs as a replacement for the existing snap-idle (smoke) test.
• Work closely with California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop a harmonized,
nationwide set of requirements for Heavy Duty On-Board Diagnostics (HD OBD) in the
US for gas and diesel vehicles for implementation in 2010.
• Investigate the development of portable emission measuring equipment to quickly and
accurately measure diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions.
Voluntary Programs
• Develop a national initiative, building upon the success of EPA's voluntary programs, to
provide federally funded incentives for diesel emissions reductions using California's
Carl Moyer Program and Texas's Emissions Reduction Plan as models.
• Investigate low-interest loan programs and other creative financial methods to help
private fleets retrofit or rebuild existing engines to reduce emissions.
• Work toward the goal of reducing the emissions of the existing 11 million engines in the
fleet today by concentrating on the construction, port, freight and school bus sectors.
• Meet with States and engine manufacturers to develop a voluntary program that educates
owners on ECM reflash strategies (to achieve NOX reductions) and urge their
participation.
• Continue building industry support through voluntary, market-based approaches.
-------
by the Air Work Group
• Work with General Services Administration (GSA) and Department of Defense (DOD) to
establish, by January 2006, government-wide procurement and contracting guidelines on
emissions performance standards for existing diesel engines.
• Work with private and public fleets to develop operational strategies to reduce in-use
emissions, such as idling reduction programs.
EPA should also consider a mandatory program that would:
• Dramatically expand current federal programs to cut pollution from existing diesel
engines through accelerated retirements, retrofits, repowering, replacement and anti-
idling measures. EPA should pursue a dual, complementary strategy to achieve the goal
of retrofitting all heavy-duty diesel engines by 2012 by: (a) establishing mandatory
measures to cut pollution from existing diesel engines and (b) considerably multiplying,
through expanded congressional appropriations, the funding for both mandatory and
voluntary programs with funding contributions from other federal agencies as well.
Feasibility: Continuation of the existing program is feasible; the compliance programs are
operating under existing statutory authority and the voluntary efforts are currently partnering with
States and fleet operators across the country. Legislation to secure expanded federal funding to
sustain and enlarge voluntary programs to clean up existing diesel engines is also feasible, but
would present a substantial challenge. The cost to retrofit all diesel engines would be high.
Timing: Several specific actions recommended here are currently a part of EPA's ongoing
efforts. As noted above, EPA and CARB are working toward implementation of national HD
OBD requirements in 2010. It is anticipated that other actions can be implemented in 3-4 years as
current studies are completed and new testing technologies are established.
Resources: Continue existing efforts. Redirection of existing efforts/personnel may be required.
Priority Level: High
References:
EPA. 2000. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and
Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, EPA420-R-00-026, December.
EPA. 2004a. Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines,
EPA420-R-04-007, May.
EPA. 2004b. Median Life, Annual Activity and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine
Emissions Modeling, EPA420-P-04-005, April.
:: 8-33
-------
by the Air Work Group
2.6 Emissions from Ships, Locomotives, and Aircraft, and Mobile Source Air
Toxics: EPA should address emissions from ships, locomotives, and aircraft, and mobile source
air toxics through national emissions standards.
Background/Explanation: Over the past decade, EPA has adopted several groundbreaking rules
that will dramatically reduce emissions from the nation's passenger vehicles, trucks and buses,
and nonroad equipment. Collectively, these rules will eliminate tens of thousands of premature
deaths and create tens of billions of dollars of health and other social benefits. Indeed, new
engines covered by these regulations will be more than 90 percent cleaner than their predecessors.
As these vehicle sectors get progressively cleaner, thanks to vehicle turnover and an increased
emphasis on retrofit and other strategies to reduce emissions from the existing fleets, EPA should
address the growing percentage of emissions from engines outside the scope of these rulemakings
i.e., from ships, locomotives and aircraft. Moreover, EPA should address mobile source air toxic
emissions that have not been addressed by these rulemakings.
Regulating Additional Mobile Sources: Aircraft, Locomotive
and Marine Diesel Engines
While emissions from most categories of mobile and industrial sources have stabilized or
decreased over the past two decades, emissions from locomotives, marine diesel engines and
aircraft have increased, and are forecast to continue growing. For example, airplanes at U.S.
airports emitted 350 million pounds of smog-forming pollutants in 1993, more than twice their
1970 total. The FAA estimates that aircraft-related NOX emissions will double by 2030. At the
local level, an airport's arriving and departing planes can emit as much smog-forming pollution
as many power plants and other large industrial sources.1
The situation at our nation's ports and rail yards is no different. Ships are projected to be the
second largest source of mobile source PM emissions in 2020, emitting roughly one-fifth of the
nation's soot particles,2 thanks to the clean-up of highway and other nonroad diesel engines and
the sharp projected growth in port activities. Locally, this growth will be even more
significant—the Port of Los Angeles expects its trade-related traffic to triple by 2020.
Although these emissions can be significant local emission sources, States are largely preempted
from regulating them through their SIP process or otherwise. Moreover, exhaust emission
standards do not effectively address aggregate aircraft, ship or locomotive emissions on any given
airport runway, at a crowded port or in a busy rail yard. Many of these sites are near residential
neighborhoods, increasing the need for meaningful emission reduction strategies.
Regulating Additional Emissions: Mobile Source Air Toxics
Mobile source air toxics (MSATs) are among the most pervasive and hazardous pollutants
regulated by EPA. Indeed, EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment data show that MSATs exceed
cancer health benchmarks in all areas of the country and are up to 10 times higher in urban areas.
Mobile source programs such as Tier 2, highway diesel and nonroad diesel will significantly
reduce mobile source air toxics. However, an analysis conducted by the Northeast States shows
that nationwide, even with the full implementation of all mobile source programs, benzene, 1,3
butadiene, formaldehyde and other potent toxins will continue to exceed health risk benchmarks.
EPA is required by CAA section 202(1) to reduce the threat posed by MSATs.
1 NRDC, Flying Off Course: Environmental Impacts of America's Airports, 1996, pp. 36-37.
2 EPA, Nonroad Diesel Rule, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA 420-R-03-008, April 2003, Section 3.2.
-------
by the Air Work Group
Recommended Actions: EPA should:
1) Promulgate technology-forcing Tier 2 emission standards for all new marine diesel
engines, including compression-ignition marine engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder
(Category 3 engines), that are more stringent than the international MARPOL Annex VI
NOX limits. Section 213 of the Clean Air Act Amendments directs EPA to set nonroad
standards that "achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the
engines or vehicles to which such standards apply." Such standards should achieve
emission reductions comparable to those required of other mobile source categories under
EPA's recent highway and nonroad diesel rules. These regulations should apply to all
ships in U.S. ports, whether U.S. or foreign flagged.
2) Promulgate technology-forcing emission standards for new and rebuilt locomotive
engines. Again, Section 213 of the Clean Air Act Amendments clearly authorizes EPA to
do so. Such standards should achieve emission reductions comparable to those required
of other mobile source categories under EPA's recent highway and nonroad diesel rules.
3) Promulgate technology-forcing emission regulations for aircraft that are comparable in
stringency to other mobile source emissions standards, while maintaining the aviation
industry's outstanding safety record. As with marine diesel engines, EPA is not limited
by the ICAO process, and is authorized by Section 213 of the Clean Air Act to adopt such
technology-forcing emission standards.
4) Develop strategies (including, to the extent permissible, permitting requirements and SIP
control strategies) for reducing aviation, ship and locomotive emissions at airports,
seaports and rail yards that can be employed at the State and/or Local level.
5) With respect to controlling ground-level aviation emissions within their SIP processes,
EPA should encourage States and airport operators to consider strategies such as reduced
engine idling and taxiing, differential landing fees, using gate-powered electricity rather
than auxiliary power units, among others.
6) Provide guidance to States and airport operators so they consider emissions reduction
strategies for ground service equipment as part of their SIP strategies. Such strategies
could include accelerated retirement, engine repowers, emission control retrofits, reduced
idling measures and replacements with the cleanest available engines and fuels, including
alternative fuels.
7) Study toxic aircraft, ship and locomotive emissions and develop a strategy for reducing
them. Studies have shown that these sources generate significant hazardous air pollutants,
yet they are exempt from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program.3
8) Dramatically expand the agency's programs to cut diesel PM from existing engines
including both voluntary and mandatory measures.
9) Promulgate a protective national benzene cap. Expanding low-RVP gasoline
requirements beyond ozone nonattainment areas would also lower benzene and other
toxic VOCs and secondary toxics like formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.
10) Consider regulations to reduce other mobile source air toxics such as formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, acrolein and 1,3-butadiene.
3 See, e.g., http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrstudy/rcexecsum.pdf.
B-35
-------
by the Air Group
11) Consider national gasoline standards that further reduce sulfur and also address other fuel
parameters.
12) Address the high sulfur content in the distillate/bunker fuel used in Category 3 ocean-
going marine vessels.
13) Consider requiring catalysts on nonroad gasoline engines such as forklifts.
Feasibility: High.
Timing: Current plans call for an NPRM on gasoline outboard, sterndrive, inboard and personal
watercraft engines in the Spring of 2005; an NPRM on locomotive and marine diesel standards in
mid-2005; an NPRM on air toxics in mid-2005; a final rule adopting the existing International
Civil Aviation Organization NOX standards for aircraft engines in 2005; and a final rule on ocean-
going marine diesel engines by mid-2007.
Resources: Several of the recommended actions have already been funded and staffed.
Priority Level: High
B-36 ::
-------
by the Air Work Group
2.7 Cement Manufacturing, Petroleum Refining, and Pulp and Paper: The
cement manufacturing, petroleum refining, and pulp and paper industrial source categories are
already under substantial regulation, but continue to be significant sources of pollutants and
warrant further consideration by EPA. EPA should evaluate potential national or regional
emissions reduction strategies for criteria pollutants and air toxics in these categories. This
should include improving emissions inventories if necessary and assessing their impacts on
nonattainment areas or other sensitive areas. EPA should carefully consider the cost-
effectiveness of imposing additional controls as it determines whether additional emissions
reductions are justified and should take action consistent with the results of this analysis.
Background/Explanation: Cement plants, petroleum refineries, and pulp and paper mills are
major emitters of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). While boilers from
refineries and pulp and paper mills would be considered under the ICI boiler recommendation,
process sources associated with these two sectors present an additional challenge. It is much more
difficult and costly to monitor and report emissions from process sources, such as catalytic
cracking units, flares, and sources of fugitive emissions.
Petroleum refineries are major sources of HAPs and emit large quantities of criteria pollutants.
There are 146 petroleum refineries located in 33 States. However, fifty-five percent of the U.S.
production capacity is located in three States - Texas, Louisiana, and California.
Based on EPA's projections for 2010, the cement industry in the U.S. will emit approximately 5
and 2 percent of the overall NOX and SO2 emissions, respectively, excluding the emissions from
EGUs. The sources of these emissions are about 200 active cement kilns in this country. Since
cement industry was included under the NOX SIP Call rule, some of these kilns have already been
retrofitted with NOX controls.
Pulp and paper mills are projected to be responsible for 2 percent of both nationwide PM2 5
emissions and organic carbon emissions in 2010. The recent air toxics rules included a PM limit
as a surrogate for metal HAPs, but PM2 5 has not been specifically addressed.
Recommended Actions:
1) EPA should evaluate further potential national or regional emissions reduction strategies
for criteria pollutants and HAPs in these categories. This should include improving
emissions inventories and assessing their impacts on nonattainment areas or other
sensitive areas.
2) EPA should carefully consider the cost-effectiveness of imposing additional controls as it
determines whether additional emission reductions are justified.
3) EPA should and take action consistent with the results of its analysis of these sectors.
Feasibility: High, given apparent lack of technical or legal barriers to analysis and/or rule
development.
Timing: This recommendation should be implemented in a timeframe that would allow for at
least some emissions reductions to be achieved by 2010.
Resources: EPA staff time would be required to develop peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness
estimates and study the effects of further control on these sectors on attainment. If national or
e-37
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
regional regulation is deemed to be appropriate, EPA staff time would be needed to develop
proposed and final rules.
The cost of implementation will depend on the type of regulation used and the number of sources
covered. For example, the cost of administering an emissions trading program is generally lower
than a command-and-control approach.
Priority Level: Medium
B-38 ::
-------
by the Air Work Group
2.8 Residential Fossil Fuel Combustion: EPA should evaluate the potential for
expanding the Energy Star voluntary program to gain additional criteria pollutant emissions
reductions (as well as improve energy efficiency) from the residential fossil fuel sector. As part of
this effort, EPA should continue to gather information on the characteristics of residential fossil
fuel emissions and their contributions to non-attainment, and the magnitude and cost of potential
emissions reductions under a voluntary program and/or expanded use of 'low -sulfur fuel. EPA
should also coordinate with Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) and companies that
produce lower-emitting appliances to assess the potential for programs that promote the
installation of such technologies.
Background/Explanation: Residential fossil fuel use generally comprises natural gas, fuel oil,
LPG and kerosene combustion for space heating, water heating, and cooking. This source releases
emissions of several criteria pollutants, most significantly SO2 and NOX. Geographically,
emissions are more significant in the Northeast and Midwest. Opportunities for emissions
reduction generally include actions or technologies that improve energy efficiency, such as high
efficiency boilers, furnaces and water heaters, and insulation and air sealing, or energy-
conserving behaviors (e.g., heating only rooms being used). Other emissions control opportunities
include low-NOx space and water heaters, or the use lower sulfur fuel oil. Because residential
sources are numerous and small, implementation of a strict cap or rate requirement would be
impracticable. However, a voluntary program could be an effective means of reducing emissions.
Energy Star is a national voluntary program (jointly run by EPA and the Department of Energy
(DOE)) that focuses on reducing CO2 emissions through energy efficiency measures. Many of the
energy efficiency measures promoted for reducing residential CO2 emissions also reduce
emissions of criteria pollutants. In addition, DOE issues energy efficiency standards for
appliances. Considering the significant amounts of emissions from residential fossil use, the
availability of control measures, and the potential for collaboration with the existing Energy Star
program, this is a potential area for further Federal action.
Because many of the actions to reduce criteria pollutants from residential fossil use are measures
that improve energy efficiency, these actions can generate cost savings for homeowners. Energy
Star has a program to promote whole house retrofits, which is estimated to save homes an average
of 30 percent of the total energy bill. DOE has a program that provides air sealing and insulation
to qualifying homeowners, and the Department estimates the cost at $2,672 per home with energy
savings paying for costs within a few years. Energy Star programmable thermostats can save a
home about $100 per year. Note that not all actions that improve home energy efficiency will
reduce criteria pollutants from residential fossil use, so not all of the cost savings from these
programs would be attributed to reducing criteria pollutants.
An EPA analysis estimated the costs of a rule that would require low-NOx residential water
heaters, and found that such a rule would not increase the cost of natural gas water heaters,
implying a cost effectiveness of $0 per ton NOX removed.
DOE research indicated that low-sulfur fuel oil might cost up to two cents more per gallon than
conventional fuel oil. The reduced sulfur levels may lead to net savings for consumers, due to
reduced maintenance and cleaning costs.
Recommended Actions: EPA should:
1) Work toward establishing low sulfur fuel alternatives for residential fossil fuel heating
systems, and possible regulation of sulfur content of home heating fuels.
B-39
-------
by the Air Group
2) Talk with its Energy Star staff about the potential for an expanded voluntary program to
promote actions that both improve energy efficiency and reduce criteria pollutants.
3) Talk with NESCAUM and other regional organizations to raise awareness of the extent to
which residential fossil fuel emissions are a regional concern, and to ascertain their
thoughts on voluntary programs promoted at the regional level.
4) Talk with companies that currently produce and/or market high efficiency appliances that
reduce emissions, to assess their interest in engaging in programs to promote the
installation of emissions-reducing technologies (e.g., by offering rebates).
5) Continue to gather information about the characteristics of residential fossil fuel
emissions and their contributions to nonattainment. Also gather information about the
extent to which further action would gain meaningful emissions reduction beyond what
has been achieved under Energy Star and what is projected to be achieved under DOE's
forthcoming revised energy efficiency standards.
Feasibility: This recommendation has a high feasibility for implementation. A Federal voluntary
program implemented in collaboration with the existing Energy Star program presumably would
be implemented under the same statutory authority as Energy Star. This recommendation does not
establish any prescriptive mandates that would require regulatory action. No major obstacles have
been identified. Regulation of sulfur-content of home heating fuel would require a longer
timeframe.
Timing: It is anticipated that discussions with Energy Star staff, NESCAUM and other regional
organizations, as well as further information gathering, can be completed in 6 months. Once
decisions are made to pursue Federal and/or regional voluntary programs, full implementation
can be achieved within a year to a year and a half. Regulation of sulfur-content of home heating
fuel would require a longer timeframe.
Resources: Collaboration with Energy Star will provide significant savings in resources, drawing
on existing expertise and experience. Some additional personnel at the Federal level would be
required to accommodate the expanded scope beyond CO2 reductions. If regional programs are
implemented then some additional resources will be required at that level.
Priority Level: Medium
-------
by the Air Work Group
2.9 Guidance for Local Control Measures in Key Sectors: EPA, in conjunction with
S/L/T and affected stakeholders, should prepare guidance for local (urban-scale) control
measures to support the upcoming round of ozone and PM2.s SIPs, and, if possible, optimize
multipollutant control benefits and opportunities for reducing criteria and toxic air pollutants.
Background/Explanation: Many states are starting to prepare State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
to address nonattainment requirements for ozone (8-hour) and PM2 5, and reasonable progress
requirements for regional haze. These nonattainment (and regional haze) problems are due to
impacts from nearby (local) and more distant (regional) sources. The NRC recognized that
additional federal emission control measures and guidance would be useful in assisting states to
effectively attain air quality standards for ozone and PM2 5. This recommendation will focus on
providing guidance for local (urban-scale), multi-pollutant control measures, which are most
properly dealt with by States in their SIPs. Specifically, this recommendation will focus on the
current round of SIP development for ozone, PM2 5, and regional haze (i.e., SIPs which are due in
2007/2008 and address attainment in the 2010 timeframe). (It should be noted that absolute and
relative amounts of emissions by source sector is expected to change beyond 2010, with
significant reductions expected for at least mobile sources and EGUs.) Other recommendations
address regional/national control measures for certain source categories, which are most
effectively dealt with by EPA as part of federal rulemaking.
Recommended Actions: Federal guidance is needed now to assist states in preparing SIPs to
address nonattainment requirements for ozone (8-hour) and PM2 5 (i.e., attain ambient standards
by 2010), and visibility/regional haze requirements (i.e., satisfy first reasonable progress
milestone in 2018). The Work Group recommends that EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and
affected stakeholder, undertake the following actions:
1) Issue technical guidance for source categories that would benefit from local (urban-
scale), multi-pollutant strategies and technologies. The identification of these source
categories should be based on an evaluation of existing ambient monitoring data, source
apportionment studies, modeling analyses, and future year emissions inventories.
Consideration should also be given to emission reduction potential (and uncertainty in
emission estimates), timeliness, cost effectiveness, completeness of existing guidance
(e.g., STAPPA/ALAPCO's forthcoming "Menu of Options for Control Fine Particulate
Matter"), and reactivity (if relevant). Additional studies and analyses may be necessary to
provide a comprehensive list of local strategies and technologies.
