MEETING MINUTES

FACA SUBCOMMITTEE FOR OZONE, PARTICULATE MATTER AND REGIONAL HAZE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS

October 29 and 30, 1996

Dallas Grand Hotel

Dallas, Texas

Opening Remarks

William Hamilton [Designated Federal Official, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)] opened the session and introduced the co-chairs, Alan Krupnik (Resources for the Future) and John Seitz (Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA). He said that the purpose of the meeting was to hear reports from the Subcommittee's Work Groups.

John Seitz complimented the progress made at the September meeting. He noted that a year ago when this process was started, he envisioned the Subcommittee being able to come together and have an effective exchange of information, which was happening. He then discussed briefly the issues that would be addressed today. In terms of the FACA process, Mr. Seitz said he understood that it required an enormous amount of time and resources to participate and thanked each person for participating in the effort.

John Seitz posed the question, what is EPA's position at this point? He said that to answer this question, EPA would be augmenting the Work Groups represented at the table with input from EPA Regional Air Directors. EPA wanted them to ask questions and discuss the issues that were relevant to the implementation process. Mr. Seitz also noted that the Work Groups' efforts had been augmented by adding EPA personnel as facilitators. EPA people would not be drafting documents, but rather would be providing a helping hand. Mr. Seitz did not want it to be perceived that EPA was drafting initial documentation from the individual Work Groups. EPA wanted to facilitate the process, not be a hinderance to it.

Alan Krupnick noted that John Seitz had covered most of the issues. He covered one process issue, saying that the Subcommittee was going to try an experiment by allowing persons to defer their opportunity to answer a specific question to a colleague in an approved Work Group who was in the audience. Mr. Krupnick said that if it did not work they would stop the experiment.

Patrick Raher (Hogan and Hartson) addressed the role of the coordination committee. He noted that some people recognized that more help was needed in writing issue papers than was first anticipated, and that new guidelines would be presented at the Denver meeting. Mr. Raher then laid out the following guidelines for developing issue papers:

Active participation of all Work Group members would be necessary. It was not simply work for the co-chairs, it was for all individual members of the Work Group.

Work Groups needed to continue to strive towards consensus on the issues assigned to them. Consensus did not require unanimous support from all members on every issue, but was very important in the FACA process.

Because consensus might not be possible on all issues, if a Work Group could not reach consensus on a specific issue, then differences should be presented as options with a detailed rationale for each. When consensus was not feasible, the issue could be directed to a smaller ad hoc working group.

Presentations and papers issued to the full Subcommittee must represent the viewpoints of all members of the Work Group. The importance of presenting to the full Subcommittee could not be understated.

Latest drafts of materials to be presented to the full Subcommittee must be on the TTN at least 7 days prior to a FACA Subcommittee meeting.

The coordination group, in conjunction with EPA, would determine the appropriate content of all issue papers.

Mr. Raher said that the Work Group co-chairs should have reviewed these guidelines, and the coordination group had done likewise. The coordination committee was asking that the Subcommittee look at these recommendations and come to consensus on the guidelines as a model for finalizing issue papers.

Steve Gerritson (LADCO) said that he agreed with the principles. However, in actual practice, he thought it would lead to delays. Mr. Gerritson thought the Subcommittee needed to build in some deadlines that could afford more flexibility. He said that what generally happened in Work Groups was that a draft was produced, a core group reviewed that draft, changes were made, then a different core group reviewed the paper. Some Work Group participants simply could not participate in the majority of the deliberations. Mr. Gerritson did not want to delay things more than they were.

Patrick Raher noted that there were not any definitive timelines. He said that the Subcommittee knew the Denver meeting was coming-up and EPA knew the Phase I proposal needed to be distributed. However, EPA did not think these timelines should be incorporated into the guidelines. There should be active participation, and this did not mean waiting until the night before to discuss issues with Work Group members. The guidelines were not intended to hold up the Work Group's progress, but merely to coordinate the discussions. He recognized that it was a difficult balance.

John Seitz stated that EPA did not want the guidelines to be a roadblock. If Subcommittee members had problems along these lines, he said to please let his office know and he would try and have his staff intervene.

David Baron (Arizona) said he thought the problem was having people draft issue papers that were attempting to weaken the CAA, rather than strengthen air quality management. He would like to change the process by which they draft issue papers and would prefer either EPA or some neutral third party draft the initial issue papers. Right now, Mr. Baron did not think that there was a very level playing field. Work Group members simply did not have time to draft all of the issue papers. The idea of consensus was fine, but he was concerned that consensus did not have to be restricted to every member of the Work Group. Mr. Baron wanted to know how they could have consensus without having everyone agree; that was what consensus meant to him. After all, this was an advisory subcommittee. They were not supposed to be making decisions for EPA, but were merely advisors.

Patrick Raher noted they were not saying every member of every group must agree, but rather that all the environmental members must agree, or all industrial representatives must agree, or all State representatives, etc. It would mean that there must be some level of agreement.

John Seitz said he was certainly not going to volunteer EPA to draft the initial versions of the issue papers, because this would not cut down on the debate. This was not Mary Nichols's idea for the FACA process. He hoped by bringing the Air Directors and his staff on board they could provide the necessary leadership to accomplish the Subcommittee's goals. With respect to a third neutral party, if the group could agree on who should represent the issue, then that was fine with him.

