Air Quality Management Subcommittee Meeting
April 4, 2006
Arlington, Virginia
Table of Contents
Agenda
Scenario Document
Table of Team 1 Recommendations
Team 1 Papers
Team 2 Papers
Schedule: "Next Steps"
Appendices
Vision and Principles
Futures Presentation
AQM Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Air
Quality Management Structure dated November 28, 2005
-------
Air Quality Management Subcommittee Meeting
April 4, 2006
Sheraton Crystal City
1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia
Metro from National Airport - Take the metro one stop to the Crystal City station. Use the Yellow line
(Mt. Vernon Square) or the Blue line (Largo Town Center). The Sheraton Is one block from the Metro
Station. From the station walk a short distance south on S Clark Street and bear right on 18th Street.
Meeting Agenda
8:30 Opening and Problem Identification Greg Green
(Scenario discussion by John Seitz)
Issue Group 3 Michael Bradley and Greg Dana
Janet McCabe
10:00
11:00 Issue Group 1
11:45 Lunch
12:45 Issue Group 2
1:45 Team 2
3:00 Break
3:15 Discussion: Next Steps and Meetings
4:00 Adjourn
Brock Nicholson
Anna Garcia, Bob Wyman, and Deb Wood
-------
Scenario
Document
-------
Draft Document - Product of AQM Subcommittee. Draft document is intended for discussion
purposes only and does not represent the opinions of the CAAAC AQM Subcommittee or EPA.
OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK SCENARIOS FOR IMPROVING THE AIR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES
February 23, 2006
NOTE: The following discussion includes 3 overarching framework scenarios and is not
intended to cover all of the relevant points of each option element or all of the
different approaches within each scenario. The discussion is intended to be a
starting point. The first scenario is based on the use of the current air quality
system under the current CAA, the second and third scenarios represent
increasingly aggressive changes to the current system. The second scenario is a
transitional scenario with some components of the current system. The third
scenario would require statutory changes. The details in each scenario are
present to serve as examples and do not yet include the work of the Teams and
Issue Groups nor represent decisions or conclusion of discussions by the AQM
Subcommittee.
Scenario I. Improvements to the Current AQM Program under the current CAA
authority
A. Program Framework
This scenario represents the use of the current CAA system with enhancements
that would generally make the program more efficient, easier to understand, and
acceptable. The recommendations from the Air Quality Management Workgroup Phase I
report as well a number of the recommendations being considered in the Air Quality
Management Subcommittee Phase II discussions could be used to enhance the current
program.
B. Key Program Features/Enhancements
- Attainment Program- Existing PSD program and national rules would serve to
manage growth in these areas.
- Non Attainment- Traditional SIP Attainment Planning and Regulatory
Development programs would apply consistent with the current guidance.
Make additional improvements to the SIP process.
- Air Toxics Program- Traditional programs under Title III of CAA would
continue to apply including the residual risk program as well as the urban
air toxics program.
- Ecosystem Program- current program based on Class I area protection programs
as well as regional haze planning programs
- Multi-pollutant- Current integration of elements discussed concerning planning
for ozone and PM standard implementation as well as toxics integration.
Linkage to Work by AQM Working Group and Subcommittee: (some
examples)
-------
Draft Document - Product of AQM Subcommittee. Draft document is intended for discussion
purposes only and does not represent the opinions of the CAAAC AQM Subcommittee or EPA.
Phase I Report- a large number of the recommendations in this report will
be helpful to the existing process. They include recommendations
dealing with SIP processing and the use of models us. monitoring
data.
Phase II Discussions
Team 1
Issue 1- Problem Identification - under the current program the
problem identification is assumed to be covered by the goal
setting process within the CAA. The application of these
recommendations may be limited.
Issue 2- Air Quality Planning Process - most of the
recommendations being discussed would be added to the
current program and probably unfeasible.
Issue 3- Coordination Strategies - the recommendations could be
applied by the states as they develop control strategies to
support their attainment demonstrations.
Issue 4- Communications- the recommendations could be used by
state and local agencies to implement their strategies.
Team 2- Tools discussed by this group could be applied by the
state and local programs to develop innovative control
strategies.
C. Roles and Responsibilities
- National - Continue to fulfill responsibilities as defined by the CAA. In
addition, policy/guidance documents or regulations would be changed to
make them consistent with the recommendations discussed above.
- Regional - Continue to fulfill their role of providing technical assistance to the
State programs and assisting in the coordination of state control programs
across jurisdictions in support of the various CAA regulatory programs.
- Local - State and local program responsibilities remain the same. They would
have responsibility for implementation of all of the various CAA
programs.
D. Accountability
Current accountability mechanisms in the CAA would continue.
Attainment dates, Federal Implementation Plans and sanctions would apply based
on the requirements of the CAA.
References to States or states implies the inclusion of Tribes
-2-
-------
Draft Document - Product of AQM Subcommittee. Draft document is intended for discussion
purposes only and does not represent the opinions of the CAAAC AQM Subcommittee or EPA.
Scenario II. Transition from the Current SIP System to Air Quality Management Program
(AQMP) within the basic CAA Framework
A. Program Framework:
NOTE: The elements of a transition program presented below are examples. It
includes concepts currently being discussed in Team 1/Issue Group 2.
The main element of the transition program would be the development of
statewide Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) to replace the traditional SIP. (Note:
The CAA specifically mandates SIPs for each NAAQS. Would the AQMP be developed in
parallel with the SIP and could eventually take over in the future or would the AQMP be
an umbrella planning document to which the individual SIPs would conform?) Individual
State plans would build toward a multi-state plan to address the relevant issues within the
air shed. The transition program would combine regulatory, voluntary, incentive-based
elements to foster a continuous improvement emission reduction program that covers an
industrial sector.
- Air Quality Management Plan- Each State would develop an overall
air quality management plan that would address attainment, non-
attainment, air toxics, ecosystem protection, local, and environmental
justice issues within the State.
• Takes the place of the SIP and would go through appropriate
public comment.
• Developed with the participation of all relevant stakeholders
(EPA Regions and HQ, States, industrial sector, small business
representatives, environmental groups, local officials etc.).
• Updated on a regular schedule (8 to 10 years).
• Look across pollutants and explore areas of the emission
inventory that present problems to one or more sensitive areas
within the State. Areas would be identified as either in
nonattainment or close to attainment for criteria pollutants, for
high exposures to air toxics, and areas with sensitive ecosystems
(parks, streams etc).
• Identify those sectors of the inventory where reductions would
have the greatest benefit in addressing the various issues.
• Identify those sectors of the inventory that depended on actions
from the federal level (mobile sources, planes, trains, etc.) to
address the issue.
• Provide a framework for adjustment and environmental
indicators to track progress in those areas that were non
attainment or sensitive for ecosystem or toxics concerns.
References to States or states implies the inclusion of Tribes
-3 -
-------
Draft Document - Product of AQM Subcommittee. Draft document is intended for discussion
purposes only and does not represent the opinions of the CAAAC AQM Subcommittee or EPA.
• Consistent with the environmental goals and dates of the CAA.
However, to the extent a statewide plan sets forth a different
schedule, the alternative would be developed with all the relevant
stakeholders and go through public comment.
• The end goal is to have a plan that is multi-pollutant based and
addresses all of the critical air pollution issues within the state,
sets priorities and provides an overall control plan that would
provide critical data to all pertinent sectors.
- Continuous Improvement Program- This program would establish a
program that would require industrial sources to report their total annual
emissions in terms of total emissions and emissions per unit of production.
• Sources that are within e.g. + or - 15% of the mean of the sector
would be considered to be a "normal operational range".
• Sources that are outside of the range in a higher emission rate per
unit would be expected to achieve the mean with a specified
period of time (5 years).
• Sources that have an emission rate better than the mean range,
could possibly generate credits or receive other forms of
regulatory relief.
• This concept could also be structured in terms of a technology
requirement or voluntary program with the existing program
requirements as back stops to the program.
• Regular reviews to determine if the mean of a sector should be
maintained at the current level or the feasibility of achieving
significant additional improvements in near future.
B. Key Program Elements/Enhancements
(Summary only- more elements would have to be included)
- Attainment Program - the major elements of the program required to maintain
attainment would be set forth in the Air Quality Management Plan and
incorporated into the source operating permits (see permit discussion
below).
- NonAttainment - The reductions identified in the plan would be incorporated
into source operating permits. The state rules would not have to go
through the Federal SIP process. The overall control plan would be
reviewed in context of the AQMP and include a public comment process.
The state permit program (area and minor sources) and the Title V
program (major sources) would implement the plan. The state would call
for the permit changes and the sources would complete the draft permits
electronically. Sources would determine the means to achieve the
reduction using an appropriate technology or financial instruments. The
References to States or states implies the inclusion of Tribes
-4-
-------
Draft Document - Product of AQM Subcommittee. Draft document is intended for discussion
purposes only and does not represent the opinions of the CAAAC AQM Subcommittee or EPA.
permit could be completed by the source with a "Turbo Tax" like program
with all of the appropriate citations and limits. The state would then
review, edit and approve. As discussed above, the overall Air Quality
plan would set % reduction targets and a process for adjustments as
required.
- Air Toxics Program - Implementation of the toxics standards would based on
the federal rules. States could also require additional reduction targets for
geographic areas (hot spots) from stationary sources. To the extent these
areas overlap with any of the nonattainment programs, the program should
consider reductions from all plan reductions
- Ecosystem Protection - The plan would require reduction targets that would
avoid impact on a sensitive ecosystem and would consider the reductions
needed in the overall airshed programs, such as visibility.
- Multi-Pollutant - As described above, the air quality plan would be developed
in a multi-pollutant fashion.
Linkage to Work by AQM Working Group and Subcommittee
Team I
Issue 1- Problem Definition - the recommendations in from this
group would be helpful to the process of developing the
AQMP at a state and airshed level.
Issue 2- Air Quality Planning Process - The framework discussed
above is based on initial discussions of this group. They
will refine the recommendations.
Issue 3- Coordination Strategies- the recommendations discussed
is this issue paper would be important to the development
of an AQMP.
Issue 4- Communication Strategies- the recommendations of the
group will be used during the development and
implementation of the plan and controls.
Team 2 - The work products of this group would be useful at all
program levels for identifying feasible reduction strategies
and control options.
C. Roles and Responsibilities
- National - the national program would continue to be responsible for:
• developing national rules to address the sectors best regulated at the
federal level (on- and off-road sources, national source categories of
concern etc.).
• fully participating in the plan development process
• monitor implementation.
References to States or states implies the inclusion of Tribes
- 5 -
-------
Draft Document - Product of AQM Subcommittee. Draft document is intended for discussion
purposes only and does not represent the opinions of the CAAAC AQM Subcommittee or EPA.
- Regional- the regional groups would be responsible for providing
• technical support.
• coordinate the development of the plans across the jurisdictions.
• facilitate a comprehensive plan for the air shed.
• work with the federal partners to track the development and
implementation of federal responsibilities.
- Local - the state and local programs would have to implement programs
consistent with the AQMP.
D. Accountability
The AQMP would establish goals for attainment dates (consistent with the CAA)
and interim environmental indicators to track both the effectiveness of the plan and
progress toward achieving the goals. Failure to attain the goals could be backstopped by
a more rigid set of control programs, or some of the current programs within the CAA.
Environmental indicators in the plan will be monitored and adjustment to strategies will
be made based on the data.
References to States or states implies the inclusion of Tribes
-6-
-------
Draft Document - Product of AQM Subcommittee. Draft document is intended for discussion
purposes only and does not represent the opinions of the CAAAC AQM Subcommittee or EPA.
Scenario III. New Air Quality Management Framework
There are many different options for the development of a new Air Quality
Management System. Several options include: a) a critical loads approach similar to the
European process; b) application of technology to all sources, similar to the process
discussed during the Phase I effort; and c) a combination approach that would apply a
continuous improvement process for all sources and specific control strategies for emission
sources in sensitive areas. NOTE: The details in this scenario serve as examples. Concept 1
is a summary of a proposal by a member of Team 1 Issue Group 2)
A. Possible Program Framework - These proposals are only straw proposals and as
indicated above, there are many other options that could be considered. However,
as proposals are considered, they should be reviewed in context of the NAS
Report on Air Quality Management in the US.
Concept 1:
All sources of air pollution, regardless of size or location will be obligated
to take reasonable steps to reduce their emissions. EPA will promulgate rules to
govern how reasonable performance levels (RPLs) are established and how
frequently RPLs must be reviewed and updated. In concept, RPLs would
constitute a minimum set of performance standards nationwide, providing a
foundation for additional controls that may be needed to address existing or
potential area-specific problems.
Attributes:
- Eliminates "grandfathering"
- Addresses all sources, not just major sources
- Addresses all pollutants, including toxics, on a multi-pollutant basis
- Continuous improvement in air quality everywhere
- Eliminates the need for emission trading that would otherwise be needed
to shift control costs
- Provides a robust foundation for emission trading
- Probably other attributes could be established
Accountability
Programs similar to those in the existing program and ones discussed
below could be used.
Concept 2:
References to States or states implies the inclusion of Tribes
-7-
-------
Draft Document - Product of AQM Subcommittee. Draft document is intended for discussion
purposes only and does not represent the opinions of the CAAAC AQM Subcommittee or EPA.
Air Quality Standards would be established in an integrated fashion by
evaluating all pollutants and their current levels in the environment. The review
process would be conducted on a 10 year basis and initial recommendations to
EPA would be developed by an expert panel, or panels, with members from the
regulatory, science, industrial and environmental sectors. The process would
consider not only the health data associated with the pollutant, but would evaluate
the sources of the pollution, the options for reducing the pollutants, the cost
effectiveness of the controls. It would establish other environmental targets
(similar to current process, another option would be to evaluate the use of critical
loads). At the conclusion of the process, the panel would recommend to EPA the
range of targets that should be established. The panel would look at all pollutants
and their various health/environmental impacts in making the risk management
recommendations. The process would conclude with recommendations on the
environmental indicators that should be tracked, with associated monitoring
recommendations.
Implementation:
In developing the implementation program, EPA would develop control
plans for the various areas, in an open-stakeholder process including public
comment. The plan would define the roles and the responsibilities for the various
levels of government (local, regional and national) in terms of reduction
programs. Each level of government would establish and publish a regulatory
development schedule for the sectors or programs of responsibility (EPA -
national rule, trading programs etc. State - area source and small source rules
etc.).
Accountability:
Monitoring programs such as those discussed in the NAS report would be
established and used to track progress. In addition, the program rules and
elements would have to be enforceable in a manner that would require
adjustments to the plan based on the environmental indicators or to force
compliance with the published elements of the plan.
References to States or states implies the inclusion of Tribes
-8-
-------
Draft Document - Product of AQM Subcommittee. Draft document is intended for discussion
purposes only and does not represent the opinions of the CAAAC AQM Subcommittee or EPA.
Additional Points to Consider
Under the first and second scenarios there are some options that are potentially more in line with
the intent of the current Act and also may already be approvable.
States today can develop and adopt alternatives to programs like increments for all pollutants but
S02 once the PM-10 standard is revoked. As long as these programs can be shown to be "at
least as stringent" as the increment approach in Class I and II areas it can be an approvable
alternative. It is more a mechanism to manage deterioration than to achieve continuous
improvement. The term "achieve continuous improvement" needs to be carefully used. In parts
of the country (parts of the west and midwest) there are relatively few if any sources. To assume
those clean areas should be trying to get cleaner creates an unachievable goal.
Increasing population into already heavily populated areas like the coasts, the Great Lakes
(where ports are), and the warm weather states as we age and retire are also factors to be
considered.
We should consider urban areas sprawling more and more into rural areas (like Atlanta or
Charlotte). The plans proposed do not really focus on the future of sprawl. One way to do so is a
PSD/NSR program that just requires BACT everywhere with no offsets. This takes away any
incentive to locate sources at the edges of nonattainment areas. NSR may not be chasing a lot of
sources out of nonattainment areas but it will as the offsets get more expensive. Whole
industries are leaving southern California for Arizona. Again why not manage the new sources
in a different structure than thru offsets?
Ten years seems the appropriate cycle for mandatory updating. There needs to be time for
measures to be kicked in, evaluated and new studies done, and a regulatory process.
It is very important to evolve the State/Federal relationship in terms of interactions and
oversight. One approach would be to move toward a tracking of air quality, effects and
emissions with automatic action points. If you don't trigger the points, no action is taken against
a State. If a State does trigger the points, it must take certain actions or a FIP will be required.
The proposal has problems (lack of good indicator monitoring in all areas), but some significant
benefits exist (a focus on goals not on process fouls and problems).
References to States or states implies the inclusion of Tribes
-9-
-------
Table of Team 1
Recommendations
-------
Problem Identification
Recommendation: Improve accuracy and availability of environmental and health
data to enable more complete characterization of air quality, emissions, and
environmental and health outcomes and to facilitate the assessment and characterization
of relative risks.
• Improve air quality data
a. EPA should revise monitoring requirements as appropriate to allow states to
shift resources in line with results of review. (Scenario 1)
b. EPA should provide better outreach and establish a category of monitoring
devices (or practices) that can be used for research, informational, policy-
setting, and public information purposes but will not be used to set
nonattainment boundaries or bring other regulatory programs into play and
work with states, locals, tribes and other stakeholders (Scenario 2 or 3)
c. EPA, in partnership with other Federal agencies, should develop a more
integrated observation strategy that addresses gaps in rural and elevated
observations critical to supporting ecosystem, regional and intercontinental
transport assessments. (Scenario 1)
• Fill gaps in emissions inventories and air quality modeling.
a. Target resources towards the improvement, demonstration and development
of CEMS technology. (Scenario 1)
b. Develop adequate emissions infrastructure so emissions estimates can be
shared across stakeholders. (Scenario 1)
c. Emphasize the use of air quality models in retrospective and current time
applications as well as prospective applications. ( Scenario 1)
d. Develop the needed interfaces between air quality and watershed models to
better link air program rules with deposition related impacts on ecosystems.
(Scenario 1)
e. Use current air quality models to quantify co-benefits across multiple
pollutant categories. ( Scenario 1)
f. Integrate models and ambient data to provide more robust, spatially,
temporally and compositionally enhanced air quality surfaces for
accountability, regulatory, ecosystem and health assessments. (Scenario 1)
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM
2. Transition to AQMP
3. New AQM Framework
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
1
-------
Problem Identification
Recommendation (continued): Improve accuracy and availability of
environmental and health data to enable more complete characterization of air quality,
emissions, and environmental and health outcomes and to facilitate the assessment and
characterization of relative risks.
• Improve coordination and communication between EPA and external partners,
including health agencies, academic institutions, and the medical community.
a. States, EPA and CDC should periodically hold a joint environmental
health summit on a regular schedule (perhaps every five years) to evaluate
current priorities, identify new issues, etc; involve stakeholders in
development of topics. (Scenario 1)
b. State environmental agencies should take steps to increase coordination
with state health agencies. ( Scenario 1)
• Improve the collection of control and cost data to facilitate analysis of both projected
and actual implementation costs for major regulations.
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM
7 TVajkm f-° r\r\ if\ 4 ff" V!\.'l P
J. New AQM hraniework
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
2
-------
Problem Identification
Recommendation: Improve the priority setting process by creating mechanisms to
systematically realign resources and regulatory focus toward areas of greatest health and
environmental risk.
• States, in close cooperation with their regional offices, should develop
comprehensive, multipollutant air quality plan and review/update every five years.
(Scenario 1 or 2)
• EPA should use the updated information provided by the S/L/Ts as a result of their 5
year review/update for developing national regulatory priorities. (Scenario 1)
• EPA and CDC working with S/L/T should produce an Air Quality Health Trends
report (Scenario 1)
• Improve the link from improved science to improved policy: develop new
mechanisms to encourage more rapid adjustment of policy priorities in the face of
new scientific information. (Scenario 1)
• Focus on multipollutant approaches and initiatives, both in data collection and in
priority setting. (Scenario 1)
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM
2. Transition to AQMP
3. New AQM Framework
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
3
-------
Problem Identification
Recommendation Improve accountability by systematically monitoring progress and
evaluating results, working to ensure that data collection is meaningful and that feedback
loops exist to ensure that actual environmental results inform the future allocation of
resources and the establishment of priorities.
• Adjust the NAAQS Review Process to be more timely and efficient. ( Scenario 2)
• EPA, in close consultation with States, should develop an air accountability
framework providing an overarching structure for priority setting. (Scenario 1)
• EPA should work with CDC and other agencies and stakeholders to improve
indicators that can be used to assess the impact of changes in air quality on public
health and the health of ecosystems. (Scenario 1)
• EPA and the S/L/T should evaluate the progress that is being made under various
regulatory control programs, by assessing compliance rates, actual reductions
achieved, and in practice cost-benefit analysis. (Scenario 1)
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM
2. Transition to AQMP
3. New A
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
4
-------
Air Quality Planning Process
Recommendation: All new and existing sources (stationary, area, and mobile) should
be required to meet reasonable performance levels.
• What is reasonable?
• How to mesh the RPL concept with existing control requirements.
• Compliance timetables.
• Any exception processes.
• Roles of upwind states in reasonableness determinations, if any.
• How often existing sources would have to revisit the adequacy of their emission
controls as technologies improve.
• To what extent can RPLs be used to promote continuous improvement?
• Consequences of noncompliance.
• Legal authorities.
• Other federal promulgation issues.
• Resource issues for implementation at the local, tribal, and state level.
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM
2. Transition to AQMP
3. New AQM Framework
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
5
-------
Air Quality Planning Process
Recommendation: Reasonable performance levels should be required for all
pollutants that directly or indirectly contribute to ambient air quality problems. This
would include primary and secondary emissions of pollutants for which a national
ambient air quality standard applies, primary and secondary emissions of pollutants that
are precursors to compounds for which national standards exist, and emissions of other
air pollutants that may cause damage to humans, animals, and/or plants or which may
contaminate soils and waterways.
Scenario
1 within Om*ent 4C11V1
7 'Tr.sl t1 c ^ -h f\r\ fr\ A f \ !\ -i P
3. New AQM Framework
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
6
-------
Air Quality Planning Process
Recommendation: Provide mechanism to encourage/require continuous
improvements in emissions reductions and air quality.
Options Presented:
A. Status Quo - Technology-based emissions standards
B. Cap and trade programs
C. Cap and trade programs with continuously declining caps
D. Emission standard glide-slopes
E. Ambient air quality standard glide-slopes
F. Voluntary improvement programs
G. Emission fee systems
H. Industry average performance system (IAPS)
I. State/tribe regulatory improvement systems
Scenario
1
j,
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
7
-------
Air Quality Planning Process
Recommendation: Expand the use of seasonal and episodic control measures to
achieve air quality standards in areas where all reasonable continuous controls have
already been required.
Scenario
1 within Om*ent 4C11V1
7 'Tr.sl t1 c ^ -h f\r\ fr\ A f \ !\ -i P
3. New AQM hrainevvork
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
8
-------
Air Quality Planning Process
Recommendation: Multi-faceted Air Quality Management Based on a Balance of
Technology Standards, Monitoring, and Modeling. This alternative would manage air
quality through a combined reliance on basic emission control expectations, more
specific emission control requirements derived from an analysis of monitoring, and
modeling data to resolve local and regional air quality issues.
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM
2. Transition to AQMP
3. New AQM Framework
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
9
-------
Air Quality Planning Process
Recommendation: Use an integrated, multipollutant ("one atmosphere") planning
approach to reduce emissions of air pollutants more effectively and efficiently, in order to
protect human health and ecosystems.
• Current AQM program - single pollutant SIPs and sector-based NESHAPs, with
general support for multipollutant control strategy development, including
consideration of co-benefits and disbenefits. (Scenario 1)
a. Continue current efforts to support multipollutant control strategy development
(e.g., development of guidance, development of tools and data (per Team 2
recommendations))
b. Continue Detroit Pilot Study as multipollutant control strategy development
c. Use findings of AQM Phase I assessments (e.g., assessments of identified
sectors) to help target emission reduction efforts
d. Determine approaches for attaining targeted emission reductions expeditiously
and with greatest overall benefits
• Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) within the CAA framework - umbrella
planning document that includes individual/integrated SIPs for criteria pollutants and
possibly selected HAPs, as well as plans for addressing air toxics, ecosystem
protection, and local environmental issues within a State. (Scenario 2)
a. Use findings of AQM Phase I assessments (e.g., assessments of identified
sectors) to help target emission reduction efforts
b. Determine approaches for attaining targeted emission reductions expeditiously
and with greatest overall benefits
c. Transition to a multipollutant air quality planning approach, which would
require:
i. reconciling timing for SIP due dates and NAAQS attainment dates (e.g.,
by granting an extension for submittal of an integrated SIP)
ii. providing economic incentives (e.g., additional grants for diesel PM
reductions, with a streamlined process)
iii. providing other incentives (e.g., more time as a trade-off to better
control strategy/technology selection)
iv. developing tools and data to support integrated, multipollutant SIPs
v. investing resources in additional test cases for selected nonattainment
areas
vi. assessing options for "permit streamlining" (see Team 2 paper)
• AQMP as a comprehensive air quality management plan that addresses air pollutants
in an integrated manner (would require CAA revisions), including attainment of
NAAQS, sector-based reductions of HAPs and criteria pollutants, ecosystem
protection, and local environmental issues within a State. (Scenario 3)
a. Use findings of AQM Phase I assessments (e.g., assessments of identified
sectors) to help target emission reduction efforts
b. Determine approaches for attaining targeted emission reductions expeditiously
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
10
-------
and with greatest overall benefits
c. Develop a framework for an AQMP and identify specific legislative changes to
the CAA needed to support this approach, including:
i. Separating SIP due dates from NAAQS promulgation
ii. Replacing SIPs with an AQMP that addresses all of the critical air
pollution issues within a State (including, for example, those that impact
human health, ecosystems, climate change), sets priorities, and provides
an overall plan
iii. Considering setting a fixed period for air quality planning, with a mid-
period adjustment, if needed (e.g., if not showing "reasonable
progress")
iv. Structuring implementation of NAAQS to occur in parallel for multiple
pollutants
v. Using the AQMP as a basis for creating multi-state air quality plans
d. Assess the standard period for NAAQS review and options for review cycles
that correlate with new/improved science and with the significance of the
associated air quality issues (i.e., more frequent for some pollutants, less
frequent for others)
e. Assess the option of developing the NAAQS for related pollutants in parallel
f. Provide economic incentives (e.g., additional grants for diesel PM reductions,
with a streamlined process)
g. Provide other incentives (e.g., more time as a trade-off to better control
strategy/technology selection)
h. Develop tools and data to support integrated SIPs (per Team 2
recommendations)
i. Invest resources in:
i. a test case for development of an AQMP as a comprehensive air quality
management plan for a State
ii. improved data and tools (e.g., integrated emissions inventory database,
an integrated control technology and cost database, and local-scale
modeling tools) for development of AQMPs
j. Assess options for "permit streamlining" (see Team 2 paper)
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM
2. Transition to AQMP
3. New AQM Framework
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
11
-------
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
-------
Air Quality Planning Process
Recommendation: Stimulate innovative and stakeholder driven local or tribal airshed
planning to manage pollution growth to prevent chronic erosion of air quality leading to
NAAQS violations, PSD increment violations or causing NAAQS violations in
downwind communities.
• Local governments be required to integrate air quality planning into their land use,
roadway and community development plans in a structured way.
• EPA and States develop a tiered regulatory planning structure geographically building
up from local /tribal communities, to airsheds, to state and possibly multi-state Air
Quality Management Plans.
• The new regulatory structure be: pilot tested in one or more locales; provide strong
incentives and flexibility for creative solutions; apply high rigor and demand proven
results in locales where air pollution growth is strong; yet, allow for off-ramps, lower
rigor or longer planning cycles if locales do not exhibit NAAQS violations or chronic
pollution growth.
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM
2. Transition to AQMP
3. New AQM Framework
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
13
-------
Air Quality Planning Process
Recommendation: Improve and coordinate interstate planning and rulemaking to
better reflect the science of air pollution formation and transport.
• Use regional airsheds (option C) to roughly approximate the most critical areas of
influence. Areas of violation can be applied simply as the areas not meeting ambient
air standards.
• Resist use of political boundaries when defining airsheds unless supported by science.
• Monitoring and major sources/source regions should be considered.
• Regional modeling and meteorological modeling should also be considered.
• Nonstandard forms of measurements such as aircraft, balloon, satellite, mountain-top,
building/tower monitors could prove useful.
• While MSAs may be useful in identifying the urban extent of metropolitan emissions, the
boundary is generally too small to be considered an airshed.
• Once an airshed is defined, efforts should be made to understand the science of what
creates it, special topographical and meteorological issues, population health risk, and
other environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
• Airshed Planning Regions could contain several nonattainment areas.
• Airshed Planning regions would not necessarily include entire states, nor would they
necessarily be entirely contained within the existing RPOs.
• The existing RPOs may contain multiple Airshed Planning Regions
• Consider overlapping of airsheds to include upwind source areas that contribute to
problem areas.
• States may opt into upwind airsheds.
> Nonattainment areas could still represent areas with poor air quality and be the focus of
state/tribal SIPs.
> Airshed Planning Regions look at the regional context of air pollution sources and how it
affects nonattainment areas and other areas of poor air quality. Efforts should be focused
on building successful state/tribe interrelations and SIPs.
> Regional Planning Organizations could continue to be the forum for bringing the regional
states together for coordination and planning. Beyond the RPO's mandate for studying
regional haze, they would now also be charged with coordinating the work of the airsheds
within, or partially within their borders.
> National - EPA will still need to seek out pollution controls that are best implemented on
a national or sub-national level and will provide resources as needed to study air pollution
emissions, transport, and the coordination of the RPOs so that inter-RPO transport and
airsheds that span multiple RPOs are properly considered.
Scenario
1 within Om*ent 4C11V1
7 'Tr.sl t1 c ^ -h f\r\ fr\ A f \ !\ -i P
3. New AQM Framework
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
14
-------
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
-------
AQM Coordinating Function
Recommendation: Proposal 1
• Alternative A: FEDERAL AGENCIES SHOULD PREPARE AND MAKE
AVAILABLE TO OIR, OMB AND THE PUBLIC STATEMENTS OF AIR
QUALITY, ENERGY, TRANSPORTATION [AND GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSION] EFFECTS FOR RELEVANT AGENCY ACTIONS. ANY FINAL
AQM DESIGN EPA ENDORSES OR ADOPTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A
RELEVANT AGENCY ACTION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS REQUIREMENT
• Alternative B: EPA SHOULD WORK WITH AFFECTED STAKEHOLDERS TO
PREPARE A STATEMENT OF ENERGY EFFECTS FOR ANY FINAL AQM
DESIGN EPA ENDORSES OR ADOPTS AS A RESULT OF AQM
SUBCOMMITTEE TEAM 1' S RECOMMENDATIONS IF EPA DETERMINES,
AFTER CONSULTATION WITH AFFECTED STAKEHOLDERS, THAT THE
AQM DESIGN WOULD LIKELY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT
ON ENERGY.
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
16
-------
AQM Coordinating Function
Recommendation: Proposal 2 THE AQM PROCESS SHOULD SUPPORT
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE SCENARIO PLANNING AT THE MULTI-
JURISDICTIONAL, TRIBAL AND LOCAL LEVELS AND OTHER MEANS TO
IDENTIFY EMISSIONS REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPROVE TRIBAL
AND LOCAL ENGAGEMENT.
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
17
-------
AQM Coordinating Function
Recommendation: Proposal 3 THE AQM PROCESS SHOULD INCLUDE
INCENTIVES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MORE MEANINGFUL
FORMS OF CREDIT, REGULATORY INCENTIVES AND ECONOMIC
INCENTIVES) FOR VOLUNTARY AND INNOVATIVE LAND USE, ENERGY,
AND TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES OR APPROACHES.
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM (e.g. self-certification)
2. Transition to AQMP ( e.g. permit streamlining)
3. New AQM Framework ( e.g. tax credits)
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
18
-------
AOM Coordinating Function
Recommendation: Proposal 4 EPA SHOULD SEEK TO ESTABLISH AN INTER-
AGENCY LIAISON GROUP WITH DOE, NRC, FERC, AND DOT TO EXPLORE
ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR COORDINATING ENERGY,
TRANSPORTATION, GREENHOUSE GAS AND AIR QUALITY GOALS.
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM
7 TVajkm f-° r\r\ if\ 4 ff" V!\.'l P
3.
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
19
-------
AQM Coordinating Function
Recommendation: Proposal 5 DEVELOP PROGRAMS THAT FOCUS ON
REDUCING PUBLIC DEMAND FOR POLLUTING ACTIVITIES, ESPECIALLY
NONESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES. SUCH PROGRAMS COULD INCLUDE
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS FOR ENCOURAGE USE OF LOWER-POLLUTING
ACTIVITIES, EDUCTION PROGRAMS, AND TAX AND USE RESTRICTIONS.
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM (e.g. education)
2. Transition to AQMP (e.g. permit streamlining)
3. New AQM Framework (tax credits)
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
20
-------
AQM Coordinating Function
Recommendation: Proposal 6 EPA SHOULD ANALYZE THE IMPACT
CLIMATE CHANGE WILL HAVE ON FUTURE AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES.
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM
7 TVajkm f-° r\r\ if\ 4 ff" V!\.'l P
J. New AQM hraniework
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
21
-------
AQM Coordinating Function
Recommendation: Proposal 7 ANALYZING EXISTING STATUORY LAWS TO
DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY CAN BE USED TO ENCOURAGE
POLLUTION PREVENTION, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE
ENERGY.
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM
2. Transition to AQMP (depending on results of
analysis)
3. New AQM Framework (depending on results of
analysis)
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
22
-------
AQM Coordinating Function
Recommendation: Proposal 8 EPA SHOULD WORK WITH STATE AIR AND
ENERGY ORGANIZATIONS, TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AND REGIONAL AIR
QUALITY PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS TO OVERCOME POTENTIAL
BARRIERS TO CLEAN ENERGY/AIR QUALITY INTEGRATION.
Scenario
1. Within Current AQM
2. Transition to AQMP (innovative financing
strategies)
3. New AQM Framework (innovative financing
strategies)
Consensus/Concern
AQM Subcommittee Team Recommendations - Team 1 DRAFT
3/30/2006
23
-------
Team 1
Issue Papers
-------
Team 1 Issue Papers Table of Contents
Issue Group 1: Defining the Problem and Setting the Right Priorities
Issue Group 2: Air Quality Planning Process
• Reasonable Performance Levels
• Continuous Improvement (new version)
• Seasonal and Episodic Controls (new paper)
• Role of Monitoring and Modeling in Future AQM Planning
• Multipollutant Planning Approach (new version)
• Local Air Quality Planning
• Boundaries (new version)
Issue Group 3: AQM Coordinating function
These papers should be considered DRAFTS. These drafts are meant to guide
discussions of the AQM Subcommittee and do not represent decisions or opinions
made by the EPA, the CAAAC, or the AQM Subcommittee.
-------
Team 1—Issue Paper #1
Defining the Problem and Setting the Right Priorities
Realities
• Science is always improving our understanding of air pollution and its impacts on
public health
• We cannot expect perfect understanding of the effects of air pollution on health
and synergistic effects
• Localized risks can be very different from national risks and can vary from area to
area
In order to improve the system's ability to focus on the most important priorities, it needs
1) continuously improving data, 2) a good system for setting initial priorities and
flexibility to shift where to address new priorities, and 3) a good system of accountability
to verify that progress on the right issues is occurring. The recommendations below are
set forth in these three categories.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Improve accuracy and availability of environmental and health
data to enable more complete characterization of air quality, emissions, and
environmental and health outcomes and to facilitate the assessment and
characterization of relative risks.1
A. Improve air quality data: continually improve air quality monitoring network to
collect data on pollutants of concern, in areas of concern.
Current barriers include:
• Perceived or real legal or political disincentives to locate additional criteria
pollutant monitors or to evaluate industrial monitoring such as CEMS.
• Resistance due to CAA interpretation and accepted historical practice to using
advanced assessment techniques that characterize contiguous nonattainment
boundaries such as model-data fusion to define nonattainment areas.
• Lack of funding
• Technology not developed or implemented effectively (continuous PM10-2.5,
continuous metals, ambient speciated mercury monitoring, ammonium
monitoring)
• Communication/decision making responsibilities split among different levels
of government
1 We recognize that some of these recommendations are the same as or similar to recommendations made
during Phase 1 of the AQM process. That makes sense because they are fundamental and long term
activities that are a necessary part of the longer term vision for improving the system we use to set and
regularly assess our priorities. Additional specific recommendations regarding monitoring and emissions
inventories may be developed after EPA provides an update of progress on the Phase 1 recommendations.
1
-------
Recommendations for specific actions:
• Action 1: EPA has already proposed to work with states, locals, tribes and
other stakeholders to review the national monitoring system; EPA should
revise monitoring requirements as appropriate to allow states to shift resources
in line with results of review. (Bin 1)
• Action 2: EPA should provide better outreach and establish a category of
monitoring devices (or practices) that can be used for research, informational,
policy-setting, and public information purposes but will not be used to set
nonattainment boundaries or bring other regulatory programs into play and
work with states, locals, tribes and other stakeholders (Bin 2 or 3)
• Action 3: EPA, in partnership with other Federal agencies, should develop a
more integrated observation strategy that addresses gaps in rural and elevated
observations critical to supporting ecosystem, regional and intercontinental
transport assessments. As part of this strategy, the incorporation of emerging
environmental data sets from satellites, air quality forecasting and chemical
data assimilation (i.e., integration of models and observations) should be
tasked as a requisite for advancing air quality assessment capabilities over the
next two decades. EPA should continue to invest in the overarching Global
Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) to support multiple air quality
assessments. (Bin 1)
B. Fill gaps in emissions inventories and air quality modeling.
Current barriers include:
• Inconsistent and/or delayed reporting by states
• Lack of adequate emission factors
• Poor input data (e.g. use of out of date VMT and questionable
projections to estimate mobile source emissions)
• No current regulatory mechanism for quantifying emissions from
small stationary and area sources
• Inconsistent development across pollutant categories compromising
effective multiple pollutant emission inventories
• Omission of climate forcing gases such as C02 which will require
direct integration in future modeling assessments that link air quality
and climate interactions
• Limited use of air quality models in a predominantly prospective and
independent (from observations) mode.
Recommendations for specific actions:
• Action 1: Target resources towards the improvement, demonstration
and development of CEMS technology to make it more cost-effective
and more accurate, especially for emission sources for which CEMS
technology is not currently available, accurate or within reasonable
costs. EPA should encourage CEMS technology for the pollutant of
2
-------
interest (not a surrogate) as the default compliance monitoring
technology using incentives for future rules. (Bin 1)
• Action 2: Develop adequate emissions infrastructure so emissions
estimates can be shared across stakeholders (S/L/T and industry)
Focus should be on developing better numbers in inventory as opposed
to trying to quantify the uncertainty at the end. (Bin 1)
• Action 3: Emphasize the use of air quality models in retrospective and
current time applications as well as prospective applications.
Models provide a needed complement to data in accountability
assessments in which reconstructed modeling of past years allows for
checking original assumptions and success of rule implementation.
(Bin 1)
• Action 4: Develop the needed interfaces between air quality and
watershed models to better link air program rules with deposition
related impacts on ecosystems. (Bin 1)
• Action 5: Use current air quality models to quantify co-benefits
across multiple pollutant categories, recognizing the limitations (due to
scarcity) of ambient data to address interactions of HAPs with PM and
ozone. (Bin 1)
• Action 6: Integrate models and ambient data to provide more robust,
spatially, temporally and compositionally enhanced air quality surfaces
for accountability, regulatory, ecosystem and health assessments. (Bin
1)
C. Improve coordination and communication between EPA and external partners,
including health agencies, academic institutions, and the medical community.
Current barriers include:
• History of operating in isolated institutional environments; few
current mechanisms or statutory drivers for coordination
• Difficulties in reconciling priorities between different parties
• Due to privacy concerns, access to actual health data is limited and
only available to States or through insurance agencies
Recommendations for specific actions:
• Action 1: States, EPA and CDC should periodically hold a joint
environmental health summit on a regular schedule (perhaps every five
years) to evaluate current priorities, identify new issues, etc; involve
stakeholders in development of topics. (Bin 1)
• Action 2: State environmental agencies should take steps to increase
coordination with state health agency (for example, regular meetings
of senior staff to discuss priorities and common issues; formation of
task forces on issues of environmental health jointly headed by
environmental and health chiefs—e.g. asthma, lead paint; joint brown
bag or other informal events/seminars and the like where staff from
3
-------
environmental and health agencies can learn what each other do, share
information and discuss issues of common interest) (Bin 1)
D. Improve the collection of control and cost data to facilitate analysis of both projected
and actual implementation costs for major regulations.
Current barriers include:
• Current information on available controls and associated costs is minimal;
projections of the costs of implementing a major rule rely on partial data, at
best. This makes realistic assessments of cost/benefit tradeoffs difficult.
• Furthermore, we know little about what controls are actually implemented by
controlled industries and specific sources. This makes ex post evaluation of
actual implementation costs difficult.
Recommendations for specific actions:
• [To Be Determined]
Recommendation 2: Improve the priority setting process by creating mechanisms
to systematically realign resources and regulatory focus toward areas of greatest
health and environmental risk.
Recommendations for specific actions:
• Action 1: States, in close cooperation with their regional offices,
should develop comprehensive, multipollutant air quality plan and
review/update every five years. The plan should address, but not be
entirely driven by SIP or other federal requirements, and should be
tailored to the air quality situation in the particular state and the state's
public health needs. State health agencies should be involved in
developing plan. (Bin 1 or 2)
• Action 2: EPA should use the updated information provided by the
S/L/Ts as a result of their 5 year review/update for developing national
regulatory priorities. (Bin 1)
• Action 3: EPA and CDC working with S/L/T should produce an Air
Quality Health Trends report that links changes in ambient air quality
to health data on a regular (five year?) cycle, using the best available
information and recognizing the limitations of those data. (Bin 1)
• Action 4: Improve the link from improved science to improved
policy: develop new mechanisms to encourage more rapid adjustment
of policy priorities in the face of new scientific information.