2) Given that ozone (8-hour) and PM2 5 (and haze) SIPs are due in mid-2007 and early 2008,
respectively, EPA should issue guidance now for those source categories considered to be
associated with residual nonattainment problems (in the 2010 timeframe). Based on a
preliminary review of available ambient monitoring data, source apportionment studies,
modeling analyses, and emissions inventories, it is suggested that guidance should be
prepared now for the following source categories:
• Residential woodstoves and fireplaces;
• Mobile sources (e.g., high emitting vehicles and diesel retrofit programs);
• Open burning; and
• Industrial operations (e.g., cement manufacturing, petroleum refineries, pulp and
paper, metals, and surface coating);
-------
by the Air Group
Note, the other factors identified above (e.g., emission reduction potential, timeliness, cost
effectiveness, completeness of existing guidance, and reactivity) were not considered in
identifying this list of source categories, but should be considered by EPA in prioritizing
development of the guidance, and by S/L/T in implementing the guidance. It should also be noted
that some of the source categories addressed by this local-scale guidance may also be appropriate
to address at the national/regional level through federal rulemaking.
Benefits: This recommendation would result in guidance to help S/L/T meet the demands of
preparing SIPs for ozone, PM2s, and haze over the next couple of years. In addition, it should
help support integrated, multi-pollutant emission reduction strategies, which should allow S/L/T
to develop control plans more effectively (e.g., targeting source categories considered to be
associated with residual nonattainment problems) and efficiently (e.g., less the time and resources
compared to develop SIPs on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis).
Feasibility: There do not appear to be barriers associated with developing guidance for local
control measures. The statutory authority for integrating area source standards into the guidance
might include sections 11 l(d), 112(d)(4) and (5), 112(1) or 112(k)(3) and (4) of the Clean Air Act.
Timing: The development of the initial round of guidance would require immediate attention in
order to be useful for the first round of ozone (8-hour) and PM2s (and haze) SIPs, which are due
in mid-2007 and early 2008, respectively. As such, the first round of the guidance should be
issued by October 2005 and, as such, will likely be able to a few source categories.
Resources: The guidance can be prepared by EPA contractors and is estimated to cost around
$75K per source category.
Priority Level: High
-------
by the Air Work Group
2.10 Residential Wood Smoke: EPA should further develop the Residential Wood Smoke
Reduction initiative that includes working with S/L/T, industry, non-governmental organizations
and others to support and facilitate the changeout of dirty, inefficient "conventional" (pre-New
Source Performance Standard or NSPS) woodstoves with new, cleaner and more efficient heating
appliances (e.g., EPA certified woodstoves). Concurrent with the development and
implementation of changeout programs, EPA should commence efforts to revise the NSPS.
Background/Explanation: Residential wood smoke contains PM25 and various types of
hazardous air pollutants (e.g., polycyclic organic matter). Wood smoke emissions occur in
neighborhoods where people live. Wood burning is done throughout the United States, in varying
degrees depending on the location. Large emissions reduction potential (60%-80%) exists and
there are programs that have been successfully implemented. Residential wood smoke makes up
420,000 tons of total direct PM2 5 emissions, with 80 percent of the total coming from
woodstoves. Nationally residential wood smoke contributes approximately 22 percent of all
seven of the carcinogenic PAHs identified in the EPA's National Emissions Inventory. There are
approximately 10 million wood stoves in use at this time, and 80 - 90 % of those are pre-NSPS
stoves.
Recommended Actions: Build on and implement EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) voluntary residential wood smoke reduction initiative started earlier this
year. Currently, EPA plans to pilot test the concept of wood stove changeouts in three locations in
FY 05, and then three to six more in FY 06. In FY 06-07 EPA would work to grow the
woodstove change out initiative into a grant program like the diesel retrofit program.
Concurrently with the development and implementation of the voluntary initiative, EPA should
commence efforts to revise the NSPS.
Woodstove Changeout Campaign
a) Build strong partnerships with States, communities, hearth trade association, non-
profits and others;
b) Implement 3 pilot woodstove changeout demonstration projects in FY 05;
c) Develop education and outreach materials, including website;
d) Evaluate and document FY05 successes and lessons learned;
e) Develop model woodstove changeout program template;
f) Distribute template and encourage States/Locals/Tribes to implement at local level;
and
g) Issue guidance on how to quantify the emission reductions from the wood stove
change outs for SIP purposes.
Fireplaces
a) Support development of ASTM consensus test method; and
b) Use the EPA website to educate consumers on more efficient and less polluting
options.
Outdoor Wood Boilers
a) Gather information on the nature and magnitude of air quality impacts;
b) Support development of ASTM consensus test method; and
-------
by the Air Work Group
c) Determine whether a regulatory or non-regulatory approach is warranted.
There are several examples (e.g., Crested Butte, CO) in various sizes of communities where
voluntary residential wood burning programs have been effectively implemented, particularly in
the western part of the U.S. to address PM10.
Feasibility: This recommendation is technically feasible because the cleaner technologies (50-
70% fewer PM emissions) are available and woodstove changeout programs have been successful
in the past. The idea is to greatly expand the effort and find creative ways to fund the woodstove
change outs, particularly for low income families. There are no federal standards that require
wood stove owners to replace their old dirty wood stoves (that owners often believe are "working
just fine" and appear to last forever) with a cleaner technology. Although changeout programs in
the past have depended heavily on manufacturer rebates and tax incentives, many of the people
who depend on wood as a primary heating source are low income and are not in a situation such
that they can take advantage of these incentives. Addressing this need will be a challenge.
Timing: The initiative would be gradually ramped up from demonstration projects to a program
between now and 2008 in those areas where wood smoke is a significant contributor to
nonattainment for PM2s and for those areas that may be close to nonattainment for PM2s. If
communities could identify foundations, businesses or other sources to obtain funding to
purchase stoves for low income families, the program could be especially effective and
woodstoves could be changed out by 2008, the likely attainment dates.
Resources: The estimated costs to EPA for FY '05 and FY '06 are $300,000 and 3-4 FTE for
each year. If the pilots are sufficiently successful, the cost to EPA could grow to $1M in FY 07.
The cost to State/Local/Tribal areas could be up to .5 FTE per location selected to assist in EPA's
pilots. If States/Locals or Tribes elect to conduct change out programs on their own using EPA's
model program developed, the cost per location would likely be up to 1 FTE. If communities are
successful in identifying sources of funding to purchase stoves for low income families, the
amounts they would need in FY '05 would be as little as $1-2M, and would grow in the out years
to $50M or more across the country. Manufacturers and retailers of woodstoves have historically
provided rebates of 10% to 20% per stove. Regardless of whether communities are successful in
securing funding to purchase stoves for low income people, some emission reductions will occur
from the outreach activities that EPA and the State/Local air pollution control agencies conduct
and the economic incentives provided by the manufacturers and retailers, however the magnitude
of the reductions would be significantly lower. Additional funds would be needed for EPA to
revise the NSPS.
Priority Level: High
-------
by the Air Work Group
2.11 Open Burning: EPA should work with S/L/T to encourage more vigorous control of
open burning, especially in, and adjacent to, counties with Class I areas and counties classified
as nonattainmentfor fme particles or ozone.
Background/Explanation: Open burning has been a difficult source of emissions to control due
to the complexities of alternative waste disposal methods, associated costs, and the mindsets of
many Americans who view open burning as acceptable and of little consequence to their health.
Yet open burning releases substantial emissions of fine particles, volatile organic compounds, and
carbon monoxide and lesser amounts of organic carbon, oxides of nitrogen, and other pollutants
of concern. Emissions from open burning, released near the ground and most often in relative
proximity to inhabited areas, contribute to urban smog, regional haze, and elevated fine
particulate and ozone readings and cause periodic localized exposures in excess of acceptable
risks.
Recommended Actions: EPA should:
1) Survey State and Local agencies and Tribes, identify current levels of control of open
burning nationwide, and update open burning emissions and control information.
2) Develop SIP guidance for States, Locals, and Tribes to outline procedures and calculation
methodologies for determining emissions reductions credit for more stringent regulation
of open burning activities.
3) Consolidate information on open burning emissions and health impacts into updated
informational documents, brochures, and flyers.
4) Develop an outreach strategy designed to inform States, Locals, and Tribes of the impacts
of open burning on air quality and to encourage tighter controls in areas with inadequate
regulation of open burning.
5) Encourage States, Locals, and Tribes to include bans or more stringent restrictions on
open burning in counties with a nonattainment area or a Class I area and in counties
adjacent to, or impacting, those areas.
6) Consider making open burning control strategies a component of nonattainment SIPs.
7) Develop a model open burning rule for use by States, Locals, and Tribes.
8) Work with EPA's Office of Solid Waste to determine if a national open burning rule is
worthwhile and, to the extent that such a determination is made, pursue development and
implementation of such a rule.
States, Local agencies, and Tribes should:
1) Review available data on emissions from open burning.
2) Seek tighter controls on open burning within their jurisdictions and especially so in the
vicinity of nonattainment and Class I areas.
3) Mount substantial public education campaigns to advise citizens of the impacts of open
burning and disposal alternatives.
4) Develop comprehensive waste management and disposal methods that reduce the
inclination of citizens to burn waste materials.
-------
by the Air Group
Benefits: Implementation of this recommendation would benefit public health by reducing
exposure to fine particles, ozone, NOX, VOCs, carbon monoxide, and toxic air pollutants.
Improvements in visibility would also be achieved which would help address the aesthetic goals
of the regional haze program. The nation's air pollution control agencies would benefit through
the resultant additional emission reductions that would contribute to meeting national ambient air
quality standards and aid in meeting reasonable further progress goals of the criteria pollutant and
regional haze programs.
Feasibility: This recommendation has a high feasibility for implementation because it can be
completed under existing statutory authority. It does not establish any proscriptive mandates that
would require regulatory action, with the exception of the recommendation to consider making
open burning control strategies a required component of nonattainment SIPs and to review the
possibility of creating a national open burning rule. Concerns include additional staff time to
conduct research and prepare informational documents, local reluctance to impose additional
regulatory controls on citizens, and inadequate regulatory agency staffing to enforce the
requirements at the Local, State, and Tribal level.
Timing: It is anticipated that the bulk of this recommendation could be implemented within one
year because only research and informational brochure development must be competed. The
exceptions are development of implementation guidance requiring open burning controls in SIPs
and possible development of a national open burning rule.
Resources: Redirection of existing efforts and personnel would be required. No significant
additional EPA resources are anticipated to implement this recommendation because the protocol
is non-regulatory and does not have to go through a formal public process. At the State, Local,
and Tribal level, enforcement of open burning requirements would place additional demands on
compliance staff, only some of which could be absorbed with current resource levels.
Priority Level: Medium
-------
by the Air Work Group
2.12 High-Emitting Gasoline Vehicles: EPA and S/L/T should reduce emissions from
high-emitting gasoline vehicles that are believed to contribute a high fraction of mobile source
emissions.
Background/Explanation: Most people are aware that increasingly stringent regulations on new
vehicle tailpipe emissions and improved durability of emissions controls have had a large and
positive effect on reducing overall fleet emissions. What is less well known is that an increasing
portion of the remaining emissions result from a relatively small fraction of high-emitting
vehicles, and that future emissions reduction will depend to an increasing degree on developing
an effective and politically acceptable means of identifying and dealing with these vehicles.
To date, the primary program for identifying high-emitting vehicles has been periodic tailpipe
testing within vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. Some I/M programs have
begun to phase out tailpipe testing for more recent (1996 and later) vehicles in favor of using the
onboard diagnostic (OBD-II) systems included in these vehicles. While other methods, especially
on-road vehicle remote sensing, have proven effective, in some cases, at evaluating fleet
emissions and, in a more limited role, in "clean screening" and "high-emitter identification"
programs, existing systems and methods have not yet been demonstrated to be sufficiently
effective to serve as the basis for a large scale high-emitter identification program.
California is considering a catalyst replacement program for model year 1984 to 1994 vehicles.
The replacement would be an OBD-compliant aftermarket converter. Preliminary testing has
shown significant, cost effective emission benefits. Incentives may be required to encourage
replacement when a vehicle is still meeting the required standards.
Recommended Actions: EPA and States/Locals/Tribes should:
1) Determine the aggregate impact of high-emitters on today's mobile source vehicle
inventory. Identify those areas where emissions from high-emitters contribute
significantly to the mobile source inventory. Analyze available data and develop new
data sources such as EPA's Kansas City study. Use untapped existing or new data
sources such as I/M databases and new manufacturer-run in-use data as it becomes
available.
2) Develop better means for analyzing EPA and manufacturer in-use testing data and
vehicle I/M records to identify patterns of vehicle emissions failures both as an aid in
repairing these vehicles and to provide feedback to manufacturers for improvements in
the durability of emissions control systems.
3) Encourage the continued development of on-road vehicle remote sensing or other
technologies that show promise for serving as the basis for future high-emitter
identification programs for pre-1996 vehicles. Until an effective and appropriate
alternative is available, encourage States to maintain their I/M infrastructure and to
continue testing pre-1996 vehicles.
4) Continue to evaluate the effectiveness of OBD systems, tailpipe emissions testing, and
new technologies to identify post-1996 high-emitting vehicles.
5) Make use of new technology as it becomes available in remote sensing and OBD to
improve detection.
6) Continue to work with State and Local I/M programs to provide technical information to
assist repair technicians regarding emissions-related failures and appropriate corrective
-------
by the Air Group
actions and, where appropriate, to advocate and support programs that remove from
service and scrap high-emitting vehicles, especially those not OBD-II equipped, for
which cost-effective repairs cannot be made.
7) Continue outreach on OBD to increase public response to repair high-emitters after they
are detected.
Feasibility: High. Some programs to gather needed data are already underway, such as the OBD
high-mileage study and the Kansas City study. EPA (or other stakeholders) would need to devote
additional resources to collect additional data to accurately determine the impact of high-emitters.
Other steps depend on development of new technology by others.
Timing: It is anticipated that these recommendations can be implemented in 3 to 4 years as
current studies are completed, new data becomes available for I/M and manufacturer in-use data,
and additional studies are initiated and completed.
Resources: Redirection of existing efforts and personnel would be required for new work while
existing resources would be used for work already underway.
Priority Level: Variable (depends on the impact of high-emitters on inventory)
-------
by the Air Work Group
2.13 Conformity: Conformity should be retained as part of the nation's AQM system.
Background/Explanation: The NRC found that "although individual vehicle emissions have
been reduced substantially over the past 30 years, those improvements have been offset at least
partially by continued increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT)" (Air Quality Management in
the United States, p. 139). The technology-based emissions standards under Title II of the Clean
Air Act limit pollution levels from each vehicle but not the total pollution from in-use motor
vehicles. Conformity is the key Clean Air Act program designed to manage cumulative
emissions. Transportation conformity requires that the overall air pollution levels from motor
vehicles on highway segments and in a metropolitan area, including emissions due to planned
transportation projects, will be consistent with emissions levels necessary to assure the timely
attainment and maintenance of the health-based national ambient air quality standards.
The NRC found that the transportation conformity program has "fostered greater interaction"
between transportation planning and air quality regulatory agencies (p. 141). As a result, these
agencies have gained "more knowledge about and a greater appreciation for one another's
missions, responsibilities and procedures"; furthermore, "most transportation officials also seem
to accept the legitimacy and high priority of environmental values in transportation decision-
making" (141).
The NRC also determined that "the conformity requirement has had the largest impact on
NAAQS nonattainment areas experiencing rapid growth" (141). A pivotal prospective question,
in the NRC's judgment, is how "the conflicts between transportation and air quality goals in such
areas will be resolved and whether the federal government will remain firm in enforcing the
regulation" (142).
Recommended Actions:
1) Transportation conformity must be retained.
2) Conformity's current key requirements and schedules must be retained and effectively
enforced as an important measure to help achieve and maintain compliance with the
national ambient air quality standards. The current planning timetable requiring
transportation plans to have a 20-year horizon is consonant with the long-term planning
and investment in new highway projects as well as central Clean Air Act timetables for
nonattainment and maintenance plans. To ensure durability and integrity in the air quality
planning and management process, EPA must continue to require conformity to
attainment emissions budgets after the year of attainment has passed. The requirement to
revise transportation conformity analyses every three years is necessary to ensure
conformity is based on current data and is consistent with EPA's recently adopted State
requirement for triennial emissions inventory reporting.
3) Future administrative action should consider: (1) protection of sensitive populations from
localized, elevated particle pollution concentrations due to vehicle emissions near
highways, interchanges, terminals, and schools; and (2) expansion of emissions budgets
under the general conformity program to limit emissions from other significant
transportation sectors including, for example, marine ports, rails, airports and freight.
Feasibility: Maintaining the current requirements and schedules is highly feasible. It is uncertain
whether legislation supported by the administration, that would shorten the period of time
covered by conformity determinations, will be adopted.
-------
by the Air Group
Timing: No program disruption will occur if the current requirements and schedules are
maintained. If legislation to shorten the time period covered by conformity becomes law, it would
take effect immediately.
Resources: Maintaining the current requirements and schedules requires no additional resources.
Legislation shortening the time period covered by conformity determinations would not require
any significant resources and might reduce the conformity-related burden in some areas.
However, long-term air quality impacts of on road emissions will no longer be evaluated. EPA
headquarters would be required to revise the conformity regulation to account for this.
Priority Level: Low
(Note: Priority is low because there is an effective program in place. At this time, areas are not
having significant problems demonstrating conformity for the final year of their transportation
plan. This is most likely due to emission reductions attributable to the Tier 2 and heavy-duty
diesel rules.)
B-50 ::
-------
by the Air Work Group
3.1 Align SIP Submittal Dates: Because ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze SIPs have
similar elements and are likely to contain similar control strategies, EPA, the States /Locals /
Tribes, and other stakeholders should strive to align the submittal dates of the three SIPs. This
recommendation is not intended to suggest changes to any deadlines for attainment or
implementation of control strategies, or to imply that a single SIP should be required for ozone,
PM2.s, and regional haze. It is further recommended that, in the future, EPA should align
designation dates, as appropriate, to promote multipollutant SIP development.
Background/Explanation: Finding a way to combine all of these SIPs would provide immense
efficiencies for the States, regional planning organizations, the public and EPA. The deadlines are
close enough in time that a way should be found for States to be able to develop the three SIPs
together.
For many States there is likely to be overlap between the technical basis for, and the ultimate
development of, control strategies necessary to address the 8-hour ozone, PM2 5 and regional haze
SIPs. For example, regional NOX reductions from the same source categories will likely be a
necessary element for all three plans. The resources saved from a holistic analysis and the
development of a single strategy as opposed to incremental adjustments within a few months time
has the potential of being significant. Similarly, whether the State develops a single SIP or
separate SIPs, the logistical resources associated with the processing of SIPs and the public
participation process has the potential to be reduced if multiple hearings, analyses and responses
to comments are not necessary due to the disparate deadlines.