David Baron asked about an independent contractor.

John Seitz said the problem there was a budgetary issue.

Vincent Brisini (GPU GENCO) offered support for the continued preparation of issue papers by the Work Groups. In terms of the BPAP Work Group, he said they had thoroughly laid out issues and had very open, beneficial discussions. He totally disagreed with the statement that they were weakening the CAA. Mr. Brisini said that they were dealing with change, and in actuality, it dealt with more control and not less control.

Alan Krupnick said that public health protection was the basis of the Subcommittee and was a given in the new standards. He urged the Subcommittee not to forget where they came from. They needed to continue to reduce emissions, and the process was moving forward fairly well. Some of the issues were beginning to be discussed by the group. They were attempting to incorporate all viewpoints, and no individuals or groups were being excluded.

Vincent Brasini said that people were seeing something superficial here. People were being treated differently in this process. They were trying to provide a mechanism other than a law suit to control transported pollution. The problem was that everyone had the discomfort associated with change.

John Seitz said that, as far as the five principles were concerned, EPA would accept the responsibility of reaching consensus on those principles. With regard to all of the papers, they needed to focus on what the absolute dates might be. They needed to go forward with the Work Group discussions and continue to augment these discussions with EPA staff. Mr. Seitz said that EPA probably made a mistake by not being more involved from the beginning. However, he assured the Subcommittee that EPA was now available.

Greg Schaefer (for Sandy Stash of Arco) said that everyone was not participating. There were parts of his Work Group which he still had not met after a year.

Patrick Raher said that was his point. If people were not participating, then the Subcommittee needed to make a determination as to whether that person or group of persons might need to be replaced.

Richard Dworek (U.S. Steel) noted that there were some issues where consensus was reached and some where consensus was not reached. Obviously, they had industry vs. environmental groups, and they had successfully used government individuals as mediators on these issues.

Patrick Raher wanted to know whether this was useful towards reaching consensus.

Richard Dworek said they did reach consensus on most of these issues. On certain issues, they probably would not reach consensus.

Deborah Shprentz (for David Hawkins of NRDC) said she did not see a balanced perspective in some of the newer issue papers.

John Seitz said in terms of Mr. Ward's comments, he was looking for more involvement from a wider cross-section of individuals.

Deborah Shprentz said she was simply disagreeing with him.

Bob Palzer (Sierra Club) disagreed with the comment that the government regulators were necessarily neutral. He said he thought they did make progress last night working on some things where there was not earlier consensus. There was commonality of interest, and the recognition that certain things needed to be accomplished. If the Groups would strive hard for consensus, he thought it was attainable.

John Seitz said most of the concerns were the result of the process. He thought the general feeling was that these principles were a step in the right direction.

Patrick Raher said if there was any one of these principles that did not appear to be working, please let them know. They were open to change, and the principles were not cast in stone.

Communications and Outreach Work Group Report

Highlights

Tom Curran summarized the Work Group's activities and listed recommended outreach activities that would follow EPA's release of the proposed standards. Ron White then presented key issues affecting outreach and a long-term communications strategy.

Questions were raised by the Subcommittee on what the role of the Communications Work Group was supposed to be, whether it was their job to write materials and get them out to the public. Generally the answer was that EPA would write and distribute information; the Work Group would function in a review and advisory capacity.

State representatives emphasized the need for EPA to work with them and have materials ready when the standard were released. There was a suggestion that EPA give the States some advance information before the standards were proposed.

Subcommittee members stressed the need for the public to be well-informed since the new standards would require significant participation by the public in order to be met.

Tom Curran (EPA) spoke first. He noted that the previous day's meeting had been a good one and presented the following summary.

Topics

Update on what has been done

Future activities

Comments on Work Group Function

Advisory capacity

Not an advocacy link

Communication link

Work Group Activities

Ozone, PM, and regional haze bulletin boards (BBS) on the TTN last April; FACA Board averages 200-300 downloads per week

FACA Web site available in July

Internet impact of TTN file download - Web site has gone from 10,000 to 15,000 downloads weekly

Still had many BBS users, so they would continue to support the TTN/BBS.

Communication Mechanisms - Accomplishments

TTN Web site - http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov

FACA Web site - http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/html/ozpmrh/facahome.html

OAQPS Home Page - http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps

OAQPS Air Links Home Page ("Hot" Topics) - http:/www.epa.gov/airlinks

Public Meetings (July and August)

EPA/OAR Briefings for Regional Offices (August)

EPA Administrator's Report on Health Impacts to Children (September 11)

Satellite Broadcast on NAAQS Reviews (October 2)

One question/minute

Briefings to specialized interest groups:

Society of Environmental Journalists

STAPPA/ALAPCO meeting

Recommended Outreach Activities with Proposal

Information packets/materials

Press, industry contacts, environmental officials, state/local officials

Plain English fact sheets

New fact sheets on proposed NAAQS

Q's and A's

Press releases

EPA briefings to constituents/stakeholders (December, January)

Satellite broadcasts on Proposals (December 9)

FACA Phase I Issue Papers and Fact Sheets (December, January)

Air Quality Information Packet

Ron White (American Lung Association) addressed the satellite broadcast on December 9, noting that it would be more extensive than the October effort, which had approximately 100 downlinks. The December meeting was expected to be on the order of 600 downlinks. He encouraged everyone in attendance to spread the word of the broadcast to their constituencies. Mr. White said the Work Group was currently awaiting final versions of issue papers, which they would summarize into short, succinct Fact Sheets. The challenge was that they simply did not have many issue papers that were finalized and ready for translation into plain English. He then presented the following.