Redirecting resources and resetting programmatic priorities is a
difficult task which involves overcoming inertia at both the federal and
state level. What types of mechanisms are most effective in
overcoming this inertia—incentives? Traditional regulatory hammers
(command and control approaches)? Broader application of
"innovative" approaches such as emissions trading and declining caps?
(Bin 1)
4
-------
• Action 5: Focus on multipollutant approaches and initiatives, both in
data collection and in priority setting. Multipollutant work encourages
collaboration and is more likely to lead to least-cost solutions to
multiple air quality problems as simultaneous emissions reductions
and control strategies are explored. Furthermore, multipollutant work
encourages the explicit consideration of necessary tradeoffs, enabling
risk-risk decisions to be made more transparently. (Bin 1)
Recommendation 3: Improve accountability by systematically monitoring progress
and evaluating results, working to ensure that data collection is meaningful and
that feedback loops exist to ensure that actual environmental results inform the
future allocation of resources and the establishment ofpriorities.
Recommendations for specific actions
• Action 1: Adjust the NAAQS Review Process to be more timely and
efficient. Rather than a strict every five year review requirement,
which EPA rarely if ever meets, have the CASAC or a CASAC-like
group review the standards on a regular (two year, e.g.) basis, with
opportunities for public input, and make a recommendation as to
which standards are in need of review, based on whether there is
sufficient new information that warrants review. (Bin 2)
• Action 2: EPA, in close consultation with States, should develop an
air accountability framework providing an overarching structure for
priority setting. The accountability framework allows for a more
technically sound assessment approach linked directly to program
implementation and improvement and not constrained by historical
approaches. By following basic accountability steps, a concerted
effort would be placed on defining and understanding the linkages
along the source to air quality to exposure to effects continuum,
allowing for critical review of rule implementation success.
Accountability efforts should focus on CAIR, CAMR and mobile
source rules. (Bin 1)
• Action 3: EPA should work with CDC and other agencies and
stakeholders to improve indicators that can be used to assess the
impact of changes in air quality on public health and the health of
ecosystems. These agencies should encourage research in areas that
will help develop indicators and that conducts assessments. (Bin 1)
• Action 4: EPA and the S/L/T should evaluate the progress that is
being made under various regulatory control programs, by assessing
compliance rates, actual reductions achieved, and in practice cost-
benefit analysis. Incorporate accountability up front in the system by
developing mechanisms (or using existing ones, such as through
Utility Regulatory Commissions or required tax filings) to collect
information from sources regarding actual compliance technologies
chosen and actual costs for compliance or identifying how we can
5
-------
measure that the results we sought were achieved. Incorporate
mechanisms for developing and collecting these data into new and
revised regulations. (Bin 1)
-------
Issue Paper
Reasonable Performance Levels
March 15, 2006
AQM Subcommittee Team 1, Group 2
Goal.
All sources of air pollution, regardless of size or location, will be required to have in place
emission controls that meet reasonable performance level (RPL) requirements. EPA will
promulgate rules governing how reasonable performance levels are established and how
frequently RPLs must be reviewed and updated. In concept, RPLs would constitute a minimum
set of performance standards nationwide, providing a foundation for additional controls that may
be needed to address existing or potential area-specific air quality management problems.
Attributes.
• Addresses all sources, not just major sources, and provides more standardized control
requirements across the country.
• Addresses all pollutants, including toxics, on a multi-pollutant basis.
• Eliminates grandfathering partially or totally depending on the degree to which the
concept is implemented.
• Provides a process for achieving gradual improvement in air quality, everywhere.
Benefits.
• Improves air quality in local attainment, maintenance, and nonattainment areas impacted
by emissions.
• Establishes minimum standards consistent with longstanding control/treatment
requirements in waste management and water pollution control programs.
• Provides reductions in background emissions that might otherwise be transported into
areas where such emissions may combine with local emissions to threaten or exceed air
quality standards.
• Creates better opportunities to attain standards in nonattainment areas.
• Creates more certainty in areas where monitoring/modeling data is shows threats to air
quality standards.
• Offers possibilities for economic development in some areas otherwise not able to grow
due to closeness of monitoring/modeled data to air quality standards.
Background.
For years, the Clean Air Act has required certain sources to meet certain emission standards.
These include Best Available Control Technology (BACT), Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT), Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER), and Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART). BACT is required on major new and modified sources in areas meeting
1
-------
national ambient air quality standards. RACT is required on existing sources in areas not
meeting national ambient air quality standards. LAER is required on major new and modified
sources in areas not meeting national ambient air quality standards. BART is required for
sources in 26 industrial categories built between 1962 and 1977 if those sources have emissions
of pollutants above certain thresholds and if the sources are found to contribute to visibility
impairment at one or more Class I areas.
In spite of these multiple requirements, many sources have not controlled their emissions to the
degree that is feasible. While environmental programs have prohibited untreated discharges of
domestic and industrial wastewater for 30 years or more.and open dumping of solid and
hazardous materials has been similarly prohibited for many years, there has been no minimum
control standard applying to all air pollution sources. Representatives of some sources will point
out that many sources have made operational changes or fuel switches that have reduced their
emissions to a degree that no source can be called uncontrolled. Yet there are many sources that
could be controlled better at a reasonable cost within their respective processes or at their
emission points.
Local, tribal, and state agencies continue to struggle to meet national ambient air quality
standards. National, regional, and local emission controls have been required on many sources
of pollution but local impacts still occur from nearby sources and regional impacts are also felt as
pollutants are transported lengthy distances. As air quality standards like the particulate matter
standards continue to be tightened, agencies face critical needs to manage air quality in their
areas in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Some areas are meeting existing and
proposed standards but need to maintain a margin of safety between current air quality readings
and those standards. Other areas have been in noncompliance with one or more standards in the
past but have returned to compliance and need to maintain compliance in the future. Still others
are currently in noncompliance with one or more standards or anticipate being so when new
standards are finalized. Many areas desire to create opportunities for future economic
development through reducing emissions to the point that new businesses and industries can
receive permits regardless of their air quality status.
All of these needs point to the fact that all air pollution control sources should have reasonable
controls to produce improvements in air quality that will benefit local and regional areas in the
near future. This proposal suggests ways to accomplish these goals that will ensure efficiency,
effectiveness, and equity.
RPLs could be established for many emission sources as technology-based performance
standards that are revisited on a periodic basis. However, it may be difficult to periodically
review and tighten such standards where facilities have already installed pollution controls and
where durable goods (such as vehicles, diesel engines and wood stoves) are already in use.
Therefore, implementation of the RPL concept would benefit from new tools that can provide
businesses and individuals with a continuous incentive to reduce emissions. Such tools may
include emission fees, emission caps and product labeling.
2
-------
Recommendations.
1. All new and existing sources (stationary, area, and mobile) should be required to meet
reasonable performance levels. Issues to be resolved would include:
• What is reasonable.
• How to mesh the RPL concept with existing control requirements.
• Compliance timetables.
• Any exception processes.
• Roles of upwind states in reasonableness determinations, if any.
• How often existing sources would have to revisit the adequacy of their emission controls
as technologies improve.
• To what extent can RPLs could be used to promote continuous improvement.
• Consequences of noncompliance.
• Legal authorities.
• Other federal promulgation issues.
• Resource issues for implementation at the local, tribal, and state level.
2. Reasonable performance levels should be required for all pollutants that directly or indirectly
contribute to ambient air quality problems. This would include primary and secondary
emissions of pollutants for which a national ambient air quality standard applies, primary and
secondary emissions of pollutants that are precursors to compounds for which national
standards exist, and emissions of other air pollutants that may cause damage to humans,
animals, and/or plants or which may contaminate soils and waterways.
Conclusions.
Various regulatory approaches might be employed to implement these proposals. EPA might
propose standards that would be adopted by individual air pollution control agencies and
incorporated into their air quality management plans for inclusion in facility-by-facility permits.
Standards might be proposed using a permit-by-rule approach. Suggestions have also been made
that fees, caps, labeling, or a TRI-approach might be feasible.
The RPL proposal would create a foundation upon which regulatory agencies could build more
detailed programs to address nonattainment problems, unacceptable health risks, and
environmental contamination. The RPL concept would not by itself be expected to resolve all
issues but its implementation should provide more certainty to air pollution control agencies that
good air quality can be attainable.
Timeframes would need to be somewhat flexible to allow reasonable time for all sources to
achieve the standards. More time should be given where air quality is not being significantly
impaired and where sources legitimately need the extra time to complete the required retrofits.
Less time should be allowed when substantial health and/or environmental concerns exist and
must be resolved quickly to exacerbate unacceptable air quality situations in specific areas.
3
-------
This proposal represents a substantial new direction for air quality management and will likely
not be implementable without considerable dialogue. However, there appears to be a consensus
developing within the Air Quality Management Subcommittee that it is time to consider such a
proposal. The benefits of this recommendation will be substantial and would appear to justify
the efforts that would be necessary to develop and implement the program.
4
-------
Proposal #6: Continuous Improvement
Draft Date: March 4430, 2006
Author: Jeff Underhill/Barry El man
Goal:_ Provide mechanism(s) to encourage/require continuous
ero-sskmsimprovement with respect to emission reductions and air quality
Topics Addressed:
J ' j Vn o "TArm C TP nrAAAnn
TZ x f CiITLtI VITI111 tiiv ijii piUvvjJ
O Aiiif f r> /~j o^oAnntnUtlitir f evAnlo KAinA o/^Ut ai
. .1 luvxuv iui vuiitniuO'Uj'pi vgTvjo ctiivi uvvuwli luuin i y ^ ct i v ijvui J i/viisg, uviti v v vw j
"2 A /f r\-yiC6 f%-yr\o n ra o-f jCa-rn OAnrnifY
-y- rtTrvTX7^pTx^rax7tTTX7xrc^pn^nTrcnriT^TC7rTTTTg
I- Importance of continuous improvement
2. Pros and cons of alternative options for promoting continuous improvement
3- Potential to use a combination of approaches
4. Need for additional analysis
Options:
[echnology-based emissions standards and-
strade programs
A. Status Quo -
B. Cap and ^r-at
Cap and trade programs with continuously declining caps
D. Estabfeh^HttssieftEmission standard glide-slopes
E. Ambient air quality standard glide-slopes
F. Voluntary improvement programs
SI r\
Tv^TTTTgirrnrrj
€rG.
Emission fee systems
« An cfon^nr/^c tmnrATrQmant cl Ana
Iv/J'i jiutiClui u j niipi %J v vili'wiit glxviv oiil/pC
Erf oKl t f U «-v\ a-P A m U« ai-\
JluUll Jlill IV'A11 Ui .1 iimUlVH
-f A \
r»<-r> r> faIi a t>l An 1 V v/i uiltul j llilpi U v vi i i vi 11 pi vglttlil j
H. &teW tsfe-Industry average performance system (LAPS)
CjtL StateA-'f&e-keealtribe regulatory improvement systems
In/^iictr\r A \?Arn aa D ArfArm o n a a Cton^or/1o /T APC\
liuuSO j .i v v C.1 -i- vi lUi iiiuiivv Lctii'vi'tli *lx,"Oy
General Goals:
•—kvemme-and every seetw-have a dttfy^o-redttee-effttftskwsr
Provide mechanism(s) for achieving continuous emission reductions from all stationary,
mobile and area sources
Ensure continuous air quality improvement in all geographic regions
•—• Provide incentives for gegattakwH^gton-going development and pfe-
rntrol technologies and pollution
prevention techniques
-------
Create a flexible »-8f€fef4esystem that can accommodate changes in
science and 6hanges4fl4ft€tttsif¥air quality planning needs
Background:
or*
nrctiioTtrcttrxTO
-rf^eBtemia&mpim^iH^gteTThe Clean Air Act (CAA) . as it is
m n -6 -61 m r\f oy>AAtirooa o -ynyx
I Ct|ll 1 x v XTI CTTCTTCrrctgvTnCTjpTrT/
currently written and implemented, relies heavily on technology-based emission standards for
reducing air pollutants to meet air quality goals. Technology based emission standards have
many positive attributes and can be credited with most of the air quality achievements under the
C \ \ to date. However, such standards may not provide the best mechanism for achieving
continuous improvement.
Current epidemiological studies are finding that health benefits for certain pollutants, including
ozone and PM2.5, continue to accumulate at a steady rate right down to ambient concentrations
of near zero. Therefore, there is a benefit to establishing a program that encourages continuous
mwwemeife-mrimprovement with respect to emission rates and ambient air pollution
concentrations.
The concept of continuous improvements is not a-new-eeer. It is a component of tbe-many state
implementation plans (SIPs4iHma^tgtes4ha^) (e.g.. reasonable further progress requirements),
and cap-and-trade programs (e.g.. where industries need to meet ambient air pollution goats, it is a
r\4r ot-iiirl ¦nrAA-ramf x-s7~IUiO.-y*o. jr/~\ jr/~\ A-narotoQ f* f*f\tlfl tlfl flfi Cl'tP"
OC/iiipC/llwlli- yi *UJLi.'C& Uuw 'pi KJr^TCtxIlij W1 J.%»> J, w y jpvjrai tlv/11 Xv/1111 \JUICIL'V/
increased production under em+ GS10I1 CClpG, ¦a fixed cap), and it can be found in offset ratios set for
certain nonattainment areas- The concept of continuous improvement is also
reflected in the regional haze program-that-, which seeks to reach natural visibility conditions by
2065, a goal that would virtually require zero anthropogenic emissions.
This paper seetoe-Feyiewreviews several options that can be used to encourage or require
continuous imeiwem«»te4B--improvement with respect to emissions and ambient air pollution
teyebcon centrati on s.
Onfi /-\f> A ° Ctohio Aii a T Ipq <-\-P amiPoiAiiP ofonrlorrlo o-nrl o-nrl -jf-yorl^a I's.rrtfYromol f ell ai i 1 rl Ka
ptiUII i il Ovclvittij yuv v-/' jv vji villi j&Ivl/ii j oT^xlOili til i u'lluuv u^l'ao'ljll ollUtl-lU- UW
noted that many of the options identified below for continuous improvement require some type
of emissions measurements/estimations in order to gauge progress. In some cases continuous
emissions monitors (CEMS) have been developed, standardized, and are in-use. However, other
source types rely on emission factors that may or may not be suitable for certain continuous
improvement programs without further development.
/NOTE: This paver could serve as a free-standing paper or as an addendum to the paper on
Reasonable Performance Levels (RPL). It would complement the iper by laving out
options for achieving continuous progress within an RPL framework. 1
Option A: Status Quo - Technology-based emissions standards
2
-------
Timeline^ Could be implemented within l-vearJ-vears
Partners:^ EPA, states and tribes, stakeholders
Costs: Could be implemented primarily through existing cost structures
Technology-based emission standards have historically been applied to a wide variety of
stationary, mobile and area sources. These standards ensure that all affected sources achieve a
minimum level of pollution control. However, once a source has complied with an applicable
standard, that source has no obligation, or incentive, to further reduce its emissions, until such
time as the standard is subsequently tightened.
As technology evolves, technology-based emission standards can be tightened and applied
prospectively to future new sources. 1 lowever. once controls have been installed at a facility,
those controls will usually remain operational for an extended period, making it difficult to
require that thev be upgraded or replaced as a result of each subsequent technology review.
Although additional emission reductions may be reasonably achievable through pollution
prevention measures or enhancements to the existing control device, such opportunities may be
site-specific and difficult to impose through uniform regulations.
Periodic technology reviews can also spur the introduction of cleaner products, including durable
goods such as motor vehicles, diesel engines and wood burning stoves. However, once these
products are purchased thev will likely be used for many years. Although further emission
reductions may be reasonably achievable through reduced utilization, improved operation and
maintenance, retrofit and/or the use of cleaner fuels, such opportunities are also likely to be site-
specific and difficult to impose through uniform rules.
In addition to the challenges associated with tightening technology-based standards for sources
that have already installed controls, and for durable goods that are already in use, certain small
and n on traditional sources may be difficult to control through such standards altogether. For
example, a vast assortment of consumer products is manufactured or imported each year by
thousands of companies, with products and formulations continually changing. Since it is
impossible to develop standards that are tailored specifically to each individual product,
regulators are usually compelled to establish least common denominator standards for a limited
number of broad product categories - effectively absolving many (if not most) products within
each category of any obligation to reduce emissions. Regulators may also have difficulty
tightening these standards in the future where even a small number of products (or uses) within a
category are technically constrained, making continual progress slow at best, even for new
products.
Pros: The existing regulatory framework, is already largely based on technology-based standards.
Such standards can be readily used to establish and periodically update minimum reduction
requirements for new stationary, mobile and area sources, as well as for some existing sources.
Cons: Certain small and n on traditional sources may be difficult to control through such
standards. Regulators may also have difficulty periodically tightening these standards,
particularly for sources that have already installed controls and for products that are already in
use. A continuous technology review for each source type would likely be needed and could be
resource intensive.
3
-------
Option B: Cap and trade programs
Timeline: Variable; could be implemented for some source categories within 3-years
Partners: EPA, states and tribes, stakeholders
Costs: Could be implemented primarily through existing cost structures?
Under cap-and-allocation trading systems, regulators establish an emissions target (a "cap") for a
group of sources and a schedule for achieving that target for a specific area and control period
based on modeling and air quality goals. Tons of emissions representing individual "shares" of
the cap are then allowed or "allocated" to each source. The source documents its actual emissions
over the control period and compares this to its "balance" of available allocations. Compliance is
demonstrated by showing actual emissions less than or equal to allocations.
Sources may achieve compliance by reducing their emissions or by buying emissions allocations
from other sources (i.e., "trading"). "Banked" emissions allocations provides a way for a source
which exceeds its allocated tons to "compensate" for this excess by deducting previously unused
allocations from the source's available balance. Periodically, the performance of the system is
can be reviewed and regulators mav-can adopt a lower target. Setffees-Provisions may also be
made to allow sources that are not charged with reduction requirements may-eheese-to "opt-in" te
and participate in the system.
Emission cap and trading programs can create a continuous incentive to reduce emissions.
S/-\nw>£>o r»n ulin tr> tUaoa rl am f fro ta ot tUa a-P aoAU nan tUot tUax ? /-\1/~j o
C/O-iOwij >3 ta tyj vCT IU tilvOv jpl III wtOtXiwIIlv/IIiJ ti Citv C4X tilvur vUVII ivpwi Uuilg jpvTiC/w1iI Cfc £"' ti ivT'''.1 iv/1M.'''£*•
s»ffieieHt«H»b©F»rf«H«si©iMBe^w»e©&4e^©¥ef4beH^etet«fflissieHs^The ability to sell unused
allowances, or save them for later use, gives all participating companies a powerful ongoing
financial incentive to exptof&pursue cost-effective emission reduction opportunities4w-k»¥rtfm»*
thaif amiooiAnf' Aft
tilvi I villi 331C/II3.rTit/an^
In addition, companies in growing industries weiM-have to continuously reduce their emissions
(per unit of production) in order to meet gfewiag-increased demand for their goods and services
without exceeding the cap. Under some cap and trade programs, allowances are retired at a
certain rate in order to provide for continuous improvement.
Pros: -^ysteaa4^mftteThe cap and trade system is in place for tbe4afees^rf«aissieacertain large
source categories^i:b»4aaf:ket%ased^¥SteBi-4a^eea-pfe¥efl4(»-b»%ettef4ha3a-&xp&6te^4fl- (e.g..
electric power plants), and could potentially be extended to other source categories. This market
based system has been proven effective at reducing emissions faster aini-forttwf-at lower cost than
standard command and control programs^
if"1 AWf rn-»r1 t-yoirlo. -to jr/~\ fworn -Pt r* i>ao1p rn-*r1 -to A-a-no-rollt; otafiA AX /In ila
Kl>v/Ila. \ym>|-/ til 1m. tICP»&vla uvalfinvu £vX'lllvv t jpyvlilC Mlituivni tiilvl. i j ^ v .11 v '.1 it 1I y"' o t ClX1C'. rt lll'lv
o.-P-Pt o-t Qf Qnri h;ah1^ Ua Aijartima tA ftoi; tUa tUara 10 ma U-inlt
Cri.lVIvTlClvij^ ClllU iiiipiUTWiilCiitij Vv v/O-iXi uv ivuun CU v/ v vlCTTTTv tw Ul It V XXI lUvi tilvtilviC 13 liu i> till t III
faeebaf»sm-fef^eate»ett^flateeg^4mCT^eiH^gter-Staadafd&-has spawned major innovations in
pollution control and/ef^ag&^ati^%e^wised^raw^ea#s-pfepesed4fl-efdef4e^eteff¥»amteegt
Qptk prevention, including advances in scrubber technology, fuel cleaning, fuel
blending and Tfa^e-wtA-eeHtewetrfy-^eefamg-eapenvironmental dispatching.
4
-------
't imeline: Getri4-be4mpleffletrte4-w&yfl-4-yeaFrCons: This system is still untested for most
source categories. Trading programs require accurate methods for measuring emissions (e.g..
continuous emissions monitors or mass balance calculation techniques), and these methods may
be excessively difficult or expensive for some stationary, mobile or area sources to implement.
Trading programs also require the development of allowance tracking systems. Caps are
designed to meet specific ambient air quality goals and are generally static. While continuous
improvements would be required for companies in high growth industries to stay under their
caps, there is no built-in mechanism for continuous ambient improvement. Caps must be
periodically tightened or allowances must be returned in order to achieve continuous ambient
improvement.
Option C: Cap and trade programs with continuously declining caps
Timeline: Variable; could be implemented for some source categories within 3-years
Partners: EPA, states and tribes, stakeholders
Costs: Could be implemented primarily through existing cost structures
Emission cap and trading programs with a declining cap etw-create a continuous incentive to
reduce emissions.- Sources subject to these programs must demonstrate at the end of each
reporting period that they hold a sufficient number of emission allowances to cover their actual
CC1 rvnc 'IPIUo.r'o. oah-taqo xt ? a-» -»1 rl olfA noorl jr/~\ oiiifiAi-ttA-fo i mnmt ;atvi tlUo.
^1111 jjl Ullo. iilvov juwlwlj VWuiu wlaU nvvu t v/" Cl-i. A1.1 W A jl? Ct iv ATi'Iol vJr vCiifvii'io Axvv'vtvC* xxx umv i.v>« [lie
progress time lojni.ciiTiQ.rlc. -The ability to sell unused allowances, or save them for later use, gives all
participating companies a powerful ongoing financial incentive to exftterepursue cost-effective
opportunities for lowering their emissions. Most industries would hove to continuously reduce their
amtppiA'np unit a-P m tA maat n-mn^niY -Pai* tUaif AAAflr- oafT'iAaf \T;itUAiiiit
v A11. A o ^ i iJ A A 3 y j./ CI CiXA'A t v/x jp.i vviCi'C'XxvAA'y ATA vJrl y.C'1 tlivil gUuwa Tulu Viw3 V* I'ti'Av/Cl't
exeeedtagBevond this, affected sources, collectively, must anticipate and implement the measures
needed to remain in compliance after each incremental reduction in the cap.
Pf Af ° C x ? ota-rii i n nt o. oiks <"1 n h-ti v\1oaq q 1o •ynro.ot r\4r am 1 o fi Aotart-An 0.0 ' I k a o -fl rcxir kaoofl ox? otom
roav ij jStCTn oiitipic uaau aaa pittcc i.vt uiv i«igv31 ox 0111133:1v/ii uttwgviiwo. i iiv inwiiVvt 3y 3twinnct3
boan nfAT?ay> tA Ka Kattar tUon i-m yarliiAtiin- amiooi Anf pAftai* ¦PoHUai* AAmmonfj
vvo pi vT viA w t>v UvuvA txlCIIl twvi AAA AX*V* tlCllx^ VxlxT33Tv/x:i3 \tCt3twxIU xCt 1 tlIvI txlClxl 3ttwIviCtl vi OOTiAriAwliCI.
A-n/^ "PP! A1 AV> A< AO A-ntf n;A1n1/^l 1*1A <»A ATI II 1 f A/4 A1 ?Af A tA ftAt 1 tU A AAf\
iuiu wtixivj j./1 i ui no. JDixivivuvivo diiu ii v viiiviii.c! i vi|uiivu Uvvi'tttllv tv> oicm' U-iiAjtv i uAv1 j
ofTiirl -fi-b-ytlUia-y nY>r>mT?amar>tfi xx t/~\s •» 1 ri lUna •«-% aorl a/"1 jr/~\ oton in-irla-** tlUia 1 A-n^liiitorl/- /-soTt-ao ot ooaIi nt-ii tlUo. fiitm*q A
diAU xTll tilv-l iAiipAUTvAnCTltij VtITUIU UW AACvuvvt tv i3twV utlCtCi itxlv ICwlCiiliiCfcllV ulX f^v/illt. Ill XI lv XilTt-sl w J ix
program for establishing a steady rate of declining caps could be established through the
retirement of trading allowances at a certain rate per year. The rate of retirement, thus the rate of
the declining cap, could be adjusted to capitalize on major technological breakthroughs.
if"1 AWf "naAlnnwo xx t/~\s -b1 ri m s*i -6 -6 -t m t-y*o.-rv% o.-r% rl /-\-» -6 n i-noi A~liit ¦<•«-»-fyx tlUo. taA^i-i /-\1 Am ? At -rv% -t nrlUt lUna ot;oilA'k1a at
Xiyv/lliTr .tJCUAMiiii^ vtijja vvOwivl.IC'ilwnv XxwllivllviOw-o ixAaAgjilt llltv/ Xxlv XwOxlllOxO^ j'Xiltt-t- riilgixi. uv U v cl-AiuuxK/ fc*C
fi»tiii*a 1 A-n^mAi*!/- rlotap Atj^aim;ir-a tUara h;ati1^ Ka ^lal ax 'arl tmnmi jamantf oax 7£>fo1 \7aAi*f Aptay naxi;
iuttilv xCUlCililwliV utttCkJ, T/Xxlvi Wlow, uivlXJ VtUUiu uv Uviuj vu AAAl jJlX/TCllxCriti3 3C v CTClt Vv/Ctl 3 tlxlwl xAv vv
The cap and trade system is in place for certain large
source categories (e.g.. electric power plants), and could potentially be extended to other source
categories. This market based system has been proven effective at reducing emissions at lower
cost than standard command and control programs, and has spawned major innovations in
pollution control and prevention, including advances in scrubber technology, fuel cleaning, fuel
blending and environmental dispatching. Continuous progress in reducing emissions would be
required from affected sources, and continuous improvement in air quality would be assured, as
the cap declines progressively in the future.
5
-------
Cons: This system is still untested for most source categories. Trading programs require
accurate methods for measuring emissions (e.g.. continuous emissions monitors or mass balance
calculation techniques), and these methods may be excessively difficult or expensive for some
stationary, mobile or area sources to implement. These programs also require the development
of allowance tracking systems. Some industries may object to potential constraints on
production. Currently, caps are »e¥^*e®erafr^tied to meeting ambient air quality standards.
What will be the driving force for continued improvements once the -standards are
met?
Option D: Emission standard glide-slopes
Partners:, EPA, KPOs (states and tribes], stakeholders
Costs:-
Ei»issieaAe&-Declining emission standards can create a continuous incentive to reduce emissions
in order ^ 1 liey spur emission reductions from oil sources 3,nd/or
lix? tUa -fiaa on/-{ aho ?am ant oil tUa xx?ox? Ia -rat* a amiooiAnf
t v/11 c I v'' vl 111'o o x vJ»x xo. .Of vii
©florn-a piimp a-P m amox; TTiafa -Punflf Aon Ua tn-marl AT?af tA tUa ¦Parlai'ol Af otota Traoomn' tA
I ittigv 3 uiii3T/x iiiviiv j; t llCov Ttalulj Cuit i./v twi iivu vT vt ro iliv ivOTlwi vi ottitv/il vuatii J 5 \0 / ti3vu tvJ»
fiaaftee^&sel4ete6^pfegraia&^ad-elbei4aitetiv&&-d&sie»&d4e4mBFe¥estay within future emission
standards. Such a program could be implemented for source categories that have some sort of
continuous emissions monitoring and could proceed at the rate of expected new technology
improvements. Industry would have the ability to plan future improvements with known future
limits.
Pros: Relatively simple in application. Tighter emission limits applied and CEMS used to track
compliance. For large source categories, infrastructure is already in place.
Cons: Would include only those sources where accurate continuous emissions measurements can
be made. Declining standards would require tremendous insight into the technology that might
be available at future landmark dates. Otherwise, there would be delayed improvements several
years after new technology becomes available.
Option E: Ambient air quality- or (c) returned m some monnerto mcinufcicturers or consumers.
PrAf A.'foy>x? ototaf o 1 **a o/~l x ? AUoiri-a amiooirtn faac a-P f Ama tl^no tUa i v> oti*! t Ati i i*a if n-avtarollt; o 1 **a o/-i x ?
x v/k5. irlt-Wij atCtXvG ttllXJluXiy viW13aJivJrll ivvadjiJLIw juivj tilwO iuEiv iHilwati uClui v io ttjViiviCtxtjCil:twtivi'\
in nloAa PV\y o -Paa fx7ftam T Tfi-nn- faap tA AtUay imi-\fAi7amav>t o /-I/-\-»-»1i1 a in
xxx jw/x'CtC'V'ojf 3tOxii.D arag IvCa tu liliiu v/t.i.iv'.i v? OTilVxxt jpi vgi Ci-Iiia jpiOwCiOvO it "utv/U-t/iv/ v* m in
^ A-nf T7aaf n;An1rl noa^l try inAfaooa rtuai* tin-t aP troAl/inrv o-nrl Paa AAllaAti An cx7pta^f
w v wxv|^lilVixt w.t txCiOKxilg ttxlvit »v UuIivyiiOTi oJ o tOxiiO.
¦s#eH-#teftfe4s4mpFe¥eiB€frt standard (AAQS) glide-slopes
I ' -i ty< pi inn ¦» 1 1U. a < mnl Am Ant a<-1 x x rt tU t n 1 xrArii-r»
1 llllvllllv vuuiU i) v ixiaj^/i vsi!ivxiivU vviuiiii i j wcxi .
6
-------
Timeline:
Partners:^ EPA, RPOs (states and tribes), stakeholders
Costs:
Declining erossie&ambient air quality standards can create a continuous incentive to reduce
emissions in order stay within newer future -standards. -S« ch n program could
i am antarl ^otoi>Ai,ioo tUot OAma OArt a-P AAv>tii-¦> of-7 tUa oUilitx; tA
i'vJrC:vv'vt vx w/%|^wOXvvt IIw W tvOiliivIvgj' w v Oiilwiltij. itluuoU J VtITUiu flaVv Xiiv UUiiiij Cv/ j/iCtll
firtnfe4mpfe¥emeHts-wifejgie^-^rtnfe4HaiteUnder such a system, sources can emit pollutants to a
level that thev do not significantly contribute to violations of future standards, similar to how
permitting is conducted. Air quality modeling (dispersion and regional) would be a necessary
part of anticipating future emission requirements.
In order for a program of steadily declining A AOS to be successful, it will require additional
continuous improvement programs to break any perceived grandfathering of emissions that meet
other regulations, such as emissions standards or emissions caps.
Prr\C * "P /"*1 Oi-4-im 7/"*1x ; rt t r> 1 r\ im niftitil i a n-f i am TJh-vh t r> r> t r« 1 •» -t 4- n o-s-n-fnl * r\ <"j i-.' A X C 4-fr% /-%1m 4-Vt 4- l-l'
1 1 Uj . ivviun V wij ijiiiipiv ill :Oxrra3oxv>Ai xiiiiiu t^jpjpixvvi- siiiu vatui vvmvm, A U1
laroa oah-taq AotooAnoo <-nl-Vnotwir»tiii'A -to o 1 m o rl x 7 •<•«-% nlo^o
liXigv oUU'iCv ixxxIS till wxxx jxtctOv.
^ A-nf r^aAlmmn- n;An1/^ *•£> tram av>/^Anf mfi n-Ut mtA tUa taA^n a1 aox 7 tUot mioUt Ua Ai?oi1oU1a
XTXTTKy^ .tyCCUtltilg Jtltou«iU3 VVyuiU tvt|unc tiviiivilUyuj lojlgJil llltv tilv tvCIiTlUiygj illCtt irugiti Uv WTUiiuUiv
at future landmark dates, -etbefwtsecertain pollutants, such as ozone and PM2.5. there wm-ki-be
^aloxjarl imnmijamaMto cai;afo1 \7a0yf o-Ptay nan; taAUv^AlAm; Ufl/>Amap ot?AilAK1a 1/-I rlai'al ai-\ rAAn^
0.wxwj vWi iXiijpx ks vOxIIOxxio 3v v Ox tlx jX>wx 3 tlx tvxlivV* CvCrattnT/gl UvvvinC3 UVtlliuuiv. CIC VCxV/p' x v/v/xl I UxIWCT
s not a clearly defined threshold where aeemate
impacts can logically be used for defining the NA \QS For these pollutants, other considerations
are used to set what are considered to be reasonable thresholds for NAAQS purposes. Declining
ambient air quality standards could reduce the need for using "other factors" over time, and the
public would gain additional health benefits with reduced air pollution levels.
Qptierfk-^ alrt¥-^tafl4aFd^tMe-stepeCons: As with the current
system of regulations, emissions caps and standards would also have to undergo regular review
and adjustment to allow for realistic chances of meeting future air quality standards. Declining
standards would not necessarily be tied to the technology that might realistically be available at
future landmark dates, otherwise there would be delayed improvements several years after new
technology becomes available. For non-zero threshold pollutants, there may be a lack of a
driving force to reduce the AAQS. Should it be determined that lower A AOS are supportable,
delaying the implementation of that standard and corresponding emission reduction programs
would possibly conflict with "as fast as practicable."
Option F: Voluntary improvement programs
Timeline:
~D o t4fi afp • A ~P PHo ( p-fn-f aq irfi o-f o \r a1U /-tl ^ /-%-rrt
1 dl UlVl .JL^T":r"V,^",xVlElllvx ^''v'o lei ivj UiiO'lrit/VJ/, jitlivvilUiUvi J
Costs:
7
-------
I nit* ot^M/-|fii*/'lo />om Afaoto o ^AntiMimnp iTi^antn?a tA raz-liiAa amippiArtf m At*/~lai*
tlTI it/Aviit CtlI vjCICTII. t j1 3tCtxxCiCilil\J.3 C'C«x,,Cx v«tV,,Ct,,C'V.rxixxxi^\Jrtl'3 xXxC'Vxxix V V I vX' It V Vll Ci C' Vvxiil 331iilv/tx3 IH UI uwi
ptox ? nan;ai* -Aitiifo T Tw/^ai* pnn^l-i o p<7ptam f Anmap ao-m a-n^it tA o tUot tUax ?
nTCtj^ CTtavI 3il<»/ii,,,Ci- 3T'3tvxiij,,,3vtilC'v3 twCttx,,vxiii v'iyviiti'ttWxxo Cv/"Cl-"iv vvi'X.ixCiLX.ixvj'
fl A 1-^ At f 1 Af<-nt1x ' A A-ntwIlntA tA 1 T1 a1 rf A-P -PujllfA f /^l <1 1*/^ f tA U AXU 1-\A 1 t~f 1 V> A- 1I> /> A M /"j T H />t .'~\/-j
V4V> iiut oigiiixivuiiuj vvmi xuuiv tv> V iv>ititxi7ix3 v>x l uiui vjtaiuuiua, cjaaaaaim.!.£v> "jtjlv>''W jp^ j xiixtixxxg ij vvuUuvivu.
A ir Aiiolitx; mA/^almfr Z^ionarfiAn oM/-j i*an-i A-no1\ xx;ati1/^ Ka o MaAapoorx? noH" a-P o-ntiAi^Ati-nn- ^itiira a^ifftAn
rtn CJUCtll t J liiUuviing ^O.x3|^vT3i wlllx wlxICix vgxOllxCiil^/vTvluu i>C iX ilvwljolu j jpttil C v.i XwLi.txvxj^/(u-t.xxx^j xiAtwliv vimjjlvit
»gmfeme»teStates/tribes and local authorities could establish programs to encourage voluntary
emissions reductions beyond those required under regulatory programs. Although changes in
polluting practices are not mandated by these programs, companies face a variety of motivations
to continuously reduce their environmental impacts. These include the desire to be good
neighbors and responsible corporate citizens, and the fear of adverse publicity or loss of sales.
For example, product labeling initiatives (e.g.. Energy Star) and information reporting initiatives
(e.g.. TRI) inform consumers and the general public of the environmental benefits/impacts
resulting from a company's activities or products, thus promoting a mechanism to market more
environmentally friendly products. Voluntary reduction initiatives (e.g.. 33/50) can also
encourage companies to reduce their environmental impacts. While these programs are not
enforceable, failure to achieve publicly stated goals could result in adverse publicity and loss of
sales.
PfAf T^a-t v\a1 1 ¦» h to wtp phiaI-i op ATAna om/~{ PA.'f *) S tUara 10 MAt o Alaorlx ? tUraoU a1/^ xx;Uara
x v/3..1'' vx'1 Vvx tCli\ix,,,p\l?x\i' WxClxxXo, oviCii w,o uAuiiv XixxO.It xr.i^v~.p^,,Tixv,x v""i'3 tivt'iA XixvC*i'I j 'vtvxixxvv*ill! voiiuiu vVoviv
PaI It iti am f> am troti am f rofm1tiii-> rv UaoItU m^i^QAtf Aon 1 a<~ti11x 7 Ua nf -pAf tli£> "NT A A OC Pai*
vJ»xi CitxvJrxx "tvf xC'vxxIIt'CitxvJrxx3 tlxxCiI vS Ui wiig livws til nilpCtXi It0 C'CfcxX "xvJriVCt-1xJ uv uavu Ivl wvlnililg tixv x ^2 &12 *1\^*T_?. xX/il
tUaoa v\ a1 1 ¦» vtoM tp AtUa-r a A-n 01 rlamti av> f ora noa^ tA pat xx;Uot ora AAMfirlai'a^l tA Ua mof Anokla tUrafUAl/"lf Ia^
ulvov iJvAliLAttwIitOj T/tiivliOvlxoxCtvxCitlvlxiJ tilC XiSvu t vJ»'' 3 v I'' TV i\x ct-1' 'Ci i v'' C vJ» txo'mviwu t v> uv xvwJvIia-Oiv tln^anvlUa ivi
XT A A OC I'Miiiin'XApaf T^aAltntr>n- oMil«n£*Mt otr Aiinlitx; ctov>rloT/'lf ah ¦» 1/~j ra^iiAa tUa -pAf mr-mn- ^AtUa-r
1 N2 k.2 p'ClxJp/v/3Ci3. .lllJ' vCt.11.xxAx ££ Ctx 111/Av AAt Ct x ItStwoUUruij Cvwiu lvuuCw toV ilvvvl ll.t/I COTTtg Uuivl
foAtAyo'' Ai;ai* ttma nurl tUa imihUIia xt 7 ah h 1/~1 Uana-At -fV»AM^ a A-nti-niiari UaoItU Ka-na-fitf xx;itU fa^nAar oif i*\Al1nti av<
TXTCttrnj CTTCi uiilvj lulw tllv UUUnv TtUuiu Uvtivi.il ITtTrn cyiHiiiuvvl flvultil Uvtivitiij uii-pvTlTatltTri
1-ewkPros: Simple to implement since there would be no legal requirement to implement or track,
although most states/tribes would probably want to track voluntary reductions.
^ amp1 T Tw/^ai* tUa AiiiiiTa-nt PX7ftam a-P raonlnti Ano amiPfiAnf aai-\p om/-{ xx;An1rl oIpa Kox;a tA nn/lamA
XTXTTKy^ CtlUvi tixv OtAilivllxt 3 J 3 Lvxii'"OX t ^gU-iwIlilwllxS, wxIIi33x\J»Il»13 vd|;a C&ilxCi3 ttwIviCfciv*3Vv v/O-iXi Ci- il 3 v/''.1 xCt- v'v t v" vixxnJ. vx££sj
mfynloi* ratnatxT o-n/1 o<"l 1 -6 -6 otm o.Mt tA oil axi ? HpAt* raolioti a a1-i om aq p a-T tv>QQtir>n- -A vtn h ra o-t-y* /inolitx? fitar>^oi'^p
regtnrtl I C Vxv VV ClxxCI tlCljXIijtxliCIxt l\T Xlxiv/l-v/x ivuiiaUv CilwtiCviS v.i tllvv ixxx^ IJllt Ux v Xl'ix CJCICtix t J 3 ttwICiCfci via.