Recommended Actions: Because PM2 5, ozone and regional haze share some of the same
precursors and because the timelines are similar, EPA, the States / Locals / Tribes, and other
stakeholders should strive to align the submittal dates of these three SIPs. However, recognizing
that it is difficult for States to accelerate adoption of the PM2 5 and regional haze SIPs to coincide
with the schedule for 8-hour ozone SIPs, EPA should identify incentives (modeling assistance,
other technical assistance, resources, detailing of personnel, etc.) it could provide States in order
to assist them in accelerating the States' preparation of regional haze and PM25 SIPs.
Feasibility: The time frames for regional haze and PM2 5 are aligned; however, the time frames
for ozone and PM2 5 are offset by 6 to 8 months. Aligning all three SIPs or developing a
multipollutant SIP will require an acceleration of planning for PM2 5 and regional haze.
There are also technical issues with multipollutant modeling (discussed below). However,
traditional modeling could still be used to develop a multipolluant SIP. States' unfamiliarity with
multipollutant modeling is a challenge for accelerating schedules. CAMx and CMAQ are
photochemical grid models that are being used to assess 8-hour ozone, PM2 5 and regional haze.
These models are currently being used by States and EPA for various purposes but experience is
still limited. In addition, the modeling episodes for different pollutants will be different as ozone
is a summertime problem and PM is a year-round problem. This may reduce the resource savings
that can be obtained by developing these SIPs together.
Timing: For this option to be meaningful for the next round of SIPs, States would need
guidance/ability to develop such SIPs in the immediate future as SIPs will be due in the 2007
(ozone) to 2008 (PM2 5/regional haze) time frame. Even if developed within a year, guidance may
not be timely enough for States to use, particularly those that have long rule making time frames.
Resources: Whether States develop these SIPs together or separately, States and EPA will need
to develop the resources to implement these SIPs. Implementation of a multipollutant approach
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
may require increased resource commitment in the beginning in order to achieve resources
savings in the long term.
Priority Level: High
B-52 ::
-------
by the Air Work Group
3.2 Protocol for SIP Development: Each State should work with the appropriate EPA
Regional Office to develop and implement a protocol for SIP development and processing that
would lay out responsibilities, expectations, and timelines for all parties. While a model protocol
should be developed, the EPA Regional Office and each State should have the flexibility to design
a protocol tailored to their specific needs.
Background/Explanation: The lack of effective and consistent communication between States
and EPA historically has been an impediment to development and processing of SIPs. EPA does
not always provide assistance to State, Local and Tribal agencies early enough in their planning
processes to address issues such as inventories, modeling, quantification of reductions from
particular control strategies, and regulation review. Likewise States and Local agencies do not
consistently provide EPA with draft versions of SIPs to review and comment upon prior to the
formal public comment period and hearing. This lack of coordination has resulted in difficulties
in meeting Clean Air Act deadlines for submittal of required SIPs.
Many States will face the difficult challenge of having to develop three major SIPs, for ozone,
PM2 5 and regional haze, within the next three years. There will be many issues requiring EPA
input and approval which must be accomplished in a methodical way. Consequently, some States
and Regions may wish to take advantage of this protocol concept to ensure the timely
development, submittal and approval of these SIPs.
Recommended Actions: To avoid delays in the SIP approval process and to limit the insertion of
new demands by EPA late in the process (after public hearings and legislative action are well
underway at the State level):
1) EPA should develop a model protocol that, if desired, could be used by its Regional
Offices in negotiating specific protocols with their States.
2) EPA Regional Offices and their States should jointly foster the development of a protocol
outlining the SIP process. This protocol should:
a) Include enough flexibility to address all types of SIP submittals, though more
complex control strategy SIPs may need an expanded version of the basic protocol to
include emission inventory development, model selection, etc. For example:
attainment demonstrations, and rate of progress (ROP) plans for PM2 5, ozone and
regional haze.
b) Lay out responsibilities and expectations of all parties as they move through the
entire process.
c) Include input from not only the State and the EPA Regional Office, but also the
Office of Air and Radiation and the EPA Offices of Regional and General Counsel as
appropriate.
d) Be signed by the Regional Administrator and the State Secretary (may be delegated
to the EPA Regional Air Division Director and State Air Director).
e) Identify the role of any Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) or Multi-
Jurisdictional Organizations (MJOs) in process.
f) Incorporate regular mechanisms for communication (e.g., monthly State-EPA calls);
expected turnaround for EPA review of State materials (e.g., interim approval steps);
and more streamlined processes for simpler SIPs.
-------
by the Air Group
g) Include accountability mechanisms such as a computer-based system which tracks
the scheduled dates and actual dates of completion of each step of the protocol to
ensure that EPA and the States follow the agreements. An analysis of both State and
EPA performance should be conducted annually and any corrective actions
identified.
h) Identify the role of any MJO or RPO in process.
i) Recognize that under EPA's formal Delegation Manual, SIP approvals have been
delegated to the RAs.
j) Include a process whereby a State consults with Tribal governments potentially
affected by the SIP.
k) Include a process whereby a Tribe, especially one in a nonattainment area, may work
with the State in developing a SIP for that area.
Feasibility: This recommendation is certainly legally feasible to implement because it may be
completed under existing statutory authority and only requires that a State and Regional Office
develop and sign a protocol.
Issues/Obstacles may include:
• The model protocol may suggest timelines; however, each State and Region must have
the flexibility to negotiate the timelines in a specific protocol recognizing such issues as
the differences from State to State in the length of their adoption processes. Realistic
timelines will aid in long-term accountability.
• Some EPA Regional Offices have multiple SIPs being developed in as many as six to
eight States simultaneously. Therefore, any model protocol will recognize that work load
and be realistically tailored to fit the needs of a given State and Region.
• Not all States and Regions feel that such a protocol is a high priority dependent upon the
current State/Regional relationship and whether or not a significant SIP backlog exists in
the Regional Office.
Timing: It is anticipated that this recommendation can be implemented in 6-9 months for the
protocol itself to be developed. To be most useful, should be completed within that time frame.
Additional time will be needed for signature agreements and to establish a tracking mechanism or
to modify each Region's current tracking system to reflect the timelines of the protocol.
Resources: Redirection of existing effort and personnel. No significant additional resources are
anticipated to implement this recommendation because the protocol is non-regulatory and does
not have to go through a formal public process. The cost associated with this recommendation is
the time of the EPA Regional and State personnel charged with the development of the protocol.
It is strongly recommended that personnel with experience in both SIP development and
SIP processing undertake the development of the protocol.
Priority Level: High
B-54 ::
-------
by the Air Work Group
3.3 Clearinghouse of Approved SIPs: EPA should develop a website, similar to the Best
Available Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) clearinghouse,
containing interpretations of rules and other SIP/TIP approval-related issues. This website could
contain both policy and/or technical information depending on how it is developed. Each EPA
Regional Office should develop a website, to be updated every 12 months on or about October 1,
that identifies and provides links to all statutory and regulatory requirements in the federally
approved SIP, including associated State and federal legal citations and effective dates.
Background/Explanation: Questions regarding general SIP/TIP approvability arise with some
frequency. Many times these questions have been already been raised and answered. Because
there is no central repository for this information, the process for finding answers, or even
creating an entirely new process to arrive at the same or different answers, can be very time and
resource consuming.
An October 1st update for the Regional Office website is important because the term "updated
annually" could result in updates occurring, for example, on January 1, 2005, and December 31,
2006, which meet the "annual test" but would be in actuality a 2-year span.
Recommended Actions: EPA should develop this clearinghouse. This would probably be on the
Technology Transfer Network portion of EPA's website but could be developed by a Region or
Regions and/or OAQPS. It is important that information is easily accessed on the website or it
will have defeated its original intent.
Additionally, each EPA regional office should develop a website containing all of the statutory
and regulatory content of the applicable SIPs over which it has jurisdiction. For each statutory
and regulatory requirement in the applicable SIP, this website should contain at least the
following information: (a) a citation of (including title) and link to every State statute and
regulation that is included in the applicable SIP; (b) the State effective date; (c) the federal
publication date; (d) the federal effective date; and (e) the applicable federal register citation.
Each of the above websites should be updated no less frequently than by October 1 of each year.
Benefits: A centralized and publicly available database of SIP approval issues, responses to
comments, and other types of decisions would assist EPA staff, States and the public to
understand what issues have arisen previously and how they were decided. This would improve
efficiency and consistency of Federal, State, Tribal and Local agencies.
Feasibility: Feasibility is high. This would not require any legal, statutory or regulatory changes.
Possible hurdles include lack of resources.
Timing: Timing on this project is not critical as there are no deadlines that would render this
project obsolete. It could, however, be helpful in developing the upcoming ozone, PM2 5 and
regional haze SIPs if it was done sooner.
Resources: There may be direct monetary costs associated with this project if contractors are
used. Otherwise it will require personnel hours which would be spent finding information,
designing this website, actually building the website, filling in the database, etc.
Priority Level: Medium
B-55
-------
by the Air Group
3.4 Streamline Minor SIP Revisions: .For the SIP approval/disapproval phase of the air
quality management process, EPA should establish a de minimis level for SIP revisions and
streamline the processing of these revisions by the use of "letter approvals " or similar expedited
procedures signed by the Regional Administrator. EPA should, in consultation with S/L/T and
other stakeholders, develop a listing of the types of SIP actions that are eligible for streamlined
processing.
Background/Explanation: There are certain SIP revisions submitted by States which revise only
administrative State requirements, apply to a very narrow and often specified group of sources in
a small geographic area, and/ or have quantifiable emissions changes (increases or reductions)
which have minimal (i.e., de minimis) impact on overall emissions levels or PSD increment
consumption in a given geographic area (especially designated attainment areas). Yet, such
official State submittals must still undergo the full administrative process that is required of all
Federal rulemaking actions. A survey of SIP revisions that are currently undergoing review in the
Regional offices is likely to reveal that a significant number (perhaps 25% to 35%) of all formal
SIP submittals consist of State provisions which would result in a de minimis impact Because of
the sheer volume of these revisions, the processing by EPA is often slow, and becomes a source
of frictions between States and the Regional Offices. This process includes a separate review by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of all final rulemaking actions where EPA
announces full disapproval of a SIP revision request.
Recommended Actions:
1) EPA, with input from States and Tribes (both program offices and attorneys) should
institute a process for developing guidance which defines what could be considered de
minimis with respect to SIP revisions, both in terms of subject matter and emissions limit.
Regulatory change which could increase emissions on a nonattainment area or an OTC-
like area or which would result in consumption of a PSD increment might not be
candidates for the de minimis process. However, some source-specific emission limit
changes might be considered de minimis. Also, recodification actions which involve no
substantive revisions to a State's regulatory text could be considered de minimis, as might
be revisions where State incorporates by reference an existing Federal requirement.
2) EPA should revisit and update the January 30, 1989 policy memo on letter notices, and
see whether such actions could still be used for the processing of de minimis actions.
Also, if a SIP revision is processed through a letter notice, then we need clear guidance
from OGC as to what the effective SIP date would be.
3) As an alternative, EPA could "bundle" in one rulemaking action (direct final, whenever
possible) a series of separate formal SIP submittals which meet the de minimis criteria.
4) EPA should work with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to explain the
concept of de minimis actions and request an exemption to the OMB review process in
the event of a full disapproval of a de minimis SIP action.
5) EPA should apply, as often as possible, the de minimis review process to other low-key
Federal plan actions such as Section 11 l(d)/129 plan revisions.
6) EPA should work with States to ensure that certain State administrative provisions
governing the State regulatory and enforcement process are not submitted as SIP
revisions, not even under a streamlined de minimis process. Section 110 only requires
that States have a public hearing process and an enforcement program. The State
procedures, by which public hearings are announced, held and recorded or how search
B-56 ::
-------
by the Air Work Group
warrants are obtained and executed need not be in the SIP. The exemption of such State
administrative provisions from SIP review would prevent the tying-up of EPA resources
to process SIP revisions that have virtually no environmental impact.
Feasibility: The feasibility of this process depends on certain legal decisions:
1) Whether EPA, States, and Tribes can come to consensus as to what constitutes a de
minimis revision.
2) Whether the issuance of an approval letter notice can set the effective date of the SIP or
other plan revision. If the attorneys determine that only a Federal Register notice action
can set the effective date, then the use of letter notice procedures may not produce the
desired outcome of expeditious SIP processing. However, if the attorneys come to a
consensus that making SIP actions effective through the issuance of letter notices meets
the requirements of the APA, and results in expedited Federal effective dates, then the
use of Letter Notices for de minimis actions should be utilized to the fullest extent.
3) Whether OMB is likely to grant an exemption for its review of a full disapproval action,
if such action is taken for a revision that EPA has determined to be de minimis.
4) Whether further streamlining of the Direct Final Rule process could be considered.
Examples would be a 15-day comment period or an effective date of 45 days after
publication of the Direct Final rule notices.
5) How the RME Docket system, which enhances the public's ability to review and
comment on EPA decisions, would need to be modified to accommodate EPA decisions
made through a letter notice or similar expedited processes.
6) Whether EPA would have to develop and publish a blanket rulemaking action to explain
to the public how the rulemaking process ofdi minimis actions would be handled. EPA
followed this step to explain: 1) the use of the direct final rulemaking process; and 2) the
rule process which allowed Regional Administrators to sign final rulemaking actions.
Such a formal action on the process of handling de minimis actions may assure the
legality of the use of the expedited process for individual de minimis actions.
Timing: This recommendation could be implemented in 12 to 18 months since 1) processes and
procedures need to be developed; and 2) EPA would have to prepare a Federal Register notice
signed by the EPA Administrator, announcing to interested parties the streamlined rulemaking
process for de minimis SIP [and other plan] actions.
Resources: EPA could utilize the standing National SIP Processing Work Group, comprise of
representatives from all 10 Regions, OAQPS and OGC. The Work Group also interacts with
EPA's Federal Register liaison as well as legal staff from the Office of the Federal Register. If so
determined, the Work Group could work with a committee of State and Tribal representatives to
help implement the process to define the scope of de minimis SIP [and other plan] actions and a
process for providing expedited Federal Review.
Priority Level: High
B-57
-------
by the Air Group
3.5 Timely EPA Guidance: EPA guidance should be issued in sufficient time for States to
meet their SIP development deadlines. EPA should involve S/L/T and other appropriate parties in
its guidance development process. In cases where guidance is delayed, EPA should take into
consideration States' efforts to meet deadlines without the benefit of the appropriate policy
guidance.
Background/Explanation: States cannot develop SIPs without guidance. Frequently, States are
placed in the position of having to prepare SIPs under a specific deadline, but are dependent on
EPA to develop guidance for the SIP. Delay by EPA in preparing guidance can cause: 1) States to
be rushed in meeting their deadlines; 2) States to miss deadlines for submittal; and 3) States to
develop SIPs which may later have to be revised in order to be accepted. This can lead to
criticism of EPA due to lack of timely performance and blame of EPA for failure to make timely
SIP submittals. Missing deadlines can cause States embarrassment and criticism from the public,
at a minimum, and can cause sanctions, at worst. EPA is also criticized for not involving
stakeholders (States/Tribes and others) in development of guidance. Not involving stakeholders
usually results in guidance that is difficult to implement, requires excessive resources by the
States and invites litigation by the excluded stakeholders. This paper focuses on SIP actions;
however, if there are non-SIP actions where EPA guidance is critical and timing is of the essence
in order to avoid an adverse reaction, such as sanction clocks, then the product of this effort
should be implemented in those situations as well.
Recommended Actions:
1) EPA should institute a process for developing guidance which:
a) Recognizes the timeline the States are under to implement the SIP involved.
b) Establishes a priority and plan which will ensure that the guidance is published in
time for State's use to meet deadlines.
c) Includes stakeholders in developing the guidance, guidance review and setting the
priority for guidance. The Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) could serve
this role, as could STAPPA. The chosen organization should also evaluate a
restatement by EPA of what the agency is doing now and determining if
modifications to our stakeholder process are necessary.
d) Ensures that adequate EPA resources are applied to the guidance.
e) Delegates decisions within EPA to facilitate more timely guidance.
2) This process should be accomplished as a pilot. The pilot should explore what
regulation/guidance development within EPA is felt by States and stakeholders to be
working well. In the short term, the best aspects of process(es) determined to be working
well should be identified and instituted into this process for developing guidance.
3) EPA responds best when under a deadline. This is especially true for actions under court
deadlines or consent decree deadlines. In order to set deadlines, EPA should indicate in
the final Federal Register notice if any guidance is still needed after a rule is finalized.
The Federal Register should identify the target date for completion of such guidance.
Feasibility: The recommendation is feasible in that it only requires the establishment of a process
to ensure the timely development of guidance. One obstacle to accomplishing this may include
established organizational bureaucracies which have review and concurrence authority and do not
have responsibility for meeting deadlines in guidance development. In other words, there should
B
*
-------
by the Air Work Group
be as much urgency in developing guidance as there is in developing rules. Another obstacle may
be lack of staff resources necessary to develop the guidance in the necessary time frame. Staff are
often working on multiple projects at any given time and cannot always devote the time needed to
develop the guidance and follow it through the review and concurrence process.
Timing: This recommendation should be implemented in six months. Since it would not be tied
to any one specific SIP schedule, it is difficult to specify a due date, other than as quickly as
possible.
Resources: Resources should be a small project team made up of staff with experience in
guidance document preparation, and process and procedures development. Guidance is
nonregulatory and will not have to go through a formal public process; therefore, no resources
required for public process.
Priority Level: High
-------
by the Air Group
3.6 Avoid Unnecessary Public Hearings: EPA should work with States and Tribes to
develop a model regulation that would require a public hearing for SIP revisions only if one is
requested after public notice. This recommendation is not intended to restrict public comment in
any way; it is meant only to eliminate those hearings that no one attends.
Background/Explanation: The CAA has long been interpreted to require a public hearing be
held by States for all SIPs and SIP revisions prior to their submittal to EPA. Holding public
hearings is resource-intensive in terms of time and expense to the State. The use of State
resources is justifiable when interested parties testify at the hearing. However, those resources are
wasted in many instances where no comments or testimony are offered at the public hearing.
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that States hold a public hearing for any prospective SIP
revision. This requirement is repeated in regulations at 40 CFR 51.102. However, 40 CFR
51.102(g)(2) provides that "Procedures different from this part may be approved if they (i) ensure
public participation in matters for which hearings are required; and (ii) provide adequate public
notification of the opportunity to participate." Minimal case law exists to judge what EPA might
be able to approve as a de minimis deviation from holding a public hearing for every prospective
SIP revision. It is certainly possible, however, that revisions that do not involve rule revisions, de
minimis rule revisions that involve no changes to what the regulated community is required to do,
most maintenance plan revisions, and many source-specific revisions may be defensible
candidates for EPA approval based upon a process whereby the State offers the public the
opportunity to request a hearing but holds such hearing only upon request.
Recommended Actions: A workgroup comprised of members of EPA's Office of General
Counsel, EPA Regional Counsels and States Attorneys General, and Tribal attorneys13 should
undertake a review of the CAA to determine whether a holding a public hearing only upon
request could satisfy section 110(a) for SIPs/SIP revisions. The workgroup should address the
following questions:
• Is a statutory change to the CAA is required?
• If not appropriate for all SIPs, can a subset of SIP revisions be identified where a holding
a public hearing only upon request would be sufficient to satisfy the CAA?
• Are there Tribal laws or considerations that would impact the issue differently for TIPs?