Key Questions to be Addressed:

Why are we doing this?

Health and welfare basis

Threshold - were there levels below which there were no adverse impacts?

Rationale for multiple exceedances

Explanation of proposal vs. promulgation

How am I affected?

Designations

What are the sources

What was the timing of the process; how long would it be before one would start to see the effects?

Long-Term Communication Strategy

Goal

Communication is integral to successful implementation strategy.

Resources must be dedicated to communication.

Theme

Nature of pollution has changed - e.g. the concept of regions.

Ways to Reach the Media -- Public

Sponsor science/health writers conference

Involve the Society of Environmental Journalists

Press briefings

Tools for States/Locals

Provide audio/visual materials (potentially posted on EPA's Web site; perhaps later issue on diskette or CD-ROM)

Develop informational packets (preliminary draft document was under review; slated for release in January, 1997)

Other Mechanisms

Additional satellite broadcasts between January and June 1997

Local government briefings (e.g., community boards, councils)

Outreach/educational materials for kids

Ad Council (EPA has partnered with them previously on radon, clean water and recycling)

Graphic displays of ozone/PM maps for television weather forecasters (e.g., the NESCAUM pilot program)

Comments from the Subcommittee on the Communications and Outreach Work Group Report

Donna Lamb (USDA Forest Service) said they could add some real-time visibility and regional haze maps to the information packets.

Tom Curran said they had discussed this with Bruce Polkowsky, and he indicated that as digital cameras become more cost effective, there would definitely be an option for putting this type of information on the Web site.

Donna Lamb asked whether there was going to be a point when the public was downloading these issue papers and public questions would need to be steered away from the authors and toward a specific clearinghouse.

Deborah Shprentz thanked Mr. Curran and Mr. White for their presentations and asked whether there was a budget for carrying out these recommendations.

Ron White said they had told EPA that there needed to be a budget for this, and there needed to be a long-term commitment to these issues. Resources must be identified and allocated to this process. However, the Work Group had not been told what the budget was at this time.

Tom Curran said that as they got a better idea of what was actually in the budget, then we can go to John Seitz and Mary Nichols and decide what made sense.

Greg Schaefer asked what was meant by not wanting an advocacy role; the outreach program sounded like advocacy to him. He wanted to know what the outreach program was going to look like.

Tom Curran said they were trying to make the distinction between what FACA said and what EPA said.

Ron White said that if persons were concerned about whether public interest groups were going to promote their own agendas through this process, then the answer was no. EPA would prepare materials that best reflected the consensus position of the FACA Subcommittee.

Greg Green (Oregon DEQ) said he was impressed with what he had seen today. He agreed that this information should definitely be taken to the public. First, if one wanted change, the people must subscribe to it. Secondly, public outreach work must be accomplished up front and not after the fact.

Beverly Hartsock (Texas NRCC) said that good education and outreach were imperative. She would encourage EPA to continue to work with the States. In the past, EPA had given the States a little bit of advanced warning on new rules, etc., and she wondered if they planned to do so this time. Ms. Hartsock also wondered how EPA would deal with Congress.

John Seitz said that everything would be coordinated through EPA regional offices and STAPPA/ALAPCO. To the extent possible, EPA would do as it had in the past. The standard itself was subject to congressional review, just as any other standard. EPA would be working with congressional delegations in advance of the standard's proposal. The comment period on the NAAQS would be 60 days because of the court-ordered schedule.

Ron White said that the release date for the proposal was the day after Thanksgiving. His committee had recommended that it be released to the press in the form of a press release earlier in the week, because most people are off work on that day.

John Seitz said EPA had realized this problem, and they were working with the Press Office to remedy this situation.

Bob Palzer said it was a real joy to use the Web site and wondered if there was way to get a contact list.

Tom Curran said that in terms of OAQPS, they were close to having a contact list.

Bob Palzer asked whether the satellite broadcasts were videotaped.

Tom Curran said that every site that downloads the broadcasts did video tape, so simply contact the site.

Charles Goodman (SCS) asked whether the outreach program would serve to educate the public on all aspects of the proposal (e.g., averaging times, costs)

John Seitz said he could not comment on what the standard would be. Whatever EPA did for the press would provide the basis for the Agency's decision, and would help to thoroughly educated the public.

Vincent Brisini said he had the same questions coming to mind. EPA had to have the mechanisms to communicate with people, but his concern was how this information was going to be communicated and by whom. For example, EPA might have a different view on how to present issues than an individual Work Group member. He said the real question was whether the purpose of the Communications and Outreach Work Group was to simply identify the mechanisms for distribution or actually participate in the distribution process.