T^aAlii^mo ftonrloy/^p xx;An1/^ n At MaAappQfilx! Ua tiarl tA tUa t£>/>l-i m a1 a<~tx 7 tl-iot mioUt i*ao1iftiAo11x' Ka oxjAiloUla ot
.i^vOxxxxxAxg 3 ttwICiCfci '0.3 vv utliu iiul xxOOv33CtX.ixy i^v tjfvv* tv/ tixv tv^ixxIvxC/g tlx I tlx xiilgixt x vCiiI3tIVCMx j1 t/v u V ct-x't uu x v w-c
fi»tiii*a 1or>^morlA rlotar AtUamx;ifa tUara xx;ati1^ Ua ^aloxja/^ m^^fAx'a-n^antp faxjafol x7aorf n-ftay naxx;
ItTltUx v xCttlllWriiCitlV vICttv 13^ v/tltlvx VVT3C txlCx v Wuaiu uv CivxciY vvlt xxxxj^ilK/ v vxiivlxtO 3v v vx«lil j viXl o wllXvli xxv vv
a1 a<~tx 7 lia^AMioo ox'OilnKIa Pai* n av<..-rafA tUyapl^Alrl ^"\ a1 1 in toMtr* tUara mox? Ua o IoaI/- aP o rlmMnn- pAi*Aa
v Cx xx x vJr x v ii, j uvCvlav o ci' v 'ct-xx tliy x v . x vJri xxvllx iivli v/ til It voxlvilvi jpv/ili HtCUIto^ Lit x v 'x v"' It 111<-> tt v.t ^x i r Illxg .ilv/x Ov
te-«Aiee4be-AAQSv^h«Hl44rt©^eteH»iHM4feay^TOi^yyjS~«Ffr-stfppertaH©rdelayiftg4b©
Reductions would probably not be SIP/TIP creditable
Qptorf—l^c4^i4HfteRK4:A^4wtaf¥4fflWH:H^f>>eRtw-H*f--amfi()pti()n G: Emission fee systems
Timeline:— Variable; could be implemented for some sources within 3-years.
Partners: EPA, states and tribes, stakeholders
Costs:
Stotaf/tf»Kar- nMfl 1 aaoI oh vtli a*»i t^ a p ah n 1/~j aotAUIir-U nrAom-n^r- tA anAAiiyofra TAlnnton? amipfiAnf ra^nAtiAMf
ttttvo/ tilxi>Vkj 4Xaav* xv^Cti «tlltilwxitxv3 v3ttiiyij (jxll jpx vglXwiia ty vllUUwittgv v \J»ilil*ixtt*Iy villi3311 v/Ix!3 Iv«tiVtlilvllx3
bax7A-n/^ tU Aca raA-in-fa/^ m-nrlai* AtKaf m*AOfo-M^f TT>a f>AM^>ant io tl-^ot K-nfi-nappaf u;oT>t tA Ka o-aa/^ oKKAff
CJvTIIw tilU3v I vi»|Uxx vvl Clllwvl Wtllvl p'l Ugtllin j. .11 xxv OvllxOv|^t x3 XillCit 1/Uk3illiliv3av3 yrUill tv> t>v «jV/v/vi Iivlgiluvx o
om<^ / r\f x-s 7 ah •» 1 l^.iaMO.-Kt PrA-m aPPi tl-^ ot -t r*-1->t nripp •g-gMirlo.-y -c ^Aliititow; ? -r\-yy\nr-y*o-rv% pIh tVI 1PC1 /"M-H TgC&iC&C Q
Ulluiyt WUuiu uviivltlt"'.t.i v/xii vinvlvxlvlv3 XilCt-t xlll^iilt Xixx3v jullxC&vll v' KJ x Ci x x t tlx y'''' (^ x v/ QI cl x f 13 -1~< 11113 31 v/11 IW3 vl VCllV Ci
continuous incentive to reduce emissions in order to lower total fee payments over time. They
spur emission reductions from all sources and/or activities covered by the fee and encourage
continuous improvement all the way to zero emissions. Even where the fee charged per unit of
pollution is relatively modest, fee programs can result in the collection of large sums of money.
These funds can be (a) turned over to the federal or state Treasury, (b) used to finance other
8
-------
initiatives designed to improve air quality, such as diesel retrofit programs, or (c) returned in
some manner to manufacturers or consumers.
Tt-i-wvl i vt 4v-» /-in W-n y\i»A/^lnn»t
,jciljp,i,,v,5,,x!i,AVi:\>xxll(U.i.iv>xx ivpvi txlig diiu jpx l* v v iui/vhijc, yivt
'XXXVl"V/X'X'X'X"' IXXV/ puux
: uiv vx.i i iiviiiiiCi.
i»paete«s«Mfig^:©HM-eefflpa33y1s^etmti©&~e^Fedttefe—AMwHgfr^liaHg©&4fr^ell«tB%-piaetie©Mf:&
HBt«aadated%^4bes©iM®grai»%-eefflpaai«&Aefr^va«et5^f«eti¥ate3s4e^eHteitt©irf5^edtte©4beif
©»¥HWMae»tayfflpaefeT-4ii©se-ffiel«€b4fe©-4esH:e4e%e^*ee€lh3ei^
tUa -Paoy A-p Oflt'ai'pgt 1MmU1lAltx? 1 AOP A-p ool
tlxxU tllv I.CClx OT UuT vi aC pwuiivi ij v7x lUao vl 3wl;
Many states already charge emission fees of
some sort, thus some infrastructure is already in place for a fee system. Using fees to fund other
environmental improvement programs (e.g.. diesel retrofits) produces a double-win in terms of
continuous improvement.
Prr^
ntw
tr\ fi-nAO tUara Ua a
XiriUlC tv xxiiL/lCxITCixt IjlltWv tUvTC vtv/ukO. UV xxvJr".
•niirama'ht tr\ Ar troAl/- oltU/Miiin-U
JjClxxV/tliCixt iu iiiipivinCilt vl fcx ClCiV, Ci-xtiiv/O-gi x
ftftt.af /-j-ft k.--i
XHVOl OtCltV k3/ tX X 1>V
WOl
Pwjlvfjj
TvUui
Ux
lirqi-iit
v * ttxTT
i Cxlxtcix
ry reck
40flS".'
« f Ati o x \ ;ai n 1 ri nirv knkUi n At ka V I t) / 1 I t) Ai*a^ itokia k an ? Am i a t Aa-nti ^;af kai ? a-m ri
TTOTKt; .ivv'vtCi'C'Xx^Jrxxij vTuuiXI. yiUuuuxj iiUi t/w / It II UI vwxluuiv. f. C VV CCvTxICTriTi v liiCviul v vo uv j v/xxvi
lonai
iffiei
aw
;ii
i©a-
ieftSr
(V. vc
fv-
I -6 itl
TOTlX/rr
vvtCtwi
i wxxtctx
PrAftfomf Uo-i'a nortt Aii-\nti av<
iugiXiiiia istXTW Jiuu miii tvCt jptUL nvipuuv/il.
Oy\f-j C~r' P f" fH l">
lifiV. g + ofp/Tr^P ro»..Utnf„ ;tr.rtrA,rPtr.pr.t
PTx vJrll xj1; jj cifcXleyxi &ii! O til.i'w x x x 11/yT i **ivl y xxix |pT yj TITCxi 1 wilta y jjXCiii
Cons: EPA and state agencies may have limited legal authority to lew and/or use fees.
Establishing the appropriate level of the fee can be complex and contentious. Fee programs
require accurate methods for measuring emissions which may be difficult or expensive for some
stationary, mobile or area source categories to implement, and these programs necessitate the
development of emissions tracking and fee collection systems. Fees would need to be increased
over time, as emissions are reduced, if the goal were to maintain a steady level funding for other
environmental initiatives.
Option II: Industry Average Performance System (lAPS)
Timeline:
Partners: EPA, RPOs (states and tribes), stakeholders
Costs:
tU Aif AxTrn
iilCix \J vVii xixlCx <
Afe«Bt#effl^¥bate9^te4eday)7^i^e«M4m,e-%asi«-parai»etefs-sert5^fedefat^:eg«tefr©»s^4aBy-©f
/~l v\i*iAi*itiAfi Tk \ a nl/"I Ka aIa-h a /"vn^ r> aai-\-•»»a
.xjpjL \J v vniviiT'pi v/(
OX 7- Ka Antfll f^A A-p 1 AAol AOVXpIm
%Xj UUVJ1UV Ul XUVU1 VUjJUl/I
t^ewtfe-^&efdfflatiefr-eH-^egfeHa^ad/eiHiatteftaH^asis^IAPS is a competitive, market-based
system that is self-governing for air pollution control I \PS seeks to have current air pollution
expenditures spent in a way that maximizes environmental benefit and flexibility for sources.
Sources in a given industry are charged a fee each year based on their emissions. The "pot" is
refunded to the same sources, but based on output. As a result, cleaner-than-average sources
become net payees and dirtier-than-average sources become net pavers. This creates a
continuous incentive for sources to reduce emissions. Each year sources choose the cheaper
9
-------
option: further reducing their emissions (and paving less into the "pot"), or paving the per-ton fee
for each ton thev are currently emitting.'
/-yj- 1-niinmi ?o.tiiay)to fKot t
i v/TvIrlvTXt j tiittt \
r4mpertant4e4bef&
tyiiivij vvvl'yLxfiiXtvU- viii. u xiTUio: Littitv>'XIl!t/v u
if /ti'iUar- Uni ?a tUot mrtUil
/3? tiiuvo JiCi-r v xt&Vv o txltfct T/i v/xxxt
:"¦* n^ o^s 7 /> An Hr I
3 iiitij v'v/IxJL!ii
eofamn PVAn^ £*i.rr<
M CtilTij li yiii v .aV.
met
lany
4JIO, «£}V>fclX
¦if" "H-hpi v t>i
taajij
Txtxx
«y-
¦nrAftra-nii
XV v£ v 1 tlx jp i v/c^f tlx 111
tUara-pAfa ¦fiarlai'ol nrAn-yomp xi;An1/^ ptil
tllC I wl\7l C i.CvtCT til |!/1 v/gf tlx! 13 VtITUIU 3 til ^
eAAVti av< maooiiyaf Af ay>hot xxxij-/v/aw tillC/O-gix TlixxxOxxii x cli v3.
61aonay fiialp phth^I-i Ann Arh m i ti a p ora 1^1a^>1x? Ia Ua f ita onaAif! a on/-j rliffi Aiiiilt Ia m^^Apa tUfAiiiin-U i^ii-mfA-m^
x vttlxviillvi3j SliCii C»jpjpvx twxxltxwo wlv xlixYvi j tv> 0 x x 11 p v> o v' Xi x x O Ci ix11 tlxxI x v/xxAA
In An tA tUa
xx t*v*U.x txv/xx tvJ» tlxv Cxi'tt-i'.i
tl-> of IU0170. o 1 ro o rl ^ 7 tmnl
tl Xt&t XXt& V Vtl-XX Vl-tV*.'\ sliiL/X
©f nai*iAfliAo11x7 tmUtanino taAliMAlAm? Uof a/^ fton^fir^p Pa** ftotiAnon? OAnfAa
T^TOTTxTOTC^txT^^ O t tl-1X vJr .1 x ttx' Y''' o vJr Ci' I 'C: V
jf tUot ora o1i*ao^x7 in iioa AarfoiM fmol
• •w tlxti-t tilv XHI vttvitJ xxx'' U Ijv j'"Cvl uu-ixx Ijll'lcil'.
manta/^ ^Antml
Cllvxltvvlt Vv/Ixtl vjrli
neatedMeeaJ-
A1H*
>vJ» tl'x
. r\ 1 fPi />¦» ? 11 t a AAwtml tlU mi -6 nrlU q-b-boIU
UlT.ILCtllt tvT Cultttv/t Clli yusii 3tICIi
tOJlf
ttilXV
i'ua11'
1 ItAoath^:
Dx tvsSjV txxv
avomnlQ o i?opt
AMIlip'iC j w- T tl3t
ee»paiH©S7^4tbr
©rtmant a-P AAnoim^at' nrA^nAtf 10 moninPnAtni'a/^ a
x txIIOxxt v/x X-v/xla tiliivx pi ta I 3 III till tAxttC' tt*x vvt V/.
¦y r\ pA-mii 11 oil An f AAntimiollx? aIi on 01 n C! t
Wi Ii i tli tttxxJrlla UUxi i-xxl u-CWi j Oiitixxg- —
impor
a/~1 aoA^ x ?aoy Kx 1 tli ah hp on/-j r» a-
vJt Ctl'CII"TCtlx Uj UlvllJCtoUS w.
•iH'GtS
-Bee
-in-ynAOO-t !•
iililJvSatt
tA .rlOtTQlAr
rfonT
on aq otonr
Ollx(C'V O ttilxv
I A f*
Tv/TvC
Sf© HSlira"ly'''60iFH^
*!¦»¦» At ontoftArii
jtCi'C't wivtvli'
\1 1 tA AO-fniKI ii
ih-tee
kVp"
A
VOVU %KJ 1
jViXUTTj'.
OAn^n^An ^QnAwiin^tAi' otan^or^p -pA-y
*Uv/lIIxIIvJrII vi.wIIv/xxxxxi.fcttv/1 3 ttwlvitix «3 iul
. number ot
mm
to
lvm£
n^onx' /if nAt m Aft\ nrArlnAtf xx;itUin aoAU ^otai>AW7 aP onx? aIiIi ooti An tA ra/^iiAa amiooiAnf PaoiilotArf mox;
i ilttlx^ \^IIJ Ilt/t xlTt/3t/ |l/x v/WtlCTo1 IXxIlTl C tl'Ci 1 CtltC^v/x Y XTx Ctxl y v/t/i xgtltxvTIl .CCV* tlCC V/Txxi 3l3iV/Ix3. I\vguiwtvl 3 IllUy
afee4ia¥e-diffie«lty-«Hfeseq»e»tiy4igbte»fflg4bese-«taiAi#s-wfeeFe-e¥eft^-sfflall-H«iH^e^
«ses)^¥MiHM-«ateg©Fy^i«4&ebH©l©g5^eHM»»ed7«ala»g4»eF0meBteJ~-pi©gF&ss~sl©^«rt©str^:e^«efla»
samlt«id4i©H-4iadM©i»l-sei««©S74l»4i»pesMefr«f™ifefi»4&el»el©gy-tesedi?effofi»afte&-sta»daFds
moxi ptmnli! nAt Ua PaopiUla At* nm Ati aoIIx ? anpAfAaoUla
mtn axxripri^^ vlllUrevltufv.
- t1^o.r»ia nn^l Atliar
; tlivov tulu vJti'xv'i
•easoni
tmnlomantotiAn A-P tl-^^> POT AAnAant xx;An1rl Kana-Pit fmni tl-^^> iif a a-P naxi; tAAl
, xx 1.1 iji'v 1 iivxxttitxv/xx"sJ.L txxv,,xvx,,\i^,,C,vxxC,wp't,,,VV,v?tl,ivl uviivni .1.1 v>ixi tllv w3v vl IxO VV tWJI
aad4®di¥M«al&^¥itfr«-^wtf»w»«M«€wtf?¥#4e^eAie©^fflksjeHSr-S«el^^
th fit Aon nfATirla knpmof
llitxt UCur piuTluv uujxxxvc
10
-------
TUaoa OM/-j AtUay iMHAx;ntn;a tAAlf n;An1/^ M^xxyowj a A-n^i-xomaf tUot rarln^a amiooi AVTimr>maiito1 fi/A-nol f nm^aff anoi-naayf moyl/-atmo a\^y\aftr- AtUay pna/~»in1iptp n;itU
vxx ¥ ii vlxxxlvxxt«x jpi \JrjLvooxvix<*i>j j ai/iviilioto, jpi O^wSij viigjiuvvi 3, TilwxxYv Ixxxe^ ^^jpvx 1.0 uuiAviv/ti'iv'iSpCXTuHroTo^ vVI'ti'x
< V>t< A-P aU r^M/~j A1TAW fflAll itt 1 ai-^ r^M/-j y\t»A/^HH/>t
xxr^xxilwtv' xvxxv/ vV i'V^gw v>x vuOo"»mu v v v 1 j xiuVxxx^j'y vjpvxx&wv/xx diiu jpx v/M-t&vfc.
tA aotoklifU v>^iv>imnm i*a/~lnAti av< '
tv* vatui/il3ix xlxixxxxiiU-iii xvCtwOTiOix j
Pre&^-GenW-be^^adiljHa
ftoti^\won7 OAnfAap okAua 0 ^>artnin pi -ra tUyaonAM
o tClXxv/ixCfci' y"'ovJ» Cl'x C'v o m.c/v> v v Ci C v x vCtxx A''' o x ^ v' X.1 xx v £> x x vJrxm.
WHWtrtS-ftMHWW-
¦y ri m*% a/*I -t 4-t Q./-I
lu xiiOwTxiv'CI.
^ A-nf OvM/~j Anlt tA
txlC XwvxiX it j TlXttxVlxxi^ 11 UniXCtlit w I C^Uii v Ito i vpiwCvinCIlt vl wpgiuuw ; xTirrj uv 01 iv jpwxi.xv uuu uxIIIUult w
11Mil <-n A i~t r% -
xxrijpv>kjv
i/>h nf
laiur
>rm rule
^ nM/~j V> Al^tlTlflltl AV>n1 f AnfAAf '
yVi mUXxx oxiicixi M-XXM. XXV>XXtX M-\^xjJX\>xr OVUIWD
¦> A M
Utjtsxtx:,
J iA-gp.
tUfAiiiin-U pnn^l-i ftoi^/'loy/'lf' Pan-iilotAro mot; olf a Koi?a fli-ffi Aiiiiltt? pmUoaAiiantlx 7 tifrUtamnn- tUaoa pt^nrlfii'/^f'
tniyugfl 3uCIi 3twliuuiui3l I\vgulwlv7i3 iiltlj 4X1 a v/ IxCi- v v C&xxi-iOtliXj'''Xxgixtwxxxixg iLEivov ottwICitCfcx^G
I \nt« r\f% T • Tr> Hi 1 otrt r A x ?aro <~yq IP^-y'-f-A-r'-rv^ om V-f om ri otrl o / T A LJ V \
v>£/ tx v/i 1 x, xxxOxaijti y 1 '* v vl tx^v xQ lvl lllttllvv k3 ttlxxQcfciXi-D \ Ii ix O 7
T1 m a1 «prt° FP A T? P^c /ofotAp nn<^ triKAp\ ctnlr aU a! Atr-
x'xtx tlivx j. xTt,,Tx,j,,,:tVx,\^,!T,*,^lCltv^ uiiu,,,n,ivv j/, jiuivviiviuvi j
Gesfe
AM"%MO.tlit-li Ti 7 nol-p ftAt/Q'm<110 OX 7 otQ-m 4v~\-y*
w'l\JrIliiljpvllit.x,tl V',wl5l,,,i3wxlt gC»lv,wlxIxx,lIgllloyiloltvlxII,,:tlC/x
"%-t-y* M a1 1 1 itl AM AAntml T A Pv
Xrt ^vx\i1 CI't xvJrxx" C vJ»xx I x sjx'.'' xi *.«. Li
tr\
tv/ .
nx ?a tht:
U- VV LIXV
ovvxvo
1ax;a1 a-P noti A-nol my m a1 Ii iti am aA^<'\ai->/4itin*af ona-nt m o xx?ox7 tliot mot'tmnap ai-a/^ tl"> pi~f ¦** ' [ 'U f f ^ ^ v\ r-\ t ^ ^
TCviJ. CP
Alf
•8 "g 7^9.-^
JTVU1
mdry
raxrcr:
11^1^^,. y C'Xl tt-X «
. Kftti3wvt vii C'O-Xp'O.XV 2jta ti x 03 tlx it j UivwisCi tixCi-xx ix rvlugv ovJ»il*x Uvj uvvlviil1
ri i rti ar .tU a-m
. uiitivi uxiiii.
r» Aiif
jv/Cl'x
netiMyees
ra/~liiAa amiooi Anf Av>rl mAfaooa y\i*A/inAtix7it
x vvtCiCv Wii!i33i\/li3 ttllu xxxvx vt<-ov'''p'x vJrviCi'Ctx v'xt
¦^aiiiq ¦jna't nn ?Qrr I hip
Cvfuv llvl ptlyvT3i Iiiio
a-m irt^fltitn;a tAf PAnfAaf tA
uii xx xC'1 v xx 11' v'v lui ov/Cl'x Uv3 tvJ»
wiVwCvij
/OM£
TTOxC
-piXJ
1 wtA 1
xxxtvj»"i
¦\a|^\ Af
JsJl j / v/x
r^J
m ft- 11"> 12
l'ixciMltilI%,
'jJ/Wi'
aU AAf a tha AnaAi-\ai* Antmn1 i*a/*liiAmA- tUaif amiooi Anf
wiUvov,,ulw,,txivu|JVX vpuv/iii ivUuvxixgj uxvn CillloiJ'i'v/xxo
tAi-< faa Pai* at^Ali tAi-< ^
wiTTCtTTcn cu-ci.ii,,,tV7t:i,,,cii,ii,ttciu.,,.,M
:Bie-fee-pert©a-©f«Httssi©fts4s-set4e-aAie¥e-»iiietefts4e-a-ta%et4e¥elT43»s-fee4s-a«t©^^
»6F0ased4ftbe4ajg©t©d^&AMieH4©¥el4s4wta€l»e¥edr4AliS~«aH-easjl5H®eei:peiate^»Hltipte^eH«taHte
O AM O I
ov/xxtt-i'
>0.Ai>rnnhi r+ /ifH-oroMAQf im wa! liitoMt /-IomH'
UjVUtjx M-j-ziixO uilivl Clil>v3 xlx jpC»xxiL*tittxxt vi-Cwxii
U*gHlokiry ov<*i
y^tt o 11 x ? toi 7-a ax-c r-t m o om/*I nrA^ii Ati am ranArtf om/1 fQAQti7itiii> /1ifikiiwiMi> hPiim/'^o>\ Tm 1
xxtxtixx >"'"xv"v1 xv1Vv xxi^j1 H^,>,.JLi,lT,.i;,,,(U;xIvl. jpx v«CiOXIlwlx,,xv|yv/x,i;3llltixx« IvO'vT ^"xxxgl"tixx« V4xaiJttx3Ji,xxgMxO.,ix«3^/. x»x 1
t-ro/~liti amo I
tx««x txwxxCix
CiiaK o oxi^taMi M*%-tnr1Ut mnln^a oo-m. om^I tro/la hm /•>o.W~o-«m o-< ¦««/>•» im^ otoM /->iao
Ott^ii iX OTStvixl xiilgixt xv|yxi^vv v/iA-t-/ «Axi« tx««w xxx''tvi'iClxxi vxxvuliiawiiUOfl
PrAf at Mt*Ar*-t*QMn tl-> ot lomiof ro to a-P nrAoroo o tA Un^iMarrar om<"I AAMmotitn;o rlaAioiAMO ~N.Ta
x v/k5. irfxwix^^x^ 1'>'C/
^oaIimima- AAi-\f Af ftoMrloyrlo Maa/^ rax?ifi am At* motiPi Aoti am "\Taa/^ pAf fjaAfoof'iMi> i-\ a1 1 h ti am 1ax;a1f xx?o11 Ual axx?
uvvitiiiiig OTp3 Ui atfctxxO.CSx«3 livvu iXJ v xoiv/ij'"v/i",j vi 1jtxx.xC'ttXxvJrxx; vvvt xvx XiwOX vujilsg pviluHvlrifc v Ci3 Vv vxx uviv VV
r^Mx? r>tn m/~1 n Tt*/~j if f aIP
mjlx y outxiuuiuij xij ovli 1
iApi-rtlH A r^M/~l f-1 H-M-t
V XXXXXIXKj UllU JUpp
en-n1otAW7 IIMAQltoiMtl
^ W'xt-iXvJ'x y wli'Cvi iClxxxt'>
1 1m/>.'-\ ti*OAlrii-> a f"i7ftAm if /-I .'-\ 4-n m .'-\/-I A-n/~l r>.'-\tn
uxjCv ti M-vx^xiig oj1 ai^vixi 10 uvxiiivu w-aavi 'cjvTC
1 Mil <-n I r
TxTTT/Tv
txp.
tA Ai^arota
tv VpClWtV
T'
m^At*a alliAiaMt AAM^T\atitAi*f iMAfaApar- AAM^natitn;a uMAaHoiMtx
rTrOTw^ iixvxvuovJ l)\/liipvti w v v UxxC'vl'lClxxxt y
A-f- I A UV aMx 7ifi AMa/~l
yi nir u VnTxaJuxivu ;
ll
-------
INDUSTRY-AVERAGE PERFORMANCE SYSTEM
IDEA:
For each Industry, require polluters which emit pollutants at a higher rate
(per unit of production) than the industry average to pay a per-ton fee to polluters
which emit at a rate lower than the industry average.
BENEFITS:
• For payors, Image and pocketbook suffers
• For payees, image and pocketbook are enhanced
• Results in strong financial and market incentives to reduce emissions
• Creates a continuous improvement dynamic; industry average declines automatically
eliminating cyclical "Set a standard, meet It, stop, set a new standard" reauthorizations
Spurs development of new, more effective environmental technologies
• Treats emissions from old sources the same as emissions from new sources
¦ No bureaucracy; seff-admin isle red and self-policing
• a government revenue program
A
B
c
D 1
1 E
F
G
H
Year 0:
Year 1:
Year 2:
H
A
B
c I
1 D
E
F
G
i Bold line Uhistniei "Industry A*en|t"
G
H
A
B I
1 c
D
E
F
•A,B.C.#acj*prtttit companies
in the ame industry; boi width
frustrates "Eimuiofts per Unit ol
Production* (or the cwnpany
The fee per ton of emissions is set to reduce pollution to an initial target level. This fee may be
automatically increased if the targeted level is not achieved. IAPS can easily incorporate multiple
pollutants as well as seasonal and geographic differences in pollutant damage. Sources choose
where, when, how much and through what means to reduce emissions. Regulatory agencies
focus on reviewing emission reports and receiving and disbursing funds. In the absence of
traditional "boom or bust" regulatory cycles, capital for control technology innovation is less
risky, development is enhanced, and more new controls become cost-effective sooner. Over time,
each source that reduces emissions causes the overall average to drop, creating a self-
perpetuating continuous improvement dynamic. A variation of this program could involve
applying some percentage of the collective "pot" into funding other continuous improvement
programs.
Pros: Market-based program that leaves specific control measures and rate of progress to
businesses and competitive decisions. No caps or standards need to be revised. Provides
powerful incentives for long-term, continuous reductions in emissions and air pollution
concentrations. Reduces regulatory uncertainty.
Cons: New concept could be hard to sell - especially the notion that businesses may have to
subsidize their more efficient competitors. It also increases competitive uncertainty. EPA and
state agencies may have limited legal authority to levy fees and rebate them as envisioned by this
option. Establishing the appropriate level of the fee can be complex and contentious. As with
other fee programs, this option requires accurate methods for measuring emissions, which may
be difficult or expensive for some source categories to implement, and it necessitates the
development of emissions tracking and fee collection and rebate systems.
Since IAPS is a new concept, additional information is provided in Attachment A to better
explain how the developers of IAPS envisioned its application:
12
-------
Option I: State/tribe regulatory improvement systems
Timeline:
Partners: EPA. KPOs (states and tribes), stakeholders
Costs:
States and Tribes could develop their own continuous improvement systems based on their own
interests and priorities. This could be done on a completely voluntary basis (i.e.. not much
different from what exists today), or under basic parameters set by federal regulations. Many of
the other options discussed in this paper could also be considered as state/tribe programs. States
and tribes may be in the best position to develop targeted programs for continuous improvement.
Pros: States/tribes can customize continuing improvement programs that meet their needs. These
programs can target the degree of improvements that states/tribes feel are most important to
thent.
Cons: Establishing continuous improvement programs may be beyond the capabilities of most
local governments and may require coordination on a state, regional and/or national basis.
Unless coordinated on a multi-state/tribe basis, goals may conflict with transported pollution
realities. Many states/tribes have laws that prohibit their programs from exceeding the stringency
of federal programs, therefore federal programs would still need to be designed and mandated to
some degree. Economic pressures from businesses and their competitive interests could
minimize improvement potential.
13
-------
Recom m en dati on s:
There may be a number of viable options for promoting continuous improvement with respect to
air pollution emissions and ambient concentrations. Further assessment of the options presented
in this paper, and possibly some additional options, should be conducted before any specific
options are recommended.
It is likely that a combination of options will ultimately provide the best approach. For example,
state/tribal improvement systems could be combined effectively with most of the other options
listed in this paper. Some approaches may work well for certain source categories and not for
others. In any event, it is the opinion of this subgroup that federal guidance and/or technical
support (with substantial state/tribe and stakeholder input) would be needed to further develop
and successfully employ those options which have not been previously implemented on a
significant scale.
Based on historical successes with market-based systems and the general preference of
businesses and individuals to control their own decisions, option B (cap and trade - especially
for high growth industries), option C (cap and trade with a continuously declining cap), option G
(emission fees with revenues used to pay for other environmental initiatives), and option 11
(IAPS) should receive strong consideration. Each of these options could be fine-tuned and
applied to a wide variety of source categories, although each application may present its own
unique issues and implementation challenges.
These four market-based options are particularly attractive because they provide a continuous
incentive to reduce emissions. Moreover, rather than reiving on regulators to determine the best
targets for further reductions, these options would harness the ingenuity of thousands of industry
scientists, process engineers, marketing experts, environmental specialists, and others with
intimate knowledge of each and every facility, operation and product.
In certain cases, a program that promotes continuous emission reductions from individual source
categories could develop room under existing ambient standards for emissions from other source
categories to grow, effectively wiping-out any environmental improvements. Therefore, such
programs may be best implemented within a broader air quality planning framework, that assures
continuous improvement in air quality.
As noted in the background section above, many of the options identified for continuous
improvement require some type of emissions measurements/estimations in order to gauge
progress. The methodology for performing this task should be reviewed and improved in areas
where acceptable techniques have not yet been established. Automation of emissions estimates
derived from emission factors could be considered provided there is a reasonable level of
confidence in the factors and usage data involved.
14
-------
ATTACHMENT A
INDUSTRY-AVERAGE PERFORMANCE SYSTEM
JDEA:
For each industry, require polluters which emit pollutants at a higher rate
(per unit of production) than the industry average to pay a per-ton fee to polluters
which emit at a rate lower than the Industry average.
BENEFITS:
• For payors, Image and pocketbook suffers
• For payees, image and pocketbook are enhanced
• Results In strong financial and market incentives to reduce emissions
• Creates a continuous improvement dynamic; industry average declines automatically
eliminating cyclical "Set a standard, meet It, stop, set a new standard" reauthorizations
• Spurs development of new, more effective environmental technologies
• Treats emissions from old sources the same as emissions from new sou rces
• No bureaucracy; self-administered and self-policing
• ilfit a government revenue program
Overview oflAPS
• Set a dollar value per ton of each pollutant
e—Adjust for inflation annually
• Funds are transferred within each industry (e.g., electric utilities, light duty vehicles, heavy duty
vehicles, refiners)
o Each polluter pays per ton
o Funds distributed based on amount of product produced (or consumed)
o Result: "dirtier than average" producers In each industry ay "cleaner than average" producers In
each industry (measured by pollution rate per unit of production)
• Government supervises fund transfers without necessarily keeping any
•—Sot ratios of pollutant "values" among major pollutants by scientific analysis
• Set overall level of pollutant "values" reasonably consistent with recent levels of air pollution
control expenditures
Future updates:
•—Monitor emissions amounts and air concentrations for continual Improvement
•—If environmental progress Is Inadequate, can Increase, all pollutant "values"
Implementation:
• Set a dollar value per ton of each pollutant
o Dollar value per ton of each pollutant can depend on season, time of day, meteorological
conditions, or other scientifically valid variables
o May vary by location
o Should adjust for inflation annually
•—Set ratios of pollutant "values" among major pollutants by scientific analysts
• Pollutant "values" may vary by season and location (horizontal or vertical), based on scientific
analysis of affected populations (both in and out of state)
• Set overall level of pollutant "values" (dollars per ton) by political process
• First overall level of pollutant "values" should be consistent with current policy
• Changes should be phased-in, with advance warning
• As technology advances, additional pollution control products become cost-effective without
changes in pollutant "values"
15
-------
Continuous environmental improvement is built-in without additional legislation
Monitor emissions amounts and air concentrations for continual improvement
If environmental progress is inadequate, can increase all pollutant "values"
When scientific understanding changes, can adjust ratios of pollutant '"values", but need not
change overall level of "values"
Eventually, specific emission limits may become unnecessary
16
-------
A New Approach to Air Pollution Regulation...
THE INDUSTRY-AVERAGE PERFORMANCE SYSTEM (IAPS)
IDEA:
Within a given category of polluters (electric utilities, industrial boilers, etc.), require all companies
to pay a fee for each ton of pollution emitted, then refund the revenues collected back to these
companies based on their production. For pollution sources like cars and large trucks, vary
registration fees (within vehicle classes) based on pollution emitted,
RESULT:
Emissions are discouraged and production efficiency (productivity) is encouraged, because the
companies or sources that emit pollutants at a higher rate per unit of production than the category
average end up paying (on a net basis) those which emit at a rate lower than the category average.
BENEFITS:
• Protects public health from air pollution that can be eliminated inexpensively, and simultaneously
protects industry from unreasonable regulatory costs and cross-industry subsidies,
• Creates strong financial and market incentives to reduce emissions: for net payers, both pocket-
book and market image suffer; for net payees, both are enhanced.
• Treats pollution from old sources the same as pollution from new sources,
• Encourages emission reductions all the way to zero, not just to regulatory compliance levels.
• Eliminates traditional battles over culpability among regions, responsibility among
industrial sectors, and estimated costs to control; adjustments are easily implemented.
• Eliminates the traditional "boom or bust" regulatory cycle ("Set a standard, meet it, stop, wait,
set a new standard")- Industry makes technology choice, not regulators.
• Less regulatory volatility reduces risk for technology developers; spurs development of new,
more cost-effective environmental technologies.
• Creates a continuous improvement dynamic; each reduction lowers the category average.
• Allows all pollutants to be integrated into a angle regulatory framework.
• Can easily incorporate differential controls based on differential pollution impacts.
• Requires much less bureaucracy; largely self-administered and self-policing.
• Not a government revenue program (ie., not a "pollution tax").
EXAMPLE:
• A, B, C, etc. are individual companies in the same category of polluters; width of box illustrates their emissions
per unit of production.
• When F, a net payer, installs pollution controls (or more efficient production equipment) in Year 1, it becomes
a net payee. Fs action also reduces the category average, so C, a net payee in Year 0, becomes a net payer.
• Similar effects occur for E, and B, in Year 2 after emission reductions are made by E.
YearO:
Year 1:
Year 2:
A
B
c I
I D E F
F
A B | C D E
E F "a]
I B
C D ]
\
Bold line illustrates average for source category.
NH Rep. Jeffrey C. MocGiltivray NUDES Air Resources Division
Kenneth A. Colburn. NUDES Air Director October 17,1997
17
-------
Comparison of market based programs
System Component
or Policy Issue
IAPS
CaD-and- Allocation Systems
Total Emissions Reduction Target
Yes
Yes
Adjustment (True-up) Based on
Actual Emissions
Yes
Yes
Program Performance Assurance
Method
Per-ton fees increased
automatically if progress is
unsatisfactory
Periodic review; lower cap adopted if
necessary
Pressures to Inflate Baseline &
Allocations
Obsolete concept;
not applicable
Yes
Implementation Ease
Immediately implementable
Implementation slowed by allocation
inflation disputes
Currency
Real dollars
Allowances
Broad Geographic Applicability
Yes
Yes
Partial Implementation by Geographic
Subregions
Yes, but diminishes
effectiveness
Yes, but diminishes effectiveness
Source Applicability
Minimum Size
Optional;
any source with CEMs
Cost-Benefit =>
250 tons per season
Other Sources Can "Opt-In"
Obsolete concept;
not needed
Yes
Banking
Obsolete concept;
not needed
Yes
How Sources Deal With Excess
Emissions
Obsolete concept;
sources may choose to control or
pay per-ton fee; no additional
penalties
Deduct allowances from bank or from
next year's allotment
Treatment of New, Lower Emitting
Sources
Rewarded: become net payees;
drives average down; spurs
technology development
Penalized; allowances may be
unavailable; historical allotment
rewards dirtiest and slowest to clean up
Localized Nonattajnment Due to
Uncontrolled Upwind Source(s)
Only where control costs exceed
per-ton fee
(not likely)
Controls applied only where cheapest
(more likely)
Regulatory Overhead Costs & Effort
Low
Medium to high: computer transaction
networks,
compliance inspections, reconciliation,
enforcement
Adaptable to Multiple Pollutants
One system; just invoice per-ton
fees for each pollutant
multiple systems or Inter-pollutant
trading ratios required; not
contemplated
Adaptable to Population Density to
Better Protect Public Health
Yes; apply density factors to per-
ton fee
No
Automatic Continuous Improvement
Dynamic
Yes
No
Incentive to Reduce to All the Way to
Zero
Yes; pay less and receive more
No; reduce only until compliant or if
market price of credits exceeds cost to
control
18
-------
MPS is a concept developed by Jeffrey C. MacGillivray and Kenneth A. Colbum for possible application in the state of New
Hampshire.
19
-------
Air Quality Management Subcommittee
Team 1 - Issue Group 2
Topic: Seasonal and Episodic Control Measures
Draft Date: March 16, 2005
Author: Barry Elman
Goal: Expand the use of seasonal and episodic control measures to achieve air
quality standards in areas where all reasonable continuous controls have
already been required
As many communities throughout the nation face periods of exposure to unhealthy
ozone and/or fine particle concentrations for years to come, despite the imposition of all
reasonable controls on stationary, mobile and area sources, it may be appropriate to
expand the use of seasonal and episodic control measures. Such measures can
effectively supplement a program of continuous controls in preventing exceedances of
the NAAQS. A variety of measures which could not be implemented on a continuous
basis could potentially prove suitable and acceptable for seasonal or episodic use.
Where areas have already been required to implement all feasible continuous controls
as quickly as possible, seasonal and episodic measures can provide needed air quality
improvements and speed up the ultimate date of attainment without undermining the
role of continuous controls.
A number of seasonal and episodic control programs have been adopted in recent
years. These include feetal-seasonal requirements to reduce NOx emissions from
electric power plants in the jjasteroeastem U.S. (i.e., under the Ozone Transport
Commission's NOx budget program and EPA's NOx SIP call), as well as requirements
to reformulate gasoline and lower its vapor pressure on a seasonal basis. In addition, a
number of communities have developed public information campaigns and voluntary
programs designed to reduce emissions on specific days when high ozone
concentrations are expected. Some communities, including Baltimore, Cincinnati,
Dallas, Fort Worth, Sacramento, San Francisco and Washington, DC, have
implemented broad-based ozone action programs that encourage an array of voluntary
measures by individuals and businesses to reduce emissions. Other communities have
| explored or adopted specific mandatory measures en-to reduce emissions, including
restrictions on recreational vehicles, lawn and garden equipment, pesticide application,
open burning, road paving, traffic marking, construction activities and the operation of
waste incinerators.
To date, however, few efforts have been made to apply episodic controls to stationary
sources. Such measures could provide a new set of cost-effective control opportunities
| capable of yielding sizable emission reductions tystprecisely when they are most
-------
nooHoH Cnr Qvomnln tKgs PloQn Air Dorlnore PrnnrQiTi in Mnrfhorn \/iminiQ go ugnrl/inn
I | ^ ^ V_d t/ V_^. rv7rv77vMTTTpTrC^ u iv vivui i s %ii I Qi'u'ivi w I [CCJT Ui I i nTl i1i,01"lu ivi i i Vli ^11 i i«Jt t O ViUI IMI l\j
tewaf^aft-agfeemBf^-wifrbpmiftg-sho^
m0ffmg4»ws-0n-pmdtGte44:%h-9zone-days4o4ielp^¥Ofd^*Geedai:i6es-0f4he
stan^afdr For example, the Clean Air Partners Program and Virginia DEQ are working
with an industry trade association in Northern Virginia to develop a list of voluntary
measures that printers could implement on predicted high ozone days These
measures include running their lower emitting processes in the morning hours, deferring
short print runs, and enhancing various operational controls. Potential VOC reductions
of up to 70% from these souf-G&sprinters are projected dofiog-these-on critical m©FWR§
hours.davs. Other large and small scale manufacturing operations may have similar
ability to alter their production schedules iR-^fdef4&-4efep4heif-highest ermtt-iRg-aGt-mties
until later in the day and/or afjQfoef-dav--operations on predicted high ozone days.
In addition, electric power producers and certain industrial sources may have
considerable latitude to burn cleaner fuels or to increase the utilization of their cleanest
units on high pollution days. Ete^H^owef-PFodtteefsEven on the hottest days, power
plants may operate well below capacity at night and during the early morning hours,
allowing dispatchers to shift more production to their cleanest units at those times. In
addition, power plant operators may be able to employ unit-specific optimization
technigues to maximize emission reductions on high pollution days. Thev may also be
able to f-eduG&-emis&fQosachieve reductions by importing electricity at key times from
cleaner sources outside of the region.
In 1977 Congress considered and explicitly rejected the use of "intermittent" controls as
| part of a fegutatof-y-stfatagy-SIP for achieving the NAAQS. Although the prohibition was
applied broadly to all pollutants, it was designed primarily with S02 in mind. It was
aimed at avoiding reliance on temporary controls where more reliable continuous
controls were presumed to be readily availabler-aR^-at-ef-event-iTO. It was also intended
to prevent the mefe-shifting of pollutants (e.g., by utilities with widely dispersed
production capacity) from one place or time to another, without a corresponding
decrease in overall pollution levels. Given the extent to which continuous controls have
been deployed over the past 30 years, as well as the episodic nature of peak ozone and
particulate concentrations, and the considerable strides that have been made in air
guality forecasting, the concerns expressed by Congress in 1977 no longer appear to
be germane.
| EPA has concluded that the Clean Air Act does not restrict SIP approval (or S4P-credit)
for non-stationary source episodic reduction measures that apply to consumer actions
or the use of consumer products or services, since these controls may represent the
only feasible type of control. Nor does the CAA limit the use of seasonal controls that
are implemented at predetermined periods of the year and do not vary with atmospheric
or meteorological conditions, even if they apply to stationary sources. In addition, EPA
has concluded that episodic transportation control measures and certain other mobile
source measures may be approved under certain circumstances.