If no statutory changes to the CAA are required, the workgroup should develop a model
regulation for States adopt for SIP approval that provides the circumstances and procedures for
holding SIP revision hearings only upon request to satisfy section 110(a). If statutory changes to
the CAA are required, the workgroup should identify what provisions of section 110(a) must be
revised and recommend language for such changes. This recommendation is not intended to
address issues of who has standing to request a public hearing; the recommendation assumes that
if anyone requests a hearing, then a hearing will be held.
Feasibility: Some subset of SIP revisions may be able to be identified for which the State could
provide the opportunity for a public hearing and hold one only upon request to satisfy section
13 EPA and an interested State should pursue a pilot project to explore specific procedures to use for specified types of
prospective SIP revisions and to explore the legal issues of instituting and implementing such procedures. The State
of Minnesota has commenced this process with EPA Region 5. They should participate in and advise the
recommended workgroup of their efforts.
-------
by the Air Work Group
110(a). To make the opportunity for hearing only upon request sufficient for all SIP revisions
may require a statutory change to section 110(a).
Timing: The legal workgroup could be convened by EPA, ECOs/STAPPA/ALAPCO, NTC and
charged with completing the recommended actions by a given date. The Recommended Actions
should be implemented as soon as possible and completed well before the next round of SIPs
revisions are required for 8-hour ozone, PM2 5 and regional haze.
Resources: The cost to EPA/States/Tribes would the time of their attorneys.
Priority Level: High
B-61
-------
by the Air Group
3.7 Facilitate Redesignation Process for Certain Areas: For those areas that have
not pursued and been granted redesignation when initially eligible, and have continued to
demonstrate violation-free ambient air quality data for several years, EPA should expedite the
redesignation process. EPA should ensure that all Regions and States are aware of the simplified
procedures. This recommendation is not intended to change the requirements for redesignation
under the CAA.
Background/Explanation: States should not be required to meet needlessly complex and
resource-intensive requirements to redesignate nonattainment areas that have five or more years
of violation free ambient air quality data that has been quality assured/quality controlled and
entered into the national Air Quality Systems database. This is particularly true of areas with slow
or no projected growth in emissions over a ten-year maintenance period.
Recommended Actions: All EPA Regional Offices should disseminate and provide any needed
assistance on the implementation of both the May 10, 1995 Clean Data Policy (CDP) and the
"Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PMi0 Nonattainment Areas, commonly referred
to as the Limited Maintenance Plan Policy (LMPP). The CDP allows the Part D SIP requirements
of an approved attainment demonstration, rate of progress (ROP) plan and their associated
contingency measures to be waived in areas with three or more years of violation free data.
Similarly, the Limited Maintenance Plan Policy (LMPP) can exempt an area from modeled
maintenance demonstration. These policies change and simplify the technical requirements for
redesignation, not the legal requirements.
Feasibility: This recommendation is feasible. It has already been implemented on a limited basis
by EPA Regions 3 and 4 during the processing of several state redesignation requests (and
associated maintenance plans) for ozone and PMi0. The use of the CDP and LMPP has not yet
faced a legal challenge but, properly implemented, both policies are considered defensible by
EPA's Office of General Counsel.
Currently, there are issues restricting the use of the CDP and LMPP for SO2 and CO
nonattainment areas. These issues are addressed in the September 4, 1992 memorandum entitled,
"Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment."
Many States choose not to redesignate because there are no regulatory drivers encouraging
redesignation; plus States may find advantages to retaining nonattainment status.
Timing: Can be implemented immediately.
Resources: The only resources necessary would be those in educating the EPA Regions,
State/Local/Tribal entities that are unfamiliar with these policies.
Priority Level: Low
-------
by the Air Work Group
3.8 Effective Communication with Constituencies: EPA, along with S/L/Tshould
develop a menu of options for effective communication to build support with a wide variety of
constituencies for clean air plans at the S/L/T level.
Background/Explanation: The NRC report concluded that the SIP process is overly
bureaucratic, drawing attention and resources away from the relevant issues of tracking progress
and assessing performance. Both State officials and the regulated community complain that the
planning process is cumbersome, lengthy and difficult for the public to comprehend, which
encumbers the goal of developing and adopting air quality control plans, and attaining and
maintaining national ambient air standards.
Recommended Actions: Elements of these plans are frequently the subject of public lawsuits.
Yet successfully engaging the public early in the SIP development process builds general
understanding and support. Although some States and local air agencies achieve this through their
current outreach programs, some do not. These discussions are timely as States prepare to
develop SIPs for new federal ambient air quality standards for 8-hour ozone and PM2 5.
A more aggressive marketing approach can help educate the public about the need to clean up
local air pollution; getting the public involved in the SIP process is much more difficult. Often air
agencies only hear from those members of the public who have 1) time and resources to send
representatives to meetings; or 2) financial interests at stake, which make the expenditure of time
and resources worthwhile. Even the environmental community often cannot participate fully due
to limited staff and financial resources.
Influencing community opinion leaders is a tested means of shaping public opinion, particularly
in the short-term. However, all too often State and federal agencies do not use these techniques
because of staff and resource limitations or department policies which constrain outreach.
Although transmitting a message to the people who help shape public opinion is critical, merely
sending press releases or letters of invitation to a community meeting is not effective. States and
local air agencies must engage them directly.
Building support for newer pollutant programs requires public education about the direct health
risks associated with ozone and PM Fine. Effective outreach is most often achieved at the local
level, where communities can relate to specifics and risks that may effect them and motivate
behavioral change. Some methods to collaborate with States and engage the public locally could
include the following actions:
• Target key opinion leaders. States and local air offices should initiate or expand the use
of editorial board meetings to reach key media opinion leaders.
• States and locals should develop relationships with local reporters covering the issue.
• All States and locals should be sure that the Air Quality Index is forecast and reported in
weather reports in their communities.
• States and locals should meet with local leaders in the Chambers of Commerce in their
areas.
• States and locals should make presentations to key civic groups in the community.
• States and locals should meet with leaders in the religious community and work with
them to reach out to their membership.
:: B-83
-------
by the Air Group
• States and locals should meet with leaders in neighborhood associations and work with
them to reach out to their membership.
• States and locals should meet with local and State environmental and public health
groups to enlist their involvement in the process and their partnership in outreach efforts.
• States and locals should meet with key elected officials early and often in the process to
keep them and their key staff informed.
• EPA should host focus group meetings to identify messages that build support for these
issues.
• EPA should develop outreach materials targeted to diverse communities that explain the
SIP process and the health effects of air pollution.
• EPA should offer training on efficient web content development for local government
sites, incorporating AIR NOW real-time ozone and PM projections.
• STAPPA/ALAPCO and EPA should identify and catalog existing resources and develop
additional appropriate tools based on targeted audiences.
• EPA should schedule State public meetings/workshops during SIP/rule development.
• STAPPA/ALAPCO and EPA should identify additional financial and staff resources to
help agencies develop, produce and disseminate appropriate tools that reach targeted
audiences, with the goal of garnering public support for the SIP process.
Feasibility: It is likely that these recommendations will be implemented if expertise between
federal, State and local agencies are shared. The STAPPA/ALAPCO Public Education and
Communications Committee may be an appropriate group to coordinate this effort. EPA's role
can include development and dissemination of outreach materials that are nationally applicable,
as well as improving how information may be made available on its website.
Timing: As SIP development progresses, public involvement should be actively encouraged
throughout the process.
Resources: Redirection of existing effort and personnel; additional resources should be
considered as outreach planning intensifies.
Priority Level: Medium
-------
by the Air Work Group
3.9 Co-Benefits of Innovative Measures: EPA and S/L/T should work collectively to
communicate the co-benefits associated with innovative measures.
Background/Explanation: The public is concerned with basic goals, such as improving public
health and increasing economic and environmental benefits. When considering pollution control
alternatives, broader support of a measure can be realized by determining and articulating the
range of co-benefits provided by the measure. Overemphasis on receiving SIP credit for new and
innovative types of pollution control initiatives limits public understanding and support for such
initiatives.
Recommended Actions: In evaluating an innovative measure, or bundle of measures:
• EPA and States should communicate how proposed strategies and innovations would
improve quality of life more generally.
Feasibility: This recommendation has a high feasibility for implementation because in August
2004, the EPA committed to continue to bring stakeholders from federal, State, local, and tribal
agencies, the public, and the regulated community together for an annual Air Innovations
Conference. The conference will highlight the benefits of new and innovative air quality projects
going on around the United States and encourage dialogue among stakeholders.
Timing: It is anticipated that this recommendation can be implemented in 6-9 months as EPA has
already committed to hold an annual Air Innovations Conference for the purpose of improving
the dialogue among stakeholders.
Resources: Only minor redirection of existing efforts and personnel would be required.
Priority Level: High
B-65
-------
by the Air Group
3.10 Innovative and Voluntary Measures: EPA should encourage States' and Tribes'
efforts to implement innovative measures by providing enhanced flexibility, SIP/TIP credit
guidance, technical support, and funding for innovative and voluntary programs.
Background/Explanation: As areas continue to experience challenges in meeting air quality
standards many still have to adopt and implement additional measures to meet the SIP
requirements for attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), rate of progress (ROP) or
maintenance requirements. Some areas have implemented most available traditional emission
control strategies and want to try new types of pollutant reduction strategies to attain or maintain
the NAAQS. The EPA needs to continue to develop policy and technical guidance for the purpose
of providing States and Tribes with the flexibility to test and use new and innovative emission
reduction strategies in their SIPs/TIPs.
Recommended Actions: To continue to encourage, foster and support innovative and voluntary
programs and measures in SIPs/TIPs, EPA should take the following actions:
1) EPA should clarify and expand the channels through which States and Tribes may gain
SIP/TIP credit for innovative measures by issuing additional enabling guidance and by
balancing the level of effort required for approval (recordkeeping, reporting, etc.) with
the level of environmental benefits anticipated. EPA has begun this process by issuing
new policy and guidance covering:
• SIP credit for voluntary and emerging measures
• SIP credit for energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives
• SIP credit for reductions in truck and locomotive idling emissions
2) EPA should create a clearinghouse for information on new technologies, innovative
approaches, mentoring resources, and "off-the-shelf measures, pilot projects, and
quantification techniques. As an initial step, EPA is creating an interactive Innovations
website to assist State/local/tribal governments in their efforts to implement innovative
and voluntary programs.
3) Building off successful pilot studies, EPA should develop sector-based guidance that
would synthesize and clarify innovative technological approaches to reducing pollution in
the key sectors.
4) EPA should offer targeted funding to promote innovation. EPA has begun this process by
providing funding for the following specific innovative projects: 1) Pollution Control
Strategy Rapid Assessment & Optimization Tool (Response Surface Model) to provide
state/local agencies accurate and economical tools for quickly determining the most cost-
effective local strategies for meeting air quality standards; 2) Residential Wood Smoke
Reduction Initiative; 3) grants for State/Local Innovative Approaches to Reducing Air
Pollution; and 4) grant(s) for stationary diesel retrofit project.
Feasibility: This recommendation has a high feasibility for implementation because it can be
completed under existing statutory authority and only requires that EPA continue to focus on
providing responsive and timely guidance and technical support.
Timing: It is anticipated that this recommendation can be implemented in 6-9 months as many of
the action items are already under development or consideration by the EPA.
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Resources: Only minor redirection of existing efforts and personnel would be required as many
of the action items are already under development or consideration by the EPA.
Priority Level: High
:: B-67
-------
by the Air Group
3.11 SIP Credits for Bundled Innovative Measures: EPA should incentivtze
innovative pollution control strategies by offering SIP/TIP credit for "bundled and discounted"
measures.
Background/Explanation: States and Tribes are often discouraged from adopting innovative
measures because those measures are typically too small-scale to result in significant SIP/TIP
credit. In addition, results of those measures may be hard to quantify or verify individually. In the
aggregate, however, such measures can significantly impact air quality. Currently, EPA has
increased the amount of SIP credit States can earn for stationary voluntary and emerging
(innovative) measures to a presumptive 6 percent through its latest guidance document on
Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a SIP (September 2004).
Recommended Actions: EPA should encourage States to experiment with new and innovative
approaches to air pollution. Specifically, EPA should:
• Grant States and Tribes SIP/TIP credit upfront for a "bundle" of small, innovative
measures and evaluate the measures in the aggregate by looking at air quality
improvements after implementation. An appropriate discount factor should be applied to
the credit, considering the amount of credit claimed and the level of uncertainty
associated with quantifying the actual air quality benefits of the bundled measures.
Feasibility: This recommendation has a high feasibility for implementation because of EPA's
recent policy on "Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a SIP" which enables a
State to receive SIP credit for emission reduction or pollutant reduction measures which are more
difficult to accurately quantify or enforce than traditional SIP emission reduction measures.
However, any approval of "bundled" measures in a SIP will need to be conducted through full
notice-and-comment rulemaking in the context of a particular state SIP revision.
Timing: It is anticipated that this recommendation can be implemented in 6-9 months as the
overall enabling policy framework is now in place in the form of EPA's recently issued guidance
on "Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a SIP."
Resources: Only minor redirection of existing efforts and personnel would be required as a
policy and guidance framework is already in place.
Priority Level: High
-------
by the Air Work Group
3.12 Regional Approaches to SIP Planning: For many areas, planning for new SIPs or
major revisions to existing SIPs for two or more separate nonattainment areas that are both part
of the same regional scale air quality problem should be coordinated. If requested by a State,
EPA should work with the different nonattainment areas, Tribes and combinations ofmultistate
organizations and other stakeholders, as appropriate, to assist in the development of regional
approaches to planning. This could include technical assistance such as modeling, national or
regional control strategies, model SIPs, and model rules as templates for S/L/T adoption.
Background/Explanation: The interstate transport of criteria pollutants and criteria pollutant
precursors make State-by-State planning both impractical and ineffective. Moreover, even the
appearance that neighboring States are developing SIPs regulating the same industrial sectors for
the same pollutant(s) with differing levels of stringency quickly brings delays to the SIP/TIP
development and adoption processes. The nature of many areas' 8-hour ozone and PM2 5
problems increasingly call for the development and implementation of regional control strategies.
Recommended Actions:
1) Groups of States/Locals should redefine the role of existing Regional Planning
Organizations (RPOs) and Multi-Jurisdictional Organizations (MJOs) to include
supporting planning for all regional air pollution problems (e.g., 8-hour ozone, PM2s,
regional haze).
2) These organizations should amend their charters and by-laws as necessary for clarity of
purpose and eligibility for additional grants.
3) These organizations should continue their established stakeholder involvement
procedures in the development of model rules and model SIPs.
4) EPA personnel from multiple Regional Offices and OAR should review and comment
upon model rules and model SIPs with an eye to their eventual adoption by
State/Locals/Tribes such that any potential approval concerns are addressed up front.
5) In addition to model rules, RPOs/MJOs should develop standardized Technical
Support/Analysis Documents for SIPs/TIPs being adopted by their member States/Tribes.
6) RPOs/MJOs should develop procedures for inter-RPO/MJO coordination to ensure
consistency, as needed, in their air quality planning processes and comparability in their
work products.
7) EPA should pursue discussions with OMB to ensure the flexibility of the use of grant
funds allocated to RPOs/MJOs so they address multiple ambient air pollution problems as
"one atmosphere" under a single grant such that the most scientifically valid and cost
effective approaches can be studied and implemented.
8) The technical activities of RPOs/MJOs should be closely coordinated with the technical
support activities and R&D programs of EPA.
Pilot Studies: Examine the benefits of the STAPPA/ALAPCO, OTC and WRAP model rules
along with other model rules and SIPs developed by NESCAUM, LADCO, SESARM, VISTAs,
CENSARA, CENWRAP, MARAMA, MANE-VU.
Feasibility: No statutory changes are necessary. Ease of feasibility is dependent upon the
State/Local/Tribal desire to redefine/expand the role of RPOs/MJOs and to get charters and by-
laws amended, as necessary.
B-89
-------
by the Air Work Group
Large neighboring groups of States/Locals/Tribes are already using RPOs to develop model SIPs
and rules for regional haze. The successful efforts of the Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP) for the regional haze SIPs under section 309 in the West and the Ozone Transport
Commission for ozone SIPs in the Northeast are evident.
Timing: Should be implemented within one year to be effective for 8-hour ozone and PM2 5. EPA
needs to work with OMB in the next budget cycle to pursue flexibility in the use of federal grants
to RPOs/MJOs to work on multipollutant approaches to solving ambient air pollution problems.
Resources: The MJOs/ RPOs are already established. While negotiations and coordination
between States/Locals/Tribes, Federal Land Managers and multiple EPA Regional Offices may
initially take longer than each State only having to develop its own SIP internally, once
procedures are established and schedules set, the time savings will be significant. The cost
savings, particularly in the areas of emission factor and emission inventory development and
modeling will be substantial. The regulated and environmental community and interested citizens
would save resources by participating in the RPO/MJO stakeholder processes rather than having
to spread themselves over each State's SIP development process.
Priority Level: High
-------
by the Air Work Group
3.13 Federal and State Partnerships: EPA should participate with S/L/Tin the SIP/TIP
development process to identify and pursue emissions reductions from important source
categories, especially those that only the federal government has the ability to address, such as
federal and international sources. The level of control sought from these sources should be
commensurate with their impact in the nonattainment area. As warranted by the nature of the
source, control strategy development should be carried out by S/L/T working either directly with
EPA or with EPA and other federal agencies. For attainment demonstration purposes, States
should be able to take appropriate credit for anticipated reductions from these sources (whether
the reductions from regulatory or incentive programs) so long as the control strategy and its
anticipated impact are found to be consistent with EPA regulation and guidance.
Background: States are generally unable to regulate emissions from sources under federal or
international jurisdiction, and have limited ability to regulate other on-road and non-road sources.
Such sources can be major contributors to the air quality problem in many nonattainment areas.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is given authority to regulate new mobile sources and their fuels
and is able to assist State and local agencies and Tribes in regulating existing mobile sources and
in achieving the desired control from federal sources either through direct EPA regulation or by
working with other federal agencies. Similarly, EPA has the ability to work with other parts of the
federal government in seeking the control of international sources. Such emission controls can, as
appropriate, take the form of the direct regulation of emitting sources, incentive programs to
reduce emissions, international agreements and other forms. Under existing EPA guidelines all of
these forms of emission reduction can be credited in SIPs.
Recommended Actions:
1) EPA should participate with State and local agencies and Tribes in the process of
identifying and pursuing measures to achieve the emission reductions from national and
international sources needed to attain the 8-hour ozone and PM2 5 standards by the
attainment dates in each nonattainment area.
2) Early in the SIP development process, EPA should consult with State and local agencies
on preliminary emission targets for each federal sector, help develop options to achieve
those reductions, and aid in providing estimated benefits for State use in draft SIPs for
public review.
3) EPA should expedite the approval of new technologies such as retrofits and alternative
fuel formulations that can be applied to existing fleets within a nonattainment area.
4) When assessing controls, EPA should consider cost-effective technologies proven to
control similar sources not under direct federal authority.
5) In those cases where States have limited ability to control a category of sources, where
such sources are a key part of the problem and where national programs are not feasible,
EPA, working with State and local agencies and Tribes, should develop targeted
strategies for affected nonattainment areas, including multistate or regional strategies.