Ron White said that he hoped that the understanding was that the Communications and Outreach Work Group was working on behalf of FACA. He reiterated that the materials would be generated by EPA. The Work Group's role was to review the material and make suggestions to EPA to improve their effectiveness. The Work Group would not be generating the materials; they would perform an advisory role to EPA. They were not writing the material, they were not executing the mechanisms of distribution. They were simply supporting the agency.

Bill Becker (STAPPA/ALAPCO) said they wanted to represent this information for the true public. He could not imagine that the rank and file U.S. population would be at best remotely interested in what they were trying to educate them on. He would say that they could actually write most of these materials now - the punch line is simple. There were air quality issues that were causing people to die prematurely, and that Subcommittee members had come together to try and solve these issues.

Alan Krupnick spoke to Mr. Becker stating that Ron White said it correctly. The charge of the Work Group was not to generate these materials, rather the Work Group's function was to identify mechanisms and provide advice to the EPA.

Jim Shrouds (Federal Highway Administration) thought the public was interested in the transportation side of these issues.

Science and Technical Support Work Group Report

Highlights

Harvey Jeffries made the presentation for this Group and summarized their recent activities: supporting other Work Groups, working on the conceptual model, adding a scientific perspective to some issue papers, and evaluating transport modeling.

There was considerable discussion in the Subcommittee about the need for additional data and how resources should be allocated among basic scientific research, modeling, monitoring, and data analysis. Several points were made about the lack of data on particulate matter and what needed to be done to address that problem.

Harvey Jeffries (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) reported on recent activities of the STSWG:

Providing scientific input to BPAP and NRSWG Issue Papers

This activity had taken a great deal of time; they had attached a member (and in some cases multiple members) to each of these issue papers. In some cases, STSWG members had become co-authors of some of these papers. Science had been integrated into most of these issue papers. On some issue papers, there had not been sufficient interaction between STSWG and the papers' authors.

Gathering relevant new scientific inputs to inform the FACA process

Working on the conceptual model document

Mr. Jeffries called work on the conceptual model a background effort to which they returned whenever they had spare time. He noted that there were two pieces of the conceptual model: the State of the Environment (SOE) with respect to ozone, PM, and regional haze, predominantly Chapters 1 through 4; and Processes in the Environment (PIE). Once the issue of AOIs and AOVs was conjured up, they needed to discuss temporal and spatial scales, which was predominantly contained within Chapter 5. Chapter 6 would deal specifically with the tools and the data analysis required to explain the processes. Mr. Jeffries said the Work Group was going to attempt to finish Chapters 1 through 4 of the conceptual model by the next FACA meeting in Denver, and have it publicly available prior to the December FACA meeting.

Mr. Jeffries said the STSWG's goal was to describe and explain the state of the environment and to offer science consistent with the mechanisms or processes that create and sustain the state of the environment. The Work Group wanted the Subcommittee to hear their arguments and concerns. They had to be willing to accept the risks of moving forward without science, as opposed to waiting for science to thoroughly resolve all of these issues. Probably the one concept that was accepted by all members of the STSWG was the AOI/AOV concept. They all would embrace this concept.

Offering a Science Perspective on Issue Papers

Mr. Jeffries spoke about the paper on designations of PM-fine areas, noting that scientists like data. They looked at the ratio model and some of the other models, and concluded that there were not sufficient data to reach a conclusion. The STSWG would prefer that the decision be made on data. The decision of how much data were required was not a science question, but more of a policy issue. The Work Group could determine the risks/errors associated with a given decision.

Mr. Jeffries said that the paper on economic incentives and trading presented issues with which the STSWG was relatively comfortable. As long as the reductions were necessary to make progress toward achieving the standard, the Group was in agreement with this. Trades would reveal information that prior to that time was hidden. In other words, the command and control process could work effectively. Science did have a problem when trades were not beneficial (e.g., trading tons for tons). There were issues that could not be solved by either command and control or trading; however, the two in conjunction could work quite effectively together.

About the paper on monitoring incentives, Mr. Jeffries said that one could not assess the state of the environment without sufficient data. They were basically discussing monitoring for compliance and monitoring for research/science purposes. More monitoring data was not necessarily better - to over- monitor and under-analyze was not an acceptable procedure to follow. Thus, there had to be a purpose for monitoring and a proper mechanism to do the analysis.

Mr. Jeffries said that as part of the issue paper on New Source Review, if offsets were to be used, the Group wanted to make them realistic.

Regarding the issues paper on attainment dates, Mr. Jeffries said the vast majority of this document was a policy document. He asked that the authors recognize that it took time to collect data, and even more time to analyze it.

On the integrated implementation issue paper a lot of questions were raised on tools, and the conceptual model should be a great deal of help to this paper.

Mr. Jeffries said they had made substantial inputs to the regional haze paper. They had problems understanding how accurate scientific tools would be in assessing progress in the regional haze arena. STSWG was not sure whether the science was adequate to answer questions at this time. Most of all, there were insufficient monitoring data to test the models and their results.