2
-------
If the use of seasonal and episodic control measures is to be expanded - and more fully
extended to stationary sources - a number of questions must be addressed, including:
• What role should these measures play in the air quality management system?
Should they be mandatory or voluntary in nature? Should they be given credit in an
air quality management plan?
• How can the results of such programs be measured?
• How far can EPA and states go in developing episodic control measures for
stationary sources under existing legal authorities?
• How should the pollution season be set for seasonal measures? For episodic
measures, how teesiwell can high pollution days be predicted and how should the
measures called into effect?
• What additional measures might be candidates for either season or episodic
implementation?
Conclusion
A number of air quality control measures could be identified that would be regarded as
draconian if required for continuous implementation. Some of these could be practically
implemented on a seasonal or episodic basis with relatively minor social and economic
cost or disruption. In areas where all reasonable continuous controls have already been
required, such measures can provide needed air quality improvements, without
undermining the use of continuous controls.
3
-------
Air Quality Management Subcommittee
Team 1 - Issue Group #2
Role of Monitoring and Modeling in Future Air Quality Management Planning.
March 15, 2006
Goal. The goal of this proposal is to identify the optimum future use of monitoring and
modeling in an improved air quality management program that will facilitate
integration across pollutant categories and environmental media and support
achievement and maintenance of compliance with national ambient air quality
standards within an accountability framework.
I. Background.
This paper will discuss the ambient air quality characterization needs of air quality
managers and planners, the benefits of various planning tools, conclusions that the
information suggests, and recommendations for consideration by Team 1 of the Air
Quality Management Subcommittee and ultimately the entire subcommittee. The
issue for consideration in this paper is how to enhance the complementary strengths
of monitoring and modeling systems in air quality management.
The Air Quality Management Work Group Phase I report to the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee dated January 2005 included a recommendation to strengthen
scientific and technical capacity. Recommendation 1.3 addressed uncertainties in
emissions inventories and modeling by suggesting that EPA, in conjunction with
various stakeholders, should quantify and take actions to reduce uncertainty in
emissions and inventories and air quality modeling. The report recognized that
monitoring data generally contains a higher level of certainty than emissions
inventories and modeling data. The report recommended that a study be conducted
to evaluate sources of uncertainty, identify needed data collection activities to reduce
uncertainties, and to identify appropriate methods for incorporating remaining
uncertainties in preparation of emissions inventories and running models.
Alternative air quality management approaches suggested in the Phase I report
included establishing a more complete monitoring-based program, supplementing
monitoring with modeling, and creating a multifaceted program using technology-
based standards, modeling, and monitoring.
II. Discussion.
Air quality management and planning have always included a myriad of tasks
including setting of ambient air quality standards, imposition of emission control
requirements, modeling current and future situations, and monitoring ambient air
quality. Emission control requirements have been dictated by such programs and
1
-------
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality and New Source Review. Yet,
many sources have not been required to control their emissions at individual
locations because of grandfathering, waiving of requirements, and emissions trading.
The concept of technology-based standards complements air quality-based
standards. One model of future air quality management suggests that planners
might rely more heavily on technology-based standards in the future. Regardless of
whether this becomes a reality, there will continue to be a need to supplement such
mandated controls with assessments of air quality using some combination of
monitoring and modeling.
Measured data from properly designed and calibrated monitoring equipment
provides an accurate depiction of actual ambient conditions at the time the data is
collected. Drawing conclusions from monitoring data must be carefully conducted
however, given that influences on the data must be well understood. These
influences include wind speed and direction, temperature, locations of pollution
sources that may be impacting air quality at the monitoring site, and the level of
operation, and thus emissions, that may be occurring at the time of monitoring. In
addition, artifacts induced by sampling systems (e.g., volatization of particle nitrate
and carbon) should be acknowledged and at times accounted for in subsequent
assessments.
There are limitations to the availability of monitoring data from which to draw air
quality management conclusions. Sample collection and analysis methodologies
and devices may not be available for a particular pollutant of concern. Monitors may
not be located in the exact locations required to gather reliable data necessary to
make an accurate assessment of air quality at a desired location. It takes
substantial time to procure equipment, design a monitoring strategy, install monitors,
collect and analyze data, and provide it to decisionmakers. Staffing and funding
resources constraints also complicate the preference that real-world monitoring data
be available in all cases where it is needed. To overcome these deficiencies,
monitoring networks may be expanded or reprogrammed, or modeling may be
substituted for all or a portion of the desired monitoring.
Modeling is used in many cases to overcome the absence of actual monitoring data.
Models are available to predict impacts of existing and proposed single and multiple
emission points on local, regional, and national air quality. With development of
reasonably accurate current and projected emissions inventories, certain models can
predict future air quality including comparisons with existing and expected air quality
standards. Agencies use modeling to make permitting decisions by predicting
maximum concentrations of pollutants beyond existing and proposed emissions
points. These provide information allowing agencies to assess exposures to
receptors as well as consumption of air quality increments and compliance with air
quality standards. From a regional and national perspective, models have been
used to predict future air quality under various emission control scenarios. In many
cases, models are evaluated using past meteorology and monitoring data. In all
cases, there is a level of uncertainty that is not desired but is unavoidable. While
2
-------
modeling capabilities have continued to be developed, the accuracy of models has
improved, and the parameters and scenarios capable of being modeled have
expanded, there remains concern about using modeling as the primary tool rather
actual data.
Air quality planners need to know current levels of particular pollutants in the air,
whether the air in a specific area meets air quality standards that apply to that area,
the trend for a particular pollutant in a specific area, how growth in population and
pollution sources may affect future air quality in a specific area, and which emission
control strategies may be most beneficial in achieving and maintaining compliance
with air quality standards in a specific area.
Local and state air pollution control agencies, with funding assistance from EPA,
have created and continue to operate comprehensive monitoring networks. These
networks are extremely expensive and require extensive staffing to support
continued operations. Despite the efforts of each local and state agency to develop
and operate monitoring networks capable of characterizing air quality within their
jurisdictions, monitoring does not occur in all areas where questions may arise.
Major measurement gaps include a fairly limited spatial and pollutant coverage of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and virtually no routine observations of dry gaseous
and particulate mercury. In addition, there is obviously no way to monitor future air
quality. For these reasons, modeling also has played a major role in historic and
current air quality management.
On the positive side, the Level 2 sites to be implemented under the National Ambient
Air Monitoring Strategy (NAAMS) explicitly address shortcomings on multiple
pollutant measurements and designs servicing accountability and model evaluation.
Recent and emerging air quality model developments are expanding towards
integration of particles, ozone, HAPs and mercury in a one-atmosphere modeling
approach. Emission Inventories are undergoing revisions to provide a consistent
basis for integrated multiple pollutant systems.
While air quality models have the potential to provide virtually limitless resolution, the
accuracy of modeled estimates varies markedly across applications thereby often
confining the use of modeled results to prospective analyses of future year
emissions scenarios. The rationale underlying the prospective use of models is that
the nonlinear chemical interactions in atmospheric chemistry preclude the use of
simple rollback projections on current day ambient observations and require the
deterministic treatments available in modeling platforms. While the models provide
the positive attributes of resolution and nonlinear capability, observations generally
fall short in both those attributes yet offer significant value in truth or instilling
confidence in a particular assessment. Consequently, an air quality assessment
system should strive to utilize the complimentary strengths of observational and
predictive platforms to yield substantial increases in air quality knowledge.
Advancements in air quality assessments are based on our ability to improve air
quality characterizations across spatial, temporal and compositional scales.
3
-------
Recent development work in air quality forecasting, and related partnership activities
with the Center for Disease and Control (CDC), NOAA and NASA are converging
towards an increased reliance on a fused observation-modeling structure which
builds on the complimentary strengths of each system offering potentially substantial
enhancements in the spatial, temporal and compositional coverage of ambient air
concentrations and deposition loadings. These approaches service a variety of user
needs covering the health effects and exposure, air program management and
ecosystem assessment communities suggesting the feasibility of advanced
assessment approaches as a unifying vehicle to address the dominant themes of the
NAS Report: multi-media, accountability and multiple pollutant integration.
III. Alternatives.
Consideration of alternatives through which future air quality assessments may be
conducted allows for inspection of the role of air quality characterizations and the
proper alignment between air quality management and characterization. Three
options follow:
A. Monitoring-based Air Quality Management.
This alternative would manage air quality through a predominate reliance on
monitoring to determine needed emission reductions. Air pollution control
agencies would expand their air monitoring networks to provide more complete
spatial and temporal data. Observation-based approaches include a variety of
techniques that can be used to infer directional emission reductions (e.g., oxides
of nitrogen and/or volatile organic compounds for ozone; oxides of nitrogen
and/or ammonia for nitrate) even for nonlinear pollutants like ozone and
secondary particulate matter. Source apportionment methods can provide some
limited quantifiable reduction estimates, particularly for primary components of
particulate matter. The major use of monitoring data would be in a larger
accountability context where observations are used to iteratively assess progress
of intended/implemented rules and allowing for mid-stream corrections. This
alternative would require a strong commitment to monitoring. Monitoring data
might be used as a trigger for action instead of using designations to start
actions. Decisions would be required as to threshold levels that would trigger
specific actions. For attainment areas, incentive-based programs might be
proposed like the TRI or 33/50 programs. Public information might be used to
reward good performers and to encourage high emitters to reduce their
emissions.
1. Benefits.
a. Air quality management decisions would be made based on real-world
data.
4
-------
b. There would be less reliance on assumptions and inaccuracies.
c. Only the controls that are needed to meet the air quality goals would be
required.
2. Areas of Concern.
a. Using a monitoring-based approach would require extensive monitoring
networks that do not exist today. Thus, substantial expansion of
monitoring networks would be required.
b. Costs necessary to operate expanded networks would be extensive and
funding is limited.
c. Air quality managers would not be able to estimate future air quality with a
high degree of certainty.
d. Actually needed controls might not be required in the absence of
documented justification.
e. Achieving improvements in air quality would likely require longer time.
f. It may be difficult to convince regulatory agency management to approve
expanded monitoring networks due to the likely political and technical
concerns associated with deploying additional monitors.
B. Monitoring-based Air Quality Management Supplemented with Modeling.
This alternative would manage air quality through a predominate reliance on
monitoring to determine needed emission reductions. However, the degrees of
control and the universe of sources to be controlled might be determined through
modeling. Reliance on modeling could be decreased but models would still be
used to develop strategies as part of a weight-of-evidence approach and to
corroborate the effectiveness of programs.
This alternative would also require a substantial commitment to monitoring and
modeling. Monitored data is important to validate models and verify the level of
success of air pollution control programs. Modeling would also be required, thus
driving enhancement of existing models. Modeling would be used as a
supplement to evaluate special concerns in urban areas and around monitors that
have produced data of health/environmental concern. This approach is
consistent with current guidance recommending weight-of-evidence approaches
in the development of SIPs. The subtle difference is that models do not play a
dominant role supplemented by weight-of-evidence observational insights but,
rather, are utilized more as an equal partner in assessments. This approach is
also well aligned with accountability concepts that stress more attention should
5
-------
be focused on results over time rather than on the initial model derived strategy
development. Ideally, this approach would take advantage of a fused modeling
observation platform as discussed above.
For attainment areas, incentive-based programs might be proposed like the TRI
or 33/50 programs. Public information might be used to reward good performers
and to encourage high emitters to reduce their emissions.
1. Benefits.
a. Air quality management decisions would be made based on real-world
data, supplemented with modeled data where needed.
b. There would be more reliance on assumptions and inaccuracies than in
Alternative A. above, but less reliance than currently is the case. Air
quality managers would be able to estimate future air quality with a relative
degree of certainty.
c. Controls that are needed to meet the air quality goals would be imposed
only after analysis of the combination of monitoring and modeling data.
d. This alternative would offer various entities (local, state, regional, and/or
federal) the opportunity to participate in air quality management for their
jurisdiction.
2. Areas of Concern.
a. Using a blended monitoring/modeling approach might still require
enhancement of existing monitoring networks.
b. Costs necessary to operate expanded networks could be substantial in
this era of limited funding.
c. Air quality managers might still have problems estimate future air quality
with a high degree of certainty in at least some cases.
d. Actually needed controls might not be required in the absence of
documented justification.
e. Achieving improvements in air quality would likely require longer time than
a program more heavily based on modeling alone.
f. It may be difficult to convince regulatory agency management to approve
expanded monitoring networks due to the likely political and technical
concerns associated with deploying additional monitors.
6
-------
g. Decisions would be necessary as to the levels of modeling required and
who would do the modeling work - local, state, regional, or federal entities
or combinations thereof.
C. Multi-faceted Air Quality Management Based on a Balance of Technology
Standards, Monitoring, and Modeling.
In other parts of its work, the Air Quality Management Subcommittee is
discussing an enhanced process of continuous improvement in emission controls
and air quality, minimum emission control requirements for air pollution sources,
and a multi-pollutant planning approach. The 2005 National Research Council
report to the National Academy of Sciences recommended consolidated, multi-
pollutant approaches to air quality management and suggested that the air
program management community should integrate air toxics planning with criteria
pollutant planning.
This alternative would manage air quality through a combined reliance on basic
emission control expectations, more specific emission control requirements
derived from an analysis of monitoring, and modeling data to resolve local and
regional air quality issues.
The alternative presumes that there would be a minimum level of control for most
if not all air pollution sources. These controls would address much of the
background and transported pollution that impacts specific locales. The
alternative would also require a substantial commitment to monitoring and
modeling. The combination of source, ambient monitoring and air quality
modeling would be used to verify the level of success of air pollution control
programs and to drive potential mid-course emission strategy modifications.
Modeling would be used as a supplement to evaluate special concerns in all
nonattainment areas, in other geographical areas, and around monitors that have
produced data of health/environmental concern. Integration of multiple pollutants,
multiple media, and accountability are critical components of the alternative. A
weight-of-evidence approach would be used to develop strategies and to
evaluate the effectiveness of air quality management efforts. In concept, this
approach attempts to optimize the desirable attributes of both technology air
quality based approaches.
1. Benefits.
a. Air quality management decisions would be adequately supported through
a combination of up-front emission reductions, monitoring data and
modeling.
b. Minimum controls would be required on sources, creating emission
reductions that would prove helpful to local areas and which would reduce
transported pollution.
7
-------
c. Reasonably comprehensive monitoring data would be available to identify
problem areas, assess trends, and validate models.
d. Air quality managers would be able to estimate future air quality with a
relative degree of certainty through use of various modeling tools.
2. Areas of Concern.
a. Establishment of minimum control standards and implementation would
take considerable time and resources. Revisions of the Clean Air Act
could be required.
b. This approach might still require enhancement of existing monitoring
networks. Costs necessary to operate expanded networks could be
substantial in this era of limited funding.
c. Air quality managers would continue to rely somewhat significantly on the
assumptions and estimations of models. Decisions would be necessary
as to the levels of modeling required and who would do the modeling work
- local, state, regional, or federal entities or combinations thereof.
IV. Conclusions.
A high degree of knowledge and technical tools will continue to be essential
components of future air quality management. No single tool can deliver the breadth
of information that today's air quality managers require. Imposing new emission
control requirements faces uncertain outcomes. Monitoring is expensive. Modeling
is not a pure science. Yet the need for continuing improvements in air quality
dictates an aggressive, blended program of regulation, assessment, implementation,
and measurements. Top-down emission control mandates are not politically popular
but should be imposed where justified. Monitoring cannot be the solution to all
information needs but it is a valuable component. Modeling inputs remain subject to
assumptions and estimations and the models themselves cannot duplicate the real
world; nevertheless, modeling must be a component of continuing efforts to improve
air quality.
A combination of technology-based controls, monitoring, and modeling have
produced the best results in the past and will likely do so in the future. This blended
approach will continue to provide the greatest opportunity of success while
minimizing staffing and financial resource demands.
V. Recommendations.
8
-------
Alternative C. is the recommendation of Team 1, Issue Group 2. This alternative will
provide the most comprehensive approach to future air quality management.
Combining emission control standards, monitoring, and modeling will give air
pollution control agencies the best tools to achieve and maintain desired air quality.
Coupled with other likely recommendations coming out of the Air Quality
Management Subcommittee such as multi-pollutant approaches, continuous
improvement, and additional collaboration at the local level, this set of tools will
provide the highest level of effectiveness for future air quality management.
9
-------
Team 1, Group 2. Proposal #4
Topic: Multipollutant Planning Approach
| Draft date: March 44 23. 2006
Author: Amy Vasu
Goal: Use an integrated, multipollutant ("one atmosphere") planning approach to
reduce emissions of air pollutants more effectively and efficiently, in order
to protect human health and ecosystems.
Topics Addressed:
1. Source sector-based approach and pollutant-based approach
2. Areas that need special attention (e.g., major urban areas)
3. Reconciling timing (e.g., aligning the varying attainment dates)
4. Providing incentives (e.g., more time as a trade-off to better control
strategy/technology)
Options:
A. Current AQM program - single pollutant SIPs and sector-based NESHAPs, with
general support for multipollutant control strategy development, including
consideration of co-benefits and disbenefits. (consistent with Scenario 1)
B. Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) within the CAA framework - umbrella
planning document that includes individual/integrated SIPs for criteria pollutants
and possibly selected HAPs, as well as plans for addressing air toxics, ecosystem
protection, and local environmental issues within a State, (consistent with
Scenario 2)
C. AQMP as a comprehensive air quality management plan that addresses air
pollutants in an integrated manner (would require CAA revisions), including
attainment of NAAQS, sector-based reductions of HAPs and criteria pollutants,
ecosystem protection, and local environmental issues within a State, (consistent
with Scenario 3)
Background
The CAA currently takes a single pollutant approach for criteria pollutants
(through the NAAQS) and a source sector-based approach to HAPs (through the
NESHAPs). This approach can result in the selection of control strategies/technologies
that cause disbenefits (i.e., increases in emissions of other pollutants). Though the
current CAA has requirements that make a multipollutant planning approach difficult
(e.g., varying attainment dates), a multipollutant approach to air quality management
could offer many advantages. These may include: 1) reaching attainment in a more cost-
effective, efficient way, while getting greater overall reductions of pollutants; 2)
optimizing the mix of control measures for multiple pollutants, thus avoiding control
measures that, while beneficial in reducing one pollutant, may result in increases in
others; 3) making better use of limited Federal, State, local, and Tribal resources, and
those of the regulated community, for improving air quality; and, 4) making it easier for
I 4-
-------
potentially affected sources to plan installation of controls and/or process changes, rather
than having to install controls in a piece-meal fashion.
In January 2005, the Air Quality Management Work Group made
recommendations to the CAAAC, all of which were accepted, including the
recommendation that EPA and States, locals, and Tribes promote the consideration of
multipollutant impacts and, where possible, select regulatory approaches that maximize
benefits from controlling multiple pollutants. In response to this and related
recommendations, EPA has several efforts underway to move toward a multipollutant
planning approach. Sector-based efforts include analysis of the pulp and paper, cement,
and petroleum sectors to target emission reductions that will provide the greatest benefits
in the areas of risk reduction and reaching attainment of the NAAQS. In a separate effort
that included EPA/OAQPS, EPA Region V, and Michigan DEQ, two steel mills and a
coke battery in Detroit were assessed, and control technologies were identified that could
yield multipollutant reductions (for PM2.5 and precursors and metal HAPs, in particular).
These efforts have highlighted the potential for control technology selection that provides
optimum reductions of pollutants and offers more cost effective strategies that avoid
stranded costs associated with piecemeal investments in control equipment for individual
pollutants.
EPA/OAQPS, in coordination with EPA Region V, Michigan DEQ, and
EPA/OTAQ, has undertaken the "Detroit Pilot Study" as a test case for development of a
multipollutant control strategy for an urban area. The study will be completed in Fall
2006. The findings of the study will be used for several purposes, including: 1) to
identify possible control strategies for attaining the NAAQS in the Detroit area, while
also reducing risks associated with HAPs; 2) to provide information for development of
guidance for S/L/Ts on how to develop a multipollutant control strategy, and 3) to
identify where additional/improved data and tools may be needed for developing a
multipollutant control strategy.
+
-------
Option A: Current AQM Program
Timeline: Could be implemented within a year.
Partners: EPA, RPOs, State and local agencies, Tribes, and other stakeholders
Costs: Could be implemented primarily through existing cost structures
Option A proposes to continue with the current AQM program. Under this
option, a combined pollutant-based approach and sector-based approach is taken. Single
pollutant SIPs are required for areas not attaining the NAAQS and source category-
specific NESHAPs are required to reduce emissions of HAPs. A limitation of this
approach is that, historically, decisions about control technologies/strategies have
excluded consideration of multiple pollutants, resulting in less efficient and less effective
control of pollutants in many cases. With the current AQM program, EPA is providing
support for multipollutant control strategy development and consideration of co-benefits
and/or disbenefits in several ways: 1) by sharing findings of the recent multipollutant
assessments of selected sectors; 2) by performing a test case for development of a
multipollutant control strategy for an urban area; 3) by developing and providing
guidance; and, 4) by developing data and tools to support multipollutant control strategy
development.
This approach is consistent with the current CAA framework and presents no
apparent legal risks, though the problem with varying attainment dates still remains.
Varying attainment dates make the option of developing and submitting an integrated SIP
difficult. A State could address this by submitting an integrated/joint SIP by the earlier
submittal date, though there would need to be incentives, and possibly technical
assistance, to prompt this. At this time, limited or no regulatory or economic incentives
are offered.
Areas that need special attention include major urban areas not expected to reach
attainment of the NAAQS, and many of these areas that have co-occurring risks from
HAP emissions and exposures.
Scenario I draft recommendations:
• oontinueContinue current efforts to support multipollutant control strategy
development (e.g., development of guidance, development of tools and data (per
Team 2 recommendations))
• ee»teeeContinue Detroit Pilot Study as multipollutant control strategy
development
• Use findings of AQM Phase 1 assessments (e.g.. assessments of identified sectors)
to help target emission reduction efforts
• Determine approaches for attaining targeted emission reductions expeditiously
and with greatest overall benefits
-------
Option B: Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) within the CAA Framework
Timeline: Could be implemented over the next several years.
Partners: EPA, RPOs, State and local agencies, Tribes, and other stakeholders.
Costs: Could be implemented primarily through existing cost structures.
Under Option B, an AQMP would act as an umbrella planning document that
includes individual SIPs or an integrated SIP for criteria pollutants and possibly selected
HAPs, as well as addressing plans for air toxics, ecosystem protection, and local
environmental issues within a State. This would involve a combined pollutant-based and
sector-based approach.
Ideally, as part of this AQMP, a State would develop an integrated
implementation plan for criteria pollutants and selected HAPs, and include consideration
of co-benefits and disbenefits in control strategy selection. A source sector-based
approach would be used for selected source types identified as being a regional or
national scale concern. Remaining sectors that contribute to air quality issues specific to
a particular State or locality would also be identified in the AQMP.
Areas that need special attention include major urban areas that are not expected
to attain the NAAQS by 2010 and future years, and other areas with air quality issues that
are regional or local in scale.
Having an integrated SIP poses legal risks unless the earlier attainment date is
met. This option raises the question of how to reconcile timing (e.g., align the varying
attainment dates). Since an integrated, multipollutant SIP is not required by the CAA,
incentives would need to be provided to prompt S/L/Ts to attain success with this
approach of meeting earlier SIP submittal and NAAQS attainment dates. Alternatively,
EPA could choose to grant an extension for submittal of an integrated SIP and/or for
attainment of the NAAQS.
To pursue a multipollutant planning approach, S/L/Ts will need improved data
and tools, some of which EPA is currently developing, including an integrated emissions
inventory database, an integrated control technology and cost database, and modeling
tools that allow local-scale modeling of all sources.
Scenario II draft recommendations:
• Use findings of AQM Phase 1 assessments (e.g.. assessments of identified sectors)
to help target emission reduction efforts
• Determine approaches for attaining targeted emission reductions expeditiously
and with greatest overall benefits
•. Transition to a multipollutant air quality planning approach, which would require:
reconciling timing for SIP due dates and NAAQS attainment dates (e.g.,
by granting an extension for submittal of an integrated SIP)
providing economic incentives (e.g., additional grants for diesel PM
reductions, with a streamlined process)
providing other incentives (e.g., more time as a trade-off to better control
strategy/technology selection)
+
-------
^developing tools and data to support integrated, multipollutant SIPs {per
investing resources in additional test cases for selected nonattainment
areas—
assessing options for "permit streamlining" (see Team 2 paper)
-------
Option C: AQMP as a Comprehensive Air Quality Management Plan
Timeline: Could be implemented in the next several years.
Partners: EPA, RPOs, State and local agencies, Tribes, and other stakeholders
Costs: Could be implemented primarily through existing cost structures.
Under Option C, an AQMP would be a comprehensive air quality management
plan that would address criteria pollutants and HAPs, including attainment of NAAQS,
sector-based reductions of HAPs and criteria pollutants, ecosystem protection, local
issues, and environmental justice issues. For a true multipollutant approach, all issues
that relate to air quality, including energy, climate change, transportation and land use
(further addressed in Team 1, Group 3 paper) would need to be included in the AQMP.
The end goal would be to create a plan that is multipollutant-based and which addresses
all of the critical air pollution issues within a State, sets priorities, and provides an overall
plan. The AQMP would then provide a basis for creating multi-state (regional) plans.
For this option, the AQMP replaces SIPs and creates a new, integrated framework
for managing air quality that more effectively and efficiently uses a combination of
pollutant-based and sector-based approaches to address significant air quality problems in
an area. This option would require either legislative changes or a decision to take
significant legal risks.
SIP due dates would need to be separated from NAAQS promulgation, so that the
process could be transformed to an AQMP that includes an integrated, multipollutant
plan for addressing critical air pollutant issues for an area. This would be best served by
creating a standard period of planning of, for example, 8-10 years, with a mid-period
adjustment, if needed. If "reasonable progress" is not being made or if conditions
change, this would trigger an "on ramp" for reassessing the AQMP. Selected HAPs may
be identified and reclassified as criteria pollutants. Multiple pollutants would be
addressed in the NAAQS review and standard-setting process, and development of the
NAAQS for related pollutants would occur in parallel. Implementation of the NAAQS
for multiple pollutants would occur in parallel, as reflected in the AQMP, with attainment
dates that are aligned.
A sector-based approach would be implemented for selected types of sources that
have been identified as being an issue on a national scale and identify some of those that
are specific to particular States or localities that would be better addressed at the State or
local level.
Areas that need special attention include major urban areas that are not expected
to attain the NAAQS by 2010 and future years, and other areas with air quality issues that
are regional or local in scale.
To pursue a multipollutant planning approach, S/L/Ts will need improved data
and tools, some of which EPA is currently developing, including an integrated emissions
inventory database, an integrated control technology and cost database, and modeling
tools that allow local-scale modeling of all sources.
+
-------
Scenario III draft recommendations:
• Use findings of AQM Phase 1 assessments (e.g.. assessments of identified sectors)
to help target emission reduction efforts
• Determine approaches for attaining targeted emission reductions expeditiously
and with greatest overall benefits
• Develop a framework for an AQMP and identify specific legislative changes to
the CAA needed to support this approach, including:
¦ Separating SIP due dates from NAAQS promulgation
¦ Replacing SIPs with an AQMP that addresses all of the critical air
pollution issues within a State (including, for example, those that impact
human health, ecosystems, climate change), sets priorities, and provides
an overall plan
¦ OiaBgflfr-steftfe#-re&ed-ef-Considering setting a fixed period for air
quality pianning^-e.-g.T-Hv-X-44-yeaffr), with a mid-period adjustment, if
needed (e.g., if not showing "reasonable progress")
• "OpvpI nni n o~ flip M A AOS* fV>r rplntpH nolliitntitQ in rvnmllpl
,l>vv viupnig, uiv ivl i viulvU pOTTUtuiira lllpul uiivi
¦ Structuring implementation of NAAQS to occur in parallel for multiple
pollutants
¦ Using the AQMP as a basis for creating multi-state air quality plans
Assess the standard period for NAAQS review and options for review cycles that
correlate with new/improved science and with the significance of the associated
air quality issues (i.e.. more frequent for some pollutants, less frequent for others)
Assess the option of developing the NAAQS for related pollutants in parallel
Provide economic incentives (e.g., additional grants for diesel PM reductions,
with a streamlined process)
Provide other incentives (e.g., more time as a trade-off to better control
strategy/technology selection)
Develop tools and data to support integrated SIPs (per Team 2 recommendations)
• Invest resources in:
¦ rV-aJest case for development of an AQMP as a comprehensive air quality
management plan for a State
¦ Improvcdimproved data and tools (e.g., integrated emissions inventory
database, an integrated control technology and cost database, and
local-scale modeling tools) for development of AQMPs
Assess options for "permit streamlining" (see Team 2 paper)
-------
AQM Team 1, Group 2
Local Air Quality Planning
March 15, 2006
Overarching Strategy: Scenario #2
Goal: Stimulate innovative and stakeholder driven local or tribal airshed planning to
manage pollution growth to prevent chronic erosion of air quality leading to NAAQS
violations, PSD increment violations or causing NAAQS violations in downwind
communities.
Principles Addressed:
• Establish a new AQ SIP planning paradigm which captures the positive
aspects of Early Action Compacts, yet applied to attainment areas;
• Integrate air quality into local or tribal government's normal business of
land use, transportation and community development planning;
• Address today's AQ threats in locales where strong population growth
and urban sprawl is stimulating high growth in minor, area or mobile air
pollution sources;
• Fulfill the Congressional intent of the CAA in managing pollution growth
in clean air areas (CAA Section 160);
• Re-cast the statewide SIP policy principles where states write plans for
each discrete Air Quality Control Region (CAA Sectionl07).
Desirable Attributes to Embrace:
• Leverage off of existing local or tribal government functions;
• Promote clean air as a community economic and health resource that is
conserved and managed locally;
• Promote creative incentives shown to build local stakeholder buy-in;
• New "drivers" are necessary to force the AQ goals, yet drivers could be
crafted as backstop provisions leaving room for results based innovations
and stakeholder buy-in;
• Rely more on accountable changes via emission inventories, less on
ambient monitoring, and less on modeling projections.
Pot Holes to Avoid:
• Avoid the current bureaucracy burden of non-attainment area SIPS.
• If traditional SIP credits are necessary drivers, then create easier paths for
credits when using innovative cutting edge emission reductions relying
more on post-plan field verification.
Options:
A. Local plans that construct a mosaic of airshed based state-wide or reservation-
wide plan.
Local Planning proposal, Version 1.1, t chappie, 3/13/2006 for Team 1, Group 2
1
-------
B. Stand- Alone Local Area plans for individual high growth areas where significant
pollution growth is underway or expected.
C. Area of Influence plans for locales that significantly impact downwind
communities.
D. Multi-state Airshed plans spanning broad geographic areas.
Background:
The primary drivers in the Clean Air Act are the SIP and associated conformity
review for non-attainment areas, and the technology forcing provisions of NSR,
NSPS, and MACT controls for stationary sources. Major sources have been
successfully controlled and SIPs, while bureaucracy laden, have been successful in
cleaning up many poor air quality areas.
Yet, neither the SIP nor NSR/ technology processes adequately prevent pollution
growth in locales where population growth and urban sprawl results in chronic
erosion of clean air due to pollution growth from mobile, area or minor sources.
During the past three decades, pollution technology improvements allowed America
to experience strong economic and population growth while also dramatically
improving air quality. Yet growth is outstripping the technology hedge especially in
high growth areas of the west and south. A new planning paradigm is needed if states,
local governments and reservations are going to succeed in preserving clean air while
also promoting population growth and the vitality of their economies.
Local and state officials charged with resolving non-attainment area problems have
been forced to reach beyond the traditional stationary and mobile sources controls for
new techniques and stakeholder processes to achieve necessary emission reductions
for NAAQS compliance. There are lessons to be learned from these innovative
efforts which can be directly applied to support this new planning paradigm.
Early Action Compacts (EAC) is a recently applied tool which has demonstrated the
power of establishing incentives to fix problems early. Giving Local areas the
opportunity to make early commitments to a specific action plan has opened the door
to innovations in stemming and reversing growing air pollution problems. EACs
keep the emerging non-attainment area under a tight schedule and progress must be
demonstrated. The key attributes of EACs that are most responsible for encouraging
quick actions should be embraced in any new local planning paradigm.
Many local leaders and governing bodies have become more mature in how they
value clean air and more knowledgeable about the direct detrimental health and
economic impacts of poor air quality. The federal regional haze standard has forced
the formation of inter-state, tribal and stakeholder partnerships that were not
foreseeable a decade ago. Congress' 1977 vision for preventing significant
deterioration of clean air areas has begun to mature in the demands of the American
public whereby clean air is viewed as community resource.
Local Planning proposal, Version 1.1, t chappie, 3/13/2006 for Team 1, Group 2
2
-------
This proposal is founded upon the principle that many critical decisions about
community and small source growth is routinely occurring in local government
forums. These forums or aggregations of these forums are the best place to integrate
future air quality planning if we as a nation are to succeed in conserving clean air as a
resource, avoid creating problems for down-wind communities, preventing erosion of
clean air to health standards, or nullifying PSD growth increments that stymie or
preclude future economic enterprises.
The options presented below examine some possible approaches to stimulate the local
air quality planning function.
Option A: Local plans that construct a mosaic of airshed based statewide or
reservation-wide plan.
Policy Concept: This model would key off of the concept in Section 107 (a) of the
Act whereby each state or tribe is obligated to prepare a state-wide or reservation-
wide plan to manage air quality. The unique aspect would be that tribes or states
would be the responsible backstop entity in charge of constructing a mosaic of local
plans that tier up to an aggregate airshed plan and then further aggregate to address
the entire geography of the state or reservation. The frequency of plan updates could
be triggered by a number of different factors such as a certain percent growth of
emissions, percent increase in population, frequency with existing planning cycles of
comprehensive community plans or transportation improvement plans.
Regulatory changes would likely be necessary to re-define the SIP planning
obligation for states and local / tribal governments. The regulations would need to
establish the planning provisions with respect to when local governments are
obligated to do this, what backstop obligations rest with the state agency, whether the
planning duty relies upon an emissions inventory as its benchmark and subsequent
growth thereafter or alternatively whether that starting benchmark is based upon
ambient air measurements in the local area or airshed. The regulations would need to
specify how it is to be integrated within existing community planning and decision
making process and how it is to be designed to tier-up to an airshed plan or statewide
plan.
Pros:
• Local and Tribal governments are the best crucibles for stakeholder driven
breakthroughs that will link air pollution growth restraint with community
population and economic growth promotion.
• Responsibility residing with State would provide some consistency across the
breath of local plans; provide technical resources for local governments to
draw upon;
• Geographic span ensures that all areas get reviewed periodically;
Local Planning proposal, Version 1.1, t chappie, 3/13/2006 for Team 1, Group 2
3
-------
Cons:
• State oversight responsibly may stymie ownership, buy-in and creativity at
local government level;
• Currently there is no regulatory driver to make local plans happen in
attainment areas;
• Adds a planning burden upon each state, local government or tribe at a time
when federal funds are diminishing.
• Even if well integrated with existing local government planning decisions, it
will also add a burden to local governments and tribes.
Option B: Stand - Alone Local area plans for individual high growth areas
where significant pollution growth is underway or expected.
Policy Concept: Of the four proposals this one would be the least burden upon local,
state or tribal governments because it would only apply to a particular local
government when certain pre-established growth triggers are exceeded. New
regulatory requirements to mandate the local planning could perhaps be rooted in the
authority of Sections 160 and 161 of the Act from the policy perspective that
emission growth above pre-set quantities per given geographic area have a strong
likelihood to compromise the PSD increments. This legal foundation would rely on
the assumption that minor source baseline dates have already been triggered for most
areas of the country or the new regulations could accomplish a similar result.
Rather than rely upon a growth in ambient concentrations above a given baseline
concentration, as envisioned in PSD increments, it would be far more practical to
base the planning trigger on net growth of emissions. There's simply not enough
money and staff for ambient monitoring to use ambient growth values as the
triggering criteria.
The state or EPA would need to become the oversight agency for making periodic
reviews to determine when local planning is required for a given community/ tribal
village or unincorporated area. For administrative purposes, it may be beneficial to
develop certain indicators or rules of thumb that would be used as a first cut indicator
of significant emission increases. The triggering criteria would need to address high
growth in new greenfield areas (e.g. urban sprawl) as well as increasing emission
rates in existing urbanized or commercial areas. The rules of thumb may be things
such as: number of new housing starts within a given area, increase in population
density, number of business licenses issued for a given geographic area, number of
new road lane miles constructed etc..
Pros:
• Lowest burden upon local governments
Local Planning proposal, Version 1.1, t chappie, 3/13/2006 for Team 1, Group 2
4
-------
• Only required where pollution growth is generally known to be increasing or
spreading geographically coincident with population or minor source growth.
• Local government more likely to embrace if it is evident that air pollution
growth is real and could be an impediment to economic development, quality
of life and/ or impair a visitor industry.
Cons:
• Currently no regulatory driver, except non-attainment classification or non-
conformity determination for transportation improvements.
• Avoids dealing with the airshed problem where an upwind community is
contributing to a downwind community's air quality problem unless the
upwind community has a high pollution growth rate.
• Adds a planning burden on selected local governments, adds burden to state
or EPA administration.
Option C: Area of Influence plans for locales that significantly impact
downwind communities
Policy Concept: This option would to require local air quality planning when
emissions from a community significantly degrades air quality in another
community. The Clean Air Interstate Rule is specifically designed to address this
problem where upwind sources contribute to a NAAQS problem. There appears to
be adequate legal authority in Sections 107 and 126 to require the local planning
within a given state provided the issue of concern is one community contributing to
a NAAQS violation in a downwind community. However, the existing legal basis
of the Act may be less certain if the goal is to prevent significant degradation in the
downwind community. To achieve the policy goal of using local governments to
manage chronic pollution growth, it is not sufficient to merely protect the NAAQS.
Rather, the goal is preventing significant deterioration of air quality whether the
cause is a community's own growth, impacts from an outside community or a
combination of both. The PSD new source review program should adequately
address upwind sources. However, the PSD regulations are not currently designed
for managing emissions from a high growth community where minor source growth
is the prominent threat.
Describing the upwind area of influence is often a complex task that ranges from the
next community/ tribal village a couple miles away to hundreds of miles in an
interstate airshed encompassing numerous states. In the west, regional haze
contributions to the visibility in the Grand Canyon originate from source emissions
transported from large segments of many states. Further, the area of influence is
often a function of atmospheric chemistry when secondary pollutants are part of the
problem.
Administratively, this option is far more complex than either A or B because it
would seem to necessitate the use of modeling to get some indication of how
Local Planning proposal, Version 1.1, t chappie, 3/13/2006 for Team 1, Group 2
5
-------
significant the impact from one community is upon another. Alternatively,
monitoring data could be used to measure impacts. Yet again, ambient monitoring
is very resource intensive and the task would be to measure net ambient growth
which is a tough challenge for any monitoring network. It would be desirable for
the implementing agency, EPA or the State, to establish a relatively simple process
for determining when local planning is, or is not, required. This option does not
appear to support easy or quick decision making as to when local planning would
need to be done.
Pros:
• Local planning is only required when there is an evident cause and effect
relationship - not all communities captured in the net;
• Only required where pollution growth is generally known to be increasing or
spreading geographically coincident with population or minor source growth.
• May be the best option to achieve the dual protection of keeping clean air in
the developing community while also assuring protection for downwind
communities, while not casting the all encompassing net to demand local
planning in every community.
Cons:
• Some communities may not support or buy-in especially if the protection is
only for downwind communities and there is no local benefit perceived;
• Currently no regulatory driver, except non-attainment classification or non-
conformity determination for transportation improvements.
• Adds a planning burden on selected local governments;
• Places a considerable work demand upon EPA or State government to
determine where local planning is really needed; i.e. use of complex models
Option D: Multi-state Airshed plans spanning broad geographic areas.
Policy Concept: This option would embrace concepts in Option A and C while also
premised on a finding that in many, if not most, regions of the country inter-state
transport of pollution is a serious issue that must be addressed on a regional rather
than state by state basis. While current regulations address inter-state transport issues
for secondary particles, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, acid rain, and haze, no existing
regulatory structure exist to minimize or control chronic air pollution growth at the
sub-NAAQS level. While public health via criteria air standards is the foremost goal
of the Act, Congress has expressed its policy to prevent significant deterioration of
clean air areas. The interstate regional approach that tiers up from local government
and airshed planning may be the only method to achieve that very laudable goal of
Section 160(3) of the Act.
Sections 107, 160, 161 and 126 of the Act would need close review to ascertain if
adequate authorities presently exist to require a broad based airshed and regional
planning duty.
Local Planning proposal, Version 1.1, t chappie, 3/13/2006 for Team 1, Group 2
6
-------
Under this concept, states would need to retain a significant role in guiding the
outcomes of local plans. State would then be responsible for consistency when
tiering up many local plans into airshed, state-wide and region-wide plans that
maintain technical rigor and consistency where necessary. States would also need
discretion with respect to frequency of demanding local plan updates considering
changes in emissions / growth status at the community by community level.
Regional planning organizations that now exist primarily for regional haze would
need to take on a broader mission.
Pros:
• Same as listed for Option A.
• This option among others is most capable of achieving Clean Air Act goal of
preventing air quality deterioration in the long term.
• Stronger integration of air quality goals with every aspect of government from
local communities / tribal villages and up.
Cons:
• High demand upon government at local, state and federal level
• Likely to over-regulate areas of the country where commercial, industrial or
population growth is stagnant or low
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) A largely missing element of the clean air framework of the country is air quality
planning by local government / tribal village government. It is recommended that
local governments be required to integrate air quality planning into their land use,
roadway and community development plans in a structured way.