6) For federal sources that EPA does not have the authority to control directly, EPA should
work with other federal agencies (such as the Federal Aviation Administration) to secure
significant near-term and long-term reductions.
7) EPA should negotiate with international standards-setting entities on actions to achieve
the reductions necessary to meet the attainment targets for these sectors (i.e., the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime
Organization (IMO)).
-------
by the Air Work Group
8) EPA should pursue international agreements with neighboring countries to address
international emissions outside States'jurisdiction.
Benefits: Identifying and pursuing the necessary emission reductions from national and
international sources will help ensure that the public health benefits of national air quality
standards are achieved and that States do not suffer the economically from sanctions due to
failure to comply with SIP requirements.
Feasibility: This recommendation calls on EPA to more directly address the attainment needs of
each area by becoming a fuller partner early in the planning process. Implementing some
potential strategies would require actions or funding by other federal agencies or Congress,
international organizations, and other countries.
Timing: Because States are already in the development process for 8-hour ozone and PM2 5 SIPs,
this activity needs to be initiated immediately.
Resources: EPA could use existing resources. EPA staff is already familiar with federal
emissions sectors that could provide additional emission reductions. Additionally, States have
established incentive programs that could serve as models for federal incentive programs.
Priority Level: High
-------
by the Air Work Group
3.14 Weight-of-Evidence Demonstrations: In order to move beyond the current
approach of relying on air quality modeling, EPA, in conjunction with S/L/T and affected
stakeholders, should modify its guidance to promote weight-of-evidence (WOE) demonstrations
for both planning and implementation efforts. In particular, these demonstrations should reduce
reliance on modeling data as the centerpiece for SIP/TIP planning, and should increase use of
monitoring data and analyses of monitoring data, especially for tracking progress.
Background/Explanation: The current system is top-heavy on modeling for planning purposes
(especially, the preparation of an attainment demonstration) and light on tracking progress. The
NRC recommended that "a more useful approach would be to retain the attainment demonstration
as a planning tool but to place greater emphasis on follow-up measures to track compliance and
progress and on actions to be taken if compliance and progress are not satisfactory." This
recommendation will focus on defining a more effective use of technical tools for a performance-
oriented air quality management approach, and recognizes that S/L/T need to accomplish this
work with available resources. Enhanced tracking and ambient monitoring (to track progress) is a
better use of resources than intensive local modeling.
Recommended Actions: To move beyond the current approach of relying on air quality
modeling, the Work Group recommends the following actions
1) Planning efforts should incorporate a weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach to provide the
most technically defensible basis for a control plan and to satisfy any statutory
requirement for a demonstration of attainment. A WOE approach is especially important
when the modeling shows that the area is projected to be either just above or just below
the ambient standard. (It should be noted that the WOE demonstration, including the
modeling, must be subject to public review as part of the SIP process.) The WOE
approach should include the following three elements:
a) A prospective modeling analysis, performed in accordance with an EPA-approved
modeling protocol. Modeling should be used to identify the appropriate control path.
Unfortunately, over-reliance on modeling can produce unnecessary debates over
technical details, which can hinder efforts in getting emission reductions and
cleaning-up the air. EPA should work with S/L/T and affected stakeholders to modify
its guidance to clarify the proper use of modeling and WOE for SIP planning.
b) Analyses of air quality data, including preparation of a conceptual/qualitative
description of the area's nonattainment problem, examination of historical air quality
and emissions trends, assessment of (incoming and outgoing) transport (e.g.,
trajectory analyses), and use of observation-based methods (e.g., receptor models,
and indicator species and ratios).
c) Summaries of current actual and expected future year emissions by species (primary
and secondary), by year (base year, attainment years, and appropriate interim years),
and by source sector. Assumptions used in projecting emissions growth must be well
documented.
2) Implementation efforts (i.e., periodic progress assessments) should consider similar WOE
elements, including:
a) A retrospective modeling analysis (as necessary) to assess progress in meeting air
quality standards and visibility goals.
b) Analyses of air quality data, including examination of recent (meteorologically
adjusted) air quality trends and emissions trends.
e-73
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
c) Summaries of actual emissions by species (primary and secondary species), by year
(base year, attainment years, and appropriate interim years), and by source sector.
Assumptions used in projecting emissions growth must be well documented.
3) To assist S/L/T with these planning and implementation efforts, EPA should issue WOE
guidance, which clarifies the proper role of modeling for SIP planning, establishes
standard WOE procedures (e.g., when WOE considerations are appropriate, how to
ensure that use of WOE is a symmetric process, and how to determine what additional
evidence should be considered and how it should be used), and identifies appropriate data
analysis methods (e.g., methods for estimating statistically significant trends which
account for meteorological effects).
Benefits: Better use of modeling and monitoring data can provide a sounder basis for control
strategy development, and allow better tracking of compliance and progress.
Feasibility: All the technical tools are available for performing the necessary modeling and data
analysis activities, including work being performed by the RPOs and MJOs. The bigger issues are
likely to be the availability of sufficient air quality measurements, and the staffing/resources
needed to conduct these analyses. The EPA guidance should address the tools/methods, as well
as the data requirements and personnel needs.
Timing: Given the potentially large scope of this recommendation, it is important to break the
analyses into pieces and assess the time required to complete each of them. A workshop with all
interested parties should be held to develop further this recommendation. Once there is a general
framework of what is to be done and the data needed to support that framework, the guidance for
addressing the other activities can be prepared.
Resources: To conduct such extensive analyses, a wide variety of experts will be required (e.g.,
statisticians, meteorologists, air quality data analysts, emissions inventory experts). In addition,
someone with the ability to put the analyses into concise wording will be needed to communicate
the findings. Up to 4-5 FTEs that have the skills outlined above, as well as contract funds (e.g.,
$5OK for workshop and follow-up actions) is estimated to develop appropriate guidance.
Resources for training for S/L/T personnel are also needed.
Priority Level: High
-------
by the Air Work Group
3.15 Periodic Assessments to Track Progress: S/L/TandEPA should conduct periodic
assessments to ensure that areas are on track to meet NAAQS, air toxics, and visibility goals, and
make mid-course adjustments, as necessary.
Background/Explanation: One of the long-term objectives identified by the NRC is to guide
future improvement of the air quality management system is to take a performance-oriented
approach. This approach would emphasize "performance rather than the process" and would
"create accountability for achieving results." The NRC recommended that "a more useful
approach would be to retain the attainment demonstration as a planning tool but to place greater
emphasis on follow-up measures to track compliance and progress and on actions to be taken if
compliance and progress are not satisfactory." This recommendation will focus on tracking
progress and what to do if areas are not on track to meet NAAQS, HAP, and visibility goals. The
previous recommendation (3.14) addressed the definition of a more effective use of technical
tools for a performance-oriented air quality management approach.
Recommended Actions: To begin to lay the foundation for a performance-oriented approach, the
Work Group recommends the following actions:
1) States and EPA should work together on tracking progress, including a review of changes
in actual emissions and air quality concentration, as described in Recommendation 3.14.
In particular, a comprehensive progress report should be prepared, which compares actual
progress with expected emissions and air quality trends for each metric (see
Recommendation 1.5). Further discussion is needed to determine the appropriate
frequency for this report.
2) If actual progress differs "substantially" from the expected trend for a given metric, then
States should reexamine effectiveness of that attainment measure. If attainment will be
later than the statutory attainment date, then the State should determine whether it is
necessary to modify the SIP. Note, this determination should consider the influence of
weather conditions (e.g., very hot/cold, or very wet/dry conditions).
3) EPA should report annually on health and ecosystem impacts (i.e., indicators and
benchmarks established pursuant to Recommendation 1.5). Also, EPA should report
annually on major control programs that they are coordinating (e.g., Title IV and NOx
SIP Call).
Benefits: On-going progress assessments will ensure that the correct and most cost effective
control strategies are in use. Joint State-EPA efforts should allow more effective use of available
resources and eliminate any redundancy in current efforts. Such comprehensive analyses can also
highlight limitations in existing data systems which would facilitate appropriate data quality
improvements (emissions, modeling, and monitoring).
Feasibility: This activity is a logical extension of EPA's annual Trends Report, and State RFP
and air quality assessments. Additional EPA and State staffing may be needed to ensure proper
interagency coordination. Refinements to existing tools will be needed (such as improved
adjustments for meteorology) some of which are already in development by EPA.
Timing: Initial products could be expected within 1-2 years. A fully integrated State-EPA
analysis and report system may take several years.
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Resources: EPA should bear the primary responsibility. Approximately 2-3 new FTE's and
$300K per year may be needed.
Priority Level: High
B-76 ::
-------
by the Air Work Group
3.16 Averaging, Banking and Trading in Gasoline Sulfur Program: EPA should
evaluate the averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) provisions included in the Tier II gasoline
sulfur regulation to see if they are effective.
Background: Averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) provisions have been widely used in EPA
regulatory programs to provide flexibility to industry while aggressively attacking environmental
problems. The effectiveness of these provisions for fuels programs should be evaluated, since
ABT concepts are being built into new regulatory programs.
Recommended Actions: EPA should evaluate the ABT provisions in the gasoline sulfur program
as the program rolls out over the next few years. The evaluation should be phased to include
annual analysis of available information and a complete report when the program has been fully
implemented and patterns of credit usage are well-established. Below is a list of topics that would
be covered by the evaluation:
• Credit accumulation: Did the credit generation opportunity result in substantially lower
sulfur levels in 2002 and 2003? What volume of credits were generated and how much
flexibility did this make possible to refineries? How was credit generation distributed
across the industry?
• Allotment accumulation: Did facilities and companies take advantage of the allotment
generation opportunity in 2003-2005? What volume of allotments was created, and how
much flexibility is thus available to refining companies?
• Trading and markets: (Separately for credits and allotments) How much trading took
place relative to the total volume of credits/allotments? How efficiently did the
credit/allotment markets function? Were credits and allotments readily available for
purchase by challenged facilities and companies? How much trading of credits was inter-
company (as opposed to trading between facilities within the same company)? How did
the price of credits/allotments vary over the course of the program? How was the trading
system perceived by refiners?
• Role of allotments in compliance with Corporate Average Standard (CAS): To what
extent did active trading of allotments contribute to companies' ability to comply (use of
purchased versus self-generated allotments)? How did CAS compliance strategies vary
across the industry (uniform reductions across facilities versus planned unevenness in
facility reductions)? How many allotments were retired?
• Role of credits in compliance with Refinery Annual Average Standard (RAAS): To what
extent did facilities use credits to come into compliance with the RAAS? What
proportion of the credits used in compliance were purchased rather than self-generated?
How many credits were retired?
• Reporting system's accuracy: Does accuracy of reporting indicate industry understanding
of ABT program? Do most reports of credit/allotment trades match up without EPA
intervention or troubleshooting? Do refiners perceive the ABT system as logical and
workable in practice?
EPA should consider conducting a similar analysis for ABT when it implements the diesel sulfur
program.
Feasibility: This recommendation is generally very feasible. Existing EPA staff can perform
these analyses and write the final report. Possible obstacles include difficulties in enlisting
-------
by the Air Work Group
cooperation from industry sources, and the need to work around confidentiality concerns with
both reporting data and information obtained from confidential conversations.
Timing: Some aspects of the evaluation can be addressed in annual analyses beginning in mid-to-
late 2005. The more complete report on this effort cannot be developed until late 2007 at the
earliest, the first time data on a fully-implemented program will be available.
Resources: This evaluation will require less than one FTE for each report. Some contractor time
will be required to program certain analyses.
Priority Level: Low
-------
by the Air Work Group
4.1 SIPs to Address Multipolllltant Impacts: For the SIPs States are required to
submit over the next several years, EPA and S/L/T should promote the consideration of
multipollutant impacts, including the impacts of air toxics, and where there is discretion, select
regulatory approaches that maximize benefits from controlling key air toxics, as well as ozone,
PM2.s and regional haze.
Background: The SIP process provides an opportunity for many urban areas to include key
HAPs in a comprehensive multipollutant approach to air quality management, consistent with the
NRC recommendations. The NRC recommends (on p. 298 of Air Quality Management in the
United States) that:
EPA, States and local agencies should identify key HAPs that have diverse sources or
substantial public health impacts or both, which would merit their inclusion in an integrated
multipollutant control strategy (for example, benzene).
Activities have been taken at the State/Local/Tribal and federal level to reduce emissions from
key HAPs. It is important to clarify that this NRC recommendation should not be interpreted as
deferring federal responsibilities (e.g., mobile source air toxics program, 112(k) area source
program, etc) to State and local agencies. Rather, this recommendation means that the air quality
management process being undertaken for SIPs/TIPs provides an opportunity to see how
State/Local/Tribal and federal efforts are working to reduce key HAPs, to identify what actions
could be taken at the State and local level to supplement current efforts, and to help identify
priorities for federal actions.
Recommended Actions: EPA, in consultation with states and stakeholders, should develop a
"short list" of critical HAPs that pose the highest risk to human health in urban areas. Likely
compounds for consideration on the short list would include:
• benzene and acrolein: these are national risk drivers in EPA's 1999 national air toxics
assessment (NATA).
• diesel PM: although not a "HAP" listed specifically in the Clean Air Act, the workgroup
recommends it for consideration on the short list.
The following additional steps should be taken to finalize the short list:
1) EPA and States/Locals/Tribes should identify additional HAPs which are likely due to
ubiquitous sources for inclusion into the list of "key HAP". For example, the following
were identified in the 1999 NATA as contributing to more than 90% of the cancer risks in
531 proposed or final nonattainment counties:
• Ethylene dibromide
• Butadiene
• Acetaldehyde
• Bis 2 ethylhexyl pthalate (DEHP)
• 1,1,2,2, tetrachloroethane
• Chromium VI
• PAHs
:: 8-79
-------
by the Air Group
• Napthalene
• Tetrachlorethylene
• Ethylene dichloride
2) EPA and States/Locals/Tribes should review HAP monitoring results to identify any
high-risk pollutants which may be underpredicted by the NATA.
3) States/Locals/Tribes should include on the list any additional HAPs which are high risk
in their area.
For the "short list," EPA should encourage States and Tribes, in developing their SIPs/TIPs for
PM2.5, regional haze and ozone, to evaluate opportunities for achieving co-benefits through
simultaneous reduction of these key "urban risk driver" HAPs.
EPA, working with one State and a short list of HAPs, should develop and test a model integrated
SIP as a pilot project before expanding to other States/Tribes. Possibly good candidates for such a
pilot, areas which are both ozone and PM nonattainment, and which are part of the national air
toxics trends sites (NATTS) network include: Detroit, St. Louis, Atlanta, and Chicago.
Feasibility: Including a short list of HAPs in modeling and control strategy analyses for
SIPs/TIPs should not add substantially to the resource burden. Results for the HAP "short list"
could readily be derived from existing ozone or PM modeling. Control strategy analysis would be
somewhat more complex, but would benefit from a more thorough evaluation of multi-pollutant
interactions.
Timing: In order to extend this approach to the additional areas that will be submitting PM and
/or ozone SIPs, the pilot effort would need to be complete by the end of calendar year 2005.
Resources: For EPA, this effort could be completed with redirection of existing personnel
without a substantial additional financial commitment. For States, this might add perhaps 10-20%
to the cost of the SIP analytical effort.
Priority Level: High
B-£
-------
by the Air Work Group
4.2 Multipollutant Benefits and Disbenefits in Standards Setting: EPA should
explicitly outline and quantify multipollutant benefits and disbenefits when setting emissions
standards.
Background: The current statutory, regulatory, and policy framework does not explicitly provide
an integrated approach for the consideration of criteria and air toxics. An opportunity exists in the
ongoing air toxic standards-setting processes (e.g., remaining MACT standards, residual risk, and
area source standards) to explicitly consider multi-pollutant effects of proposed control strategies
in selecting options.
Recommended Actions:
• EPA, in conducting engineering reviews to support emissions standards efforts, should
assess how identified options for Hazardous Air Pollutants (otherwise known as HAPs or
air toxics) reduce and/or increase direct PM2 5 emissions, and emissions of PM and ozone
precursors such as VOC, NOX and SO2.
• Engineering reviews for HAP standards should catalog available control options that
would reduce direct PM, SO2, VOC and NOX emissions even if those options would not
reduce air toxics.
Feasibility: The recommendation to quantify the benefits and disbenefits has a high feasibility
for implementation, although the degree to which they can be considered is not clear under
existing statutory authority. Section 112 (d)(2) of the Clean Air Act explicitly states that emission
standards for HAP should consider non-air quality health and environmental impacts, but it
doesn't appear to preclude consideration of other air quality impacts. Regardless of a change in
statutory requirements, quantifying criteria pollutant benefits will result in better decision-making
and will boost overall acceptance of future MACT requirements.
Timing: It is anticipated that this recommendation to quantify the multi-pollutant benefits and
disbenefits can be implemented immediately in ongoing development of remaining MACT
standards, MACT residual risk 112(d)(6) standards, and 112 (k) area source standards.
Resources: This effort will require some additional analyses in the MACT development process,
but we would not expect substantial additional financial commitments.
Priority Level: High
:: B-81
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: EPA should assist States and localities in quantifying the
potential increases or decreases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from reduction measures
primarily designed to address ozone, fine particles, regional haze, and air toxics.
Background/Explanation: A number of States and localities have adopted policies to assess
and/or reduce GHG emissions from certain source categories under their jurisdiction. A number
of these source categories emit criteria and toxic air pollutants. To assist those States and
localities wishing to consider multiple emissions implications of alternative strategies, EPA
should help determine how pollution control alternatives that are being examined to address
ozone, fine particles, regional haze, and air toxics might either increase or decrease emissions of
GHG emissions. States would then have the option to consider multiple emissions impacts in
assessing a list of proposed alternative measures. Tools for evaluating impacts are available,
including STAPPA and ALAPCO's Clean Air and Climate Protection Software (CACPS).
Recommended Actions: In evaluating emissions control measures, EPA should assist States and
localities in the quantification of potential increases and decreases in GHG emissions.
Feasibility: Quantifying the impacts of control strategies on GHG emissions is feasible; a
number of existing tools (i.e., CACPS) already do this. If "co-benefits" were to mean modeling
of the impacts of such increases and decreases on climate change, this would be far less feasible.
Timing: Implement over the next few years.
Resources: Implementation would require a relatively small increase in resources for EPA to
support the existing toolkit (CACPS) that STAPPA/ALAPCO already has developed. State/local
resources would be affected only for States/localities choosing to use this information.
Priority Level: High
-------
by the Air Work Group
5.1 Program Review to Improve Ecosystem Protection: EPA should, in parallel
with recommended scientific and technical work, begin now to examine current and alternative
clean air related policies and programs to develop approaches that would advance protection of
ecosystems from the adverse effects of air pollution. Alternatives that should be evaluated include
a regional cap-and-trade program, protection of ecosystems based on critical loads, and a State-
wide planning program for protecting and enhancing air quality in areas that attain the NAAQS
(including National Parks and Wilderness Areas).
Background/Explanation: The NRC stated that the system of air quality management in the
United States does not go far enough in protecting ecosystems and other aspects of public welfare
from the impacts of air pollution. The NRC noted specific policy-related deficiencies in
secondary standards, tracking of ecosystem outcomes from air quality changes, and accounting
for ecosystem effects in cost-benefit analyses.