Looking at Robin Dennis's work and transport issues

Mr. Jeffries said Mr. Dennis used the RADM model, which was the best available tool until MODELS-3 comes on line. They looked at dealing with source regions in Pennsylvania and Georgia using averaged meteorology. They concluded that there were long ranges of impacts, but the changes predicted were on the order of 2 ppb, which was infinitesimal. The meteorology here was designed to maximize sulfate deposition, and not ozone episodes. Using S. T. Rao's work, the Work Group saw that the region of influence for meteorological processes was also quite large. While this did not infer transport, it did indicate that similar processes were occurring and that these processes were correlated. Thus, Mr. Jeffries emphasized the need to get away from the "episodic" approach and investigate the climatology of ozone and PM issues.

Mr. Jeffries said that this morning they had heard some results from the NARSTO-NE project:

Air aloft was quite different from the air at the surface.

Ozone rich air could be mixed down to the surface.

Upper air network was not adequate.

Complex coastal meteorology was not well represented.

Thus, they really did not have an adequate picture of the state of the environment from which to assess transport and quantify the role of transport in ozone, PM, and regional haze. The warning was that they were just starting to see enough conclusive evidence to potentially address the transport issue. Thus, they would have to make some very risky scientific decisions in order to meet policy deadlines. Mr. Jeffries also said that not enough money was being spent to assess the right kinds of data necessary to really get at these questions.

Comments from the Subcommittee on the Science and Technical Support Work Group Report

Alan Krupnick made a comment on process. He noted that Mr. Jeffries mentioned a number of points that are related to papers to be presented today and tomorrow. So he suggested the Subcommittee not waste time now discussing these papers.

Chris Shaver (Environmental Defense Fund) asked what the risks were in being wrong scientifically.

Harvey Jeffries replied that the options presented in the PM-fines paper was to simply use statistical techniques to ratio PM-10 into PM-fines. That would raise a lot of concern for people who would be designated nonattainment for PM-2.5 using severely erroneous data. Thus, they strongly recommended that only PM-2.5 data be used to answer this question. There was a fair amount of PM-2.5 data available - the problem was that these data may not necessarily be in the ideal location for use in the standard setting process.

Deborah Shprentz said she participated in an EPA meeting on research needs for fine particles that simply dealt with health needs. She asked Mr. Jeffries how he answered the research needs of the Work Group.

Harvey Jeffries said he had been on this soap box before. There was a disconnect between ORD and OAQPS in terms of funding for base-level research for PM and ozone. There was an initiative in next year's budget called the One Atmosphere initiative, which could potentially help with this problem. A single investigator approach was not very useful for solving these issues. However, there had been a concerted effort within EPA to move entirely toward a single investigator research program.

Steve Gerritson asked about the statement that they might want to think less about putting out new monitors and more about analyzing existing data. He asked Mr. Jeffries to comment on this statement, and what could be done with these data.

Harvey Jeffries said that was not what he meant. He said that there was lots of evidence that they did not have an adequate characterization of the 3-D environment. There also was a concern among scientists that, if they had a limited budget, then they needed to balance funding so that monitoring to find the problems would happen, and then they would not have enough resources to evaluate how to solve the problems. Mr. Jeffries said that everyone must invest seriously in the infrastructure necessary to accomplish our goals.

Georgia Callahan (Texaco) asked whether there was a difference in determining there was an air quality problem and solving the air quality problem.

Harvey Jeffries said yes, monitoring could be used to determine whether there was a problem. He used the example of PM monitoring, which could tell that there was an air quality problem and what the source regions were. However, ozone monitoring could not do this. The three oxygen molecules contained in ozone were not emitted by anyone, and it was nearly impossible to determine the source.

John Elston (New Jersey) said that the role of cause and effect was preferable in determining AOIs. On the weight of evidence issue, he asked whether this was a useful approach for AOIs.

Harvey Jeffries said by all means they should use such information. Even the best, most advanced state of the art models were full of guesses and approximations; they were extensions of scientific theories using engineering practices. Mr. Jeffries said there was no certainty in any of these issues; there were no bright lines around any of these issues. There would not be a definitive answer on any of these issues for some years to come.

Nader Mansour (Southern California Edison) asked Mr. Jeffries to elaborate on his statement that command and control would be needed to fine tune a trading program.

Harvey Jeffries responded that to expect a trade to solve all the problems of a large region was not a valid perspective. EPA and States would need a command and control program to deal with the hot spots.

*** BREAK ***

Economic Incentives Issue Paper

Highlights

Joe Belanger presented information on several different types of economic incentive programs that his Group had been considering: fee and/or tax programs; offset requirements; open market trading; and budgets and marketable permits. He also discussed mechanisms that had been used by OTC, OTAG, and GCVTC.

Subcommittee members discussed the flexibility that economic incentives would allow EPA. there was the suggestion by several members that open market principles be included up front in the discussion of economic incentives. there was general support among industry representatives for incentive programs, although they expressed concerns about programs being implemented and fine-tuned after the fact.

Several environmental group representatives expressed reservations about the use of trading and other economic incentives. Although they were not opposed to all uses of incentives, these Subcommittee members did not want to see economic incentives only without EPA also having command and control mechanisms available to ensure compliance.