2) If we as a nation are to preserve the clean air still enjoyed in much of the country,
we must prevent chronic and widespread air pollution growth from minor and
mobile sources especially in high growth areas with a more robust and obligatory
growth planning duty. It is recommended that EPA and States develop a tiered
regulatory planning structure geographically building up from local /tribal
communities, to airsheds, to state and possibly multi-state Air Quality
Management Plans.
3) Because the tiered planning function could become a heavy burden, it is
recommended that the new regulatory structure be: pilot tested in one or more
locales; provide strong incentives and flexibility for creative solutions; apply high
rigor and demand proven results in locales where air pollution growth is strong;
yet, allow for off-ramps, lower rigor or longer planning cycles if locales do not
exhibit NAAQS violations or chronic pollution growth.
Local Planning proposal, Version 1.1, t chappie, 3/13/2006 for Team 1, Group 2
7
-------
BOUNDARIES
Issue Group 2, Team 1
| Draft Date: March 4-5-27. 2005
Author: Jeff Underhill
Goal: Improve and coordinate interstate planning and rulemaking to better
reflect the science of air pollution formation and transport.
Topics Addressed:
1. Determine meaningful boundaries
2. Transform the SIP process
3. Deal with pollution transport
Options:
A. Status Quo - Nonattainment areas, State and RPO boundaries
B. Elimination of Boundaries
C. Regional Airsheds
D. Areas of Influence/Areas of Vi ol ati on
E. Variable Boundaries - Based on Known Science
Background
The Clean Air Act is currently geared toward addressing air pollution at the local level, focusing
mostly on acute impacts from specific pollution sources. Other provisions allow EPA to issue
rulemaking to address pollution on regional and national scales, typically focusing on specific
pollution sources (MACT, heavy-duty diesel, Tier 2, etc.), but sometimes also more general (NOx
SIP call, CAIR. etc.). EPA's stated goal is to reduce pollution from these sources enough so that
states and tribes can meet attainment by enacting a reasonable amount of local controls.
The Clean Air Act specified that the Ozone Transport Commission be created, consisting of 13
states and the District of Columbia in the Northeast with the worst-measured levels of ozone in
order to create a formal forum for interstate planning purposes. Generally speaking, this exercise
has been a success and regional ozone levels have dropped significantly. Outside the Northeast,
most states have worked independently to develop their SIPs or have banded together on a
piecemeal basis to address emissions.
As ambient air pollution standards become more protective, localized pollution controls have
become more difficult to identify and more costly to implement. The OTAG process
demonstrated that certain pollutants such as ozone defy state boundaries and that some states
could not reach attainment without more regionally and nationally coordinated emission
reductions. Thus the need for regional coordination has increased greatly for pollutants with
longer atmospheric lifetimes (ozone, small particles, etc.) Section 126 petitions have been filed
by states desperate to reduce upwind emissions.
1
-------
Option A: Status Quo - Nonattainment areas. State and RPO Boundaries
Timeline: Could be implemented within 1-year.
Partners: EPA, RPOs (states and tribes), stakeholders
Costs: Could be implemented primarily through existing cost structures.
Perhaps the easiest option to implement and the most likely to lead to prolonged air
pollution nonattainment and litigation. While successful for certain pollutants such as
| CO and S02, success has been more difficult to accomplish for more regionally persistent
pollutants. This option continues to rely on whatever national and regional programs
emerge from federal and regional rulemaking and leaves local authorities to do the rest.
While simple in concept, this option has only limited success in reducing transportable
pollutants since often what is left behind is beyond the physical ability for local
authorities to successfully address, or so expensive or unpalatable that local rulemaking
fails. In many areas failing to attain certain air pollution standards, most of the simple
and cost effective local control measures have already been implemented and rulemaking
is held up because more cost effective pollution reductions may be found outside the
local nonattainment area.
Success for Option A would likely require more national and sub-national scale pollution
reduction regulations to be implemented by EPA or Congress in order to reduce pollution
transport to levels that realistic levels of local emission controls can successfully achieve
attainment. Success for this option is also dependent on better aligning regional and
national emission control regulation implementation dates and phase-in schedules with
attainment dates. In many cases the federal programs lag the attainment dates by several
years. Clearly this results in the economic conflicts of the costs to phase in controls
faster with the ongoing health impact costs. Since local authorities only have control
over their own jurisdictions, legal recourse is required when air pollution transport from
outside their boundaries is too great to remove the remainder with realistic local controls.
As an alternative, EPA should work with local communities to determine what level of
local emission reductions are realistically possible before determining how much
incoming pollution is reasonable after federal programs are implemented. This
determination should be done as part of the federal rule technical analysis, in partnership
with local authorities, so that the resulting regulations are not fatally flawed prior to
implementation.
It should be noted that there will be an increase reliance on the RPOs and funding to
those programs should be revisited with that consideration.
2
-------
Option B: Elimination of Boundaries
Timeline: Could be implemented in 1 to 2-years.
Partners: EPA, RPOs (states and tribes), stakeholders
Costs: Could be implemented primarily through existing cost structures.
Elimination of nonattainment area boundaries could result in the loss of existing
nonattainment area specific controls. Some sort of no-backsliding provision would be
required to prevent emissions growth from rebounding industrial opportunity in areas
restrained by emissions offsets and other restrictive requirements. Emission sources may
seek to level the economic playing field with traditional attainment areas. Since no-
backsliding provisions would still require some variation of current nonattainment area
boundaries, removal of boundaries may not prove to truly be a simplification of the
boundary system.
Option B would rely heavily on highly effective and timely regional and national
emission reduction regulations that would also be implemented locally. Local authorities
would be free to designate their own control program implementation boundaries based
on what is determined to be most politically and scientifically effective for them. While
local authorities would be encouraged to seek partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions
to gain needed out-of-area emission reductions, there is a strong risk that Option B would
not be much more successful in developing such partnerships than the current
nonattainment system has achieved.
Moving forward towards attainment of more protective and harder to attain standards will
invariably lead toward the need of additional controls on a less than national/sub-national
scale. Without nonattainment area boundaries or some other boundary that approximates
some reasonable scientific boundary, state and or RPO boundaries may become the
default for delineating the extent controls need to be implemented. Unless EPA acts to
implement rules covering differing regions, there is a possibility of pitting states/tribes
against states/tribes in an upwind/downwind debate and Section 126 petitions rather
encouraging entities to work together.
Removing all boundaries runs the risk of legal battles over who is responsible for what
nonattainment and who should fall under more restrictive programs. As a result there
will be a fairly high likelihood of drawn-out timelines.
3
-------
Option C: Regional Airsheds
Timeline: Could be implemented within 1 to 2 years.
Partners: EPA, RPOs (states and tribes), stakeholders
Costs: Could be implemented primarily through existing cost structures.
Regional coordination and travel costs could increase.
The regional airshed concept is based on the scientific principle that topography, weather
patterns, and pollution sources combine to create their own boundaries and that it is this boundary
that needs to be managed in order to most effectively meet clean air goals. An example of
airshed management is the Ozone Transport Region in the Northeast. Several states with a
common problem, high ozone levels, were grouped together so that they can combine resources
to meet a common goal. Combined, the states are charged with identifying air pollution reduction
measures that can be implemented regionally, and thus lowering implementation costs and
economic competitiveness between partner states. The concept has been an unprecedented
success although when created it was not anticipated how great the inter-airshed transport would
be. For regional airsheds to be effective, lesions should be learned from what works and what
does not with the Ozone Transport Region. Scientifically correct airshed also need to be defined
in other regions of the country so that those regions can benefit from the expanded coordination.
Regional Planning Organizations developed for regional haze planning were an attempt to
develop a form of airshed management, but during the formation, certain states did not want to
get clustered with certain other states and the end result of the RPO boundaries became an
airshed/political boundary hybrid. In order to work, the airshed boundaries need to be developed
based on the science, starting with regions demonstrating measured air pollution commonalities
as well as common source types. Rather than creating a new set of planning organizations, the
existing RPO structure could serve to bring the airsheds together with the requirements of seeking
common solutions. Airsheds would seek to cover multiple pollutants whenever possible, but
airsheds may ultimately need modifications to accommodate other pollutants.
It should be noted that there are no set or exact airsheds, as commensurate for watersheds.
Instead, airsheds can only be estimated for individual air pollutants based on using techniques
such as monitor correlation and/or trajectory analyses. Longer lived pollutants will have longer
transport ranges and thus larger airsheds than pollutants with shorter atmospheric lifespans.
Airshed Planning Region Considerations
• Reeegfl«e4hatResist use of political boundaries when defining airsheds unless
supported by science.
• Monitoring and major sources/source regions should be considered.
• Regional modeling and meteorological modeling should also be considered.
• Nonstandard forms of measurements such as aircraft, balloon, satellite, mountain-top,
building/tower monitors could prove useful.
• While MSAs may be useful in identifying the urban extent of metropolitan emissions, the
boundary is generally too small to be considered an airshed.
• Once an airshed is defined, efforts should be made to understand the science of what
creates it, special topographical and meteorological issues, population health risk, and
other environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
• Airshed Planning Regions could contain several nonattainment areas.
4
-------
• Airshed Planning regions would not necessarily include entire states, nor would they
necessarily be entirely contained within the existing RPOs.
• The existing RPOs may contain multiple Airshed Planning Regions
• Consider overlapping of airsheds to include upwind source areas that contribute to
problem areas.
• States may opt into upwind airsheds.
> Nonattainment areas wtHcould still represent areas with poor air quality and be the focus
of state/tribal SIPs.
> Airshed Planning Regions look at the regional context of air pollution sources and how it
affects nonattainment areas and other areas of poor air quality. Efforts should be focused
on building successful state/tribe interrelations and SIPs.
> Regional Planning Organizations wfH-could continue to be the forum for bringing the
regional states together for coordination and planning. Beyond the RPO s mandate for
studying regional haze, they would now also be charged with coordinating the work of
the airsheds within, or partially within their borders.
> National - EPA will still need to seek out pollution controls that are best implemented on
a national or sub-national level and will provide resources as needed to study air pollution
emissions, transport, and the coordination of the RPOs so that inter-RPO transport and
airsheds that span multiple RPOs are properly considered.
Example of what regional Airsheds may look like:
5
-------
Option D: Areas of Influence/Areas of Violation
Timeline: Could be implemented in 2 to 3 years.
Partners: EPA, RPOs (states and tribes), stakeholders
Costs: Additional financial resources would be needed to complete AOI/AOV
analyses. Regional coordination and travel costs could increase.
Perhaps the most scientifically sound concept for reducing problematic air pollutants is to
first define the areas that have higher than permitted levels, or areas of violation (AOV),
and then somehow define with accuracy the areas of influence (AOI) that affect those
AOVs. While defining AOV's is relatively straightforward through monitoring,
determining culpable sources is difficult and varied from day to day. While technology
has advanced far enough to allow analysis for what areas most influence a violating
monitor, the process is tedious and results in a complicated network of AOIs for each
AOV that overlap and cross-over each other. Further complicating the technique is the
varying degrees that sources within an AOI actually affect the AOV and where should the
boundary be drawn. For example, an analysis may determine that a 100 ton source 30
miles away from a violating monitor has a negligible influence, but a 250 ton source 10
miles beyond the smaller source has a significant impact. Where does one draw the
boundary? Now what if there are two 100 ton sources that separately don't significantly
impact the monitor, but combined, they do?
In order to be successful, a rigorous analysis would need to be undertaken for each
monitor in violation, including the development of techniques that reasonably account for
the logistics that create an AOV. For example, is there a single source causing the
violation, or are there numerous sources that are minor individually, but combine to
create the violation. Analyses will need to consider what source sector(s) is (are) most
responsible for violations and what existing pollution control and associated timeline
mean to remedying the violation.
What jurisdiction oversees the resulting AOIs creates an interesting problem. If the AOI
lies entirely within a single state or tribe, that authority would logically be in charge. If
the AOI covers more than one state/tribe, then states could voluntarily work together like
in Options A and B above or use existing RPO venues. Since there are dozens of
violating monitors in some RPOs, the RPO structure could get buried in logistics for
tracking each associated AOI.
| Perhaps the RPO/Airshed Planning Regions (APR- Approve h discussed above
could be accepted as the AOI surrogate.
6
-------
Option E: Variable Boundaries - Based on Known Science
Timeline: Could be implemented in 2 to 3 years.
Partners: EPA. RPOs (states and tribes), stakeholders
Costs: Additional financial resources would be needed to complete AQI/AQV
analyses. Regional coordination and travel costs could increase.
One of the most pressing problems revolving around nonattainment boundary
designations involves the lack of acknowledgement of pollution transport by the routine
nonattainment area designation metric. Multiple forms of pollution transport and
remaining significant local contribution to nonattainment should lead to a "hybrid"
approach for boundaries different from the four options identified above.
This hybrid approach would build off of the existing 3 pronged planning approach (City
based NAAs. RPOs and the federal government) but vary the boundaries to fit with what
atmospheric science tells us is the appropriate control region for the regulatory initiative
being considered.
As an example, for attainment of the Ozone and Fine Particle standards a mid-Atlantic
state may need a large regional power plant control program (stretching west to the
Mississippi River). But there will also be a need for an east of the Appalachians (smaller,
but still a big regional boundary) program for area sources of NOx. VQC and SO?
because of the low level night-time jet transport that affects much of the East Coast.
There will also be a need for a local component to address mobile source emissions.
VMT. and growth.
These are just examples, but each "control program" could be fit into the appropriate
"boundary" based upon the science. A key part of the concept is to have an up front
process - involving all parties - to develop, refine and agree upon the appropriate
conceptual description of how air pollution gets formed in different areas of the country.
7
-------
Recommendations:
While each proposal could be designed or modified in some way to work, some of the
proposals are more likely to have quick success and with reduced risk of litigation. Take
for example, the status quo option (option A). It has had some successes, but it was never
really designed with highly transportable pollutants in mind. To make progress for those
pollutants, a patchwork of local, regional, and national controls have been met with legal
challenges and the use of Section 126 petitions has been questioned. While progress has
been made, it has been slow and frequently challenged.
Elimination of boundaries (option B), using a one-size-fits-all and/or state-specific
approaches faces the practical problems of not necessarily addressing the issue of
downwind states disputing the level of pollution control in upwind states. Unless
widespread controls are primarily applied to address transport up-front, delays in success
are likely. Alternatively, applying all pollution controls on a national level doesn't
necessarily adjust for topography and population density concerns and thus may not
provide the most cost-effective approach.
| There was a strong feeling from the subgroup that boundary recommendations should
stem from the area of influence (AOI) / area of violation (AOV) concept originally
proposed by FACA. It is an approach that is scientifically determined to succeed
efficiently. Unfortunately, the AOI/AOV concept has never really gained traction
because of the complexity in defining the AOI. It is a complicated concept in which
boundaries can change under differing weather patterns. Instead this subgroup
recommends the use of regional airsheds (option C) to roughly approximate the most
critical areas of influence. Areas of violation can be applied simply as the areas not
meeting ambient air standards, and build off of the emerging use of fused modeling-
observation systems capable of providing contiguously consistent air quality surfaces to
better define AOV (nonattainment areas).
In defining regional airsheds, every attempt should be made to clearly define the airsheds
as simple, but scientifically sound regions, down to the county level. Politically
convenient boundaries should only be used as a tie-breaker where scientific data doesn't
show a preference. It should be further noted that local, regional, super-regional, and
national pollution controls may still be most practical on a case-by-case basis and thus
should be considered during the air quality planning process.
Where superior scientific data exists, variations to airshed boundaries can be made as
described under Option E. variable boundaries - based on known science.
8
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
TEAM 1: Group 3
Proposed Coordination Strategies for Air Quality,
Land Use, Energy, Transportation and Climate
[NOTE TO READER: This document represents the work product of Group 3 as
of March 15, 2006. It contains nine proposals and numerous associated comments.
Group 3 has reached consensus on proposals 2 through 8. Group 3 is continuing to
discuss proposals 1 and 9. Group 3 has scheduled a call for March 22,2006 to
discuss proposal 9.
Where a comment is noted as "resolved," Group 3 has reached consensus regarding
how it wishes to address the comment. Group 3 recognizes that AQM subcommittee
members (including Group 3 members who may not have participated in the
consensus discussion) may have different views regarding the proposed resolution of
a particular comment; Group 3's use of the word "resolved" is not intended to
suggest that Group 3 is unwilling to consider such views when finalizing their draft
proposals.
Finally, Group 3 has categorized proposals 1 through 8 into one or more of the three
overarching scenarios established by the AQM Subcommittee co-chairs. While
proposals 1 and 2 have been identified as "Bin 1" proposals to reflect group
consensus, some Group 3 members believe there are opportunities to strengthen the
proposals with Bin 3 treatment.]
INTRODUCTION
The Subcommittee on Air Quality Management ("AQM Subcommittee") is developing
recommendations for long-term changes to the air quality management system based on
the National Research Council's recommendations in its 2004 report entitled "Air Quality
Management in the United States". Team 1 to the AQM Subcommittee is designing a
proposed process for managing air quality and has divided its work into various issue
areas. We were asked to address Issue 3. Specifically, we were asked to propose ways in
which the AQM framework of the future should coordinate with other programs such as
land use. energy, transportation and climate.
Land use, transportation and energy policies and programs are inextricably intertwined
with air quality policies and programs. Specifically, land use, transportation and energy
policies and programs can conflict with or frustrate attaining national air quality goals.
Conversely, air quality policies and programs can conflict with or frustrate national
transportation and energy goals. With these basic understandings in mind, the guiding
principal for Issue 3 is that our nation's land use, transportation and energy policies and
programs and our nation's air quality policies and programs must be aligned to serve
consistent objectives.
1
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
During Group 3's discussions, there was considerable debate regarding the extent to
which Group 3 should address climate. Some stakeholders believed that it was
inappropriate for the AQM Subcommittee to address climate in any manner. Other
stakeholders believed that it was essential for the AQM Subcommittee to address climate.
After significant discussion, the Group 3 stakeholders agreed to a compromise position.
Specifically, for purposes of the draft proposals set forth below, Group 3 agreed to pursue
recommendations focused on information gathering and coordination and
recommendations that recognized, without undermining, the various climate initiatives
underway at state and local levels. Group 3 agreed that it would not entertain
recommendations that mandate or advance climate change policy or proposals that give
the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") a preemptive or preeminent
role in climate change programs or policies.
This paper provides a summary of draft proposals we are currently discussing. These
proposals reflect input from a variety of stakeholders, including from government,
industry and environmental group representatives. During the next several weeks we will
continue to refine and finalize the draft proposals.
PROPOSAL 1:
NOTE: TWO ALTERNATIVES ARE PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION
AND FURTHER DISCUSSION
ALTERNATIVE A:
BIN RECOMMENDATION: 1
[FEDERAL AGENCIES SHOULD PREPARE AND MAKE AVAILABLE TO
OIR. OMB AND THE PUBLIC STATEMENTS OF AIR QUALITY. ENERGY.
TRANSPORTATION [AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONl EFFECTS FOR
RELEVANT AGENCY ACTIONS. ANY FINAL AQM DESIGN EPA ENDORSES
OR ADOPTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A RELEVANT AGENCY ACTION
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS REQUIREMENT.
Pursuant to Executive Orders 13211 of May 18,2001 and 12866 of September 30,
1993, federal agencies are currently required to prepare a Statement of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain "significant energy actions." "Significant energy
actions" include actions that promulgate or are expected to lead to the promulgation
of a final rule or regulation that is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution or use of energy or that is designated by OMB's Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy action. A
Statement of Energy Effects must include, among other things, detailed information
regarding any adverse effects the agency action will have on energy supply,
distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases and increased
use of foreign supplies). Federal agencies must provide Statements of Energy
Effects to OIR and OMB. OIRA uses the Statements of Energy Effects to ensure
2
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
that one federal agency's proposed actions do not conflict with another agency's
policies or actions. Federal agencies must also publish their Statements of Energy
Effects, or a summary thereof, in each Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and in any
resulting Final Rule.
Proposal 1 is that federal agencies should also prepare Statements of Air Quality
Effects, Statements of Transportation Effects [and Statements of Greenhouse Gas
Emission Effects] for significant air quality, transportation, [and greenhouse gas
emission] actions and should provide these Statements to OIR and OMB when they
present the submission required by Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001.
Federal agencies should also publish these Statements in each Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and in any resulting Final Rule.
To avoid redundancy, if a federal agency is required to prepare a substantially
similar impacts analysis for its action pursuant to another statutory or regulatory
requirement (e.g., the National Environmental Policy Act), the federal agency may
submit that analysis to OIRA in lieu of preparing and submitting a separate
Statement of Effects.
For purposes of this requirement, "significant air quality actions" shall mean
actions that promulgate or are expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule
or regulation that is likely to have a significant adverse effect on air quality,
"significant transportation actions" shall mean actions that promulgate or are
expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation that is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on transportation, [and "significant greenhouse gas
actions" shall mean actions that promulgate or are expected to lead to the
promulgation of a final rule or regulation that is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on greenhouse gas emissions]. Additionally, OIRA shall have the authority to
designate an agency action as a significant action for purposes of one or more of
these requirements.
EPA should consider three options for implementing the above recommendation:
(1) pursue a Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of
Transportation (DOT), Department of Energy (DOE) and others in which the
agencies agree to conduct analyses and share results; (2) request an Executive Order
from the President expanding the scope of EO 13211; and/or (3) voluntarily perform
the above analyses and encourage other federal agencies to do the same.
Moreover, if EPA formally endorses or adopts a new AQM design as a result of
AQM Subcommittee Team l's recommendations, EPA should work with affected
stakeholders to determine whether the AQM design would likely have a significant
adverse effect on energy, air quality, transportation and/or [greenhouse gas
emissions]. To the extent that the AQM design would likely have a significant
adverse effect on one or more of these interests, EPA's endorsement or adoption of
the new AQM design should constitute a significant agency action and EPA should
work with outside resources, including DOE and DOT, to prepare a Statement of
3
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
Air Quality Effects, Statement of Energy Effects, Statement of Transportation
Effects and/or [Statement of Greenhouse Gas Emission Effects] for the AQM design.
EPA should subject these final Statements of Air Quality, Energy, Transportation,
[and Greenhouse Gas Emission] Effects to public notice and comment.
The chief benefit of this proposal is that it provides information on the impacts of
federal rulemakings and thereby informs members of the public, federal agencies,
stakeholders and others of the impacts of those rulemakings as they review and
comment on them.]
ALTERNATIVE B:
BIN RECOMMENDATION: 1
[EPA SHOULD WORK WITH AFFECTED STAKEHOLDERS TO PREPARE A
STATEMENT OF ENERGY EFFECTS FOR ANY FINAL AQM DESIGN EPA
ENDORSES OR ADOPTS AS A RESULT OF AQM SUBCOMMITTEE TEAM
l'S RECOMMENDATIONS IF EPA DETERMINES. AFTER CONSULTATION
WITH AFFECTED STAKEHOLDERS. THAT THE AQM DESIGN WOULD
LIKELY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON ENERGY.
Pursuant to Executive Orders 13211 of May 18,2001 and 12866 of September 30,
1993, federal agencies are currently required to prepare a Statement of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain "significant energy actions." "Significant energy
actions" include actions that promulgate or are expected to lead to the promulgation
of a final rule or regulation that is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution or use of energy or that is designated by OIRA as a significant
energy action. A Statement of Energy Effects must include, among other things,
detailed information regarding any adverse effects the agency action will have on
energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases
and increased use of foreign supplies).
EPA should work with affected stakeholders to determine whether any AQM design
that EPA endorses as a result of AQM Subcommittee Team l's recommendations
would likely have a significant adverse effect on energy. To the extent that the
AQM design would likely have a significant adverse effect on energy, EPA's
endorsement or adoption of the new AQM design should constitute a significant
energy action and EPA should work with outside resources, including DOE, to
prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for the proposed AQM design. EPA should
subject the final Statements of Energy Effects to public review and comment.]
[Comments:
1 NEPA: [RESOLVED FOR PROPONENTS OF ALTERNATIVE A] Matt
Kuryla and others asked the team to think about how this proposal relates to the
NEPA process and what new or additional consideration of air quality effects is
4
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
appropriate for agency decisions. Subsequent research revealed that regulations
that EPA adopts under the CAA are largely exempt from NEPA. Several DOT
and DOE regulations are also exempt.
There was consensus among proponents of Alternative A that Federal agencies
should be allowed to rely as much as feasible on existing analyses and
mechanisms to satisfy this requirement and to avoid redundancy.
2. Experience with Statements of Energy Effects: [RESOLVED] Certain team
members requested additional information regarding EPA's experience with
Statements of Energy Effects. Chris Stoneman researched this issue for the
group, and found that EPA has not triggered the Statement of Energy Effects
requirement in many rulemakings. In fact, to our knowledge, EPA has only
triggered the requirement three times to date. This suggests that the requirement
has not been unduly burdensome.
3 Burden and Scope: [RESOLVED FOR PROPONENTS OF
ALTERNATIVE B] Jeanette Clute and Jerry Roussel believe this proposal goes
beyond Group 3's charge and represents an expansion into new requirements.
Janet McCabe, Michael Bradley and others disagreed, suggesting this appeared to
be right in line with Group 3's charge.
The group discussed trying to find the connection between AQM and the
additional impacts this proposal would address in order to develop a rationale for
the proposal. Pat Cummins feels that the starting point is looking at AQ impacts
(positive and negative) on transportation and energy and vice-a-versa and then
you add GHG (which is really just another column on the spreadsheet).
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Ford Motor Company, National
Cotton Council, and Southern Company believe Alternative A goes beyond
Group 3's charge. The executive orders already require entities to develop a
statement of energy effects when taking significant energy effects. Proposal 1
(Alternative A) expands this existing requirement and requires all federal agencies
(not limited to recommendations for EPA actions) to prepare statements of air
quality effects, transportation effects and climate effects on any relevant agency
action. Proposal 1 (Alternative A) includes a broad definition of significant
agency action that includes, but is not limited to, EPA actions under AQM Sub
Committee recommendations. Even if it were limited to AQM Sub Committee
recommendations it would create a new regulatory requirement for EPA to
undergo formal analyses of energy, transportation, and climate change and add
requirements for EPA to include these analyses in air quality rulemaking actions
and subject those analyses to public review and comment. This would add
significant burden to EPA resource needs when promulgating air quality actions.
EPA currently does not have jurisdiction or expertise to develop such analyses
and is under resource constraints to handle those areas under its jurisdiction
including criteria pollutants and air toxics. Furthermore all federal agencies are
5
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
under financial limitations to carry out their respective responsibilities. From a
resource standpoint we are not in agreement with the added requirements and
burden, which take focus off of EPA's core charter, air quality. Additionally, it is
not the role of the AQM subgroup to recommend broad expansion of EPA's
authority in these areas or require additional burden on other federal agencies.
For all of the above reasons, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Ford
Motor Company, National Cotton Council, and Southern Company have offered
up Proposal 1 Alternative B for consideration.
Janet McCabe, Michael Bradley Michael Morford and others disagreed that
Alternative A went beyond Group 3's charge, suggesting this the proposal
appeared to be right in line with Group 3's charge. Lisa Gomez clarified that the
last paragraph of Alternative A was intended to be very narrow, and to
specifically relate to an AQM design that EPA might endorse or adopt as a result
of Team 1 's work. Group 3 has clarified this intent. Chris Stoneman pointed out
that the existing requirement that agencies prepare Statements of Energy Effects
(i.e., the requirement upon which this proposal was based) has only been triggered
3 times at EPA. Leah Weiss said that she has experience with state requirements
along these lines that were first viewed to be extremely burdensome, but in
practice were not so burdensome and turned out to be quite helpful. Michael
Bradley and Lisa Gomez pointed out that Group 3's intent was not that ALL
agency actions would require this analysis but, rather, than only a limited number
of agency actions - those that are likely to have a significant adverse effect on air
quality, transportation and climate - would trigger the requirement. Group 3
would has clarified this intent. Lisa Gomez's interpretation of the proposal is that
"significant actions" means significant rules or actions that would produce rules
(e.g., AQM design recommended by the CAAAC that EPA adopts).
Tony Delucia is sensitive to the workload issue posed by the proposal but feels
that this looks like the right thing to do and would like to look towards some form
of reasonable disclosure of effects.
Jerry Kotas is concerned that executive orders can come and go and would rather
not rely exclusively on executive orders as the mechanism for requiring
disclosure. Jerry Kotas would prefer to ask EPA to look at the issue
comprehensively.
Steve Winkelman recommends that the scope of the proposal be expanded to
cover EPA's approval of conformity budgets.
At the Dallas meeting, Pat Cummins reemphasizes that the proposal should not be
restricted to EPA (the proposal should address all federal agencies) and said that
more work needs to be done to address the linkages between agencies. Mark
McLeod thinks Pat Cummins should write language to this effect for the
preamble.
6
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
4. Transportation and General Conformity: [RESOLVED] Camille Mittelholtz
feels that, if the proposal applies to more than actions that promulgate or are
expected to lead to the promulgation of final rules or regulations, then it should
explicitly address how it meshes with transportation and general conformity
programs.
At the Dallas meeting, the conformity issue came up. Camille Mittelholtz said
that if Proposal 1 remains focused on regulations, she is not as concerned about its
potential implications for conformity. Conformity deals with actual action, not
regulation. Lisa Gomez said Proposal 1 currently applies solely to regulations
and actions likely to lead to regulations.
In Dallas the group also asked whether DOT or any other party has analyzed
conformity's effectiveness. Camille Mittelholtz believes that analyses have been
conducted, and agreed to look into this question.
It was noted that the existing order, by virtue of addressing energy, may
effectively address transportation.
5. Additional information needed: [UNRESOLVED] Need to (1) know whether
the existing executive order has been triggered at Federal DOT, (2) obtain some
compromise language to bridge group members' concerns and (3) determine
whether the existing executive order covers transportation.
6. Global Climate: [UNRESOLVED] Carolyn Greene, Don Clay and others
suggested that many of their concerns regarding this proposal's treatment of
climate could be resolved if the references to "global climate" impacts were
changed to "greenhouse gas emissions" impacts.
7. Impacts Addressed: [UNRESOLVED] Pat Cummins recommends that
Proposal 1 should be expanded so that it covers actions that have "positive"
impacts on energy, transportation and air quality. Group 3 had different views
regarding whether this is necessary and appropriate. Greg Dana stated that
regulations are typically proposed to affect the positive actions, and the preamble
to such a regulation includes significant analysis of such positive impacts. Others
felt that Pat Cummins was saying that a regulation adopted for one national
interest (e.g., energy) should analyze the positive co-benefits the regulation will
have on other national interests (e.g., air quality).
8. Implementation. [RESOLVED] Several Group members asked how Alternative
A would be implemented. The Group agreed recommended three options: (1)
MOA between DOT, DOE and others in which the agencies agree to conduct
analyses and share results; (2) EO from the President expanding the scope of EO
13211; and/or (3) a requirement that only EPA perform the analyses voluntarily.
7
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
PROPOSAL 2: THE AOM PROCESS SHOULD SUPPORT TRANSPORTATION
AND LAND USE SCENARIO PLANNING AT THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL.
TRIBAL AND LOCAL LEVELS AND OTHER MEANS TO IDENTIFY
EMISSIONS REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPROVE TRIBAL AND
LOCAL ENGAGEMENT.
BIN RECOMMENDATION: 1
Multi-jurisdictional planning organizations1 and tribal and local governments have
primary control and approval authority over land use choices that significantly impact air
pollution, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. For example, multi-jurisdictional
planning organizations and tribal and local governments have the power to determine or
influence the way in which land is developed, how auto use and transportation patterns
evolve, whether energy efficiency or demand side management techniques are required or
implemented, and whether local funds are used to support mass transit. While the
transportation conformity program is a valuable program for coordinating air quality and
transportation planning processes, it does not go far enough in addressing coordination
issues between transportation, land use and air quality. By virtue of their role in these
multiple areas, multi-jurisdictional planning organizations and tribal and local
governments have a unique opportunity to coordinate air quality, land use, energy,
transportation and climate programs. For these and other reasons, Proposal 2 is that
multi-jurisdictional planning organizations and tribal and local governments should be an
integral part of the AQM process.
In order to achieve enhanced multi-jurisdictional planning organization and tribal and
local government involvement in the AQM process and better coordination of AQM, land
use, energy, transportation and climate programs, the AQM process should be modified
so that multi-jurisdictional planning organizations and tribal and local government
choices are better integrated with, and become a meaningful input into, Federal, State and
Tribal AQM processes. In order to accomplish this objective:
• Multi-jurisdictional planning organizations and tribal and local governments should
be provided time and resources to understand the impact that their land use, energy,
and transportation decisions will have on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
To that end, EPA (drawing on outside expertise) should develop a clearinghouse of
resources and tools that will help multi-jurisdictional planning organizations and
tribal and local governments achieve planning and development practices that benefit
air quality. The clearinghouse of resources should include, without limitation, (a)
modeling software that enables multi-jurisdictional planning organizations and tribal
and local governments to model current and alternative growth patterns, energy
trends and transportation investment priorities so that they can study how different
future land use, energy and transportation scenarios would impact future air quality
(e.g., PLACES software used by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments); (b)
1 For purposes of Proposal 2, "multi-jurisdictional planning organizations" include, but are not limited to,
multi-state organizations such as State DOTs, MPOs, RPOs, COGs, nonprofit planning organizations and
independent system organizations.
8
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
EPA-approved and endorsed modeling software that enables multi-jurisdictional
planning organizations and tribal and local governments to quantify the emission
reductions associated with certain land use, energy and transportation technologies or
approaches; (c) on-line tutorials and manuals for using modeling software; (d) model
codes and ordinances that benefit air quality (e.g., model codes and ordinances that
promote increased urban density, multiuse clustering, energy efficiency and public
transportation); (e) guidebooks that identify land use, energy and transportation
technologies or approaches that benefit air quality and establish certain minimum
steps that multi-jurisdictional planning organizations and tribal and local
governments must take to obtain State Implementation Plan (SIP) or Tribal
Implementation Plan (TIP1) credit when pursuing such technologies and approaches;
(f) model educational and citizen involvement practices; and (g) guidebooks that
identify funding opportunities for innovative land use, energy and transportation
approaches.
• Multi-jurisdictional planning organizations and tribal and local governments should
be encouraged to conduct a visioning and scenario planning process in which the
area in question decides where it wants to be in X years and adopts land use,
transportation and energy policies and ordinances that further its vision. These
efforts can be coordinated with and supported by the transportation planning process.
This could produce an "integrated" strategy that addresses land use, energy and
transportation in a manner that is directionally correct for air quality or explicitly tied
to attainment. Moreover, as part of their visioning and scenario planning process,
multi-jurisdictional planning organizations and tribal and local governments should
be encouraged to work with state and/or tribal planning organizations to identify
strategically-located local communities that are appropriate for new fuel and energy
generation, storage, and transportation facilities and infrastructure requiring changes
to the existing land and built environment.
• Multi-jurisdictional planning organizations and tribal and local governments that
revise their land use laws consistent with EPA's model goals and ordinances, or that
implement land use, energy or transportation technologies or approaches that benefit
air quality, should receive appropriate credit in SIP or TIP planning. Their visioning
and scenario planning process should become an input into the SIP or TIP as a
measure in the baseline, a measure warranting credit, and/or a growth assumption.
EPA has developed several useful guidelines for calculating SIP and TIP credit. For
example, EPA has provided guidance on SIP credit for emission reductions from
electric sector energy efficiency and renewable energy projects and plans to provide
guidance on SIP credit for Emission Reductions from Highway and Off-Road Diesel
Vehicles and Retrofits. EPA should continue developing specific guidelines for
calculating SIP and TIP credit associated with other land use, energy and
transportation technologies and approaches and should instruct EPA regional offices
to follow all such guidelines for purposes of SIP and TIP planning and development.
1 Throughout this document TIP refers to Tribal Implementation Plan and not Transportation Improvement
Program.
9
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
[Comments:
1. Regional Planning Organizations vs. Metropolitan or Multi-jurisdictional
Planning Organizations and Whether the Term Should Apply to the WRAP:
[RESOLVED] Pat Cummins noted that people usually think of the WRAP when
they hear "regional planning organizations" and asked whether it might be more
appropriate to use the term "metropolitan" planning organizations. People on the
call generally agreed that "metropolitan" or "multi-jurisdictional" planning
organizations would be appropriate. However, Stephen Hartsfield expressed
concern that "metropolitan" planning organizations could be too restrictive
because it could be interpreted to exclude rural areas. Stephen Hartsfield much
preferred the use of "multi-jurisdictional" planning organizations. He also
suggested that we define the term "multi-jurisdictional" and said he believes it
would be appropriate for it to be defined in a manner that would include the
WRAP. Jeff Genzer also commented that "regional planning organizations" was
too narrow. He said it should be expanded to cover multi-jurisdictional efforts
and organizations including, without limitation, regional transmission
organizations, independent system organizations and the multi-State GHG
initiative in the Northeast. Stephen Hartsfield spoke with Pat Cummins regarding
Cummins' suggestion that this proposal should exclude the WRAP. Hartsfield
reported back that Cummins' rationale for excluding the WRAP was "due to the
focus on transportation issues. Currently RPOs only have funding for regional
haze issues." However, Hartsfield reports that RPOs will likely seek funding for
an expanded scope with the next regional haze deadlines and that he knows
WRAP members who are interested in working on climate change and mercury
issues when they have funding to do so. Hartsfield also understands that EPA is
interested in broadening RPO's work "because RPOs are an effective mechanism
to get 'stakeholders' and governments involved." For the above reasons,
Hartsfield believes the proposal should cover RPOs (including the WRAP).
2. Application to Tribal Governments: [RESOLVED] Stephen Hartsfield
commented that tribal governments have a significant role in land use planning
and this proposal should be expanded to cover them.
3. Should Proposal Cover Climate? [RESOLVED] Greg Dana would like to
strike the words "and climate policies" from the end of the first paragraph because
he believes that "while local areas are the best sources for land use and
transportation changes, they can't impact climate change, which is a worldwide
issue and requires changes on a worldwide scale." Michael Bradley felt the
language should remain as currently written (i.e., it should cover climate) because
he believe the language "reflects the reality that local and regional officials in
many areas of the country are moving forward on climate related actions" for at
least 3 reasons (first to begin achieving actual GHG emissions even though the
impact on climate change will be extremely small, second to set examples of
actions that can be taken to reduce GHG emissions, and third because these
actions often deliver co-benefits). Carolyn Green and Don Clay expressed
concern regarding the use of the term "climate policies," and suggested changing
10
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
this term to say "climate programs" would help alleviate their concerns. Greg
Dana agreed with this change.
Steve Winkelman feels that, given our task assignment, it doesn't make any sense
that we might strike energy or climate issues from any of the group's proposals.
At the end of the proposal's 1st paragraph, if the concern is about the word local
climate "policies" - they exist, see the US Mayor's effort
(http://\Yww.ci.Seattle.wa.us/mavor/climatc/) and ICLEI as key examples. Steve
is certainly amenable to drop the use of "climate" in the 1st paragraph - it's much
more important to him that it show up in issues that the scenario planning will
assess.
Steve recommends that the 1st bullet of the 1st sentence of the proposal be revised
to read: "Multi-jurisdictional planning organizations... should be provided time
and resources to understand the impact that their land use and transportation
decisions have on air quality, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions." Steve
points out that local and regional land use and transportation infrastructure
decisions have a direct impact on vehicle miles traveled, energy use and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Sacramento Blueprint plan, for example,
will achieve a 15% reduction in air pollution and GHG emissions below what
result in the business-as-usual transportation and land use scenario.
This point should be echoed in sub-points (a) and (b):
"(a) modeling software that enables multi-jurisdictional planning
organizations and tribal and local governments to model current and
alternative growth patterns, energy trends and transportation investment
priorities so that they can study how different future land use, energy and
transportation scenarios would impact future air quality, greenhouse gas
emission and energy use (e.g., PLACES software developed by the
Sacramento Area Council of Governments);
(b) EPA-approved and endorsed modeling software that enables multi-
jurisdictional planning organizations and tribal and local governments to
quantify the emission reductions and energy impacts associated with
certain land use, energy and transportation technologies or approaches
(e.g., emissions reductions associated with vehicle retrofit programs, wood
stove change outs, etc.)."
4. Should proposal make clear that it applies to criteria pollutants AND toxic
pollutants? [RESOLVED] Someone asked whether the proposal applies to both
criteria and toxic pollutants and asked the group to consider clarifying its intent in
this regard. Debbie Stackhouse noted that, if the proposal specifically references
criteria pollutants and toxic pollutants, Group 3 should consider whether it should
also apply to co-benefits, such as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
5. Should the proposal include a communications strategy? [RESOLVED]
Janet McCabe asked how, once we have all these tools in place, EPA could
encourage multi-jurisdictional and tribal and local governments to use the tools.
McCabe suggested that a communication strategy may be necessary. Team 1
11
-------
Draft:
March 15, 2006
agreed that this may be an issue of overlap between Groups 3 and 4. Hartsfield
(the Issue 4 sub-group lead) agreed to develop a communication strategy around
this issue. Leah Weiss, Janet McCabe and Tom Chappel encouraged Team 1 and
Team 2 to consider regulatory and non-regulatory incentives that would
encourage local officials to adopt these approaches.
6. Should the "toolbox" include software or guidelines to quantify emissions
reductions associated with certain approaches and technologies?:
[RESOLVED] Larry Green suggested that it would be very helpful if EPA
would develop approaches that states and local agencies could use to quantify
emission reductions associated with certain land-use decisions (e.g., vehicle miles
traveled, vehicle retrofit programs, wood stove changeouts, etc.).