Recommended Actions: To advance and support future policy decisions, it is important to
implement the recommendations of the science and technology subgroup regarding developing
innovative benchmarks and measures to assess ecological impacts of air pollution and improving
ways to track and evaluate progress in reducing those impacts. The examination of potential
policy alternatives does not, however, need to be delayed while these advances are being
developed. We have substantial information on direct and indirect effects of some air pollutants
on the environment amassed in criteria documents, and assessments such as that of the National
Acid Precipitation Assessment program. This information can assist in framing policy questions
and approaches in an exploration of how current and future information might be used to increase
environmental protection. This effort should be interactive with those groups who are working on
the scientific and technical recommendations.
Specifically, EPA should, in conjunction with other interested parties, begin with an assessment
of the relative effectiveness of major clean air programs under the CAA in terms of their potential
to provide additional ecosystem protection.
Recognizing that regulatory programs are in different stages of implementation and offer different
options, EPA should consider the following in the review of each program:
a) policy mandates, objectives, goals, definitions of ecosystem protection, historic/legal
interpretation
b) characteristics of air pollutant(s) regulated (e.g., toxics, criteria, mobile), may have
different potential magnitudes of impact (e.g., different temporal/spatial scales)
c) existing reporting measures of program/ecosystem protection progress (e.g., trends
report, acid deposition goals under GPRA and PART, NAPAP Report to Congress,
EPA's Report on the Environment, water quality measures, inclusion in regulatory
impact analyses etc.)
d) whether existing tracking efforts need modifications to specifically support their use
in different regulatory programs (i.e., networks needed to support secondary
standards vs. other CAA mechanisms, national vs. critical ecosystem coverage, etc.)
e) current and future opportunities or impediments to expand use of ecological science
in the policy context, given additional ecological research, indicator/ model/monitor
development, consistent longer-term measurements/monitoring.
B-83
-------
by the Air Group
f) what policy innovations/revisions would be required to better translate ecosystem
science into effective ecosystem protection policies.
The policy assessment of air pollution and ecosystem protection should also consider non-
regulatory programs, including ongoing innovative approaches that examine multi-media
approaches to integrating air pollution effects with other ecological concerns, as is done in the
Sustainable Environment for Quality of Life (SEQL) project in Charlotte.
Benefits: This recommendation will accelerate consideration of ecosystem protection in clean air
programs as well as ensuring faster application of recommended enhancements to EPA's
scientific and technical assessment capabilities as they are developed
Feasibility: This recommendation is highly feasible and the work can be completed under current
Clean Air Act authority. The exercise could, however, identify impediments or desirable policy
approaches that are not currently available.
Timing: The recommended policy assessment of current programs could begin immediately. The
potential for developing new policy approaches would depend on the results of the activity. If the
scientific and technical recommendations are adopted, improved tracking could begin in the near
future. Longer-term consideration would be needed to determine whether current and/or
additional technical information/tools under development could be applied more formally under
the Clean Air Act.
Resources: Additional staff resources in the Office of Air and Radiation would be needed.
Priority Level: High
B-84 ::
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Appendix C:
Summary of Unresolved Issues
For Further Discussion
-------
-------
by the Air Work Group
Appendix C: Unresolved Issues for Further Discussion
Listed below, with brief descriptions, are several recommendations that the AQM Work Group
considered but decided against advancing in final form at this time. There were various reasons
why these recommendations were deferred for further discussion: some recommendations were
added to the discussions late in the Work Group's process; others are so complex that they require
additional data and evaluation before they can be finalized; others are controversial and require
further discussion among stakeholders. This list does not include every issue considered by the
Work Group, but contains the issues that were considered most important to advance for further
discussion.
1) Emissions Inventories: EPA should improve the process for developing national,
State, and local emissions inventories.
Currently, States are required to prepare a comprehensive statewide inventory every three
years, pursuant to EPA's Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR). EPA prepares
its National Emissions Inventory (NEI) using these State inventories and other
information. The timeliness and quality of these State and national inventories should be
improved. For example, EPA should consult with States to determine which source
categories can be inventoried more frequently (ideally, annually), such as EGUs, and
EPA should work with a few States on a pilot project to develop more efficient ways to
prepare the NEI (e.g., examination of top-down (national-level) and bottom-up (state-
level) approaches, and streamline the reporting of State data and EPA's processing and
compilation of these data).
2) Monitoring Networks: EPA and States should work together to increase the number
of air quality monitoring stations and improve their distribution.
To improve spatial coverage and comprehensiveness in existing State and federal
monitoring networks, additional monitoring sites and additional measurements are
desired. The first step in making improvements is to conduct spatial analyses of existing
monitoring networks and identify "gaps" in coverage. Based on results of the spatial
analyses, EPA Regional Offices and States should work together to establish appropriate
monitoring sites. Possible enhancements include increased sampling in rural areas (to
promote ecosystem goals) and reallocation of PAMS monitoring to ensure a Type II site
in as many 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas as possible (to promote tracking progress).
To ensure that monitoring networks are providing usable data, States should conduct a
thorough assessment of their monitoring networks every five years.
3) Short-Term Monitoring: States should consider conducting short-term monitoring
programs.
To complement on-going monitoring efforts (especially, to address particular air quality
problems and issues), special (short-term) field programs should be considered. Examples
of such field programs include summertime ozone field programs (e.g., SCAQS, LMOS,
and NARSTO-Northeast) and investigative studies (e.g., MRPO's urban organics study).
4) Evaluation of Models: EPA should support the evaluation of air quality models.
::C-3
-------
Recommendations by the Air Work Group
To develop confidence in using models for regulatory purposes, it is important first to
evaluate the models by comparing model estimates and ambient measurements. EPA
should publish a report every three years on the state-of-the-science for ozone, fine
particle, and haze modeling. The report should include any current model-evaluation
studies, and assessments of special issues (e.g., model predictive capability of changes in
air quality concentrations due to changes in emissions, predictive capability of models at
very low concentrations, effect of model grid resolution on predicted concentrations, and
suitability of using point measurements for comparison with modeled concentrations). On
a larger scale, a measurement plan should be prepared for a regional (or sub-regional)
field program in the eastern half of the U.S. to support ozone, fine particle, and haze
models. Note, resources for a meaningful field study may approach a million dollars.
Further discussion is needed to address the scope, cost, and funding options for such a
major study.
5) Evaluation of Control Measures: EPA should conduct retrospective evaluations of
control measures.
The NRC recommendations note that programs to systematically collect information on
what has worked (and how well or not so well) have been inconsistently funded and have
been limited in ability to independently validate user's estimates of compliance costs.
Even though NRC's emphasis above is only on costs (evaluated retrospectively), it seems
equally important to evaluate technical experience/feasibility with various technologies.
As such, it is recommended that EPA undertake written case studies in consultation with
the affected industries of cost and technology experience of representative stationary
source and mobile source categories (e.g., EGU NOxand SOX control, non-EGU NOX
controls, motor vehicles fuels and emission standards, and mobile source retrofit
programs).
6) Communication of Technical Information to Policymakers: The scientific
community, both within EPA and outside the agency, should work to improve the
communication of technical information to policymakers.
Technical analysts often generate complex, highly scientific information to address air
quality problems. Communicating this information to policymakers and others who may
not have the same technical background is a challenge. As such, it is necessary for
technical analysts to be clear, objective, and relevant in presenting this information to
policymakers, and for policymakers to be willing to receptive to technical information.
7) Multipollutant Modeling: EPA should promote the use of multipollutant models.
EPA and States should use air quality models capable of addressing ozone, fine particles,
regional haze, and air toxics (e.g., mercury) in the upcoming round of SIP development.
Viable candidate multi-pollutant models include CMAQ (developed by EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD)), CAMx, and REMSAD. Although no endorsement of
these models is offered, it should be noted that CMAQ and CAMx appear to reflect the
most up-to-date science. As these models advance, the transition from research to
application needs to be improved. For example, EPA's ORD and Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards should make sure that CMAQ is usable (in-house) by
RPOs/states for SIP modeling.
C-4
-------
by the Air Work Group
8) Integration of Programs for Criteria Pollutants and Air Toxics: EPA should
investigate technical considerations associated with the potential integration of programs
to control criteria pollutants and air toxics.
The NRC, recognizing the long standing difference in the way criteria pollutants and
toxic air pollutants are regulated under the Clean Air Act, while also recognizing that in
the air they mix to form one atmosphere, recommended an evolution toward a common
risk based approach to regulating emissions of air pollutants and providing clean air.
Setting aside the policy and program issues, there are fundamental science hurdles that
must be overcome to weigh the options and alternative approaches in moving toward
such a "one-atmosphere" approach to providing clean air (e.g., dealing with large
differences in the amount and quality of data on emissions, ambient levels, personal
exposures and environmental deposition, health and ecosystem effects, thresholds, and
risk factors for these many chemicals). What is needed initially is a first order relative
risk assessment and gap analysis based on currently available information using existing
practices. Ultimately gaps would be filled and protocols.
9) Integrated Criteria/Toxics Controls at Individual Sources: Consistent with the
goal of controlling more air pollutants in a holistic fashion, States/Locals/Tribes should
be encouraged to address emissions from criteria pollutants and air toxics concurrently
during permitting or regulatory actions at individual sources.
The group believed that this recommendation had possible merit. However, the
recommendation was drafted late in the process and the group did not have adequate time
to consider it in detail.
10) SIP Consistency Process: EPA should better document its internal processes to ensure
transparency in evaluating S/L/T or regional requests for a variance from published
policies.
The Group believed that this was an important recommendation. However, there was a
general lack of understanding outside of EPA as to how EPA's internal process works to
ensure consistency in decisions across the different Regions. EPA agreed that such
policies need to be better documented and explained. However, there was insufficient
time to do so, so the recommendation was deferred for further discussion.
11) Electric Generating Units: The electricity generating unit (EGU) sector makes a
large contribution to multiple air quality problems. Many believed that the active
rulemaking underway on the Clear Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) provided the proper forum
for considering what this sector ought to do for the next 15 years or more; others did not.
Since no agreement could be reached on a recommendation regarding this sector, the
Work Group recommends that discussions continue by the new CAAAC subcommittee.
Regardless of the outcome of any future discussions, many of the stakeholders involved
saw considerable value in State and Local agencies and utilities consulting with each
other after final promulgation of the CAIR (or new legislation) to share compliance plans,
evaluate likely emissions reductions and their geographic distribution, and apply that
information to further planning activities.
:: C-5
-------
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Appendix D:
Letter Transmitting
Final Report to EPA
:: D-1
-------
-------
by the Air Work Group
Appendix D: Letter Transmitting Final Report to EPA
Honorable Michael O. Leavitt
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Administrator Leavitt:
On behalf of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC), we are pleased to present to you
a report and list of recommendations from the Committee for your consideration. CAAAC is a
senior-level committee consisting of senior managers and experts representing state and local
government, environmental and public interest groups, academic institutions, unions, trade
associations, utilities, manufacturing industries and others. The Committee provides advice and
counsel to EPA on a variety of important air quality issues.
In 2004, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies released a report
entitled Air Quality Management in the United States. In this report, the NRC outlined the many
substantial achievements of the U.S. air quality management system over the past 30 years. The
NRC also identified areas where changes in the air quality management (AQM) system would
provide further benefits to human health and the environment. The NRC advanced
recommendations for change in the AQM system on a number of levels. Some of the NRC's
recommendations involve short-term changes of limited scope and immediate impact. Other
NRC recommendations focus on more sweeping changes to the nation's approach to AQM over
the mid- to long-term.
For the past six months a CAAAC Work Group has evaluated ways to improve the current air
quality management system in this country. The recommendations of the NRC helped guide this
Work Group. On December 16 the Work Group advised the CAAAC about the desirability and
feasibility of implementing a number of near-term recommendations to improve the current
system. The AQM Work Group included representatives from State and local organizations,
Tribes, regional organizations, environmental and public health organizations, industry and EPA.
This report outlines near term recommendations for improvements in air quality management in
the United States and also proposes a continuing process for discussion of longer term changes.
It focuses on translating the relatively broad NRC recommendations into specific and concrete
steps that can be taken quickly by EPA and others to realize improvements in science,
technology, policy, and planning that will lead to improved air quality and public health
protection
While the CAAAC reached consensus on forwarding the recommendations for further
examination by EPA, individual members were also given an opportunity to submit additional
comments on the recommendations. Comments submitted in writing by CAAAC members are
included as an appendix of this report. CAAAC does recognize that there are potential resource
implications associated with some of these recommendations for EPA and its partners in air
:: D-3
-------
by the Air Work Group
quality management. The CAAAC hopes that resources can be made available to implement
these recommendations appropriately.
On behalf of the Committee, we thank you for the opportunity to participate in EPA's activities
and hope our advice is useful in developing air quality management strategies.
Sincerely,
Janet McCabe, Co-Chair
Air Quality Management Work Group
Gregory Green, Co-Chair
Air Quality Management Work Group
Jeff Holmstead, Chair
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Appendix E:
Commentaries from
Clean Air Act Advisory Members
-------
-------
by the Air Work Group
Appendix E: Commentaries from Clean Air Act Advisory Members
At a meeting of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee on December 16, 2004, the Air Quality
Management Work Group presented results of its efforts to assess the recommendations made by
the NRC on air quality management in the United States. The Work Group presented 37
recommendations for the CAAAC's consideration. The CAAAC agreed to forward those 37
recommendations and requested the Work Group to include the recommendation on green-house
gases for future consideration by EPA. At the request of the CAAAC, the Work Group has
modified the report to include the greenhouse gas recommendation (see Recommendation 4.3)
and has added language to the report to emphasize the goal of public health and ecosystem
protection. In addition, the CAAAC emphasized the need to label the Work Group's initial effort
and this report as "Phase 1" since there are remaining issues to be resolved and discussions
needed on the longer-term vision and air quality management framework of the future. The
CAAAC conferred and as a group agreed to deliver the final report to EPA for its consideration.
Following the December 16, 2004 meeting, members of the CAAAC were asked to submit any
comments in writing to the Work Group on the individual recommendations. Contained in this
appendix are the comments received from seven organizations. Many of these comments are
directed at future issues and will be discussed as part of Phase 2 follow-on efforts.
Comments are included from the following:
William W. Goldsmith, Cornell University
Ralph Marquez, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Steve Winkelmann and Ned Helm, Center for Clean Air Policy
Kenneth Coburn, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
Charles Collett, National Association of Home Builders
Christopher Recchia, Ozone Transport Commission
J. Stephen Hartsfield, National Tribal Air Association
:: E-3
-------
by the Air Work Group
December 17, 2004
Dear Greg, Janet, Rob, et al:
To begin, thanks again especially to Greg and Janet and members of the AQM sub-committee for
the very high quality - if perhaps timid or incremental - report on AQM. Although I offered my
suggestions at the CAAAC meetings Wednesday and Thursday, with general agreement from the
committee, I will repeat them below in writing, as friendly amendments to the report.
Respectfully,
William W. Goldsmith
1. The report needs to state prominently - in its Executive Summary (ES) and Introduction - that
it proposes air quality management (AQM) improvements in pursuit of lower emissions and
better air quality (AQ) for improved protection of human health and national and regional
ecosystems.
The draft Executive Summary (ES) and Introduction that you presented to the CAAAC, do not
provide this emphasis. Instead, they emphasize "the dramatic improvements in AQ . . . since
1970." The wording of the ES and Intro might lead an uninitiated reader to conclude that AQ has
been sufficiently improved already, so that to fix the its machinery EPA need only to tighten
some screws, adjust some valves, and oil some joints - to make "improvements in efficiency and
effectiveness of current programs," as the ES says (p. vi).
Presentations by the report's authors and many spoken comments from CAAAC members were
much more forthright about the remaining need for improvements in AQ, in spite of the dramatic
improvements we've had since 1970. Reports on details of the sub-committee discussions,
comments from CAAAC members, and responses from sub-committee and EPA leaders left no
doubt - the objective of the report is to make management more efficient and effective so as to
further reduce emissions and therefore further improve AQ. in pursuit of improved human health
and ecosystem quality.
As it stands in the draft, the ES emphasizes "transformation of the AQM system," calls for EPA
to "improve the US AQM system," wants changes "to allow progress to continue in a more
effective and efficient manner," and calls for EPA to "streamline processes, improve resource
allocation, and enhance scientific and technical capacity."
The Introduction, after documenting "dramatic declines in emissions and ... pollutants," focuses
again on efficiency and effectiveness,. The Intro does say AQ improvements can "be ...
expanded," and that "the AQM system could ... provide further benefits, but it imbeds these goal
statements in discussion of management efficiency and effectiveness, rather than stating them as
independent goals.
2. The report should strengthen its comments on conformity.
-------
by the Air Work Group
The report should call for intensified effort to analyze relationships connecting human health and
ecosystem quality with the metropolitan nexus of AQ, transportation, and land use. Problems in
this area - now so frequently discussed in the public arena under such rubrics as sprawl and smart
growth - are getting worse, not better. AQ damages are "transported" beyond the metro areas, to
include, e.g., tribal areas. Conformity provisions are badly needed and must be retained, as the
report says, but they have not yet worked adequately, so the report should call for them to be
improved and strengthened.
3. Changes are required in reporting three of the issues that have been placed in the so-called
Bin Two (i.e., left to be considered for future recommendations from this or other subcommittees
of the CAAAC).
a) Long-term principle #7 (p. 34) should be changed to read: Further incorporate land
use and transportation planning in clean air planning efforts.
b) The discussion in Section 2.1.3 (p. 21 and Appendix p. 48) must include language
indicating that transportation plans can achieve adequate AQ improvements only if
they are integrated adequately with improved land use plans. Thus, a fourth
Recommended Action should be added (Appendix, 2.1.3, p. 48,) as follows:
c) 4) EPA should work with COGs, MPOs, and other involved agencies of S/L/T
governments to facilitate better AQ results through reduction of urban sprawl and
consequent reductions in VMT and energy use. EPA should work with DOT, HUD,
and other federal agencies to seek improved land use and transportation plans and
enhanced coordination among highly interdependent jurisdictions.
d) The listing of deferred "Issues" (Appendix C, p. 86 ff) should be amended to include
all the issues listed as "Core Principles" (Report, p. 34).
The Report's "Long-Term Core Principles" and Appendix C's "Summary of Deferred Issues"
leave the reader confused. The section on Long-Term Framework Options," at the end of the
Report, adds to this confusion. The general idea, made clear in the discussion, is that a number of
items/issues were left for the future, either because they were added too late, are too complex, or
are too controversial. The two lists should be made compatible.
In particular, whether or not other changes are made, Core Principle # 7 (on land use and
transportation planning) needs also to be listed as a separate item in Appendix C.
:: E-5
-------
by the Air Work Group
January 4, 2005
Comments from:
Ralph Marquez, Commissioner,
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
The primary points Commissioner Marquez would like to reiterate are:
1) The report's recommendations mention in a number of places the need for increased
regional approaches to addressing the air quality needs. However, the report does not
adequately address the tension which currently exists between EPA's desire for national
consistency and the flexibility needed to adequately craft the necessary regional
approaches. EPA needs to recognize this tension and take the appropriate steps to
mitigate it.