A State representative expressed frustration with the discussion of economic incentives, saying that until AOIs and AOVs were defined, the discussion was irrelevant.

Joe Belanger (Connecticut DEP) expressed appreciation for the kind words of Mr. Jeffries for the work his Group had been doing. He said he wanted to give the Subcommittee a status report of where they were, what they were currently addressing, and where they anticipated going over the next couple of weeks.

Organization of the Paper

Problem statement

Initial principles from May 17, 1996

Assumptions

Description of economic incentive programs

Attachments on OTC, OTAG and GCVTC

Objectives

Discuss potential role of market-based programs in ozone, PM, and regional haze regulation

Develop an understanding of the application of these programs in other regional settings

Reach agreement and get feedback on the principles.

Trading Provides These Benefits

Reduces cost of compliance

Creates incentives for reductions beyond regulations

Creates incentives for early compliance.

Problems

Designing regional strategies

Link control responsibility to emission contribution

Flexible compliance

Economically efficient outcome

Design considerations.

Initial Principles

Prevent backsliding

Include broad spectrum of sources (as many sources as possible)

Account for differing temporal and geographic impact

Provide for evaluation and verification

Provide a consistent program across source types (common currency)

Provide for transition from other programs

Provide for seamless trading across jurisdictions

Reward or protect innovative, early, or voluntary reductions

Avoid delays in meeting responsibility for reduction

Use economic incentives or market-based mechanisms rather than command and control

Provide equivalent or greater environmental benefit compared to command and control (e.g. LAER,	BACT), i.e., no stepping backwards when they go to command and control programs.

Assumptions

Appropriate regional authority exists

Framework such as AOI/AOV approach exists

Science can tell us what the uncertainty of the limits will be.

Categories of Program

Fee and/or tax programs

Offset requirements

Open market

Budgets and marketable permits.

NSR Offset Requirements

Greater than 1:1 ratios result in net reduction of area's total emissions

Not directly influenced by demand from new sources

Create "bright line" distinctions

Motivate reductions at existing sources.

Open Market Rule

Builds flexibility into existing command and control system; does not really do much on its own.

Budget and Marketable Permits Mechanism (centerpiece of the program)

Establish allowable emissions level for some "control period" and "control region" (e.g. a bottom-up	approach)

Distribute the level of emissions in allocations or permits

Allow the market to determine the final distribution of emissions controls.

Limitations of Budget Programs

Difficult to extend this type of program to other than large, stationary point sources (e.g. mobile	sources)

May impose additional monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements

Use of banked allowances may pose risk to reasonable further progress demonstrations, or	attainment.

OTC Approach (12 States and the District of Columbia)

Viewed as the equivalent of an "area of violation"

Designed a partial program to get to attainment.

OTC Nox Memorandum of Understanding

Establishes ozone season budgets for two periods designed to reduce background emissions

Provides budgets for States based on historic share of emissions

States allocate sources using method of their choice

Compatible rules to provide for regional market.

Differences Between OTC Program and Acid Rain Program

Target level set as percentage of 1990 emissions, before emissions were known

Inflation of budget has occurred

Sensitivity to ozone seasonality

Limited bank withdrawals

Program does not affect emissions outside of OTR boundary.

OTAG as an Area of Influence

Design a market-based program from this approach.

OTAG Trading Framework

Achieve reductions necessary to address background ozone

Initial focus on market-based framework for large stationary NOX sources

Incorporate mobile, area, other sources with time.

OTAG Design Principles

Focus on emissions during control period; limited intertemporality

Region-wide programs and currency compatibility

Adequate participation

Broadest possible spatial extent.

GCVTC Recommendations

Sets regional targets for SO2 emissions

Provides for regional cap and market-based trading program.

GCVTC Design

Account for new source emissions growth

Reward early reductions

Scientifically sound

Analyze pricing and incentive approaches for mobile sources

Developed the concept of Visibility Equivalent Emission Unit (VEEU)

Tons/yr * species factor * location = VEEU

Involves organic carbon, elemental carbon, and SO2 weighted accordingly.

Trading Design Concerns for Ozone/PM/Regional Haze Implementation

Goal of region-wide vs. area-specific strategies

Scientifically sound design

Time of requirements

AOI tie.

Comments from the Subcommittee on Economic Incentives

Bob Palzer offered an example to highlight some of the pitfalls of trading. In Medford, Oregon, it was recognized in the early 1980s that they had a severe PM problem. The targeted source group was wood stoves during the winter months. One of the proposed solutions was for wood stoves to be bought out and either be replaced with more efficient wood stoves or simply removed, rather than controlling industrial point sources. This project was not successful because there was not sufficient public buy-in. The current emissions have been significantly reduced because of mandatory wood stove curtailment programs. Also, many industrial sources that were burning wood now burn natural gas. Mr. Palzer asked what would have happened if there had been this trade between wood stoves and industry, and later it was found that it was not working.

Joe Belanger replied that one should thoroughly understand a program prior to implementation. However, the goal here was to force somebody to do something to improve air quality in the most efficient manner. As he understand Mr. Palzer, the market did exactly what it was supposed to do in this particular case. The issue was really which control was better, i.e., whether the command and control program or the market-based program would be more effective at improving air quality.