7. Scenario Planning in Transportation Improvement Program Process:
[RESOLVED] Steve Winkelman and Camille Mittelholtz are interested in
alternative scenario planning in the Transportation Improvement Program
process. Camille Mittelholtz proposed, and the group accepted, language on how
the long range transportation planning process fits into this proposal. Steve
Winkelman said that the new language also resolved his concern.
8. Acknowledge Progress to Date: [RESOLVED] Camille Mittelholtz notes that
DOT and EPA have provided SIP credit guidance in certain areas and suggests
that we acknowledge what is already on the books. Camille Mittelholtz proposed,
and the group accepted, language on how the long range transportation planning
process fits into this proposal.
9. Regional Office Communication: [RESOLVED] Several people noted that
EPA regional offices are struggling with how to calculate SIP credit associated
with certain land use, energy, and transportation practices and stressed that these
offices need clear and mandatory guidance for calculating SIP credit.
10. Transportation Planning and Conformity: [RESOLVED] Camille Mittelholtz
feels the proposal needs to better explain its relationship to transportation
planning and transportation conformity. Does the group want to recommend
changes to conformity?
11. New language to discuss: [RESOLVED] "The solution to air quality
(including criteria pollutant and toxic air pollutant concerns), energy and climate
change problems requires Federal, State, Tribal, regional and local strategies."
Carolyn Green and other Team 1 members believe this sentence is controversial
and unnecessary. There was general consensus to delete the sentence.
12. Sprawl Reference: [RESOLVED] Pat Cummins would like to remove the
following sentence as redundant: "Moreover, to a significant degree, the issues
that still need to be addressed to solve air quality problems - namely, urban
sprawl - are regionally or locally based." There was general consensus to delete
the sentence.
12
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
PROPOSAL 3: THE AOM PROCESS SHOULD INCLUDE INCENTIVES
(INCLUDING. BUT NOT LIMITED TO. MORE MEANINGFUL FORMS OF
CREDIT. REGULATORY INCENTIVES AND ECONOMIC INCENTIVES) FOR
VOLUNTARY AND INNOVATIVE LAND USE. ENERGY. AND
TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES OR APPROACHES.
BIN RECOMMENDATION: 1, 2 or 3 depending on the incentive (e.g., self
certification incentives would be Bin 1, permit streamlining would be Bin 2, and tax
credits would be Bin 3)
The AQM process should include incentives for voluntary and innovative land use,
energy, and transportation technologies or approaches that benefit air quality. Innovative
technologies and approaches that should be encouraged include, without limitation, low
emission technologies, smart growth, energy efficiency measures, cogeneration, demand-
side management and renewable resources. The AQM process should better integrate
incentives that encourage these technologies and approaches into the NAAQS
implementation process. Incentives could include, but are not limited to, more
meaningful forms of SIP and TIP credit, regulatory incentives (such as expedited or
streamlined permitting opportunities) and economic incentives (such as tax incentives,
public benefits programs, and state and utility funding programs for energy efficiency
projects), where appropriate and properly structured.
Appropriate and properly structured incentive programs such as expedited and
streamlined permitting opportunities, the Texas TERP program, EPA's Performance
Track Program, and innovative measures such as voluntary mobile emissions reduction
programs ("VMEP") and projects funded by Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) funds will, in the aggregate, make greater overall contributions to future SIPs
and TIPs than those of the past, which relied more heavily on large point source
reductions. Current SIP approval requirements have recently been made incrementally
more flexible in crediting such measures, but they still require a ton-denominated
precursor reduction applied to each such measure. The AQM process should establish
more meaningful forms of credit for such measures. SIP and TIP crediting should be
provided for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. (Identification and
development of tools to motivate voluntary and innovative technologies and approaches
is referred to Team 2.)
[Comments:
1. Permit streamlining associated with converting to alternative fuel sources:
[RESOLVED] John Seitz commented that "the current EPA and local permit
programs are not 'energy friendly' in terms of making permit adjustments to burn
alternative fuel sources. With the cost of energy going up and the emissions
associated with more coal use - alternative fuel sources - bio fuels, waste corn
etc. - should be promoted not discouraged by the permit process. If a source
wants to use an alternative fuel mix ... the permit amendment process takes too
13
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
long. There should be coordination between EPA and DOE to develop some
criteria and performance requirements for different types of fuel mixes a coal
fired boiler etc. might want to use. The requirement might be streamlined by
requiring an initial combustion analysis of the emissions resulting from the
proposed fuel mixture and a monitoring program to verify the results. If the
initial analysis suggest that there would be a negative environmental impact, then
a more detailed review would be required. On the other hand, if the initial
analysis by the source suggested that a mixture would be OK, than they should be
able to proceed quickly." Team 1 members participating in the discussion agreed
with this suggestion and thought it fit well with Proposal 2. The Team also
discussed that this would ultimately be a tool that Team 2 should consider and
that it would be good to highlight this for Team 2. While Group 3 agreed with
John Seitz' comment, they felt that his example was too detailed for the Group 3
paper. Therefore, they preferred to generically include "expedited or streamlined
permitting opportunities" rather than John Seitz' fuel switching example. Group
3 will forward John Seitz' specific example to Team 2 for further development.
Mark McLeod also noted that the various tools noted in Proposal 3 are only
acceptable if they are appropriate to the situation and properly structured. Group
3 agreed, and added language to address this point.
2. Are there any other specific tools we should reference? [RESOLVED] Team
2 welcomes any specific tools we may suggest for their further investigation.
Please see the list of tools that Team 2 is currently pursuing. Are there any
additional tools that Group 3 should recommend? Tony DeLucia suggested that
we may want to discuss specific smart growth ideas for New Orleans. He has
provided the following specific proposed language for consideration:
"Recent events in New Orleans and the broader Gulf Coast region of the United
States during the 2005 hurricane season highlighted the losses and sacrifices that
may occur with catastrophic events due to ecological, environmental, and/or
weather-induced destruction. To a certain degree terrorist events could also
cause widespread, rather than localized destruction, as was the case with the
September 11 attacks. During subsequent rebuilding efforts, as has been noted
in the Gulf Coast and New Orleans, it may be prudent to pay attention to built
environment features such as green building design and optimize land use density,
transportation choice, and housing affordability as scenarios common in a
"smart growth " agenda. The Environmental Protection Agency Office of Smart
Growth can offer considerable guidance in such matters. Taken together with
primary environmental restoration efforts, this planning may offer energy,
economic, social, and health benefits, among others to the regions so afflicted as
they undergo the painstaking process of renewal or rebirth. " Group 3 agreed that
Tony DeLucia's comment was important, and agreed to add smart growth
alternatives to the list of tools that Proposal 3 references. Group 3 felt that the
proposed paragraph may be too detailed to include in Proposal 3, but requests
further feedback from Tony DeLucia if he feels it is important to include the
specific language as the Group is willing to reconsider this issue if Tony DeLucia
is concerned or disagrees with the outcome..
14
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
3. Energy Technologies and Approaches: [RESOLVED] Jeff Genzer suggested
that we should weave specific energy technologies and approaches into this
proposal including, for example, IGCC, innovative carbon sequestrations
technologies, energy efficiency, cogeneration, demand-side resources and
renewable resources. Genzer also commented that the proposal should be
expanded to include public benefits programs and state and utility programs for
low-income and energy efficiency projects. Group 3 agreed with and accepted
much of Jeff Genzer's proposed language, but felt certain of his proposed
language was too detailed and specific for this proposal. Group 3 is willing to
reconsider if Jeff Genzer is concerned with this outcome or if he wishes to
propose a separate proposal that addresses his specific interests.
Several Team 1 members believe the references to IGCC and carbon
sequestration are too restrictive. These individuals suggested replacing the
references with the term "low emission technologies." Someone also requested
that Group 3 reference EPA's Performance Track program.
4. DOT Language: [RESOLVED] Camille Mittelholtz commented that CMAQ is
not traditionally thought of as an incentive program. She will provide draft
language addressing her concerns. She also noted that the statement talks about
burdensome procedures and limited SIP credits, and pointed out that it was very
important to continue to pursue incentives for the purchase of new clean
equipment or retrofits. Camille Mittelholtz provided and the Group agreed to
include suggested language addressing her concerns.
PROPOSAL 4: EPA SHOULD SEEK TO ESTABLISH AN INTER-AGENCY
LIAISON GROUP WITH DOE. NRC. FERC. AND DOT TO EXPLORE ISSUES
AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR COORDINATING ENERGY.
TRANSPORTATION. GREENHOUSE GAS AND AIR QUALITY GOALS.
BIN RECOMMENDATION: 1
EPA should work with the other Federal agencies (e.g., DOE, NRC, FERC and DOT) to
coordinate energy, transportation, greenhouse gas and air quality policies and programs
with the goal of trying to better coordinate objectives across the agencies. To help
initiate this effort, EPA should seek to establish an inter-agency liaison group with other
Federal agencies that would explore issues and opportunities for coordinating these
programs and goals. The Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group or "IRLG" from the late
1970s may serve as a good model. The IRLG brought together high level officials from
EPA and other federal agencies to talk about policies and other common issues of
concern. EPA should initiate the creation of a similar group to help coordinate and align
the Federal agencies' goals and objectives. Detailed information regarding the IRLG is
provided in Attachment A.
15
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
[Comments:
1. Revamping of proposal: [RESOLVED] In Dallas, Team 1 decided to refocus
Proposal 4 toward liaison activities between Federal agencies. The above draft
proposal is intended to reflect Team l's recommended scope and direction. All
comments associated with the prior version of Proposal 4, which was substantially
different than the draft proposal set forth above, have been deleted.]
PROPOSAL 5: DEVELOP PROGRAMS THAT FOCUS ON REDUCING
PUBLIC DEMAND FOR POLLUTING ACTIVITIES. ESPECIALLY
NONESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES. SUCH PROGRAMS COULD INCLUDE
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS FOR ENCOURAGE USE OF LOWER-POLLUTING
ACTIVITIES. EDUCTION PROGRAMS. AND TAX AND USE RESTRICTIONS.
BIN RECOMMENDATION: 1, 2 or 3 depending on the incentive (e.g., education
would be Bin 1, permit streamlining would be Bin 2, and tax credits would be Bin 3)
Most of our air quality management is directed at large scale sources of pollution, such as
major industrial emitters. Although additional reductions from such sources are possible,
greater reductions may be achieved by encouraging the public to reduce activities that
produce pollution. EPA should develop an outreach strategy that includes, but is not
limited to, education and labeling programs that help the public make environmentally
beneficial choices and understand the impact their decisions have on air quality (e.g.,
California's 3-star recreational watercraft labeling program and DOT/EPA's recently-
developed "Best Workplaces for Commuters" and "It all Adds Up to Cleaner Air"
programs) as well as incentive programs that encourage certain behaviors. EPA should
focus in particular on activities that are nonessential or which create other environmental
harm in addition to air pollution. Although many impacts from such activities are felt
most at the local level, efforts to influence public behavior at the local level are often
unsuccessful—calling for leadership and hard decisions at the national level. EPA should
evaluate options for discouraging such activities (e.g., education, taxes, fees imposed on
federal lands, use restrictions) and encouraging less polluting activities (e.g., economic
incentives, education, expedited or streamlined permitting opportunities). For example,
energy demand might be reduced through programs that educate the public about energy
efficient practices and by public benefits and utility programs that provide funding for
energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. (Identification and development of
tools for reducing demand for polluting activities is referred to Team 2.)
[Comments:
1. Economic incentives, education and technological solutions vs. taxes and use
restrictions: [RESOLVED] Many Team 1 members expressed concern that this
proposal will be very controversial. John Hornback suggested that it is important
to focus on economic incentives rather than just looking at taxes and use
restrictions. Leah Weiss stressed that it is important to include both incentives
and hammers. John Hornback and others suggested that we should consider
16
-------
Draft:
March 15, 2006
removing the reference to use restrictions, as it will be highly controversial.
Preference was also expressed for technological solutions over mandated rules.
Janet McCabe expressed an interest in public education regarding activities such
as idling and driving practices that impact air quality. Mark Morford offered up
language to address this issue.
2. Consumer products: [RESOLVED] Janet McCabe and others asked why this
proposal focuses on recreational vehicles, and asked whether other consumer
products should be addressed. Lisa Gomez explained that the sub-group did
discuss adding consumer products, but felt that doing so would stray beyond Issue
3. Lisa Gomez had forwarded the consumer product point on to Bob Wyman
with a request that he focus on that issue in his Team 2 discussions. Team 1 was
satisfied with this approach.
3. Energy efficiency: [RESOLVED] Jeff Genzer recommended that we expand
the proposal to include public benefits programs and state and utility programs for
low-income and energy efficiency projects. Group 3 agreed to include these
concepts.
4. DOT/EPA Programs: [RESOLVED] Camille Mittelholtz commented that
EPA and DOT have recently issued two education programs that focus on air
quality implications of certain decisions - "Best Workplaces for Commuters" and
"It All Adds Up To Cleaner Air."
5. Specific tools: [RESOLVED] Team 2 welcomes any specific tools we may
suggest for their further investigation. Please see the list of tools that Team 2 is
currently pursuing. Are there any additional tools that that Group 3 should
recommend?
6. Issue Sensitivity: [RESOLVED] Several team members expressed a concern
about the group wading into sensitive issues such as activity restrictions in
nonattainment areas, public lands and taxes (except tax incentives). Mark
Morford offered up language changes to address these concerns.
7. Appropriateness of Title and Home for Proposal: [RESOLVED] Steve
Winkelman would like to revisit the proposal. He is not sure it fits with Group
3's charge. He expressed some concern whether the proposal belongs in Group 3,
suggesting that it may fit better with Team 2's charge (i.e., with the "tools"
group). Mark Morford agreed there is a tool aspect but stated that there also is a
policy aspect.
8. Renewable Technologies: [RESOLVED] Jerry Kotas would like to add
"renewable technologies" to the second to last sentence of the proposal that
begins "Similarly ... ." Group 3 agreed to this change.
9. Effectiveness of public outreach: [RESOLVED] Pat Cummins asked the
question: do we really believe that educating the public about the impacts of
recreational vehicles would impact their use? Gregg Cooke said that if you have a
program similar to Energy Star, there is some percentage of people who will
consider it. Bob Wyman says snowmobiles and jet skis already have this program
and he would like to encourage use of these programs rather than prohibiting the
vehicles altogether. California has the 3-star program for jet skis, for example.
Lake Tahoe did a local program. Bob Wyman suggested that Group 3 should cite
17
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
the California labeling program as an example of how to change consumer
practices in order to lower emissions.]
PROPOSAL 6: EPA SHOULD ANALYZE THE IMPACT CLIMATE CHANGE
WILL HAVE ON FUTURE AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES.
BIN RECOMMENDATION: 1
EPA should undertake an analysis of the impact climate change will have on future air
quality objectives. As part of that analysis, EPA should assess the impacts of rising
temperatures, the role of particles, the influence of forest fires, and the impacts on energy
demand.
[Comments:
1. Scope of GHG discussion: [RESOLVED] With respect to GHG, Group 3
reached consensus that it is ok to talk about the following items: information,
coordination as part of AQM and recognition of ongoing activities at DOE, in the
States, etc. Group 3 agreed that this proposal is in line with those activities and
they were generally comfortable with it.
2. Information and Who Should Gather It: [RESOLVED] With respect to
information, Michael Bradley mentioned that he is drafting a paper that will
suggest additional activities along the lines of this proposal (e.g., consistent
inventories). He emphasized that having EPA develop a template for GHG
emissions would be very useful as this is something EPA is pretty good at.
Jeannette Clute doesn't think it is a good idea to recommend to EPA that it gather
inventories - in her mind that is the first step leading to advocacy. Pat Cummins
felt it is appropriate to strive for consistent inventories. Lynn Terry supports
improving the GHG database but felt the group doesn't need to assign the task to
EPA. Group 3 began to agree to expand the proposal to cover "all levels of
government and the research community." However, Don Clay said he felt
conflicted about the proposal's scope and to whom the information
gathering/analysis work should be directed. He feels that Group 3 is charged with
giving EPA advice and not advising states, locals, etc. Group 3 discussed this and
the general consensus was that the Proposal should focus on requesting EPA
action, rather than broader action. This determination primarily turned on two
considerations: (1) many levels of government are not equipped to analyze
climate change impacts, and it would be difficult to recommend that they do so
before EPA has at least generated some information on the topic; and (2) EPA is
the current audience for purposes of the AQM recommendations.]
18
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
PROPOSAL 7: ANALYZING EXISTING STATUORY LAWS TO DETERMINE
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY CAN BE USED TO ENCOURAGE
POLLUTION PREVENTION. ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE
ENERGY.
BIN RECOMMENDATION: 1 (However, the analysis that results from this proposal
could require further action under Bins 1, 2 and/or 3)
There are several environmental and energy statutes that directly or indirectly address energy
efficiency, cleaner energy, and renewable energy as a means of achieving air quality objectives
under the Clean Air Act. These statutes are amenable to a number of permissible
interpretations and the regulations implementing them are amenable to a number of permissible
regulatory frameworks.
For example, The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 establish prevention as "a primary
goal" of the Act (see Title 1, Part A, section 101 (a) (3) and Section 101 (c)). The Act
also addresses concerns of multi-media transfer of pollutants.
The Pollution Prevention Act establishes as national policy:
... that pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible;
pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner,
whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an
environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and that disposal or other release into
the environment should be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an
environmentally safe manner.
Similarly, the Energy Policy Act in Section 2108 (a) (titled Energy Efficient
Environmental Program) states:
(a) PROGRAM DIRECTION- The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, is authorized to continue to carry out a 5-year program to
improve the energy efficiency and cost effectiveness of pollution prevention technologies and
processes, including source reduction and waste minimization technologies and processes. The
purposes of this section shall be to~
(1) apply a systems approach to minimizing adverse environmental effects of industrial
production in the most cost effective and energy efficient manner; and
(2) incorporate consideration of the entire materials and energy cycle with the goal of
minimizing adverse environmental impacts.
A Clean Air strategy that takes full advantage of opportunities to use pollution
prevention, energy efficiency and renewable energy measures may offer three
advantages. First, such an approach could ~ with a single investment - reduce multiple
emissions and reduce and/or eliminate pollutants and emissions to other media, as well as
emissions which are currently unregulated but which may be in the future. Second,
19
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
viewed from a systems perspective (as the Energy Policy Act dictates) pollution
prevention, energy efficiency and renewable energy measures may be more cost-effective
than command and control strategies. Third, pollution prevention, energy efficiency and
renewable energy measures may help the United States accomplish important public
policy goals outside the environmental and clean air arena, such as energy security,
national security and homeland security.
Accordingly, EPA should examine the scope and extent of pollution prevention-based
strategies permissible under the Clean Air Act; examine the cost-effectiveness of such
strategies compared to command and control strategies; and identify opportunities for
taking advantage of pollution prevention-based approaches that may exist in the current
legal framework, as well as examining amendments or regulatory changes which would
allow additional use of such pollution prevention strategies where they prove to be more
effective from cost- and performance-based analyses.
In particular, where prevention-based strategies offer the opportunity to achieve national
goals such as greater energy independence and energy security, and/or where they allow
the nation to accomplish reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as an ancillary benefit
that impose little or no net cost to the nation, such strategies and authorities ~ existing
and prospective ~ should be identified and delineated.
[Comments:
1. Should Proposal Include Interpretations of Statutes?: [RESOLVED] Lisa
Gomez is not comfortable with the statutory interpretations presented in the
proposal because she believes that the language is not unambiguous. She would
prefer that the proposal just state the statutory language without any
interpretation. The language could then "speak for itself." Jerry Kotas seemed to
be ok with this. Some questioned whether we really needed a discussion of what
the law says. Jerry Kotas said maybe we could include some language from title
1 of CAA, and emphasize multimedia transfer, plus talk about policy goals. Then
if there are different interpretations, there can be discussion. Jonathan Averback
noted that the CAA definitely tees up the issue and fosters energy efficiency and
renewable energy strategies. Jonathan Averback believes EPA may have already
analyzed the extent to which current laws authorize energy efficiency and
renewable energy strategies. Jerry Kotas said that we need to look at how and
when the analyses were done because a lot has changed during the past few years.
The market readiness and cost effectiveness of these measures has also improved
significantly over the last several years.
Consensus of group is the following for which Jerry Kotas will provide specific
language:
• There are several laws that cite pollution prevention as a goal, in some
cases in specific reference to energy technologies (state statutory language
verbatim without interpretation)
20
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
• No one has really analyzed those laws in depth from the standpoint of P2
and EE/RE
• Recommend EPA (consulting with DOT/DOE) explore statutes to find
ways to encourage and incentivize EE/RE
• Goal is to figure out how to use statutes to get these measures in place
• Also look at multimedia impacts
• Focus on benefits of EE/RE, not the consequences of not having the
measures in place
Jerry Kotas provided specific language (with some strengthening by John Fooks) to
which the group agreed.
2. Should Proposal Be Advocating Displacement of fossil fuel?: [RESOLVED] Lisa
Gomez asked Jerry Kotas for clarification on what is meant by the phrase "displace
fossil fuel" as she would have some concern about a suggestion that fossil fuel should
be replaced wholesale by alternative energy sources. Jerry Kotas clarified that he
recognizes that we are clearly operating in a fossil fuel world and that he meant it as a
suggestion that we strategically pursue more alternatives over time. He feels
alternatives have been given lip service in the past but now Jerry Kotas would like to
see more serious attention paid to them. Jerry Kotas suggests EPA do analysis and
figure out ways in which energy efficiency and renewable energy strategies can be
encouraged and fostered. Consensus seemed to exist that this is an area for serious
investigation. Jerry Kotas agreed to removal of the sentence that discusses "displacing
fossil fuel." The sentence also discusses the lower net costs of P2 energy technologies;
in new language Jerry will provide he will retain this concept by emphasizing the
expected benefits of these approaches which the EPA analysis may or may not bear out.
Jerry Kotas provided specific language to which the group agreed.
3. Should Proposal Mention Specific Renewables?: [RESOLVED] Carolyn
Green asked how biomass fits into the proposal. Jerry Kotas said that right now
the focus is on solar, wind and geothermal sources. Sharon Kneiss was concerned
about excluding biomass and said that it is considered renewable under the
Environmental Policy Act. Brock Nicholson and Steven Hartsfield agreed that
biomass should not be excluded. Jerry Kotas replied that he didn't intend to
exclude it, but in terms of air emissions, the easiest place to start might be with
other renewable sources. Lynn Terry noted that in California there's a huge issue
with biomass in terms of old facilities that are very dirty. California is hopeful for
new technologies. Jerry Kotas said that there certainly are other resources like
solar, wind, and geothermal that can be brought together and quantified in terms
of air quality improvement, and put into the baseline for SIPs. Mark MacLeod
suggested that we may not need to spell out which kinds of renewables to use, as
the proposal does not seem to depend on that. Steve Winkleman emphasized the
need to quantify impacts and benefits of biofuels. Consensus is to keep the
discussion of renewables broad and not to mention specific technologies.
4. What is the product this proposal calls for?: [RESOLVED] Brock Nicholson
asked Jerry Kotas to clarify what the proposal was meant to require. Nicholson
suggested that looking at particular options might be more intriguing than simply
requiring a study. Jerry Kotas replied that he only suggested the legal language as a
21
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
way to provide additional encouragement/rationale to look at clean energy approaches.
He said the goal of the proposal is to get more energy measures implemented. He
believes we need leadership, an ability to quantify impacts, and an analysis of more
technologies. Brock Nicholson responded by asking whether the immediate end
product would be a restatement of policy and rationale and asked Jerry Kotas whether
he had other ideas of how to get these things implemented. For example, there's
inconsistency on how guidance is being interpreted for purposes of obtaining SIP
credit. Jerry Kotas suggested that the Group look at Proposal 8, which he believes
addresses Nicholson's question. Jerry Kotas will also further clarify this issue with
additional language. John Fooks stated that it would be very difficult for EPA to
conduct an analysis of the consequences of failing to do something and requested that
the Group delete this language. Jerry Kotas provided specific language to which the
group agreed.
PROPOSAL 8: EPA SHOULD WORK WITH STATE AIR AND ENERGY
ORGANIZATIONS. TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AND REGIONAL AIR
QUALITY PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS TO OVERCOME POTENTIAL
BARRIERS TO CLEAN ENERGY/AIR QUALITY INTEGRATION
BIN RECOMMENDATION: 1 (Bullets 1 through 4); 1,2 or 3 (Bullet 5)
In August 2004, EPA issued new guidance to encourage clean energy/air quality
integration - "Guidance on State Implementation Plan Credits for Emission Reduction
Measures from Electric-sector Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures."
To date, EPA only has approved one control measure under this guidance. The voluntary
control measure, approved in an EPA Federal Register notice on May 12, 2005,3
involved the purchase of wind energy by a buying group led by Montgomery County,
Maryland.
The 2004 EPA Guidance and the requirement for State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions to meet the new 8-hour ozone standard and the fine particulate matter standard
(PM 2.5) create a "window of opportunity" for clean energy/air quality integration.
However, the limited precedents under the August 2004 guidance create an obstacle to
aggressive adoption of energy efficiency and renewable energy measures by State, Tribal
and local governments in developing their SIPs or Tribal Implementation Plans (TIPs).
This obstacle results from several factors:
• Some States have indicated that they are unlikely to pursue energy efficiency and
renewable control measures as part of their SIPs to meet the ozone and particulate
matter standards because they perceive that their EPA Regional Offices will
impose burdensome justification procedures and provide only limited SIP credit;
• Other States and regional planning organizations are actively considering control
measures involving energy efficiency and renewable energy but they may be
impeded by unforeseen interpretations of the Clean Air Act or EPA regulations
and Guidance by Regional Offices;
22
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
• Many State air agencies do not realize that they need to adopt an EERE set-aside
or other regulatory mechanism under their CAIR regulations in order to provide
SIP credit for EERE measures for the period from 2009 forward;
• Information on the timing and amount of funding for DOE, EPA, and DOT
funding of clean energy/air quality integration measures is not consolidated for
easy access by State, Tribal and local governments; and
• State, Tribal and local governments are facing budgetary constraints that may
limit their ability to adopt innovative approaches.
EPA should expedite actions to overcome these barriers to clean energy/air quality
integration. EPA's Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards should work with other
relevant EPA Offices (EPA Regional Offices, the Climate Protection Partnerships
Division, the Office of Policy, and the General Counsel's Office) and State, Tribal and
local air planning organizations to:
• Communicate with State air agencies, local planning organizations, Tribal
governments and related non-profit organizations (ECOS, STAPPA/ALAPCO,
NASEO) to determine actual and perceived barriers to clean energy/air quality
integration;
• Define a sample of EERE control measures currently under consideration by
State, Tribal and local governments to meet the ozone and PM standards and
anticipate and proactively work through the issues that will arise during the SIP
review process. The Control Measures Workgroup of the Technical Advisory
Committee of the Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee would be one
good candidate for such proactive review since this Workgroup already has
developed a large group of potential EERE measures;
• Provide outreach to EPA Regional, State officials and Tribal governments on the
interface between the CAIR regulations and EERE measures in SIPs/TIPs;
• Develop a timeline for funding solicitations by DOE, EPA, and DOT relating to
clean energy/air quality, including likely eligibility, funding levels, and amount of
awards and make this information available on the EPA Air Innovations web site.
This suggestion was presented to EPA at the 2005 Air Innovations Conference,
and EPA implementation would help overcome a major information barrier.
• Identify innovative financing strategies (e.g., State performance contracting laws)
to assist State, Tribal and local governments in implementing clean energy/air
quality integration measures.
23
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
[COMMENTS:
1. Should Proposal Address Tribes?: [RESOLVED] Stephen Hartsfield
pointed out that Proposal 8 may not adequately address tribes, and said that
tribes are interested in these issues. Jerry Kotas agreed that the proposal
likely should address tribes, and Stephen Hartsfield offered to provide some
suggested language changes to accomplish this. In addition, Stephen
Hartsfield asked whether DOE has done any assessment of tribal energy
issues, and noted that tribes will likely be developing power plants very
soon. Jerry Kotas replied that there has been a DOE tribal initiative, but he
does not know what analyses have been done. Jerry Kotas will look into this
and get back to the group. Jerry Kotas provided specific language to address
Stephen's concerns).
2. Can Proposal 8 Be Expedited?: [RESOLVED] Brock Nicholson pointed
out that proposal 8 is important, and needs to be addressed quickly,
particularly in light of the CAIR rule. One of the Team 1 co-chairs
responded that Phase I of the NAS Report process attempted to get at some
of the short-term concerns Nicholson was raising and said that it was
important to include the longer-term issues in the Group 3 work product.
Jerry Kotas recommended that the existing EPA/DOE forum dealing with air
quality and energy issues to talk about the immediacy of the issues outlined
in the proposal.
NEW .PROPOSAL 9: TAKING CLIMATE CHANG " |Fonnatt«i: Left
' ' FonrortUd: Font: Bold
BIN RECOMMEM DAT! |D
The icoi'ding to virtually all in ; 1 ¦ ... ¦ ¦ 1
dual ir from clear, but certain 1; id
air puimuuii experience a dynamic relaumisim ¦ -n mm vxtimumv m nmi»«h.u uic
oilier. For instance, warmer temperatures can? 1 r ozone production, so a warming
glllJIIsdead tomoreo/one 1 ' m in mat But the caiiMllfat gocsihc_other
wavaswdLaMllM^^ SljMlilwffl : |ei£Q:^j>mkj!lld
troposplieric ozone help to w; ' ilobe. while n sulfur dioxide
cmjsMQns_aeecarja_cQQl iL Undetslail
air quality management is not easy, and there is great uncertainty, parliculai to
localized effects. Nonetheless, the effect of climate change on air quality is.... ...
important a concern to ignore.
filnhallv I tin warmest ten VCai'S Q»'« ttwirrt Iwivr all nnciirrnrl k'h\cc 1995. According tO
: ; to tie 1998; 1 ¦ ... .2005 also appears to be
t recorded ir:
!»addition to this n«r ocra' so «~
24
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
particular place are related to global warming
remains that
heal andoUu
warming. Tt
1998, a heal - 1 ;
the East Cjvmt in IS
record \
inontli.
Flp>l '
'.S. c"
ic e>
smal
scond wa.
I I1V.1 l ,J Ml t .311 l v w ' ' ' M
' ' to ni , ,
. lie ti, ¦ 1 •
. •""" "rthe:-
¦ ' and ,
itfa arid fall conditions.) Preliminary
' ¦ scor,
consumed across the U.S. bv early
alitv ¦ , ¦ ,
and a Host ol Hazardous air pollutants
amematter
jement? We
i the Illl.pa.ct <
:one pollutioi
air quality
ImiMMMSSonmr
tame, we need a way
25
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
mssible IcnipeiilHreincreases, we jjouldcffisasrj^^ end of
that range and plan accordingly.
Although the federal government is not promoting acti
nianv cities and s>aiR« have taken flip lead. Fnr incfanc
anty^CTttLilco havegoni.Ble.tgd greenhousegasinvgn
Rico have cot
lor reducing green,;o
:o reduce greenhouse gases,
cording to EPA, fortv-onc states
gegnhousegasinygntQrjes_and_28_states and Puerto
' ' ' ' s options
jiuhj \ji vmititivni^ f-yi wi iiKni.iv jvi.[yyjuun01t.
As of January 26. 2006. over 2,00 ma\
' . ' • -ors" Clima'f
. iorv their greenhouse
¦ ' ¦ md enact policies am 1
. And re
IMsrstj
reduce (
CI standardsforpassenger
¦ ¦ ' leclicuL,
"' •• • 'Jew York. Kiioae isi;
, ' process of adopting.
; - ¦' tesjn ' , ¦ , . vsj
tlie Regiona , ouse Gas 1 ni'
~ ^establishiM ^ ' ¦
•' "• California. Oregon, and Washington are
:ic sector CO control initiative.
i Washington have
orandunioT
o
ir
ities
acc<
f>„-;
vnmin uie i\uui leaiuil as wt
.1- VII \ ¦v-'J nil
gion. The in
nplications IV
¦ Jii
iLtsnoL - ¦
¦ mav hav,
'eglOn. ITin v aumumny
XMeLBrodHMMliill
Many cities and states are interested in integrating air quali
char
Gnu
localities address 1
encourage states '
doc.il! -
1 O-T- ,4
,:s in an i: •
jtsefjecth
°PA,
toni;
ing with tlieir climate
" , 1 '(educing
: ' . ' -iatesand
this
vidirm technical
has declined
II
breadth of
In the long term, we need to align air quality management strategies with policies that
will effectively address climate change with mandatory greenhouse gas reductions. Over
26
-------
Draft: March 15, 2006
• . . •' . • lit" quality planners should antici:
these reductions and plan accordingly. <" Fail in ' " ;
terms of air quality improvement and c
¦ ' '' ¦ v ~ ~ "• leedsjo
•, ' , , ¦ 1 ing, as l't
forward is to recommend that EPA undertake a conipre
. need
:ily put n ¦
- Jl)
jdate
behind in
Qami£_relationshiB
NIAK Renntl Air
uiSLlfMiaiiMl ' ;
emission red
with greenhc
tlie necessary guiaance ana toois to aevelop annua
quantification metliodologies.
Recommendation:
i
o
using comparable
Part L Gllfiltl
localities in quan
enilss.i.onsroiu£L
>benefjts and Dj&benefjts= ¦ ¦ . assn , ...and
otential for greenhouse gas ct \ , ddis ¦, , ..of
ijaiiiiiiiibidea&iied toaMres^^..^^^
and air toxics. (Phase 1)
Par# II FPA clinii IH iinHprtflL'P a piirr
3WCD. • ¦ .11 muiwa *
inch , , , 'actofjiji
inert ..... , , . icaLisla.ll
assessmenLshoujuiMuuueaneslimati
mitigation measures.
nf fhf iffi|Q||' ,
' ¦ d in(
es during ozone
'"''ent should also
• • ' ¦ " srature
. . .¦ .''hers. The
' LassoiafflguaHilL^
-n » i i i
corn para
illconiMJ
lies IB the devejc ', '" familial
•. .)ti Inventory Imp ¦ - - it Program
1 ¦ ' amiote
¦ acttti .
• - sret ' ¦
27
-------
Team 2
Issue Papers
-------
Team 2 Tool Descriptions Table of Contents
A. Financial Tools and Financial Demand-Side Strategies &
B. Emission Trading Tools
C. Information Programs, Reward Programs and Non-Financial Demand-Side
Strategies
D. Planning Tools
E. Retrofit Strategies (other than financial incentives, which are listed separately
above)
F. Enforcement Enhancements (includes Privatization Strategies)
G. Targeted Strategies
H. Emission Limits
These papers should be considered DRAFTS. These drafts are meant to guide
discussions of the AQM Subcommittee and do not represent decisions or opinions
made by the EPA, the CAAAC, or the AQM Subcommittee.
-------
Brief Description of Tool:
For this application Financial tools and Emissions Trading tools are approaches which
use either an economic incentive or a market-based strategy to encourage people to
reduce emissions of air pollutants in the most efficient manner.
Applicability:
• Financial tools and Emissions Trading tools have been used for years with
varying degrees of success. This paper lists some of the tools currently
considered viable with references, where appropriate, to further
information about them as many have been the subjects of lengthy reports.
• Financial tools can be used with and without an underlying regulatory mandate
to spur expenditures on emission reducing technologies and strategies.
Implementation Experience:
A. Financial Tools and Financial Demand-Side Strategies
• Tax strategies (e.g., deductions, credits, accelerated depreciation, etc.)- Taxes are
an incentive to reduce emissions. Monies collected can be used to fund other
reductions (see Clean Air Investment Funds).
• Loans- Region 6
• Equity strategies
• Clean air investment funds- A CAIF is a State-run mechanism to assist sources
that face high control costs. It can be incorporated into Federal or State
implementation plans for meeting the ozone and PM standards. The principal
purpose is cost relief. A CAIF can serve as a way to lower the cost of compliance
for sources by allowing them to pay an annual amount per ton of emissions in lieu
of installing control equipment. The fund can also serve as a vehicle to attract
investment in program development and technology innovation to improve long-
term air quality management. The central purpose that ties these two uses together
is to provide States and localities an additional tool for seeking out and securing
less costly emission reductions. (EIP, Section 9)
• Emission fees- EIP Section 8
• Fees in lieu of offsets (Bob Wyman providing something here)
• Targeted rebates- These have been used in many places and for many different
purposes. The replacement of lawnmowers and gas cans with newer, lower
emitting models is a popular strategy.
-------
• Differential pricing- "The term 'transportation pricing programs' encompasses a
variety of different programs that have a common element: they attempt to
incorporate the costs of transportation decisions into a price that a consumer sees
and pays directly. " (emphasis in the original— EPA 's 9/97 guidance,
"Opportunities to Improve Air Quality Through Transportation Pricing Projects'"
)
B. Emissions Trading Tools—In general, see EIP
• Cap and trade- EIP Section 6& 7 "Cap and trade is a policy approach to
controlling large amounts of emissions from a group of sources at costs that are
lower than if sources were regulated individually. The approach first sets an
overall cap, or maximum amount of emissions per compliance period, that will
achieve the desired environmental effects. Authorizations to emit in the form of
emission allowances are then allocated to affected sources, and the total number
of allowances cannot exceed the cap. "
"Individual control requirements are not specifiedfor sources. The only
requirements are that sources completely and accurately measure and report all
emissions and then turn in the same number of allowances as emissions at the
end of the compliance period. " (source, EPA 's Clean Air Markets Division)
• Open market strategies- EIP Section 6& 7, Open Market Trading Guidance.
"Discrete emission reduction (DER) means an emission reduction generated
over a discrete period of time, and measured in weight (e.g., tons)."
• Bubbles (e.g., by category of equipment, facility, industry, port or airport)-
EPA 's 12/86 Emissions Trading Policy Statement, 51FR 43814 A system under
which existing emissions sources can propose alternate means to comply with a
set of emissions limitations; under the bubble concept, sources can control
more than required at one emission point where control costs are relatively low
in return for a comparable relaxation of controls at a second emission point
where costs are higher, (from EPA 's Terminology Reference System)
• Plant-wide applicability limits The PAL regulations are at 40 CFR 52.21 (aa)
(for delegated PSD programs); 40 CFR 51.166 (w) (for SIP approved PSD
programs); and 40 CFR 51.165(f) (for non - attainment areas). The provisions
are essentially the same in all 3 rules. The preamble discussion for the PAL
rules (which would have a generic description) begins at page 80206 (FR,
Vol.67 #251, Dec.31,2002).
We also conducted a pilot study of PALs at 6 facilities. That study is discussed in a
supplemental analysis for the NSR reform regulations in Appendix A at:
http://epa.gov/nsr/documents/nsr-analysis.pdf
-------
Here is an excerpt from the summary of the analysis:
The EPA expects that the adoption of PAL provisions will result in a net
environmental benefit. Our experience to date is that the emissions caps found in
PAL-type permits result in real emissions reductions, as well as other benefits. As
part of an overall agency effort to promote more flexible air permits, the EPA has
been working with sources, States, the public, and other affected parties to pioneer a
number of flexible permits nationwide. We recently completed an evaluation of six
of these flexible permits that have been in effect long enough for us to be able to
examine their performance. This evaluation, entitled "Evaluation of the
Implementation Experience with Innovative Air Permits" is included as Appendix A
to this report.
• Mobile to stationary trading- is covered in several sections of the EIP. Start
with the general guidance on OMT programs in Chapter 7.5. Development of
emission quantification protocols for mobile sources in OMT programs is
Appendix 16.3. Appendix 16.4 has some examples of Voluntary mobile
programs. Appendix 16.10 discusses conformity, which could be an issue with
mobile sources. Also would want to look at 16.11 and 16.14.
• Interpollutant trading- see EIP Appendix 16.9
• Risk-based trading
• Reactivity-based trading- See EPA's proposed approval of Texas' "Highly
Reactive VOC Emissions Cap and Trade Program for the
Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area" (70 FR 58138 (2005) (to
be codified at 40 CFR 52))
-------
Outline for white paper on incentive grant programs to be issued by the Sub-Committee on
Economic Incentives and Regulatory Innovations and Air Quality Management Sub-
Committee as part of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
Economic Incentive Grant Programs: An effective method
to reduce emissions from on-road and off-road diesel vehicles
I. Introduction
A. Overview of the challenges in reducing emissions from the Legacy
Diesel Fleet
1. Acknowledge the work of the Clean Diesel and Retrofit
Work Group
2. Outline the challenges posed in reducing emissions from the
legacy diesel fleet as outlined in the draft report
3. Review of different types of mandates and incentives that
are currently in use as introduction to state incentive grant
programs to reduce diesel emissions
II. Analysis of State Economic Incentive Programs
A. Texas Emission Reduction Program ("TERP")
1. History of creation of TERP as a substitute to mandatory
measures in DFW and Houston SIPS
2. Discussion of the passage of SB 5 by the Texas Legislature
including:
a. Diesel Grant Program
b. Clean Vehicle Program
c. Energy Efficiency Program
3. Failure of Funding of SB 5 and passage of HB 1365
a. Discussion and outline of HB 1365
Page 1
-------
4. Analysis and discussion of TERP following HB 1365
a. Review of grant effectiveness
b. Analysis of impacts upon different diesel sectors
c. Analysis of SIP credit effectiveness
5. Review of most recent changes to TERP and review of
program by ENVIRON
6. Recent projects of TERP for integration into 8-hour air
quality plans
B. Carl Moyer Program
1. Follow outline of TERP analysis above
III. Overview of Federal incentive program: DERA
A. Follow outline of TERP analysis
B. Discussion of financing of state vs. federal program options
C. Discussion of potential SIP impacts across the US and integration
into 8-hour SIP planning
IV. Conclusion
V. Appendices — TERP and Carl Moyer analysis materials
Page 2
-------
"DRAFT" Information Programs, Reward Programs and
Non-Financial Demand-Side Strategies
Michael Sheehan
February 27, 2006
Brief Description of Tool:
• Clearinghouses for Technology, Regulations, Incentives
• Labeling
• Performance Benchmarking
• Community "Green" Action Lists
• Surveys
• Frequent Flyer-type Programs
• Web Tools
Applicability:
• These tools can be used to disseminate and/or gather information on important air
pollution initiatives and programs to and from other federal, state and local parties
as well as the general public. They can be utilized to educate, promote and/or
incentivize the use of technologies, products, and practices that have a positive
impact on air quality.