2) There are a couple of recommendations which refer to the need for EPA to issue timely
guidance. However, the report does not adequately address the disincentives, associated
with draft and evolving guidance, which currently preclude S/L/T's from developing
unique approaches to address their particular issues. EPA should stop the bureaucratic
terrorism and not hold up innovative and unique approaches solely because they may not
be consistent with future guidance.
3) The report is very weak on the need for increased accountability associated with EPA's
role in the process. Specifically, there is too much focus on the need to evaluate
additional controls on source categories which State's currently have a significant amount
of authority to regulate. EPA needs to focus those resources on what should or could be
done to address those categories where State's have little to no authority. For example,
EPA should focus on getting new technologies approved and into the market, especially
for mobile sources, in a timely enough manner that they will be available for this next
round of SIPs. EPA should also consider stepping up and assuming a federal assignment
up front in the planning process, for achieving reductions from these categories.
There are over 37 recommendations included in the report, with a number of sub-
recommendations. If EPA were to attempt to implement them all, other important programs and
initiatives could suffer. EPA needs to step back and conduct a holistic evaluation of all of its
current efforts, and identify those activities which could be delayed or eliminated, to ensure
adequate resources are available for the timely implementation of these initial recommendations.
E-6::
-------
by the Air Work Group
To: Air Quality Management Work Group
From: Steve Winkelman and Ned Helme
Center for Clean Air Policy
Re: CCAP Comments on the AQM Work Group Final Report
Date: January 6, 2005
These comments are intended to respond to and expand upon three components of the AQM
Work Group Final Report:
• 2.13 Conformity
• 3.9 Co-Benefits
• Long-Term Vision Core Principle #7, land use and transportation planning.
The comments arise from the Clean Air and Smart Growth Forum organized by the Center for
Clean Air Policy and the Local Government Commission in Sacramento, CA on December 1-2,
2004. The forum brought together some 50 experts from a variety of disciplines and jurisdictions
to provide recommendations on how to improve clean air programs, policies and processes in a
way that will support both sustainable land use and emission reduction goals.
Better integration of land use and transportation planning is critical to slowing growth in vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) and is therefore an important element in developing conforming
transportation programs and plans. A key finding from the CCAP/LGC forum is that
implementing integrated land use and transportation policies requires quantification
communication of the broader co-benefits of smart growth polices (quality of life, congestion,
infrastructure cost savings, etc.).
Rapid growth in VMT poses perhaps the most serious challenge to reducing transportation sector
emissions and achieving air quality goals. Land use patterns have a strong influence on the
amount of driving based on the availability of transportation choices and distances between
origins and destinations. More integrated land use and transportation policies such as smart
growth, transit-oriented development, and infill development hold significant promise for
reducing transportation emissions.14
The forum recommendations were grouped into three categories: A. Clean Air Act, B. Modeling,
and C. Implementation. Below we include highlights of those recommendations that are pertinent
to the AQM Work Group report and have provided key recommendations in italics.
14 See, for example:
• Center for Clean Air Policy, Smart Growth and Air Quality Primer, December 2004.
• Ewing, R., Pendall, R., andD. Chen. Measuring Sprawl And Its Impact Volume I. October 2002.
• L. Frank, "Land Use Impacts on Travel Choice and Vehicle Emissions in the Central Puget Sound:
Methodology and Findings," Transportation Research - PartD., March 2000.
• Holtzclaw, I, Clear, R., Dittmar, H., Goldstein, D, and P. Haas, "Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and
Socioeconomic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use - Studies In Chicago, Los Angeles And
San Francisco," Transportation Planning and Technology, 2002, Vol. 25, pp. 1-27.
:: E-7
-------
by the Air Work Group
A. Clean Air Act
1. Require Alternative Scenario Analyses for Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs)
and Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs)
The TIP and LRTP planning process require alternatives analyses only for specific large projects
but not for the full Program or Plan. At the local project scale the likelihood of detecting any
discernible land-use impact is small - thus lower-cost, more efficient alternatives may be missed.
A change that could fix this, and in turn strengthen the current conformity process, would be a
requirement that MPOs include regional alternative transportation and land use scenarios in their
TIP and LRTP updates. This could include, for example, increased transit service, infill and
mixed-use development. If MPOs were required to generate such alternative scenarios at the
regional scale, it would help officials consider various planning factors and opportunities to avoid
or minimize various adverse impacts of project and plan investments. This would maximize the
satisfaction of regional and federal objectives and make the benefits of comprehensive smart
growth planning readily apparent.
EPA (with FHWA/FTA) could prepare guidance on how to conduct alternative transportation and
land use scenario analyses. This might require working with Congress on legislative changes. It
would likely require financial support from the federal government so that it does not become an
"un-funded mandate." EPA could work with regions that have already done such analyses (e.g.,
Sacramento) as a starting point for piloting such an effort.
2. Ensure Emissions Baseline Integrity
Baseline land use assumptions have a big impact on the level of travel demand and available
travel choices. Too often, the assumptions are not subject to rigorous review in terms of quality or
how realistic they are. While, alternative scenario analyses can help improve the quality of input
assumptions, more is needed to ensure that assumptions are reasonable. In some cases, the
conformity process is iterative in nature, where, for example modelers increase transit ridership or
land use densities until conformity is met (in conjunction with other measures). While fine in
principle, there appears to be little in the way of follow up to ensure that those assumptions are
realistic and realized. If a plan conforms due, in part, to unrealistic assumptions then it will fail to
achieve required emissions levels and will not sufficiently protect public health. We note that
there is a higher level of scrutiny for individual control measures even if they may impact fewer
tons than key baseline assumptions.
Thus, we recommend increased scrutiny by federal officials to improve the quality and reliability
of baseline assumptions, and enhanced tracking and enforcement to ensure that assumptions
reflect reality. This is not intended to discourage progressive land use assumptions in
transportation plans, but should be done in conjunction with incentives and opportunities to
improve input data and to assist with implementation follow through. Land use development is a
complex undertaking that involves many parties external to the planning and modeling processes.
Therefore, it may be unfair and unrealistic to require literal fulfillment of baseline land use
assumptions, but it does seem appropriate to require demonstration of progress toward policy
goals embedded in baselines. For example, if the baseline assumes infill development, then local
governments or regional bodies should be able to demonstrate new initiatives, funding or
incentives to encourage infill development.
EPA (and FHWA) should provide guidance on appropriate land use and transportation baseline
assumptions as well as guidance on appropriate level of demonstration. They should explore
E-8::
-------
by the Air Qualify
potential incentives and efforts for improving input data and for assisting with implementation
follow through. EPA should also develop parameters for demonstration of progress toward
baseline goals, including guidance on appropriate contingency efforts if baseline assumptions fall
short.
3. Encourage Greater Use of Land Use Measures in SIPs
In 2001, the US EPA issued guidance titled, Improving Air Quality through Land Use Activities,
to assist states in formally obtaining SIP credit for sustainable land use policies including
brownfields and infill development.15 Only two states (Maryland and Texas) have taken
advantage of this guidance. Barriers to participation include modeling complexities,
implementation uncertainties and low emission benefits for small-scale projects.
EPA should consider developing less stringent standards for evaluating land use measures. EPA
could consider increasing the 3% cap through voluntary guidance coupled with specific
requirements for demonstrating implementation (e.g., region commits funding, zoning
modifications passed). Another approach would be to develop a mechanism to allow land use
projects as enforceable measures with no percent cap. In either case, it will be important to
require a contingency plan, which could include innovative approaches such as including source
shut-downs in a community bank.
B. Modeling
The quality of land use and transportation modeling is often poor due to MPO staff and resource
limitations, and a lack of incentives to improve models.
EPA, FHWA, and FT A should develop joint guidance on improving travel models with minimum
acceptable practices, routine audits of modeling used for SIPs/TIPs/RTPs/NEPA to evaluate
adequacy of inputs, outputs, sensitivity performance.
EPA should pursue a pilot initiative for regions incorporating the following elements:
• Interagency cooperation
• Performance-based measures: air quality, public health, equity, energy conservation,
quality of life
• Uses Best Practice measurement tools
• A transparent public process including regional/local visioning
• Auditing progress
15 US EPA, Final Policy Guidance: Improving Air Quality through Land Use Activities. EPA420-R-01-001
Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality January 2001
U.S. EPA http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/policv.htmtflanduse, January 2001. Please also see,
www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/landguid.htm.
:: E-9
-------
by the Air Work Group
C. Implementation
It is critical to ensure that land use policies are actually implemented if we are to reap their air
quality benefits. The forum identified a number of areas where EPA could help.
1. Promote Education and Foster Leadership
The multiple benefits of smart growth policies are insufficiently understood by many policy
makers. There is need for more federal coordination to ensure that policies and funding decisions
do not contribute to unsustainable land use patterns and increased transportation emissions.
EPA should coordinate with other federal agencies (FHWA, FT A, HUD, Fish and Wildlife) at the
federal and regional levels on promoting sustainable land use policies that benefit air quality,
water quality and quality of life. At the federal level, agency heads, could recommend a
Presidential Executive Order, that recommends funding priorities to improve the natural and
community environment. At the regional level EPA could help identify a champion in each
region (e.g., regional EPA and FHWA offices, elected officials, business leaders) to lead
comprehensive smart growth efforts.
EPA should work with governors and mayors to foster leadership on dealing with land use,
transportation and air quality in an integrated way. This could include expansion of existing
efforts, and high-level briefings with elected officials and key staff. It will be important to
emphasize health and financial benefits of smart growth policies.
EPA, FHWA and FT A should fund indicator development to help promote and track the multiple
benefits of smart growth policies. Indicators could include per-capita VMT, exposure to
congestion, availability of alternative travel choices, health impacts and infrastructure costs.
2. Ensure that Federal Transportation and Infrastructure Funding Advances Sustainable
Land Use and Transportation
EPA and DOT should fund regional visioning exercises that elicit public input on alternative
transportation and land use scenarios. Efforts such as Envision Utah and the Blue Print project in
Sacramento can increase public understanding of and support for efficient, integrated policies.
EPA should work with other federal agencies, state and local governments to coordinate
infrastructure funding in such as way as to encourage efficient land use patterns and slow growth
in VMT. For example, if EPA is promoting brownfield development in a region, it is important to
ensure that there are not other incentives that make greenfield development relatively more
attractive.
EPA should work with Congress to allow transportation funds to be used for updating general
plans in ways that can slow growth in VMT.
EPA should work with other federal agencies to develop performance-based funding mechanisms
and incentives. For example EPA could develop a scorecard to measure local plans against
livable community measures such as efficient land use, provision of affordable housing, energy
use, CO2 emissions, etc. Funding would be adjusted based on the scoring.
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
ICC/" A I I|V1 Connectitut Bureau of Ail Management, Anne Gobin, Acting
I C J V, / \ VJ l\\ Maine Bureau of An anility Control. James Brooks
Northeast States for ^* M«ia'" ^""y oivi!k>" »' 4i" iMlity. William o'Sultivan
He* Yoik Division of Ail Rnoutm. David Skj*
Rhode Mind Oflitt ol Air Rtiou.cn. Stephen Hajkul
Vtitnml Air Pollution Control DiviiiM, Ricluid Viltntinitti
December 30, 2004
Janet McCabc, Assistant Commissioner
Office of Air Management
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
100 North Senate Avenue, P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
Re: Comments on the Air Quality Management Workgroup Report
Dear Ms. McCabe:
As a member of the Clean Air Act Advisory Group (CAAAC) representing the Northeast States
for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), I submit these comments lo you on the
December 2004 draft report of the Air Quality Management Workgroup (Workgroup), entitled
Recommendations lt> the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. The NESCAUM member stales are:
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and
Vermont.
Short-Term Changes Versus Long-Term Transformations
We realize that the Workgroup undertook a formidable task, as it had many issues lo address and
a dauntingly tight (imeframc in which to conclude a comprehensive and deliberative public
process. We applaud your efforts and the progress that was made in six months, particularly with
respect lo the short-term Stale Implementation Plan (SIP) recommendations as well as some of
ihe national control strategy recommendalions. However, there are significant segments of work
that are far from being concluded or fully deliberated. Given the short lime frame for
deliberalions. we understand that there was an inherent tension bclween focusing on shorl-tenn
changes that are needed now versus fully addressing the charge from the National Academy of
Sciences to reexamine and recommend significant changes lo the current air quality management
system. Since ihe Workgroup consciously chose to focus on short-term changes at this point in
lime, we requesl that the final report contains wording that clearly reflects this dynamic, and
therefore provides appropriate context.
Phase I and Next Steps
As you know, NESCAUM previously expressed concerns about the Workgroup's process,
particularly with respect to addressing conflicting opinions and more controversial lopics. We are
pleased to see lhat the December draft report presents the range of opinions on many of the
unresolved issues, and more importantly presents them in context so that future deliberations can
fruitfully continue from where the Workgroup left off. We are also pleased lhal the report lille,
Kenneth A. Colbutn. txecutivt Director
101 Merrirrac Street, 10th Floor
Boston, MoMKhnscttB02tl4
Phow (617) Z59-2000
Fas (617) 742-916!
www.nescaum.oig
:: E-11
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
CAAAC Air Quality Manugewvnt Workgroup Ptigc 2
ft'ESCilVM Deci'mbcrM. 20IH
when final, will include the subtitle: "Phase I and Next Steps," reflecting that more deliberation is
planned for the near future,
Enhancing Scientific and Technical Capacity
We commend the Workgroup's recommendations advancing the scientific and technical capacity
of EPA and the states. We encourage EPA to implement these recommendations and seek
adequate funding to allow these efforts to proceed
Prioritizing EPA's Response to the Report and Funding
The report contains a significant number of recommendations that describe a number of
initiatives, studies, protocols, guidance, and regulatory actions that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) should undertake. We strongly urge that EPA begin working closely
now with CAAAC and over the next year establish priorities with respect to implementing these
recommendations. It is critical that core SIP guidance and regulatory work not be postponed in
order to respond to the Workgroup report. In addition, the report's recommendations will be
costly to implement. Many of the initiatives will also require staff training and capacity building.
We urge that EPA work closely w ith CAAAC to explore funding opportunities, and ensure that
funding available for existing programs critical to the states is not reallocated to initiate the
recommendations, or worse — programs that should be of the highest priority postponed for lack
of resources. Further. CAAAC should work with EPA and the states to identify areas in which
EPA could reduce or discontinue non-critical existing efforts in areas where improvements are
implemented as the result of the CAAAC/Workgroup recommendations.
Planning for Phase II
Our vision of Phase II involves a longer planning horizon, a more deliberative process, and
broader stakeholder involvement. During this phase, we urge that the following principles be
addressed and that these goals be rellected in the report as it is finalized:
« Focus on a long-term vision. Missing from the Phase 1 deliberations was focus on a long-
term vision for air quality management, including a fuller discussion of integrated
planning. Such deliberations address the core of the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) recommendations to the CAAAC. We believe that developing a long-term vision
must be the first order of business when Phase II commences. Once a vision is
developed, all remaining issue areas can then be discussed within this new framework. In
addition, the CAAAC must revisit the Phase I recommendations to ensure they support
the long-term vision. This iterative process was agreed to during recent Workgroup
deliberations and should be clearly stated in the report.
« Develop a Nonallainmenl Framework: During the Phase I deliberations. Workgroup did
not develop and work from a conceptual model of air pollution nonattainment, including
the contribution of upwind sources to downwind nonattainment. We believe it is
important to demonstrate a thorough understanding of what creates the diversity of air
pollution problems throughout the nation, and then document how the recommendations
will resolve them in a scientifically credible fashion. We need to ensure that subsequent
pollution reduction efforts are consistent with the science. Much of the deliberations to
date have been control-strategy focused, rather than framework-focused; we believe that
E-12 ::
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
CAAAC Air Quality Management Workgroup Page J
iVESCAtJM~ '. December Ml. 2004
discussions should be directed toward a framework for addressing movement of
pollutants.
Transform the SIP Process: The NAS report requested that the CAAAC examine ways to
transform, not just make short-term changes to, the SIP process. We urge you to ensure
that a full set of state SIP planners are involved in these brainstorming sessions. In the
NESCAUM region, we have considerable experience in the SIP process, and believe our
input would be invaluable in developing a new vision of the SIP.
» Develop an Integrated Framework for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants: Due to
time constraints and competing priorities, the Workgroup was not able to focus on
integrating HAPs and Criteria pollutants. The NAS report set out specific tasks for
deliberations, e.g., address multi-pollutants in the standard-setting process. We consider
this a critical issue to address, and urge that discussions on developing a model for
integration occur during Phase II.
« Continue Discussions on National /Regional Control Strategics: Deliberations must
continue, and must include electric generating units (EGUs), notwithstanding the status
of Federal rulemaking or legislation. No sector should be accorded differential treatment;
discussions should focus on the need for and benefit of controlling such sectors and
possible emission reduction program frameworks. Further, proposed regional and
national regulations on the ECU sector have not been finalized or implemented and
therefore there is no guarantee that they will be sufficient for achieving healthful air
quality nationally.
We appreciate the time and effort you have spent in leading the Workgroup and compliment you
on your successes to date. The NESCAUM states look forward to working with you on Phase II
and providing ideas to develop a new long-term vision for air quality management and public
health protection. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you would like to discuss these
recommendations in greater detail, please contact Leah Weiss at NESCAUM at 617-259-2094.
Sincerely,
Kenneth A. Colburn
Executive Director
Greg Green, EPA
NESCAUM Directors
:: E-13
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF HOME BUILDERS
ADVOCACY GROUP
Federal Regulatory & Housing Policy Area
January 3, 2005
Jeff Holmstead
Assistant Administrator. Office of Air and Radiation
Chair, Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building, Room 5426
Washington, D.C. 20460
Janet McCabe
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air Quality
Co-Chair, Air Quality Management Work Group
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
100 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis. IN 46206-6015
Re: AQMWG Recommendations to the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Report
Dear Mr. Holmstead and Ms. McCabe:
On behalf of the 215,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders
(NAHB). I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the Air
Quality Management Work Group's (AQMWG) recent recommendations for improving
the nation's existing air quality management system based on the National Research
Council's (NRC) 2004 Air Quality Management in the United States report. NAHB, a
long-standing member of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC), is a
Washington. D.C.-based trade association representing members involved in home
building, remodeling, multifamily construction, property management, subcontracting,
design, housing finance, building product manufacturing and other aspects of residential
and light commercial construction.
NAHB's builder members constructed about 80 percent of the more than 1.77 million
new housing units started in 2004, making housing one of the largest engines of
economic growth in the country. While our members support the goals of the Clean Air
Act and environmental protection, they are often affected both directly (i.e., federal or
state requirements on diesel engines) and indirectly (i.e, federal or state limits on
transportation infrastructure development) by various facets of air quality management
regulations that impact both the land development and construction processes. NAHB
consistently seeks to ensure that federal requirements that affect home building and
development are transparent, legal, scientifically defensible, and provide environmental
benefit while maintaining reasonable economic costs.