Vincent Brisini referred to page 4 of the paper and said he was not sure that they wanted to eliminate command and control programs. On page 6, where OTC was identified as an option, he had some concerns. He also had concerns on page 10 in the discussion of sources that would opt into the program. Mr. Brisini wanted to know if this meant that a source wanting to opt in would have to be involved in the banking, and all the associated requirements.

Joe Belanger replied yes, for the most part. They wanted to make cost effective reductions, and place the burden on the appropriate entity.

Vincent Brisini said he would favor managing more inventory with the opt-in theory. He raised the point under banking about the need to monitor banking to determine what effect it might have on individual episodes. They had to be sure that when they went out to fix something, that they would actually be rectifying the source of the problem. The effect that banking would have on the robustness of the market could be substantial. On page 11, Mr. Brisini had concerns dealing with the OTAG method. He would also characterize the OTC as an area of influence as opposed to an area of violation.

Joe Belanger said they need to set emission reduction targets in a reasonable, scientifically sound method.

Vincent Brisini said they show should the different circles related to AOIs and AOVs. He guessed that this would be an iterative process.

Mark Brownstein (PSE&G) said that as one looked at trading mechanisms the thing that was obvious was that they tended to be added on to existing command and control programs. He thought this was where environmental groups tended to get nervous, because it was trading on top of existing command and control programs, which were in themselves a form of compromise. Flexibility would come from the trading program, and would simplify the issue, not complicate it. Secondly, they talked about how trading needed to capture the full measure of technology. Mr. Brownstein would re-phrase this so that trading needed to capture the full benefit of environmental improvement. Finally, he urged them to consider not dismissing open market principles. As they moved forward, they had learned a great deal from open market principles (e.g., cap and trade programs), and these could provide valuable benefits.

Bruce Craig (NGSA) urged the inclusion of open market principles up front in this paper. He wanted them to look at what had been done in the past and grow on these principles. Mr. Craig wanted to allow industry to the option for compliance that permits trading. He cautioned against trying to design the "perfect bullet" trading system, which could potentially fail under its own weight. Ultimately, it was the definition of the AOIs for trading that would provide the merit in a trading program.

Alan Krupnick suggested they might want to add some additional SO2 experience and RECLAIM. He also cautioned against making it so complex that it would fail under its own weight. The directionality of trading demanded a level of simplicity; they would be looking for a win-win situation, as with SO2. However, they must understand and recognize what was being given up along the way (e.g. mobile sources, low-level Nox). He asked whether they really wanted elevated Nox being traded against low level nox. Mr. Krupnick then raised the banking issue. He said banking was essential in terms of flexibility for an industrial source. Environmentally, banking was wonderful because when one was banking, one was not emitting. Thus, they would want to encourage banking. A trading program could not be an attainment program; it could be only a part of an attainment program. Mr. Krupnick was comfortable with an emissions trading program that was simply a part of an attainment program.

Joe Belanger said he thought that trading could be a bigger piece of the attainment program in some areas than in others. The total number of trades, however, would greatly overshadow any individual trade. He suggested that they not focus on specific trades, but rather focus on large-scale, regional effects.

Alan Krupnick said he did not understand the issue of using command and control to fine-tune.

Joe Belanger said it was simple. You could always trade, but the command and control might limit total absolute emissions.

Alan Krupnick said that for reasonable further progress, they might want to consider the notion of a declining cap over time. This could potentially be a driver for RFP.

Greg Schaefer said one part had a negative spin towards banking. Depending on what the trading mechanism, banking should be a very important component.

Joe Belanger said he simply skipped the positive aspects in the presentation.

Nader Mansour said he would like to improve the effects of a market-based system. First, costs associated with trading should be minimized. Secondly, with regard to technology advancements, the market would provide an excellent incentive for development. He also recommended that they allow people to pay a fee plus the price of credits, with the excess being dedicated to technological advancements. Thirdly, pertaining to fine-tuning, Mr. Mansour suggested that they would find that people would not play in the market with this type of fine-tuning after the fact. Finally, market systems were significantly less expensive than command and control system.

Joe Belanger said that the safety valve issue was not one for his group. It was whether the standard would be met regardless of whether it was a command and control or a market-based trading program.

Alan Krupnick said that this was why it was useful to look at the SO2 trading program, because the safety valve issue was dealt with completely in this program. Essentially, a portion of the emissions were held back in a reserve in case of an emergency. He thought those issues could be handled by this group.

Nader Mansour agreed that this was a very sticky issue. They were asking a market-based program to do something here that a command and control system was incapable of accomplishing. If a region came in today and said that it could not meet a standard, then there was relief from the overall command and control strategy; a market-based program was incapable of doing this.

Beverly Hartsock said RACT did not always work when applied to large regions across the United States. She was frustrated about these market-based programs and incentives. There were no specifics here; the devil was truly in the details here. Ms. Hartsock said they had talked themselves silly on this issue. They did not know what the size of the region was; they did not know how to link the science with the theory; and they did not know what the incentives were. She felt that there was a great deal of blind faith. Ms. Hartsock needed to see more details so that she could test out this theory.