• All of the tools listed above could be utilized to address emissions of any
pollutant from any emissions category. As is the case with any program, greater
results will be obtained from the largest source categories with the most readily
obtainable reductions and the most immediately available pool of information to
provide. As these categories reduce emissions, new categories and opportunities
will arise. The use of these informational tools to gather data, inform the public
and reward those that actively participate in the programs will need to
continuously evolve to remain effective and to more accurately target newly
emerging areas of concern.
Implementation Experience:
• Clearinghouses for Technology, Regulations, Incentives - EPA supports a
number of Clearinghouses and maintains a list of these at:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/hotline.htm . Some of the more notable
clearinghouses are:
o Clearinghouse for Emission Inventories and Emission Factor's
¦ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief
o Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse
¦ http://www.epa.gov/oppt/ppic/index.htm
o Reasonably Available Control Technology /Best Available Control
Technology/Lowe st Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse
¦ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/rblc/htm/welcome.html
• Labeling - EPA and the Department of Energy support one of the more
prominent labeling programs. The Energy Star program is helping individuals
-------
protect the environment through the promotion of items that provide superior
energy efficiency. Information on this program can be found at:
http://www.energystar.gov/ . Another labeling program that EPA has experience
with is the labeling of products containing ozone depleting substances.
Information and guidance on this program can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/labeling/labfact.html. Other programs have
been initiated by state and local agencies. The South Coast Air Quality
Management District has the "Clean Air Choice" car labeling program. This
program is designed to help buyers easily identify Clean Air Choice vehicles.
Information can be obtained at: www.cleanairchoices.org .
• Performance Benchmarking - Performance Benchmarking is used to highlight
the characteristics of one or more entities in relation to others. This tool appears
to be widely used by consulting groups to highlight, compare and promote the
attributes of a targeted sector. Not a lot of information was available through web
searches of this category, however, one example is:
o NRDC's Benchmarking of Air Emission of the 100 largest power
producers in the United States - 2002, available at:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/benchmarking/default.asp
• Community "Green" Action Lists - EPA created a green communities program
to help communities access the tools and information that would help them
become more sustainable "Green Communities." Information on this program can
be found at: http://www.epa.gov/greenkit/whoweare.htm
o The Goals of the Green Communities Program are:
¦ to promote innovative tools that encourage successful community-
based environmental protection and sustainable community
development.
¦ to establish partnerships with other organizations and agencies to
help build community capacity and knowledge in order to create
more livable communities.
¦ to provide technical assistance and training through the Assistance
Kit, workshops, and the network of successful Green Communities
throughout the country.
o Other programs are:
¦ Greenaction: http: //greenacti on. org
¦ Harmony Foundation: http://www.harmonyfdn.ca/mission.html
¦ Co-op America: http://www.coopamerica.org
• Surveys - A survey is a method of gathering information from a number of
individuals (a "sample") in order to learn something about the larger population
from which the sample has been drawn. Surveys can be conducted using different
tools and may have a variety of purposes. EPA has experience in completing
surveys and through its emissions inventory improvement program even has even
documented how to conduct surveys for area source inventories. This
documentation can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume03/iii24.pdf
o Pursuant to section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act, EPA conducted a
comprehensive 4-year study of consumer and commercial products. A
-------
major element of that study was an accounting of VOC emissions from the
full range of consumer and commercial products subject to section 183(e).
This included a survey of consumer product manufacturers. Information
can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/183e/gen/183epg.html
o The California Air Resources Board has also conduct consumer and
commercial product surveys in support of initiatives to regulated
consumer products and architectural and industrial maintenance coatings.
CARB's homepage is: http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm
• Frequent Flyer-Type Programs - most information found under this category
related to airlines or defaulted to financial incentives when linked to
environmental programs.
• Web Tools - In the electronic age web tools have been and will continue to be a
necessary part of all environmental initiatives. As noted under all of the tools
above, web tools are well used by the environmental community.
New/Additional Implementation Options and Issues:
• As noted, EPA currently supports a number of tools for use by the environmental
community. Given the number of information sources found it is difficult at this
time to determine what if any new implementation options would be available at
this time.
• One of the key issues is the ability of the prospective audience to find the right
information given the numerous sources available as a result of a simple web
search. In order to determine what sources have been most successful at
achieving their stated air quality goals an effort should be made to assess existing
programs to determine what can be learned for future initiative and what if any
changes should be made. It should also be noted that electronic data sources are
only as good as the resources and commitment behind them. These tools have
been beneficial to the air quality management process and will continue to be in
the future as long as they come with the commitments and resources necessary to
maintain them.
Outline of Tool Attributes:
The tools highlighted in this paper are informational tools used by the
environmental community. As such they do not necessarily result in measurable
environmental benefits and disbenefits, nor do they have economic impacts or time
constraints. They require resources for monitoring and maintainenance but I am not sure
if anyone has ever assessed these tools for accountability purposes. These tools can be
used by federal, state and local jurisdictions in the implementation of clean air programs
and they would not require Clean Air Act amendments to be implemented. Based on the
number of resources found during the information gathering for this process, these tools
are easily replicable. If they achieve the desired affect, they will help to impact personal
choice and could better the quality of life with continued air quality improvement. By
changing personal habits through the use of these informational tools, there should be a
-------
net improvement in energy efficiency which will begin to address emissions of
greenhouse gases.
-------
"Draft" Planning Tools
Michael Bradley
March 6, 2006
Brief Description of Tool:
For this application a "planning tool" is defined as a measure, process, regulation or
ordinance which is designed to anticipate potential air quality problems or to mitigate an
ongoing air quality problem.
Applicability:
• "Planning tools" have been used to address many different types of air quality
issues including transportation sources, area sources, intermittent activities and
metropolitan area wide concerns.
• An inherent attribute of planning tools is that they can be designed to address a
specific anticipated air quality concern while taking into account the specific
environmental, economic and political dynamics which affect the situation.
• The planning process has the ability to take into account recent public health
impact information, respond to new information, take advantage of recent
technological advancements and learn from other similar planning experiences.
Implementation Experience:
A limited number of recently developed air quality related planning "tools" are described
below which illustrates the diversity of approaches which are being adopted: (additional
examples are welcome)
• New York City Clean Construction Equipment Law
In a preventive planning strategy, the New York City Council adopted legislation to
limit particulate emissions from construction equipment and diesel generators (non-
road equipment) used by or on behalf of city agencies in order to protect city
residents' public health. The City Council passed Local Law 77, requiring diesel-
powered nonroad vehicles owned or operated by the city or those used in public
works contracts by private companies to employ best available technology(emission
control retrofits) and to use fuel with a maximum sulfur content of 15 parts per
million. New York City is one of the first major U.S. cities to protect public health
by requiring cleaner diesel equipment in public works construction. The City Council
passed the measure in response to the significant health risks posed by non-road
vehicle pollution, which include decreased lung function, aggravated asthma,
respiratory symptoms and premature death. In 2000, the city had over 26,000
asthma-related hospitalizations costing nearly $250 million.
• California Goods Movement
Goods movement - by truck, boat, and plane - is now the dominant contributor to
transportation emissions in California. Moreover, CARB estimates that current
(2005) goods movement activities result in approximately 750 premature deaths per
year. To address this problem, the California Environmental Protection Agency and
-------
the Business, Transportation & Housing Agency are developing a Goods Movement
Action Plan. The Phase 1 Action Plan, released in September 2005, highlighted the
air pollution impacts of goods movement and the urgent need to mitigate localized
health risks in affected communities. The Phase I Action plan established four
specific goals for addressing this problem: reduce emissions to 2001 levels by 2010;
continue reducing emissions until attainment of applicable standards is achieved;
reduce diesel-related health risks 85% by 2020, and ensure sufficient localized risk
reduction in each affected community.
• EPA Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Program
U.S. EPA's Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) program is a
competitive grant initiative that offers an innovative way for communities to work at
the local level to address the risks from multiple sources of toxics in their
environment. Through CARE, various local organizations including non-profits,
citizens, businesses, schools and federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies
create collaborative partnerships that implement local solutions to reduce releases of
and minimize exposure to toxic pollutants. The goals of CARE are to educate
communities regarding their pollution risks, reduce exposure to toxics, and promote
self-sustaining community-based partnerships to improve local environments.
• Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Emissions Monitoring
Since May 2004, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) has been using
state-of-the-art remote sensing devices to measure exhaust from its fleet of nearly
1,000 buses, in an effort to rapidly identify high emitting buses. High emitting buses
are immediately taken out of service and repaired, and often return to service within
24 hours. This preventive monitoring program is an innovative feature in the
MBTA's work to ensure that bus operations throughout the Boston metropolitan area
have minimal impact on air quality. Through this program, the MBTA has become
the country's first metropolitan transit authority to develop an inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program to reduce air pollution from its buses. The remote
sensing inspection and maintenance program will become an integral part in the
MBTA's efforts to reduce diesel bus emissions by 90 percent between 2004 and July
2007 by upgrading its fleet with new compressed natural gas and clean diesel buses.
• Portland Land- Use Planning
Via land use planning and zoning requirements, Portland, Oregon continues to be a
front-runner in controlling sprawl while promoting clean air. The city has pushed
pedestrian and transit-oriented real estate development as a way to manage growth,
reduce air pollution and vehicle miles traveled, and obtain maximum return on public
investment in light rail. In the mid-1990's, Portland initiated a "2040 growth
concept" to guide the region's transportation and land-use planning. The city has a
long-established urban growth boundary and offers various programs to help
developers build vibrant downtowns and centers and livable streets.
-------
• California School Siting
California has passed land use planning laws to limit school children's exposure to air
toxics. For instance, in 2003, the legislature passed SB 352. SB 352 creates a new
requirement that any school site located within 500 feet of a freeway or other busy
traffic corridor be reviewed for potential health risks. The focus of this analysis is on
potential acute, short-term exposure to criteria pollutants. While California law
previously required schools to ensure that permitted facilities within 1/4 mile did not
pose a public health risk, the new law further requires schools to ensure that non-
permitted facilities also not pose a public health risk. Such sources include, but are
not limited to, freeways, large agricultural operations, and rail yards. The law does
not apply to existing schools, but the law is expected to have a large impact on future
school siting decisions. The bill came in response to various California Air
Resources Board studies showing that air pollution levels can be significantly higher
within 500 feet of freeways or busy traffic corridors and then diminish rapidly. A
downwind distance of 328 feet (100m) will reduce cancer risk by over 60 percent. If
the physical downwind distance is increased to 984 feet (300m), the relative
concentration is reduced over 80 percent.
New/Additional Implementation Options and Issues:
For planning tools the implementation options would be determined by the specific
circumstances associated with the objectives being pursued by a specific planning tool.
Implementation barriers will also vary depending on the specific planning tool being
developed.
Outline of Tool Attributes:
These attributes will have to be assessed for each individual planning tool.
-------
Permit Streamlining
Permit Streamlining
Patty Strabbing
February 20, 2006
Brief Description of Tool:
Permit Streamlining is the crafting of permit conditions such that redundant and
unnecessary requirements and constraints are avoided in favor of limits that ensure the
necessary and required emissions performance, and the associated demonstration of
compliance in a manner that is practically enforceable. Redundant and unnecessary
limits can include:
• Overlapping emissions performance limits (and associated recordkeeping), where
one limit is more stringent. A RACT limit that applies to a source with a BACT
limit would be such an example. In such an instance, the less constraining
provisions (i.e., RACT) can be eliminated while retaining the more stringent
provisions (i.e., BACT) to demonstrate compliance with both requirements.
• Limits on individual units that can be combined into a single multi-unit limit on
emissions.
• Limits on operational conditions (hours of operation, unit throughput) of sources
that have practically enforceable emissions limits that make the operational limits
unnecessary.
• Limits with various time intervals (hourly, daily, monthly, annual) when fewer
intervals will address all substantive concerns.
Streamlining can also be used to pre-approve certain types of source changes in the
context of both NSR and Title V, thereby eliminating delays and paperwork at a later
time that will yield the same environmental outcome.
Applicability:
Streamlining can be applied in the creation of new source permits, the incorporation of
old NSR permit conditions into Title V permits, and the renewal of Title V permits. The
key benefit of permit streamlining is the elimination of administrative burdens on agency
and source personnel where recordkeeping, reporting, and permit amendment processing
have no discernable environmental benefits. The reduced burden in turn makes air
compliance more efficient for all parties, it can free up agency staff for more valuable
activities, and it allows source owners to make operational changes more quickly in
instances where the permitting review yields no environmental benefits.
Implementation Experience:
Streamlining has been used to a limited extent at both the state and federal levels over the
last ten years with good success. EPA approved streamlining of overlapping emissions
limits, wherein one is more stringent than the other, in the context of a Title V white
paper. PALs, XL permits and flexible permit initiatives have all included some degree of
permit streamlining to avoid administrative burdens that have no discernable
environmental benefits. Michigan is one example that has recently started a program to
develop streamlined permits on a case by case basis.
New/Additional Implementation Options and Issues:
1
-------
Permit Streamlining
Streamlining of conditions, as a philosophy of regulation can be applied to any emissions
regulations or rules, not just permitting. For example, NSPS, RACT, and MACT rules
could all be created or revised to address and eliminate or streamline recordkeeping,
reporting and emission limits that are unnecessarily constraining or burdensome.
Outline of Tool Attributes:
a. Environmental benefits and disbenefits
When done carefully, permit streamlining should have no environmental disbenefit.
The idea is to eliminate requirements that have no benefit. In some instances,
streamlining may make it easier to reduce emissions further but the program should
not carry with it a requirement that emissions be reduced further than otherwise
expected.
b. Economic impacts
Very large economic benefits will occur: administrative costs for government and
industry will be reduced, frivolous enforcement activities can be avoided, and
process changes can be affected more quickly.
c. Time
Streamlining does require an upfront investment in the crafting of permit conditions
but the return on that investment will exceed the time spent at the outset.
d. Ease of monitoring and accountability
Carefully crafted streamlined conditions will be easily monitored and reported.
Streamlined conditions mean less monitoring, reporting and oversight of
requirements that have no benefits. Agencies and source operators have found
streamlined permits easier to enforce.
e. Jurisdictional attributes
Streamlining can be of greatest benefit to state and local agencies in terms of
workload and paperwork,
f. Would tool/strategy require CAA amendment?
No.
g. Replicabilitv
While most streamlining to date has been done on a case by case basis, there is
significant commonality. Guidance could be developed that will provide
replicablity.
h. Impacts on personal choice and quality of life
Positive impacts will occur for the agency personnel and the source owners. No
impacts on community members are expected.
i. Benefits and disbenefits on energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions
No direct effects, although streamlining can be an incentive to eliminate the use of
incinerators where compliance can be achieved through pollution prevention.
2
-------
AQM Strategy Paper on Retrofits
The primary focus of retrofits so far have been over the road heavy-duty trucks due to
their long life and the multiple engine rebuilds these vehicles have during their useful
life. These retrofits may be converting engines to an alternative fuel, putting additional
controls on an existing engine or replacing the existing engine with a new, cleaner
engine.1
Those efforts should continue and be expanded, where possible, using whatever funds are
available at the Federal or State level.
• Other vehicles that might be considered for retrofit include:
• Airport vehicles (convert to cleaner fuels, retrofit, or replace with electric)
• Off road equipment (locomotives, construction equipment, marine vessels,
forklifts, etc.)
• Stationary sources (back-up generators, agricultural irrigation pumps)
Below is a chart from the Carl Moyer program in CA on the tons of NOx and PM
reduced and the NOx cost-effectiveness. While the absolute numbers would not apply to
other states, the relative larger gains from certain sectors might be helpful in targeting
certain sources.
NOx and PMio Emission Reductions
And Cost-Effectiveness (NOx)a
(Years 1-4)
Source Category/
Total NOx Reduced
Total PM Reduced
NOx Weighted
Equipment Type
(tons/year)
(tons/year)
Average Cost-
effectiveness
On-Road
Line Haul
183
6.6
$4,500
Refuse Hauler
500
15.8
4,800
Transit Bus
503
32.5
2,300
School Bus
4
0.3
7,200
Other
143
5.7
4,400
1 The Carl Moyer program funded about 4,950 cleaner engines. This includes over 2,080 alternative-
fueled vehicles, especially transit buses and refuse trucks. The program has also replaced nearly 2,870
older diesel engines with new, cleaner diesel engines, primarily in marine vessels, off-road equipment and
agricultural irrigation pumps.
-------
Off-Road
Agriculture
43
6.4
4,600
Construction
190
15.9
4,400
Other
62
6.1
4,400
Ag Pumps
1,910
92.2
2,500
Locomotives
44
5.0
2,600
Fork Lifts
162
0.0
3,600
Marine Vessels
907
48.9
1,800
Total NOx/PM
4651
235.4
a. Based on projects funded or with grant commitments. Approximately $9 million
of Year 4 remains to be committed.
Other Factors
The advent of low sulfur diesel fuel being available in 2006 will enable some of these
retrofit technologies to function better in the exhaust stream.
There are number of issues related to diesel use and restrictions on use time, or location
which also can serve to reduce emissions, but they are not addressed here in this retrofit
paper.
Funding
If no source of Federal funding is available, these programs could be funded by the
creative use of fees from exempting certain newer cars from the Inspection and
Maintenance program in the state, as outlined in the document the Alliance forwarded to
the committee (Gregg Cooke's financial incentives group).
-------
Incentives for Self-Certification
Sharon Kneiss
January 20, 2006
Incentives for Self-Certification
Enforcement-related regulatory burdens such as reporting and inspection frequencies and
penalty exposure should be further reduced for firms with superior compliance
determination procedures.
Applicability:
Probably more applicable to major sources with complex emissions profiles than to
smaller sources. However, it could be appropriate and beneficial for sources of any size.
Such a reform would encourage improved company compliance procedures, which is by
far the best method of assuring compliance. It would also allow governments to use their
scarce enforcement resources where they could provide the greatest environmental
improvement.
Implementation Experience:
EPA's audit policy represents a highly successful and well established application of this
approach to reducing both penalties and the number of routine inspections. EPA's
Performance Track Program has taken a very few steps toward reducing reporting
burdens, for covered sources only. See 69 Fed. Reg. 21737 (April 22, 2004).
New/Additional Implementation Options and Issues:
• Much more could be done to reduce routine reporting requirements for companies
with superior compliance determination procedures.
• The government could accept the determination of qualified third party audit
firms as proof of superior compliance procedures, analogous to the use of
accounting firms to certify financial statements. That would relieve the
government of the resource drain of company by company certification, and
encourage the spread of improved compliance procedures.
• At present, violations detected by legally required monitoring are not eligible for
the penalty reduction aspects of the audit policy. Reduction of such penalties
could be allowed for companies with superior compliance determination
procedures.
• The audit policy does not currently allow any reduction of the "economic benefit"
aspect of penalties. Such a reduction could be allowed for companies with
superior compliance determination procedures.
Outline of Tool Attributes:
a. Environmental benefits and disbenefits
This tool would reduce emissions by improving compliance. (It would be
inappropriate to require additional emissions reductions, as some have
-------
suggested, before companies with superior compliance procedures could
qualify for this relief.) This tool would also free enforcement resources for
higher-priority uses, and encourage the development and spread of better
compliance determination procedures.
Economic impacts
Beneficial. Firms would not adopt this approach unless they saw such
benefits, and it would save government resources as well.
Time
Could be implemented relatively quickly
Ease of monitoring and accountability
No special problems.
Jurisdictional attributes
Could be implemented at any jurisdictional level. As always, a coordinated
State-federal approach would be desirable.
Would tool/strategy require CAA amendment?
No.
Replicabilitv
Highly replicable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
Impacts on personal choice and quality of life
No adverse impacts.
Benefits and disbenefits on energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions
None.
-------
Source Specific Emission Limit Agreements
Sharon Kneiss
January 20, 2006
Source Specific Emission Limit Adjustments:
Sources should be allowed to apply to their permitting authority for adjustments
in the applicable "package" of emissions limitations. The permitting authority
could approve those adjustments upon finding that the new package would
produce greater social benefits and at least equal environmental benefits when
compared to compliance with the original set of limits.
Applicability:
Primarily to major sources of air pollution. Such sources generally have multiple
emission limits, which were often set without considering particular
circumstances. Often, adjustments in those limits based on site-specific factors
can improve environmental results, reduce costs, and produce other social
benefits.
Implementation Experience:
EPA's Project XL was based on a similar approach. Despite some successes, the
program as a whole fell far short of the expected results. [Note to reviewers: Are
there other jurisdictions where this has worked better? A counter-example
would help a lot]
New/Additional Implementation Options and Issues:
A new and more promising approach would correct the defects of Project XL. Two in
particular stand out:
• The process for approving alternative approaches should be streamlined.
• The Project XL requirement that alternative approaches always produce greater
direct environmental benefits than the original approach should be relaxed.
Alternatives that (for example) achieve the same results at lesser cost should also
be encouraged, since they will encourage future environmental improvement by
reducing its cost.
Outline of Tool Attributes:
a. Environmental benefits and disbenefits
Since equal environmental benefits would be a minimum requirement, this
approach would be environmentally beneficial.
b. Economic impacts
Since sources themselves would apply for this relief, we can assume that
granting it would result in cost savings.
-------
c. Time
Any such approach would need to provide for timely processing and
decision. This has been an issue in the past.
d. Ease of monitoring and accountability
Each new approach would have to provide for monitoring at least as accurate
as the monitoring in the formerly applicable requirements. The frequency
and type of monitoring may be adjust to focus on the highest priority
emissions.
e. Jurisdictional attributes
Such relief would require EPA consent case by case. Alternatively, EPA
could empower states to undertake such actions following established
guidelines and criteria.
f. Would tool/strategy require CAA amendment?
This new approach would definitely benefit from express Clean Air Act
authorization. However, the new sets of requirements could also workably
be incorporated in consent decrees or enforcement agreements.
g. Replicabilitv
Although this approach is inherently case by case, one successful example
could reinforce another, potentially changing the regulatory framework for
an industrial sector or process.
h. Impacts on personal choice and quality of life
None
i. Benefits and disbenefits on energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions
Energy efficiency and carbon free alternative energy projects would be
encouraged by this approach. Sources generally place a high priority on such
projects, while EPA regulations as currently drafted often discourage them.
-------
Privatization
Privatization
Patty Strabbing
February 20, 2006
Brief Description of Tool:
Privatization is the outsourcing of certain air agency activities to private companies.
Applicability:
In theory, all of the air agency services and activities could be conducted by contractors.
However, the need for oversight by a government employee, avoiding conflicts of interest
and the setting of policies create a number of practical constraints. Privatization makes
the most sense when used to address one-time, discrete assignments and instances where
the work involves technical analysis or information gathering or management rather than
decisions by an agency.
Implementation Experience:
There is a long history of EPA and state air agencies relying upon contractors to complete
individual technical assignments, such as emission control technology surveys or
economic impact analyses in support of rule development. For example, much of the
technical work on the MACT standards was carried out by contractors under the direction
of EPA staff. This has been a long standing, accepted practice. In addition, routine
inspections and audits, and review of reports are some of the others kinds of activities
that have been contracted out. An example of a routine inspection would be taking fuel
samples at a terminal or gas station, conducting screening tests on site, and shipping any
samples for further screening to the EPA lab. To a lesser extent, permitting services have
been contracted. We are not aware of any formal assessment of the effectiveness and
relative cost of contractors doing basic permitting activities. (Can an AQM work group
reviewer give us information on how well this has worked in practice?)
New/Additional Implementation Options and Issues:
One option that has been considered from time to time is providing an option for a permit
applicant to pay a supplemental fee for a contractor to expedite the permit application
review. (Can an AQM work group reviewer tell us if they have had experience with this
and how well it worked?) In some instances, the discussion of this alternative has led to a
wholesale review and streamlining of permitting for all parties rather than requiring a
payment and using contractors for only a few applications.
Outline of Tool Attributes:
a. Environmental benefits and disbenefits
If contracting speeds up the implementation of air programs, one can assume that air
emissions reductions could occur more quickly than they would have in the absence
of contracted work. On the other hand, the use of contractors does not ensure
benefits. If for some reason the contractor is not able to be as effective as
government employees, completion of work could slow down and benefits lost.
b. Economic impacts
We do not know if contracting is cheaper than completing the same work with
government employees. If emissions sources must pay contractor fees directly, their
costs may rise significantly.
c. Time
1
-------
Privatization
This approach could be implemented in a year's time.
d. Ease of monitoring and accountability
Contracting places the appropriate decision makers in government, however it may be
harder for the agencies to have a true sense of understanding of day to day activities
as well as perhaps difficulty in ensuring the day to day effectiveness of the program.
From that perspective, monitoring and accountability are more difficult.
e. Jurisdictional attributes
No specific attributes have been identified. This could be done at any level. We
know of no EPA prohibition on privatization of state and local air agency
responsibilities.
f. Would tool/strategy require CAA amendment?
No.
g. Replicabilitv
It should be easy to duplicate any practices unless there are state or local laws that
preclude contracting. Budgeting for contractors will be a separate impediment to
replication.
h. Impacts on personal choice and quality of life
No direct effect. Could make the quality of life of agency personnel better or worse.
Either way, their roles will shift to "managers".
i. Benefits and disbenefits on energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions
None identified.
2
-------
Targeted Strategies
Pam Giblin
February 22, 2006
Brief Description of Tool:
• What is the tool/strategy and how does it work to reduce emissions?
Targeted measures reducing specific chemical compounds tied to air quality
problems in urban or industrial airsheds. Using a growing body of ambient air
quality data collected by aircraft as well as traditional fixed monitoring, discrete
chemical compounds can be identifed as playing a unique role in persistent air
quality problems (e.g., high monitored ozone) within an airshed or within a
specific airshed segment. Such persisent air quality problems may not be
responsive to across-the-board precursor reductions. If discrete chemical
compounds are linked to controllable point sources, control measures can be
tailored to reduce both their long-term (annual) and short-term (hourly)
emissions. The long-term controls can take the form of a market-based
structure such as an allowance cap-and-trade. Refined modeling can replicate
the ozone-reducing effect of such measures, and can support substitution of
targeted measures for across-the-board precursor reductions with a higher cost
and lesser air quality benefit.
Applicability:
• What areas and/or sources and types of emissions the tool primarily addresses?
A successful example of such measures addresses industrial point sources.
However, other source categories might be targeted in future examples.
• What needs and problems does it address?
The tool addresses the problem of ever-greater emissions reductions needed to
meet air quality goals in light of more challenging air quality standards and
attainment deadlines. Scientific studies of ozone formation, for example,
suggest that not all precursor reductions are equal. Rather than focusing
exclusively on an across-the-board percentage precursor reduction, to which a
modeled ozone exceedance may not be responsive, targeted measures allow SIP
planners to focus targeted strategies on persistent air quality problems. Such
targeting can be on a specific type of air quality event across multiple monitors
(e.g., "spike" ozone events) or on a monitor-by-monitor basis. Multiple
strategies may be appropriate where the analysis shows different causes for
different air quality problems within a single airshed
Implementation Experience:
• Examples of how the tool/strategy may have been applied/implemented in
particular jurisdictions, including results and any lessons learned
HOU03:1055099.1
1
-------
A suite of Highly-Reactive VOC Control Rules in the one-hour
Houston/Galveston/Brazoria ozone attainment demonstration SIP have played
a central role in substantial ozone reductions measured in the airshed, and
show even greater benefits in preliminary modeling of 8-hour attainment.
New/Additional Implementation Options and Issues:
• Other applications or ways of implementing the tool/strategy that have the
potential to achieve new/additional emission reductions from what has been
achieved before or in other areas
Ozone andfine particulate are, in part, atmospheric reaction products.
Ongoing air quality studies continue to identify reactivity associated with
chemical compounds emitted by all source categories that serve both as
precursors or reactants and as catalysts or promoters of ozone or fine
particulate formation in the atmosphere. The Houston HRVOC program
focuses on industrial light olefin emissions (ethylene, propylene, butadiene,
butenes). Further studies in Houston and other airsheds may yield similar
families of compounds that can be controlled with a targeted strategy.
For each new/additional application, outline the pros and cons and any barriers
that may exist to implementation for that application
Some key chemical compounds of concern are emitted by biogenic sources or
other sources for which targeted reduction strategies are more difficult.
Outline of Tool Attributes:
For each tool/application, provide the estimated or assumed attributes for each of the
following:
a. Environmental benefits and disbenefits
Environmental goals are better advanced by measures that target and
reduce the most persistent air quality problems.
b. Economic impacts
Economic impact can be more effectively managed where an equal or
greater air quality outcome is attained by substitution of better-targeted
measures instead of greater across-the-board reductions
c. Time
Implementation of targeted measures is comparable to incremental
increases in overall emissions mandates
d. Ease of monitoring and accountability
Compliance demonstration provisions are built into the measure such that
equal or greater accountability is obtained than is achieved under a
traditional across-the-board reduction approach
e. Jurisdictional attributes
HOU03:1055099.1
2
-------
State, federal and local jurisdictions must cooperate to achieve success.
Depending on the nature of the affected source category, one of those
jurisdictions will be vested with primary authority. Typically, EPA-
approved state rules are the vehicle for targeted measures.
f. Would tool/strategy require CAA amendment?
No.
g. Replicability
Measures can be targeted to persistent air quality problems in any airshed
Greater or lesser success can be expected depending on the nature of the
source and the existing regulatory tools to craft a reduction strategy.
h. Impacts on personal choice and quality of life
Strategies can be targeted to achieve the greatest balance of air quality,
economic and quality of life outcomes.
i. Benefits and disbenefits on energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions
Targeted measures could be developed to address these resources.
However, focus in this example is on ozone reductions in urban or
industrial nonattainment areas.
HOU03:1055099.1
3
-------
~ Draft ~
Emission Limits Tool
Dan Johnson
January 27, 2006
Brief Description of Tool
Emission limits prescribe the maximum amount of an air pollutant a source or
category of sources may emit, in terms of either mass or concentration. Emission
limits are generally established in regulations, and must be achieved by a date
specified in the regulation, or when the source is constructed unless a more stringent
emission limit is required by an applicable BACT or LAER.
Applicability
Emission limits are best suited for discrete emissions sources, where compliance with
the limits may be determined through source sampling. Conversely, regulations that
apply to area sources - for example, dust from construction activities - typically
prescribe operational practices that are presumed to limit emissions, but since the
actual mass or concentration of emissions would be difficult to quantify, specifying
emission limits would not be appropriate. Emission limits may be used to establish
and require implementation of state-of-the-art emission controls, and, when used in
conjunction with operating limits, restrict the impact of the source on air quality.
Implementation Experience
Emission limits have been used throughout the history of air quality management,
with significant success. The tool is especially effective when used to address discrete
air pollution sources with easy to measure emissions. Though often used in these
applications, the emission limits tool is less effective at addressing emissions from
many small sources, sources where emissions are hard to measure (for example,
particulates from conveyor belts and fugitive emissions from leaking valves and
seals), and for processes that may change frequently, such as chemical processing
facilities where emission characteristics may change with each new product
produced.
New/Additional Implementation Options and Issues
The emission limits tool has been used extensively for over 35 years. Few, if any,
significant new implementation options are expected in the coming years.
Evaluation of Tool Attributes
A. Environmental benefits and dis-benefits
-------
Emission limits result in either direct air quality improvements (when applied
to existing sources) or limit the amount of air quality degradation from a
source or source category (when applied to new sources).
B. Economic impacts
Setting emission limits is typically governed by rules and procedures that
stipulate the manner in which economic impacts are to be considered. If
applied uniformly to all emission sources, the governing rules would limit
disproportionate economic impact between sources and sources categories.
C. Time
Once established, emission limits can be implemented over whatever
timeframe is needed to balance air quality improvement needs with the
economic burden of compliance.
D. Ease of monitoring and accountability
In general, the emission limit tool should not be used unless compliance can
be determined through monitoring and/or accounting. Emission test methods
can be easy and straightforward, or complex and costly. Alternative test
methods (for example, measuring surrogate parameters to deduce emission
rates) can be used in some applications to simplify monitoring.
E. Jurisdictional attributes
EPA may set emission limits to be applied nationwide, while state and local
agencies may set emission limits that apply within their jurisdictions.
Regional organizations have no authority to set emission limits, unless an
inter-jurisdictional compact has been signed by leaders of the respective
jurisdictions.
F. Would the tool/strategy require CAA amendment?
No
G. Replicability
Emission limits are easily replicated from one jurisdiction to the next.
H. Impact on personal choice and quality of life
Emission limits are not typically used in applications that would directly
impact personal choice or quality of life.
I. Benefits and dis-benefits on energy efficiency and greenhouse emissions
Emission limits that are established using procedures that require
consideration of energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions may result in
benefits in either or both areas. If such procedures are not built into the
process, an emission limit could result in energy and/or greenhouse gas dis-
benefits.
-------
Next Steps
-------
AQM - Next Steps/Schedule... (DRAFT March 28, 2006)
March 3 ~ Issue papers with recommendations due to the team leads.
March 13 - Teams 1 and 2 submit completed issue papers for distribution to
Subcommittee. Note: An exception is the Team 1 /Group 4 paper on
partnership/improved communications; a first draft of that paper is expected
March 13 for delivery to Team 1 only.
March 15 - Issue papers will be sent to the Subcommittee for review prior to
our April meeting. Team leads should ensure issue papers and
recommendations reflect vision and principles.
Teams 1 and 2 continue to meet in March and place recommendations into
three bins. The bins reflect the draft framework presented in the scenario
document prepared by John Seitz. The bins are:
1. Recommendations that could be implemented into the current
AQM system
2. Recommendations that push the envelope, but likely could be built
into the current statutory structure
3. Recommendations that go beyond the current statutory structure
March 27 ~ After the binning exercise is completed by Teams, the
recommendations and completed bins will be transmitted to the
Subcommittee for review prior to our April meeting.
April 3 (5:00 to 7:00 pm) - Potential Team 1 and 2 Subgroup meetings in
Crystal City, VA (as needed — note we have a request in for meeting space)
April 4 (8:30 to 4:00) - Subcommittee will meet in Crystal City, VA.
Following brief discussion of issue papers, each Team will present
recommendations and the completed bins to the Subcommittee.
April 25 -- Team leads and AQM Co-chairs will meet in RTP and review the
binned recommendations and the vision/principles. They will review which
recommendations are likely to gain consensus or need further discussion,
and decide on next steps for the Subcommittee.
-------
May 18-19 - The Subcommittee will meet on May 18-19 (location TBD) to
discuss and reach agreement on the binned recommendations and decide on
next steps for each of the three scenarios. Assignments will be given to
develop papers on each of the three scenarios. The three scenarios will
reflect possible future AQM's.
June 22 - Draft scenarios will be sent to the Subcommittee for review
June 27-28 ~ Subcommittee will meet (location TBD) to discuss the three
scenarios and next steps for developing the draft report. Decisions to be
made regarding the need for an additional meeting in July on any unresolved
issues.
July 12 - Tentative Subcommittee meeting on unresolved issues.
August 1 -- The Subcommittee will meet in advance of the CAAAC meeting
(August 2-3 in Washington, DC). The Subcommittee will finalize the
scenarios and comments on draft report language.
September 20 - The Subcommittee will hold a planning call to discuss steps
for the draft report.
October 18 - The Subcommittee will agree on the final report
October 25 - Subcommittee delivers report to CAAAC for review prior to
November meeting.
October 31 - The Subcommittee will meet (location TBD) to formally agree
on submitting the final report to the CAAAC
November 1-2 (need to check date) - Subcommittee formally presents report
to the CAAAC.
November 30 - Comments from CAAAC will be accepted and appended to
the final report.
December 20 - Final report delivered to EPA via CAAAC.
-------
Appendices
• Vision and Principles
• Futures Presentation
• AQM Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee Subcommittee on Air
Quality Management Structure dated
November 28, 2005
-------
Vision and Principles
June 16, 2005
Introduction and Background
In Phase 1 of this process, the Air Quality Management Workgroup ("the
Workgroup") agreed upon 38 recommendations for improving the AQM system. Most of
these were either short term projects or ones that did not require substantial or radical
changes to the current system. The Workgroup focused on these types of suggestions
because it felt that (1) the time allotted to Phase 1 (9 months) was not sufficient for more
comprehensive recommendations and (2) there were numerous straightforward
suggestions that could and should be pursued expeditiously. The Workgroup also
decided that before (or as a part of) beginning the Phase 2 discussion of more big picture
recommendations, the group should develop a long term Vision and set of Principles to
be a touchstone and guide development and discussion of those recommendations.
Building on initial work by the Workgroup, a small group of participants
developed a draft Vision and Principles (the "V&P Group"). On March 19, 2005, the
Workgroup met to discuss this draft. With some changes to the draft, the Workgroup
adopted the Vision set forth below. There was some discussion of the draft Principles,
Vision
Air in all areas of the country is of the highest quality, supporting a high quality of life that protects and
enhances public health, ecosystems and other public welfare values, and economic well-being for all.
Governments, businesses, and the public all have a common goal to improve and protect air quality
because they understand the relationship between economic well-being, public health and ecosystem
health, and other public welfare values. They work together in an atmosphere of trust towards the
common goal.
The nation's air quality management system is clear, open, transparent, accountable, effective, efficient,
timely, equitable, cost-effective, and is consistent with science.
jut not enough time for full consideration.
At its April 2005 meeting, the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee agreed to form
a subcommittee ("the AQM Subcommittee") to continue with Phase 2 of the AQM
discussions. The AQM Subcommittee will meet on June 16-17 in Ann Arbor. A
threshold task for the AQM Subcommittee will be to settle upon the Vision and
Principles. The V&P Group has had several more discussions to refine the draft
principles for consideration by the AQM Subcommittee at its upcoming meeting.
Summary of V&P Group Work
In further considering the principles in preparation for the subcommittee meeting,
the V&P group developed shorthand descriptors intended to capture the essence of the
draft principles (see box below)
1
-------
The AQM system should:
• Be performance-based
• Rely on shared responsibility and partnerships
• Use integrated, multipollutant, multimedia approaches
• Use regional, national or international reduction strategies where appropriate
• Use proven pollution reduction approaches
• Promote new and innovative pollution reduction approaches
• Be as simple as possible, but flexible to adapt to changing or unanticipated needs (e.g. new pollutants,
new science, new techniques, etc)
• Provide as much certainty as possible to parties over time
• Consider other factors such as energy, land use and transportation
• Maintain and improve research efforts
• Make information and data accessible to all
• Be economically efficient
• Incorporate an international perspective
The Group also debated shortening the text of the principles themselves. Ultimately the
Group decided not to shorten the text, but to provide an introductory phrase for each
principle.
The V&P Group believes that the principles set forth below adequately express a
consensus of the key issues and values the AQM Subcommittee should consider as it
develops its Phase 2 recommendations. The V&P Group did not seek 100% agreement
on the specific wording of each principle, believing that it was not necessary for the
principles to serve their purpose of providing guidance to the subcommittee members as
they consider additional recommendations.
The V&P Group submits the text below to the Subcommittee for its consideration.
Principles
1. Protect Public Health and Welfare through a Performance-based Approach .
The Air Quality Management system should be designed to protect public health
and welfare, and should be performance-based, with periodic, meaningful reviews
to determine whether appropriate air pollutants are being regulated to safe levels
and whether societal expenditures made are resulting in predicted health and
environmental protection.
2. Shared Responsibility and Partnership.
The Air Quality Management system should establish shared responsibility
among tribal, local, state, and federal government for achieving air quality goals,
but also maintain and assure tribal, local and state governments' authority to
protect public health and the environment.
2
-------
3. INIii 11ipo 11111aiit and Multimedia Approaches.
The Air Quality Management system should integrate multipollutant and
multimedia considerations into all aspects of air quality management, wherever
possible.
4. Regional, National, and International Measures.
In addition to employing local measures where appropriate, the Air Quality
Management system should expand application of and develop regional and
national measures, and where appropriate, international agreements, considering
air quality needs and cost-effectiveness for every source sector (stationary, area
and mobile) to address air pollution in an internationally, nationally or regionally
consistent manner and consistent with the science of air pollution, including
chemistry and movement.
5. Traditional and Innovative Approaches.
The Air Quality Management system should acknowledge the role of, and include
where appropriate, proven emissions reduction approaches as well as exploring
and advancing reductions from all sources of air pollution, including non-
traditional sources, and newer approaches such as innovative, episodic and
voluntary measures. Through improved emissions measurement and
characterization, the system should ensure that all emissions reductions yield
appropriate levels of public health and environmental protection while being
economically efficient.
6. Effectiveness, Simplicity, Flexibility and Openness.
The Air Quality Management system should strive to be simple, open, effective,
efficient and flexible and should be capable of adapting to new information,
technical advances, innovations, and improvements in our understanding of the
science of air pollution, its reduction, and its effects on health, welfare and
ecosystems.
7. Certainty and Predictability.
The Air Quality Management system should recognize that predictability and as
much certainty as possible for all stakeholders will make progress more cost-
effective and simpler to implement.
8. Coordination with other Issues that Affect Air Quality.
The Air Quality Management system should coordinate air quality planning and
management to the greatest extent feasible with planning and management in
related areas, such as energy use, land use and transportation.