1201 IJ" Snw.NW. Washington, DC 200G5-2SOO
(800) 368-5242 « Fas: (202) 266-8056
E-14 ::
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Mr. Holmslcad and Ms. McCabc
Piigc2oO
January X 2005
The AQMWG recommendations represent an impressive display of collaboration and
creative thinking. With their approval by the CAAAC. the request to set up a permanent
AQMWG subcommittee, and their transmiual to the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there is little doubt that some action will be
taken to implement the recommendations. Though there are recommendations within the
report that our association and its members can support or which have relatively little
effect on our members, several recommendations give us cause for concern. This result
is to be expected, since the process for creating the recommendations eschewed
consensus and provided no real opportunity for revision by members of the CAAAC
before their submittal to EPA. As a member of the CAAAC, NAHB provides the
following comments:
Federal mandatory diesel retrofits requirements for heavy duty diesel engines
could be prohlennilic.
Recommendation 2.5 suggests a multi-prong approach to heavy duly diesel engine
retrofitting, including considering a federal mandatory diesel retrofit requirement.
NAHB understands that heavy duty diesel engines contribute to long-standing air quality
issues, and supports ihe recently finalized regulations on non-road diesel engines. NAHB
further understands that the benefits of some of the existing regulation of diesel engines
will be delayed due to various emissions standards not taking effect until 2007, with
looming attainment deadlines for 8-hour ozone and fine paniculate matter nonattainmcnt
areas and concerns voiced by state air quality agencies about existing non-road diesel
engines. It is for this reason that NAHB has long supported voluntary and incentive-
based approaches to diesel retrofits. NAHB has concern over the recommendation on
federal mandatory retrofit requirements. There exists a question surrounding the utility
of existing retrofit technology for various types of existing non-road diesel engines, how
mandatory requirements would be implemented, and the ultimate economic impact to
members of the building and development community, many of whom are small
businesses. It is for these reasons that NAHB continues to urge both the CAAAC and the
EPA to explore fully the more appropriate implementation of voluntary and incentive-
based programs for achieving the important goal of significant reductions of emissions
from existing heavy duty and non-road diesel engines.
The Energy Slur program should not be expanded to include other criteria
Recommendation 2.8 suggests expanding EPA's Energy Star program to gain additional
criteria pollutant emissions reductions. NAHB believes that deviating from the current
focus on energy conservation will put Energy Star at risk. Having a myriad of
modules/programs (Air+, Advanced Lighting Package, Water Star, etc.) attached to
Energy Star obscure the purpose of the program for our builders and the public. They
will likely lose confidence in a program that has drifted so far from its energy focus. This
would have the unfortunate consequence of reducing the number of builders who would
:: E-15
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Mr. Holmstead and Ms. McCabe
Page 3 of 3
January 3,2005
participate in a revamped program and the number of consumers who create its
marketability.
Ej$£!2dllcdjn££EE£-U2LSMl^
inappropriately result in the loss of stakeholder involvement..
Recommendation 3.4 suggests streamlining the SIP revisions to minimize the
administrative hurdles of publishing all approvals/disapproval in the Federal Register.
While NAHB supports the idea of reducing unnecessary requirements that take resources
away from the important goal of improving air quality, we have concern over the loss of
stakeholder involvement in setting a "de minimis" level necessary for Federal Register
publication. This concern is heightened by the AQMWG emphasis on expanding the
creation and use of innovative measures for gaining emissions reductions
(Recommendations 3.10 & 3.1 1). In our experience, innovative measures can have ill-
quantified emissions reduction benefits and can represent a hardship for the development
industry. For this reason, NAHB urges both the CAAAC and EPA to consider preventing
any new, innovative measures from the streamlining recommendation regardless of the
level of emissions reduction the SIP revision is intended to gain. Further, NAHB
supports the AQMWG suggestions of ensuring that emissions reductions from control
measures (innovative or otherwise) have been demonstrated empirically rather than the
traditional approach of exclusively utilizing modeling data.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide these comments on the AQMWG
recommendations. The recommendations as a whole represent an opportunity for
important revisions to an air quality management system that has already seen impressive
reductions in harmful emissions. NAHB looks forward to continuing to work with both
EPA and the CAAAC as these issues move forward. Should you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact Chandler Morse, NAHB staff (202-266-8327;
cniorse(fA]nahb.com) or myself directly (563-332-6157).
Sincerely,
Charles Collett
CAAAC Member
E-16 ::
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
OZONE
TRANSPORT
COMMISSION
Conneclicul
Districl of Columbia
M;in land
Massachusetts
N'cw Hampshire
Sou York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Christopher Rccclna
e Director
444 N. Captol SL NW
Suite 638
Washington. DC 20001
January 4,2005
Ms. Janet MeCabe and Mr. Greg Green, Co-Chairs
Air Quality Management Work Group
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code C404-04
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771 1
Dear JaejzCabe and (
The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), on behalf of its members, is
writing to provide its input and views on the Air Quality Management
Work Group effort that has been occurring in response to a charge from
the (.'lean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC).
I lie Air Quality Management (AQM) Work Group, started in August
200-4. lias made much good progress in this extremely short period of lime.
We commend this group on the development of a substantial number of
recommendations in response to the National Research Council report.
This work only happened as a result of diligent efforts by a number of
policymakers, stakeholders and EPA staff who have given their time and
thoughtful consideration to the project. It is evident that in this brief
period a number of very useful ideas have been generated, some of which
can be undertaken in the short term that will improve the current air
quality planning process.
However, many more worthy issues raised buy the KRC report could not
he addressed in the time period allotted. Sonic simply require more
thought and consideration, others are more complicated and consensus
could not be easily achieved. These recommendations deserve and require
a continuation of the effort to date.
Accordingly, we very much appreciate the CAAAC and AQM Work
Group's commitment to the two-pronged approach discussed at the
December I6'h meeting, whereby the short and long term issues that
needed to be deferred so far, for purposes of completing the CAAAC
report to be delivered to EPA this month, will be dealt with by a new
subcommittee under the CAAAC in "Phase II" of this process. We
understand this new subcommittee is to comprise many of the same
members as the AQM Work Group, and the OTC is interested in
continuing its participation in this effort.
FAX (202) 508-JH4I
e-mail: ozonciaoicair.org
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
Specific Comments on AQM Work Group Recommendations. We offer
the following specific comments on the AQM Work Group's
Recommendations to the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee to provide
our views and clarification of some of the issues we raised during the
discussion of the report at the December 16" meeting. We are attaching
cxceipts from the report with markups that reflect these comments for
your reference and consideration.
In the section of the report that focuses on NRC Recommendation 2,
regarding the expansion of national and multi-state control strategies, there
is a chart (page 14) depicting the air emissions projected in 2010 from the
source categories recommended for examination by the AQM Work
Group. This chart inappropriately omits a bar depicting the emissions for
the EGU source category, arguably one of the largest contributors of
pollution still having significant cost-effective reductions available.
Furthermore, it would be more appropriate to include two charts in this
section of the report. The first should depict current air emissions for all
of the source categories, and the second should depict the air emission for
all of the source categories in 2010. The 2010 should reflect emissions
from this sector assuming the CAA were fully implemented, but a note
could be made about the change in emission levels if the first phase
implementation of CA1R were completed.
Among the recommendations that have been deterred for continued
assessment and development, it is important to distinguish between those
that are short term in nature and those that are long term. There are a
number of instances in the report where this distinction should be made
with more clarity, and we provide specific language changes to those areas
in the marked up excerpts we have attached to this letter.
In addition, among the short term items in Appendix C, the Summary of
Deferred Issues, there needs to be a prioritization of the issues and
potential recommendations based on their immediacy in terms of state
implementation plan (SIP) development. The OTC advocates for placing
issue and recommendation #12, "Electric Generating Units (EGUs)," as
the new subcommittee's first priority, and it should appear so in the listing
in the report. The NRC report had much about transport and the need to
address it. Even beyond the reductions outlined in new rules and statutes
under consideration by the EPA, including CA1R and the CSA, the EGU
sector must go further in terms of making cost-effective emission
reductions. This is particularly tine considering the significant amount of
pollutants that are transported into the northeast and mid-Atlantic from
EGU sources outside our region. This is key to the states in our region
achieving attainment and to the sector gaining the certainty it seeks.
Again, we have indicated where specific language changes should be
made to provide this clarity in the report
E-18 ::
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
In closing, the OTC appreciates your attention to and consideration of
these comments. We have appreciated the opportunity to work with the
AQM Work Group to achieve the realistic and balanced set of short-term
recommendations that were presented to the CAAAC, and are interested in
continuing to work with you on the effort to develop and evaluate
recommendations on the deferred issues and longer term options that will
improve the nation's air quality management system. If you have any
questions or would like further clarification on our comments, please
contact Anna Garcia at (202) 508-3840, or via email at
Sincerely,
/" ' /"'T
Christopher Rccchia
Executive Director
OTC Members
Debbie Stackhouse, EPA
:: E-19
-------
by the Air Work Group
Additional Comments from the Ozone Transport Commission
Excerpts from AQMWG Report for Comment
Executive Summary, pg viii
Over the past six months, the Work Group also considered a variety of other issues on which it is
not prepared to make recommendations at this time, some of which are short term and others long
term. Some topics were so complex, resource intensive, or controversial that the Work Group
was unable to reach consensus and, therefore, has decided not to carry them forward. Additional
discussion on these topics is expected in the future, with some resolution about the deferred short
term issues within the next three to six months by a new subcommittee of the CAAAC .
The Work Group has also begun considering options for the air quality management system in the
future. It evaluated the long-term challenges facing air quality management in the U.S. from a
number of perspectives and identified several criteria that may help guide discussions on
alternatives for reforming the current system in future years. To help begin this process, the
Work Group outlines four approaches reflecting different views that could serve as the basis for a
more complete transformation of the air quality management system. In addition, the Work
Group recommends that discussion of future options and unresolved issues be continued over the
next several months.
Pg6
Next Steps
The Work Group recommends that decisions on implementation of the recommendations in this
report, as well as discussion of future options and unresolved issues, be continued over the next
several months. These continuing discussions would also allow review and/or adjustment of the
near-term recommendations if warranted. Specifically, the Work Group recommends:
• A new subcommittee of CAAAC should be established to continue the assessment and
development of recommendations for long-term changes to the air quality management
system and the short-term issues on which the Work Group could not reach consensus.
Until this subcommittee is formed, the current Work Group should continue working to
resolve additional short-term issues and continue discussion of long-term framework
options. Following its establishment under the CAAAC, the subcommittee should
develop a prioritization and timeline for preparing additional recommendations and
provide periodic progress reports to CAAAC. Discussion of all remaining issues and
options should be directed towards further strengthening the U.S. air quality management
framework over the next decade. The Work Group recommends that the new
subcommittee, in conjunction with existing subcommittees, also be given the
responsibility for overseeing the implementation of, and any modifications to, the
recommendations contained in this report.
Pgl3
E-20
-------
by the Air Work Group
Air emissions from the recommended categories are projected to continue to be substantial (see
Figure 7). However, a variety of factors must be considered in determining whether and how a
sector can be effectively regulated, including pollutant type, geographic location, dispersion
patterns, multipollutant interactions, control strategy availability, emissions reduction potential,
and cost-effectiveness. Some Work Group participants believe that adequate information exists
to begin the regulatory process now for certain source categories, while others believe that
additional data and data analyses are necessary. After extensive deliberations, the Work Group
recommends that each of the sectors listed below be addressed in some fashion by EPA. This
action may include, but should not be limited to, development of national and/or regional rules,
control technique guidelines, other guidance, and/or further study.
Figure 7. Projected 2010 National Emissions for Key Source Categories. In developing
recommendations relating to the source categories shown here, Workgroup analysts examined
projected emissions of five key criteria pollutants to 2010 for a list of 40 stationary and mobile
categories. Excluding natural emission sources, the categories shown comprise over XX percent
of the national SOx and NOx emissions and about XX percent of the direct PM2 5 and VOC
emissions. These projections include recognized uncertainties in the current inventory and the
forecast. Due to data limitations, the assessment did not include estimates of air toxics emissions
or ammonia. (Add a bar for the EGU sector to this chart, and include a second chart that displays
all the same sectors for current air emissions.)
Unresolved Issues for Further Discussions
Pg33
A second potential recommendation discussed at length by the Work Group was the electricity
generating unit (EGU) sector because of the large contribution that this sector makes to multiple
air quality problems. Many on the Work Group believed that the active rulemaking underway on
the Clear Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) provided the proper forum for considering what this sector
ought to do for the next 15 years or more; others did not. Since no agreement could be reached
on a recommendation regarding this sector, the Work Group recommends that discussions
continue by the new CAAAC subcommittee. Regardless of the outcome of any future
discussions, many of the stakeholders involved saw value in S/L/T and utilities consulting with
each other after final promulgation of the CAIR (or new legislation) to share compliance plans,
evaluate likely emissions reductions and their geographic distribution, and apply that information
to further planning activities. (This section needs to be rewritten since CAIR will not be
promulgated. It is important that the EGU sector be given highest priority in terms of the issues
being addressed by the new subcommittee. Consideration of additional regulatory action in this
sector is critical for states, localities and tries in meeting their air quality requirements.)
Pg. 88 - Appendix C Summary of Deferred Issues
1) Electric Generating Units: Consistent with the comments we made regarding page 33 of the
report, on the priority of addressing this sector through additional national/regional regulations,
this should appear as the first item in a prioritized list of the issues and potential
E-21
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
recommendations for future discussion. The AQMWG should prioritize the other 11 issues and
recommendations according to their valueto states, localities and tribe in meeting the immediately
upcoming SIP and air quality requirements.
E-22 ::
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
/V "2/4 /4. National Tribal Air Association
2501 Rio Grande Blvd. NW, Suite A * Albuquerque, NM 87104
505-242-2175* Fax 505-242-2654 • uww.nlec.org
January 14,2005
To the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee:
The National Tribal Air Association (NTAA) is pleased to submit comments on the Air Quality
Management Work Group IAQM WG) document entitled "Recommendations to ihe Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee." (CAAAC) We understand the laborious process AQMWG look on in creating this,
especially under the guise of consensus.
The NTAA is an autonomous organization of the National Tribal Environmental Council C'NTEC"). The
NTAA's mission is to advance air quality management policies and programs, consistent with the needs,
interests, and unique legal status of American Indian tribes and Alaskan Natives. In November of 2000,
the National Congress of American Indians ("NCAT") passed a resolution giving Tribal leadership support
for the formulation of a National Tribal Air Quality organization. In February 2002, under an KPA grant,
NTEfC formed the National Tribal Air Committee ("NTAC") Working Group to create the organization's
infrastructure. During NCAI's November 2002 Annual conference, a resolution was passed establishing a
working relationship between the NTAA and NCAI. Today NTAA continues to build partnerships and
working relationships with government and non-governmental organizations, with the intent of advancing
air quality issues in Indian country. Currently, the NTAA has forty-five principal member tribes/villages
and twenty-live associate members.
As a whole the NTAA supports the document and recommendations developed by AQMWG. We
understand this is a result to assessing the recommendations made by the National Research Council
(NR(')ofthe National Academies in its 2004 report. "Air Quality Management in the United Slates", and
subsequently advising the CAAAC on ways to improve the U.S. air quality management system, with an
emphasis on acli\ ities that could be achieved in the next one to live years. The NTAA appreciates the
inclusion of .American Indian tribes and Alaskan Native Villages into the final document, In addition, we
also support the inclusion of recommendation 4.3—"Greenhouse Gas Co-benefits and Disbenefits."
However, there arc specific items for which we would like to bring to your attention, on behalf of all
federally recognized tribal nations. Recommendation I. "Strengthen Scientific and Technical Capacity" is
a necessity within tribal lands, but it must be carried out in a way where tribal science and knowledge is not
lost in the discourse and policy making process. In developing techniques of modeling and assessing risk it
is imperative that tribal practices are considered and included.
Recommendation 2. "F.xpand National and Multistate Control Strategies" his specific recommendations.
which are key issues in tribal communities. Item 2.10, pertaining to residential wood smoke is one item.
Many tribal communities utilize wood burning stoves and fireplaces as their primary source of healing and
cooking. One reason is due to traditional practices that have been intact since time immemorial. A second
rational is simple economics. Wood is an abundant resource. More often than not. Tribal communities are
some of the poorest social economic classes in the country. Therefore, utilizing a cheap and abundant
resource is simple economics. The NTAA is aware of several programs, which try and supplement
conversions of wwxl stoves, which are outdated and inefficient to newer ones that reduce air pollution.
However, these programs do not address the economic disparity which tribal communities have. Simply
put, more often than not. a tribal person cannot afford a newer, more advanced wood stove because even
with the compensation by companies or government, it is still loo costly. This paradigm needs to be
addressed. Recommendation 2.11. entitled "open burning" is a serious health concern in many tribal
communities. While many tribal governments have developed open burning policies and ordinances, the
NTAA encourages the EPA to continue in its education and assistance in allowing tribal governments lo
develop similar open burning policies.
Recommendation 3, "Transform the SIP process and streamlining the SIP process" potentially will impact
tribes the greatest. While tribal governments under the Clean Air Amendments of 1 WO have the authority
:: E-23
-------
Recommendations by the Air Quality Management Work Group
to develop a Tribal Implementation Plan {TIP), many tribes do not have (he capacity to cany out such a
task. Therefore, most tribes shall be impacted by a slate's SIP process. The NT A A hopes that streamlining
the SIP and transforming the SIP process does not jeopardize tribal sovereignty and tribes' capacity to
engage in the SIP process when the SIP will directly affect them. More specific the NTAA does not
endorse recommendation 3,6 "Avoid unnecessary Public Hearings," It is the opinion of the NTAA that no
public hearing is unnecessary.
Recommendation 5, "Enhance Protection of Ecosystems and Public Welfare" is an issue of grave concern
to tribal members. Due to the reliance of traditional subsistence lifestyles by many tribal persons, we are
dramatically affected by the drastic changes in ecosystem health and global shirts in climate. The
poisoning of our airsheds, watersheds, and lands not only affects our health, bul our cultural subsistence of
our immediate ecosystems. For many tribal cultures, our food, our medicine, and our culture are directly
related to the health of our surrounding ecosystems. We welcome AQMWG's recommendation on this
topic.
The NTAA wished to bring up two general issues, which we feel are imperative for the continued success
of tribal air programs and protecting tribal airsheds. The first, is addressing the designation of attainment
and non-attainment for air pollution. Currently these designations are done via county lines. In some cases
tribal lands fall within multiple county jurisdictions. Therefore, a tribe may find itself in partial attainment
and non-attainment due to current mapping and modeling practices. Yet this current trend docs not
properly address tribal sovereignty or tribal authority. We hope to see future mapping and modeling
include tribal lands separate from county boundaries. Second, the NTAA suggested that the CAAAC look
into the possibility of any form of "cap and trade" program or any other form of economic control
measures to incorporate tribal set asides. Tribal governments should not have to compete W'ith states and
industry within these innovative pollution control programs. In addition, the NTAA would recommend
that any incorporation of a tribal set aside to he in a staggered phase. This would allow tribes who are
ready now to he able to participate, but not limit or restrict future tribal governments from being excluded
because of the lack of current capacity to participate.
The NTAA appreciates this opportunity to comment on the AQMWG's document entitled
"Recommendations to the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee." We applaud the challenging process that
the group took on* and the method of consensus, which was used, It is our hope that CAAAC moves
forward with these recommendations, and considers our comments in addressing air quality and public
health. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted.
J. Stephen Mansfield
Operations Coordinator, National Tribal Air Association
E-24 ;:
------- |