9. A Strong, Continuing Research Program.
The Air Quality Management system should maintain and improve a vibrant
research program and technical infrastructure, with a special emphasis on
providing improved scientific and technical support for a program capable of
3
-------
protecting human health and welfare from the increasing number of potentially
toxic pollutants in the atmosphere in an effective and timely manner while not
unnecessarily impeding economic activity and technological progress.
10. Information Must Be Accessible to All.
The Air Quality Management System should provide on an ongoing basis all
parties with access to air quality related information (ambient data, emissions
inventories, air pollutant impacts, cost and benefit information, air quality
analyses, technology assessments) in an information friendly manner as a means
to enhance the understanding of air quality issues among all stakeholder groups,
to encourage independent assessments and to stimulate effective dialogue within
the air quality community.
11. Efficiency.
The Air Quality Management system should strive to achieve the public health
and environmental goals at the lowest possible cost and recognize the need for
American businesses to be competitive.
4
-------
Air Quality Management n the
21st Century
CAAAC Air Quality Management
Subcommittee Meeting
San Diego, California
18 October 2005
Associate
Office of
arid Standards
About this presentation
This EPA staff presentation was delivered to an October 18 meeting of a
subcommittee of EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC). The
subcommittee was meeting as part of their work to address the recommendations of
the National Academy of Sciences for improving air quality management in the
United States.
-------
Future Air Quality Management
• A look at the 'foreseeable' (10 to 15 yr) future
• Validating NRC Challenges
• Quantitative and qualitative scenarios
- PM/ozone
- Air toxics
- Regional/international transport
- Interactions with climate
- Accountability
• Highlight links to other major societal issues,
changes to air quality management system
Purpose: The purpose of this presentation is to stimulate discussion of the kinds of
challenges air quality managers could face in the next 10-15 years. It is intended to
assist the CAAAC Subcommittee on Air Quality Management in its discussions
regarding improvements to the current AQM system. The 2004 NRC report listed a
number of likely challenges to air quality management in the US over the
foreseeable future. This briefing examines the basis for the NRC findings and
expands upon some of them to provide more specifics. The approach uses a
combination of qualitative and quantitative forecasts and analyses developed by
EPA and others to cover a range of relevant air quality problems and other factors
that air quality mangers may need to address. It includes some scenarios, forecasts
and alternative policy choices related to criteria pollutants and air toxics, emerging
issues related to long-range transport, the multi-faceted ways in which climate and
air quality/policy might interact, and touches on emerging themes and societal
issues.
Limitations and uncertainties: The quantitative emissions and air quality
forecasts summarized here were gathered from a variety of sources and projects.
The numerous uncertainties inherent in such forecasts are documented elsewhere
but are important to keep in mind here. The alternative policy scenarios are not the
only possible ones, and several topics are treated only as a qualitative reminder of
their potential importance. The issues included and highlighted represent one EPA
staff perspective and not Agency policy. Further, the presentation is not definitive.
We encourage readers, especially CAAAC subcommittee participants, to articulate
a variety of alternative views on these and to identify other potential issues not
highlighted.
-------
NRC: Challenges for Air Quality Management
• Meeting NAAQS for03 and PM25 and Reducing Regional Haze
• Designing and Implementing Controls for Hazardous Air Pollutants
• Protecting Human Health and Welfare in the Absence of a Threshold
• 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 NRC summarized these seven major challenges for air quality management.
This presentation focuses more on the quantifiable and technical, rather than
normative, aspects of these challenges. As such, it touches only briefly on the the
issues of addressing thresholds, environmental justice, and protecting ecosystems.
-------
Setting Priorities in a Changing Policy Landscape -
Air Quality Policy Context:
Which NAAQS are most important?
Areas Designated Nonattainment for Ozone and PM2 5 2004 No. Counties with
Monitors>NAAQS
PM 2.5
Ozone and PM are
our highest priority
This slide depicts the most current single year (2004) of valid US monitoring data for the
six criteria pollutants (including two PM indicators). Note that for most of the NAAQS, 3
years of valid data are required to determine attainment status, so the data here are only
indicative of potential attainment/nonattainment. Nevertheless, levels of these pollutants
have been dramatically reduced over the last two decades, a measure of some success for
the US system of addressing air quality problems. In terms of the current NAAQS, it is
clear that PM and ozone are by far the most significant problems remaining today.
The map illustrates the pattern of persistent problems for fine particles and ozone, including
much of the eastern US, the gulfcoast, and California. The red areas show where the
problems strongly overlap. It is of note that comprehensive strategies to address PM and
ozone in these areas will require control of sources of SOx, NOx, volatile organic
compounds (including some air toxics), and possibly CO.
-------
Emerging health effects evidence on ozone
• Premature mortality in elderly
• Relationship between ozone levels and respiratory
hospital admissions in children
• Incidence of newly diagnosed asthma in children
associated with outdoor activity & living in areas with
high ozone exposures
• Higher ozone exposures related to increased school
absenteeism
Current review of the NAAQS
• In early phases of review of the Ozone criteria and
standards
Besides being the most pervasive criteria pollutants, scientific evidence continues to
grow that PM and ozone can produce significant health effects. Mentioned in the
verbal presentation, but not shown here, are the now well recognized relationships
between PM and a number of significant effects, including premature mortality,
hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, and effects on
children. Importantly, scientists have found a link between ambient fine particles
and heart rate in controlled human and animal studies as well as in epidemiological
studies that strengthens the plausibility of these effects.
This slide focuses on emerging evidence that, in addition to the familiar lung
function changes and symptoms in controlled human studies, ozone is linked to
mortality, hospital admissions, school absenteeism, and asthma incidence.
Not shown here are the links between these pollutants, their precursors and effects
on public welfare, including visibility impairment, crop and ecosystem damage
from ozone, acids, and nutrients, and materials damage.
-------
Air Pollution Scales of Influence
•Global - e.g. climate change, stratospheric
ozone, persistent-bioaccumulative toxic
pollutants (Hg, dioxins)
•Regional - e.g. ozone, fine particles
health, acid rain, visibility, nutrient loadings
•Local -e.g. ozone, PM health, air toxics
•Personal - indoor air/outdoor penetration,
asthma
One of the themes that the NRC noted was the need to address air quality on the
appropriate geographical scale. Both criteria and toxic air pollution problems and
solutions can very significantly across multiple scales both larger (regional/global)
and smaller (personal) than the traditional focus of early AQM programs, which
was on local/urban scales.
-------
NOx Emissions [million tons/yr]
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
¦ .
2010
2015 . 2020
¦ On-road
~ Nonroad
~ NonEGU
~\EGU
] Ave fire
PM2.5 Emissions [million tons/yr] not including
area-fugitive dust
4.0
3.5
-p3.0
I 2.5
1 2.0
« 1.5
2 1.0
0.5
0.0
jrTkTkfV
~ Other area
¦ On-road
~ Nonroad
~ NonEGU
~ EGU
~ Ave fire
2010
2015
2020
This is the first in a series of emissions/air quality forecasts for 2010, 2015, and
2020 that are based on recent and ongoing regulatory impact analyses (RIA),
including the Clean Air Interstate Rule, the Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the Clean
Air Visibility Rule. Shown are emissions forecasts for pollutants needed to model
fine particle concentrations and ozone (VOC not shown) under a 'regulatory base
case' scenario. That is, the forecasts reflect one scenario of projected activity
growth in key emitting sectors (e.g. EGU, mobile source VMT, industrial sources)
as limited by regulations at the state, local, and federal levels that are in State Plans
or National Rules/requirements that have been promulgated (e.g. NOx SIP call,
CAIR/CAMR/Mobile diesel, Tier 2 rules, NC Clean Smokestack program). This
means the forecast does not include additional strategies that States will need to
adopt to make progress towards attaining the ozone and PM NAAQS over this
period. It is one picture of what the States might start with in developing such
strategies and plans.
Key Uncertainties: All activity and rule forecasts are subject to substantial
uncertainty regarding the economy and other factors. Because growth is applied to
current estimates, the inherent uncertainties in current inventories affect these
estimates. Our EGU inventory and forecast models for SOx and NOx are likely
significantly better than for industrial and other sources. In some cases, forecasts
are biased high because expected improvements in future controls can not be
objectively determined. The lack of progress or increase in some categories over
time may not be realistic. Direct PM emissions estimates for all categories are
particularly uncertain, both in the base and future cases. While individual mobile
source technologies are well characterized, significant uncertainties are suggested
by comparisons between emissions and ambient measurements. These uncertainties
are more fullv discussed in the relevant RTA and background Technical sunnort
-------
Ozone and PM Attainment Forecast with CAIR and with Other Clean Air
Programs - Eastern U.S. - 2015
Ozone and Fine Particle Nonattainment Projected Nonattainment Areas* in 2015 after Reductions
Areas* (April 2005) from CAIR and Existing Clean Air Act Programs
Nonattainment areas for
8-hour ozone pollution only
1 1
Nonattainment areas for
fine particle pollution only
, !
Nonattainment areas for
both 8-hour ozone
and fine particle pollution
*Although tallies include all nonattainment areas in the eastern U.S.,
maps show only Ihose areas in States covered by CAIR. Four
current O3 nonattainment areas in New England are not pictured.
Projections concerning future levels of air pollution in specific geographic
locations were estimated using the best scientific models available. They are
estimations, however, and should be characterized as such in any description.
Actual results may vary significantly if any of the factors that influence air
quality differ from the assumed values used in the projections shown here.
ozone
nonattainment or early
action areas
36 PMjy,
These maps reflect the ozone and PM air quality attainment forecast consistent with
the emissions projections in the previous slides. It is taken from the CMAQ and
CAMx modeling done for CAIR/CAMR in the eastern US. These results suggest
that the current patterns of regional air quality will significantly improve, but that
substantial residual nonattainment may be expected without further controls beyond
the regulatory base case. Further, the overlap between ozone and PM
nonattainment has greatly diminished, with ozone nonattainment most prevalent in
high population areas along the NE corridor, Houston, and Chicago coasts and PM
more concentrated in the midsection. Except for Chicago, these heavily populated
areas (the NE corridor and Houston) would meet the current PM2.5 NAAQS, with
nonattainment occurring in the midsection from Michigan down to Alabama and
Atlanta. The common thread in eastern projected PM nonattainment areas appears
to be higher regional PM2.5 levels, frequently combined with a concentration of
local sources of direct PM emissions such as industrial activities.
Key Uncertainties: In addition to the emissions uncertainties noted previously,
these air quality models are subject to a number of well-documented uncertainties
related to meteorology, chemistry, and transport simulation and forecasts. In
addition, the meteorology that drives these models is likely to vary from that in any
particular forecast year.
-------
Areas Projected to Exceed the PM2 5 and 8-Hour Ozone
Standards in 2015 with CAIR/CAMR/CAVR and Some
Current Rules* Absent Additional Local Controls
I I Nonattainment areas projected to attain 105 regional measures are not forecast here, and therefore this figure
overstates the extent of expected nonattainment.
*Current rules include Title IV of CAA, NOv SIP Call, and some existing State rules.
This map expands the 2015 regulatory base case scenario forecast to the entire
country. Residual nonattainment in the West is confined to California. The
CAIR/CAMR/CAVR programs are not expected to produce much impact on
attainment in the West, so other programs (mobile, local) likely account for the
forecast improvements. It is clear that attainment strategies in the East may involve
additional local or regional controls, but less clear which strategies would be most
cost-effective. In the West, all controls would be intra-state, but this does not
exclude long-range transport considerations in a state the size of California.
-------
What if we revise the NAAQS?
• Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee,
Staff Recommendations
-Annual NAAQS, 13 to 15 ug/m3
- 24 hour 98th percentile NAAQS 30-35 ug/m3
- Replace PM10 with coarse standard excluding
rural dust uncontaminated by urban, industrial
sources
While the previous slides provide a snapshot of projected issues under the current
standards, both the PM and ozone criteria and standards are under review. The PM
review, in particular, is nearing completion with a proposal on whether to revise the
standards set for December 20th of this year and a final decision by September 27th,
2006. The review of the fine particle NAAQS provides an illustration of one of the
challenges the NRC listed, that is, selecting an appropriate level of protection for
pollutants that do not have a clearly defined threshold below which there is no
effect. This issue of assessing the health effects evidence and conducting
quantitative risk assessments given such uncertainties is addressed in the PM staff
paper (ref), and with reviews and recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) in a June 6, 2005 letter on the staff paper (ref).
The combined range of standards recommended by staff and CASAC is
summarized briefly above. The next two slides illustrate projected air quality in
2015 under two of the alternatives PM2.5 NAAQS taken from the upper to lower
portion of the above ranges.
-------
Counties Exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS- 2015 CAIR Case
Annual 15 ug/m3 and 24-Hour 35 ug/m3
This map shows forecast PM2.5 levels in 2015 with the current regulatory base case
but compared to an alternative NAAQS that maintains the current annual standard
but establishes a tighter 24-hour standard taken from the upper bound of the
CASAC range. The results suggest that CAIR and other base programs will be very
effective in attaining the 24-hour standard - only one county in the East would
exceed the tighter 24-hour standard but not the current annual standard. It is
possible that additional local or regional strategies adopted by eastern States to meet
the annual standard would result in compliance with both standards in many eastern
areas where both are forecast to be in violation. The major new residual non-
attainment counties forecast for a tighter 24-hour standard under the current
regulatory base case scenario are almost entirely in the West, particularly in the
Northwest where seasonally high levels of PM2.5 are often caused by wintertime
wood smoke.
Major Uncertainties: In addition to those noted previously, the daily CMAQ
results used to generate 24-hour 98th percentile values are likely to be more
uncertain than the annual averages - because of meteorological, current air quality,
and emissions inputs as well as modeling uncertainties. Nevertheless, the predicted
effectiveness of regional SOx and, to a lesser extent, NOx controls on reducing peak
24-hour values in the East is consistent with the observed composition of PM2.5 on
peak days.
-------
Counties Exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS- 2015 CAIR Case
Annual 14 ug/m3 and 24-Hour 30 ug/m3
Same as previous slide, but under alternatives taken from the lower portions of the
recommended CASAC range of alternatives. This alternative shows a larger
number of residual nonattainment areas in both the East and the West. The results
suggest that tighter annual standards in this range have their major effect in the East
where even in 2015 a higher regional background remains. The West appears
more affected by tighter 24-hour standards, but at the levels depicted here, a
significant number of additional 24-hour violations occur in the East as well.
-------
PM/Ozone - Multiple Pollutants, Sources
Pollutants contributing to PM2.5 and Ozone
S02 - Sulfate particles
NOx- Nitrate PM, acid gases, formation of ozone
and organic PM
VOC - formation of ozone and organic PM
VOC(C6unsat) - secondary organic PM
NH3 - Ammonium
Direct emissions of carbonaceous PM, crustal
materials, metals
CO - weak contribution to ozone formation
. ',"*1 4\
Tit"
i
Multiple sources of
multiple pollutants
if!
Overlap of source types,
VOC/PM components and
'toxic'air pollutants
In further posing potential attainment strategy considerations, it is useful to illustrate the
major sources and emissions of interest to ozone and PM. In many cases, the pollutants
and sources of interest overlap for criteria and toxic air pollutants. This perspective is
consistent with the NRC recommendations for multi-pollutant and sector-based strategies
-------
As an example of the alternative combinations of strategies air managers need to
address for PM, this slide illustrates the composition of local and transported PM2.5
from data collected in 2003 for Birmingham and nearby Sipsey Wilderness
(IMPROVE). The Sipsey site is used here to provide a rough index of the
transported particles as they affect Birmingham and the difference in measured
values (Birmingham - Sipsey) approximates the quantity and quality of locally
generated particles (urban excess). The regional background today is over half of
the PM2.5 concentrations in Birmingham. Our modeling suggests that by 2015,
CAIR would reduce that background (ammonium acid sulfate/nitrate) by about 1.5
ug/m3, bringing this site within about 1 ug/m3 of the current annual PM2.5
NAAQS. If the State chooses to adopt local controls, this suggests about a 17%
reduction in key local emissions (carbonaceous PM being the largest fraction)
would be needed. Otherwise, additional regional controls would need to be
considered.
Major sources of PM in Birmingham include commonly found sources such as
diesel and other mobile emissions as well as steel and other industries. EPA is
planning local modeling of this and a few other areas to examine the effectiveness
of local strategies for an upcoming RIA for the PM NAAQS review.
-------
County-level status for current PM10 NAAQS
based on 2001-2003 air quality data
J
o
Violates (46 counties)
Meets (539)
County maximum
This map shows 46 counties that exceed the current PM10 standard based on 2001-
2003 data. Under the alternative coarse particle indicator recommended by EPA
staff and CASAC (PM10-2.5 qualified to exclude coarse particles uncontaminated
by urban/industrial sources), a number of the monitoring sites illustrated here would
no longer be measuring particles of concern.
-------
Reductions in Hg
Deposition under CAMR
• By 2020, EPA projects
significant reductions in
utility attributable Hg
deposition.
• Reductions in deposition are
largely due to the
implementation of CAIR
controls at utilities, and
CAMR is projected to make
additional reductions in
regional and worldwide
deposition.
Regional Annual Deposition of Mercury Attributable to
Electricity Generating Utilities in the 2001 Base Year
Regional Annual Deposition of Mercury
Attributable to Electricity Generating Utilitie:
2020 under CAMR (2020 Deposition Scale)
The CAIR/CAMR rules illustrates the multipollutant link between criteria pollutants
addressed by CAIR and a persistent bioaccumulative toxic air pollutant, mercury.
These maps focus on the CMAQ modeled reductions in deposition of mercury
ascribed to EGUs under the C AIR/CAMR rules.
There are additional uncertainties in forecasting and modeling mercury emissions,
deposition and chemistry documented in the CAMR RIA and Technical Support
Documents.
-------
Mercury Deposition in the U.S.
£ 60
01
o 40 -
Total Mercury Deposition
in the U.S.
U.S. Mercury Deposition from U.S. Utilities
12
144.23
/
/
/
/
10 -
8
/
/
>>, 6
o
/
c
I— 2
= 2001 total deposition in the U.S. from all
sources, domestic and global
/
/
~ =
= 2001 deposition in the U.S. from U.S.
utilities
11.05
3.38
2001 deposition
from U.S. utilities
Source: U.S. EPA 2005
2020 deposition from U.S. utilities
after CAIR, Clean Air Mercury Rule
& other Clean Air Act programs
This provides an overall comparison of the contribution of US EGUs to total
mercury deposition in the US. As shown on the map, the fraction coming from
EGUs is higher in portions of the eastern US than in the country overall.
-------
Air Toxics - National Scale Assessment
1999 Predicted County Level Carcinogenic Risk
Median Risk Level
¦ <1 in a Million
¦ 1 - 25 in a Million
Q 25 - 50 in a Million
Q 50 - 75 in a Million
~ 75-100 in a Million
I
*
•V
i"
*
"I**." "
• . "* « [ulx,
1
* * d - '
ir
%
*
Spatially, mo^tif country predicted to havSflsk between 1 and 25 in a
million
Most urban locations greater than 25 in a million
Transportation corridors and some locations greater than 50 in a million
Several counties greater than 100 in a million
The National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) has been examining the geographical
patterns of cancer and other effects associated with multiple air toxics. This map
represents a preliminary cumulative cancer risk assessment from the major known
air toxic contributors for 1999. It is currently undergoing review by States and
others and is provided only as a rough benchmark for comparison to the future.
Details and numerous uncertainties in these calculations appear in an upcoming
NATA report. The monitoring for air toxics is not as comprehensive or long-
running as for criteria pollutants and substantial modeling is necessary to provide
coverage. The results indicate a background risk for much of the nation in the range
of between 1 and 25 in a million, with much of that coming from a single
compound, benzene. The areas of higher risk occur in populated urban areas and
the East that tend to overlap the ozone/PM non-attainment maps.
-------
Predicted County Level Noncancer (Respiratory) Risk
Preliminary 1999 NATA - National Scale Assessment
ST**
Note: Idaho Risk Levels are suspect due to inventory issues related to fires
Over 40% of counties hazard index greater than 1
Several counties hazard index greater than greater than 10
High values in Florida and Idaho from forest fires
This provides the same kind of preliminary NATA map for respiratory noncancer effects.
Here, cumulative toxic concentrations are referenced against a conservative benchmark
value to derive a 'hazard index.' The green areas are below the index threshold of 1. Some
of the spatial patterns (e.g. Idaho) are artifacts due to the fact that the underlying data are
derived from state reporting and variations exist among states. The Idaho data will be
corrected in a future version. These results are also undergoing further review. Areas of
high HI are coincidental with areas that are in nonattainment for PM/03.
-------
This figure illustrates the relative contribution of various source categories to cancer
in a number of northeastern states. The figure shows variability across states with
background, area, on-road mobile being the largest contributor to risks. Again these
are preliminary data. Background results are mainly from long-range transport as
well as un-inventoried sources.
-------
US (All 50 States) Emissions of HAPs by Source
* After 2010, stationary source
emissions are based only on
economic growth. They do not
account for reductions from ongoing
toxics programs such as the urban air
toxics program, residual risk
standards and area source program,
which are expected to further reduce
toxics. In addition, mobile source
reductions are based on programs
currently in place. Programs
currently under development will
result in even further reductions.
Key Findings
• CAA has been very effective
in reducing overall tonnage of
air toxics
• In absence of CAA, total
emissions would be more than
twice those projected in 2020
From NATA: This chart shows historical emissions from 1990 (sum across all HAPs), the 1999
baseline from which we did the projections, and future year emissions for several years which we
projected from the 1999 inventory. We grouped the emissions into the major (i.e. stationary sources
of certain size), area and other, fires (which is typically aggregated in with area and other, as it is for
NATA), onroad mobile and nonroad mobile. Fires is typically aggregated within area and other but
we separated it out from other area and other categories for the purposes of showing its influences on
the results because of the issues and uncertainties in the base and historical emissions and its future
year projection.
The dashed line represents our estimate of emissions that would have occurred without the CAA,
considering emissions growth from 1990.
The data show that the CAA lias been very effective in reducing overall toimage of air toxics:
Without EPA's programs, we would have seen a 50% increase in emissions from 1990 to 2020;
however, with EPA's programs, we expect a 40% decrease from 1990 levels by 2020.
Major source emissions decrease through 2010, reflecting reductions associated with MACT
program. Significantly, area and other are projected to increase without further controls. Most of
the standards resulting from the area program are not included, however.
Mobile source emissions decrease thru 2020 with additional decreases likely from future programs
(e.g., MSAT2)
As mobile source emissions decrease, the contribution of stationary source emissions to total HAP
increases over time.
mm mm mm- pa yp.| m
Base Projected Emissions
Year
-------
Toxicity-Weighted Emissions (Cancer)
Key Findings
•Major source programs
target overall tonnage more
than toxicity weighted
tonnage
• Initial area source efforts
have reduced some of the
most toxic HAPs (Perc and
Chromium VI)
•Mobile source tox -weighted
trends closely follow total HAP
trends
•Fires plays larger role for in
toxicity-weighted situation;
trends cannot be obtained due
to methodology differences
in emissions estimation
Base Projected Emissions -
Year
This is similar to previous slide, however the emissions have been "weighted" by
their respective toxicity factors to depict cancer effects. In other words a ton of
Chromium VI would be depicted to be more (is much more toxic) than a ton of
benzene. Future projections show reduction of cancer-weight tons are less than
those expected for straight tons, thus future reduction efforts must target more toxic
pollutants. The next phase of CAA will target these toxic HAPs, such as the
residual risk program.
-------
Major HAP Contributors to Cancer
* scaled emissions in millions
I
1990
M
A&O
F
ON
NON
2010
Wi
-
=
n
M A&O F ON NON
1999
8
w
¦0
2020
1
m
~ Other HAPS
~ POM
~ Perchloroethylene
¦ Naphthalene
~ Coke Oven Emissions
~ Chromium VI
~ Benzene
~ Arsenic
~ 1,3-Butadiene
Key Findings:
•Mobile dominated by
benzene and 1,3 butadiene
•Stationary dominated by
Chromium VI, arsenic, coke
oven and POM
•Shows where program
resulted in decrease in some
HAPs (perc, coke oven)
This slide depicts the relative pollutant contribution to cancer weighted emissions
for each year/source sector.
Key Findings:
Mobile dominated by benzene and 1,3 butadiene
Stationary dominated by Metals (Chromium VI, arsenic) and coke oven and POM
(PAHs)
The slide shows where program resulted in decrease in some HAPs (perc-dry
cleaning MACT, coke oven -Coke oven MACTs)
Chart Key
M = Major Sources
A&0= Area Sources and Other
F= Fires
ON= On road Mobile Sources
NON= Nonroad Mobile Sources
-------
Toxicity-Weighted Emissions for NonCancer
«¦
« I-* -.1 1 Et
-------
New findings on roadway pollution
High exposure
to ultrafine
particles, CO,
other pollution
near roadway
Increased risk
near and on
roadways
This figure provides a transition to a quick summary of a growing body of evidence
that suggests both exposures and health effects of concern for populations who
spend significant time on or near heavily traveled roadways. Some of these studies
measure the distribution and composition of pollutants emitted and some look for
health effects as a function of time spent in or near roadways. Our current NAAQS
program tends to avoid placing monitors in microenvironments such as these. At
this time, is not clear what current regulations and fleet turnover vs. growth in VMT
will do to affect these emerging concerns, although it is reasonable to expect some
benefits. This issue bears watching for air quality managers because of its potential
significance to future air strategies, urban planning, and environmental justice.
-------
Extreme exposure in near highway environment
Relative Particle Number,
Mass, Black Carbon, CO
Concentration near a majo
LA freeway ^ g
r— —
\ ^
A pjfcniet# Mis*
I
M
\
H i
^ ^ ,, T<«»l Panw b» Nunhr
f*
I
1
a 2
. B4*crfc C-»rt>oe
t J
-CO ~— -
I N UN IH l« 29K) H9 J»
Ortwwu.ind INttntcr to 40f (•«««. is fm)
These are the results of monitoring by the Southern California PM research center
sponsored by EPA. It reflects measurements near a heavily traveled freeway. It
show that some indicators of traffic particles that are not well correlated with
particle mass have very strong gradients near roads.
-------
Respiratory Symptoms and traffic
40
35
30
25'
20
15
10
5'
0
Weiland, Ann Epidemiol 1994;4:243
Bochum, GER
¦ wheeze (questionnaire
~ wheeze (video)
M allergic rhinitis
never seldom frequent constant
Frequency of Truck Traffic
One of the earlier European studies shows a relation between respiratory symptoms
in children and frequency of truck traffic. More recent studies have shown a
variety of associations; long-term residence near roadways is associated with
increased risk of mortality, and short-term exposure to traffic conditions (driving,
cycling or mass transit) is associated with heart attacks.
-------
International transport/climate
interactions Scale: global/regional
•INDOEX, other preliminary work suggest significant potential
of BC aerosol for affecting hydrologic cycle on a regional basis
•Significant effects of Asian pollution on regional health, crops
•Short-life of conventional pollutants suggests rapid response
to reductions
•Increasing interest in international agreements
•Need improved tools, observations to address this scale
This slide introduces a brief discussion of linkages between conventional air
pollutants and regional to global scale transport issues, including climate. The
NRC pointed out the issue of international transport of air pollutants as well as the
potential need to adapt air quality planning to address the effect of climate change
on air quality. In this portion of the briefing we note two additional related
potential interactions: the effect of conventional air pollutants on regional climate
and the possible need for air quality mangers to integrate conventional and non-
conventional strategies that might address both climate and air quality concerns.
-------
International Transport of Air Pollution
GEOS-CHEM model,
July 1997
North America
(zero-out)
Europe
(zero-out)
Asia
(zero-out)
Lietal. [2001, JGR]
1
i
I
This slide summarizes the results of zeroing out emissions of key ozone precursors
from anthropogenic sources in three Continents. It is intended to illustrate the
extent of significant regional and intercontinental transport of ozone and its
precursors. On this scale, methane gas is one of the most important contributors to
ozone transport. Modeling and measurements suggest that background ozone has
increased from 10 to 20 ppb in preindustrial times to 40 or more ppb today. The
amount of transport may significantly affect our ability to attain air quality goals in
the future. Because both methane and ozone are greenhouse gases, the air quality
and climate interests clearly overlap on this scale.
-------
Assessing indirect strategies:
"cool" cities
Trees aren't just good to
look at - they remove air
pollution (ozone and PM)
- They also emit VOC's
- And cool the environment
reducing evaporative
emissions from manmade
sources
Air Policy Issue
- Credit for enhancing tree
cover
- Penalty for eliminating
trees?
: V
On a local scale, urban foresters and others are considering 'cool cities' as a means
to reduce ozone and PM air pollution. This includes direct removal by increased
vegetation and indirectly reducing emissions of VOC and NOx by cooling through
trees and more reflective urban surfaces. These strategies raise issues for air
quality managers regarding the need to consider credits for adopting such strategies,
as well as what to do in areas where sprawl eliminates trees and increases urban
heating. It is also an area in which the collective local implementation of potential
programs related to climate change mitigation overlaps with air quality
management.
-------
Smart Growth and the built environment
You can run - hut can you hide?
k - • «
' mL-
4 -* wc
An example of related societal trends that may link with air quality considerations.
A new movement in urban planning is attempting to redesign cities and buildings to
promote healthier environment for people and ecosystems. A catch phrase is of this
group is 'active living by design.' The recent roadway findings noted above
suggest there may be additional health benefits of separating people from traffic.
Smart growth advocates argue that greenways can protect water quality, preserve
sensitive natural areas, reduce flood hazards, and provide important recreational
opportunities. They also note the need to preserve the corridors that link
greenspaces together.
-------
Temperature Diffs. w-w/o GHG
& Aerosols ¦ J,,cob''on (2SM:i
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
W j(-
I.
£
(7 yr. avg.)
I I I I I | I I I I I | I I I I I | I I I I I | I I I I I | I I I I I
180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Longitude (degrees)
-6
I | I I I I | I I I I | I I I I | I T
-4 -2 0 2 4
Temperature dif. (K) w-w/o GHG+AAP
This and the following figure present recent global simulation modeling conducted
by Mark Jacobson of Stanford University. Such complex global modeling is
obviously uncertain, and the results serve mainly to illustrate the complexity of the
issues.
Together, the figures show the result of zeroing out manmade greenhouse gas
(GHG) and aerosol particles (in this figure for temperature and in the following
figure precipitation). Focusing on North America, the blue cooling suggests that
the net effect of reducing the high regional background of fine particles in the East
(a key feature in attaining the health based air quality standards) would be to
produce warming - i.e. these particles are currently cooling that region. Looking
only at temperature, the air quality management strategy might be viewed as
aggravating potential warming. The cooling is due to increased cloud cover that
reduces sunlight reaching the ground and increases that reflected into space.
-------
Precipitation Diffs. w-w/o GHG
& Aerosols
i i i i i I i i i i i I i i i i i I i i i i i I i i i i i I i i i i i
I I I I I | I I I I I | I I I I I | I I I I I | I I I I I | I I I I i
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Longitude (degrees)
I | I I I I | I I I I | I I I I | I I I I |
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Precipitation dif. (mm/day) w-w/o anth. GHG+AP
This figure shows the effects of the zero outs on precipitation. The increased
cloudiness associated with the aerosol particles comes with a decrease in cloud
droplet size which results in reduced precipitation. This illustrates an important
potential regional effect of air pollution, namely that air pollution can affect climate
on a regional scale, and some of the effects - reduced precipitation - may be
problematic. Recent results from researchers at the Desert Research Institute
suggest that atmospheric sulfates may be reducing the amount of snow pack
accumulation in the Rocky Mountains, potentially aggravating drought conditions.
These results illustrate the importance of examining the unexpected feedbacks
between air pollution and climate.
The more obvious concern noted in the NRC report is the effect of climate change
on air pollutant concentrations. EPA/ORD is conducting extensive modeling to
assess some of these effects. The results will be available in 2006-7. Some of the
possible effects range from increased ozone under warmer temperatures and
increased emissions and stagnation to reduced heating related PM from warmer
winters. Obviously, forecasting the timing, extent, and scale of these potential
effects will be of importance to air quality managers in the future.
-------
Communications: Air Quality Index
• Year Round 24/7 coverage/operations delivering real-time data (ozone &
particles) for 46 States, 6 Canadian Provinces and all U.S. National Parks
• Next-day AQI forecasts for over 300 cities (summer) and over 150 cities
(year-round)
• State-of-the-science information about air pollution health effects for the
public, media and stakeholders
• Public/Private partnerships with The Weather Channel, USA Today, CNN,
weather service providers, NOAA National Weather Sendee, EPA's Office of
Env. Information
As NOAA and EPA cooperate to develop real time modeling forecasts of air quality
comparable to weather forecasts, air quality managers will need to be concerned
with communications and potential mitigation strategies that might flow from these
advances. It is also important to begin to consider accumulating these daily model
runs for comparison to actual results.
-------
Expanding Accountability
Emissions
La. ^ ^11
Current focus of AQM
Process: Air quality
monitoring, modeling,
emissions inventories
Human Health
ft Effects
Materials
Damage
Expanded focus of
AQM Process: To the
extent feasible, track
indicators of effects,
exposure
The first phase of the CAAAC work on the NRC recommendations dealt
extensively with this topic. This slide is a reminder of the need to build
accountability as an integral part of future air quality management programs.
-------
This slide, from a recent EPA report, shows a preliminary analyses of the
effectiveness of the NOx SIP call in reducing ozone. It is an example of an
accountability analysis.
-------
Demonstrating benefits of pollution reductions
Dublin, Ireland Ban on bituminous coal: 9/1/91
Another example of accountability research, in this case extending results beyond
air quality to actually measuring the health benefits of a pollution control
intervention, in Dublin, Ireland.
-------
Some mega-trends
- Increased focus on international/global air
pollution/climate issues
-Air quality management integrated into larger
societal programs, e.g. smart growth, urban
planning
- Increasing importance of voluntary/local programs
-Tracking results of initiatives is vital: e.g. compare
success of indoor v. outdoor programs at reducing
PM exposures
A recent CAAAC subcommittee discussion added a number of insights from
members that should be reflected in the notes to this summary slide.
-------
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
Subcommittee on Air Quality Management
Structure
November 28, 2005
Purpose
One of the key goals of the Subcommittee on Air Quality Management is to assess and develop
Phase 2 recommendations for long-term changes to the air quality management system based on
recommendations made by the National Research Council in its 2004 report (Air Quality
Management in the United States).
The AQM Subcommittee will also assist in tracking and serve as a sounding board for EPA's
work on implementation of 38 Phase 1 recommendations made by the Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee (CAAAC) in January 2005.
Phase 1 Implementation
At the June 16-17 meeting of the AQM Subcommittee in Ann Arbor, we heard a few of the same
issues that were discussed at length under the Phase 1 effort. We do not envision the work of the
AQM Subcommittee reinventing the Phase 1 efforts or generating another list of short-term
recommendations. As you know, our Phase 1 report includes 38 recommendations that focus on
improvements to the current system and are intended to begin a steady evolution of change.
These recommendations are intended to be implemented in the near-term (1 to 5 years). EPA
has accepted all 38 recommendations and has begun discussions and made resource
commitments. Implementation of the Phase 1 recommendations is an important step in guiding
EPA and others on future actions. EPA's implementation plan for the Phase 1 recommendations
is available on the CAAAC website at: http://epa.gov/air/caaac/aqm.html.
Components of Phase 2
Based on discussions at meetings of this Subcommittee in Ann Arbor in June and Arlington, VA
in July, the AQM Subcommittee agreed on the following team structure for this Subcommittee.
1) The AQM Planning Process
2) New and Improved AQM Tools
Each of these teams is discussed in more detail on the pages that follow.
Each team will have three leaders. Teams will conduct their work through conference calls and
in breakout sessions at Subcommittee meetings. Each team will report regularly on its progress.
Final recommendations in each area will be based on significant consensus reached by the Full
Subcommittee. Subcommittee members may participate in more than one team and participation
on the teams by interested parties who are not members of the Subcommittee is encouraged.
EPA will provide some logistical support to the teams as well as technical and policy support.
For the Phase 2 effort, this Subcommittee is committed to taking a more holistic look at air
quality management and identifying how we could meet future challenges. We encourage each
of you to think more broadly on how air quality management practices could be applied at the
State and local levels as well as nationally. We also would like to emphasize the need to expand
1
-------
our discussions to include Tribal lands and encompass their issues and approaches into our
overall AQM planning process.
Structure for AQM Subcommittee Teams:
Team 1) The AQM Planning Process -This team will design a process for managing air quality
that simultaneously addresses (or addresses in an integrated fashion) the full range of air quality
issues (health, welfare, and ecosystems). It will take a more in depth look at the pollution
problems we have to solve in the future and develop larger, more fundamental recommendations
to the AQM system to address these problems. This team should work to develop specific
responsibilities that each of the stakeholder groups would agree to implement under a new AQM
system (i.e., industry agreement to install certain level of control on new plants regardless of
location). Below are some potential components that may be important for this team to address:
• Problem definition and determining necessary reductions
• Determine meaningful boundaries (e.g. state, air shed or other approach)
• Transform the SIP process
• Provide for continuous progress and accountability (are goals being achieved)
• Deal with pollution transport (intercontinental, cross-border, regional, interstate)
• Define roles at each level of government (federal, state, tribal, local)
• Incorporate environmental justice and local impacts in air quality plans
• Adapt the AQM system to a changing (and most likely warmer) climate and increase
coordination with other activities addressing climate change*
• Assess multi-pollutants, multi-effects
• Coordinate AQM with land use (agriculture, forestry, sprawl, water impacts)
• Increase trust between stakeholder groups, government agencies, and the public
• Improve communication and access to information
• Build partnerships among States, Tribes, industry, EPA and others
• Be more proactive at problem solving
• Expedite procedural requirements
• Build in feedback mechanisms
• Enhance ecosystem protection
• Increase collaboration on energy use
• While the Subcommittee did not have consensus on the wording of this bullet, all members
agreed that work could proceed.
Team 2) New and Improved AQM Tools - This team will develop and describe emission
management strategies and tools to meet ever more stringent/ambitious air quality goals. It may
focus on efficient and effective control strategies such as voluntary programs or economic
incentive-based programs and identify ways to foster such approaches. We anticipate this team
working closely on economic incentive approaches with CAAAC's Subcommittee on Economic
Incentives and Regulatory Innovation. This team will also look to create and expand linkages
between the air quality management process and management processes in related areas such as
energy, agriculture, forest management, land use, transportation, water quantity and quality. As
we look more holistically at our AQM process, this team will be tasked with identifying ways we
2
-------
can coordinate the AQM process and other activities to encourage efficient land use and energy
use, and to work more closely on transportation planning. This team will begin by reviewing and,
as appropriate, expanding recommendations submitted back in the late-1990s by the CAAAC's
existing Subcommittee on Linking Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality. Below are some
of the potential components that may be addressed by this team:
Expand market/economic incentive approaches
Achieve reductions, including criteria and toxic pollutants, from existing sources
(stationary, area, and mobile)
Ensure new sources are as clean as possible
Identify areas where additional federal regulations are appropriate
Expand the use of pollution prevention (e.g., efficiency, conservation,
renewable/alternative energy sources)
Encourage innovative, voluntary and flexible policy approaches (i.e., sectors)
Ensure that emissions reductions are achieved from all source categories (including
traditional and non-traditional sources)
Ensure that any new tools or strategies for use in the air quality management system be
evaluated for their benefits or disbenefits to greenhouse gas emissions
Expand control strategies to link AQM with land use
Spur new technology
Consider multiple pollutants when developing control programs and requirements
Improve permitting
Incorporate accountability/evaluation metrics into program design
Further integrate transportation plans into AQM pollution mitigation programs
Expand investments in human and technical resources
Team 2 will be asked to develop specific recommendations or approaches that may also need to
be addressed as part of the overarching AQM process (Team 1). These teams will need to
coordinate throughout the process to ensure that efforts are not duplicated and that the
Subcommittee is moving in an integrated fashion. Bringing recommendations back through the
Full Subcommittee will help keep everyone apprised of all the team activities.
Schedule:
Each team will be responsible for developing a schedule for meetings and deliverables. The
Subcommittee co-chairs will ask for periodic updates and schedule meetings for the Full
Subcommittee to hear reports from each of the two teams. Below is the planned schedule for
meetings over the next several months. At each Full CAAAC meeting, we hope to run our AQM
Subcommittee meetings longer (6 to 8 hours) than the typical 2 hour subcommittee meetings.
Subcommittee Mtg October 18-19 San Diego
Full CAAAC Mtg Nov 16-17 El Paso, TX
Subcommittee Mtg Jan 24-25,2006 Dallas, TX
Full CAAAC/Subcommittee Mtg Apr 2006 DC area
Expected Work Product:
The goal of the Subcommittee should be to finalize its work by the November 2006 CAAAC
meeting. The final product should consist of a series of specific recommendations that EPA,
States, Tribes, industry, environmentalist, and other stakeholders can implement in support of
3
-------
our vision and principles, and ultimately the AQM system we present to the CAAAC for
consideration. Some of the recommendations may be fairly broad in nature and reflect shifts in
policy and approaches to managing the AQM system. Other recommendations will be fairly
specific and designed to produce actual reductions in emissions, improvements in accountability,
or changes to the planning process.
Under the current Clean Air Act, the nation has made tremendous progress in protecting public
health and the environment. It is likely that most of the recommendations that the Subcommittee
develops could be implemented within the current Act. However if the Subcommittee is truly
going to be creative in its work, there will almost certainly be recommendations developed that
will require legislation to implement. While it is not the role of the Subcommittee to advocate
for changes to the CAA, the Subcommittee's final report can serve as a resource to the Agency
and to Congress.
4
------- |