David Baron said his question was, if EPA was to ever issue its open market trading policy, would that give Ms. Hartsock some of the answers that she wanted?

Beverly Hartsock replied that the open market trading rule, as she understood it, had specific boundaries associated with it.

Joe Belanger said he shared Ms. Hartsock's frustration. But until there was the basic science, they could not begin to design the market-based trading program or the command and control program. Until then, they were simply not going to be able to state specifics.

Alan Krupnick asked whether the group was going to go back now and maybe make some assumptions up front, possibly design a qualitative straw man for the trading program.

Joe Belanger said he did not know, but needed to get back to the group, which was in itself not highly organized.

Chris Shaver said the integrity of a program goes beyond major stationary point sources; it was very easy to document the installation and operation of emission controls on these type of sources, and not so easy on other forms of sources. She said a cap and trade program without some type of technological statement might be difficult to get through this group. Ms. Shaver also said fees in lieu of credits really bothered her. She perceived this to be more of a fine, as opposed to an actual fee; it simply reflected the cost of not installing the proper control equipment, as opposed to the cost of keeping America healthy.

Alan Krupnick said if persons did not get a chance to comment, please submit their comments on the Web site to the respective presenters.

Options for Designating PM Fine Areas Issue Paper

Highlights

Joe Paisie presented eight options for EPA to consider in making designations. They varied in their uses of existing data; monitoring data that would be gathered over one, two, or three years; and use of modeling.

Subcommittee members were not in agreement on which option was preferable. On the one hand, some members, mostly environmental representatives, said that it was important for EPA to move quickly to designate PM fine areas in areas where some data already were available. Others were concerned about the lack of data for making these designations and preferred that EPA set up new monitors and then use the newly gathered data for making PM designations.

Joe Paisie (EPA) said that this was an EPA presentation, as opposed to a BPAP presentation. If new NAAQS were promulgated, there were many questions about designations. Mr. Paisie said EPA preferred to be consistent with the standard, which could mean a requirement for three years of monitoring data. He noted that previous option papers on designations dealt with AOV/AOIs. The issue of timing of designations versus availability of data was not yet dealt with. Following were some options for making designations under the current constraints facing EPA.

Option 1 - Ratio Method, which used national PM-2.5 concentrations derived from PM-2.5/PM-10 sites that were co-located. Pros were that this option is spatially and temporally complete. Cons were that it was only a simulation, that PM-10 was a poor surrogate for PM-2.5, that it was inconsistent spatially, and that control strategies could be misdirected.

Option 2 - Nonattainment Probability Method, which used ratios to predict probability of nonattainment. There would be designations at the promulgation of the new NAAQS; and areas must begin the SIP process at that time. Pros were that it provided monitoring incentives.

Option 3 - One Year Method, which used the first full year of AIR QUALITY data (when available). Pros were that the decision would be based on actual data, and that it satisfied CAA requirements to designate in a timely manner.

Option 4 - Data/Ratio Method which used one year of co-located PM-10 and PM-fine data to develop site specific ratios. Cons were that it was still based on only one year of data.

Option 5 - Unclassifiable Method, which would designate all areas as unclassifiable until enough monitoring data was available. Cons were that it ignored potential public health concerns.

Option 6 - Rolling Method, which built on the unclassifiable method. All additional designations would be preliminary. As soon as two years of data were available, an interim designation would be made. Final designations would be made as three years of data became available. High population exposure sites would get monitors first. Other interim designations would be based on ratios and/or available data. Cons included that it was a new concept that could be challenged on legal grounds, that it was not as stable and accurate as the three-year method, and that control strategy development might be delayed or misdirected.

Option 7 - Modeling and Monitoring Method, which used available modeling tools and monitoring data, including local modeling analyses if available. Cons included emissions data uncertainties, that few monitoring data were likely, and that models were not adequately developed, tested, and evaluated.

Option 8 - AOV/AOI Method, which defined broad areas of influence that were potentially affecting areas that were expected to attain the new NAAQS.

Option 9 - Stepping stone Approach or Combination Method

(See handouts)

Integration Implications

EPA was exploring linking PM, ozone, and regional haze designations

In doing so, potential delays of two to three years existed

Delays would prolong the life of the IIP.

Comments from the Subcommittee on Options for Designating PM Fine Areas

Deborah Shprentz said it was crucial to consider the importance of speed in designating areas as nonattainment. The most important challenge was to find a way to proceed quickly with the designations.

Sarah Peirce-Sandner (Eastman Kodak) said she commended EPA on this paper. The subject was covered very comprehensively and concisely. She wanted to echo point made by Harvey Jeffries that more data were required. The underlying element in all the cons with lack of data was misdirected or misguided control strategies. This result was not in the best interest of environmental quality. In terms of fine particulates, monitoring data identified the problem, but did not indicate the source. They needed to speciate at least some of the data.

Patrick Raher agreed with what Ms. Shprentz was saying to a certain extent with regard to speed. He said he was leaning toward Option 6, and would favor the removal of Options 1 and 2. He said they all knew EPA was putting out 330 monitors to start gathering the sort of information that was needed. He thought that this allowed EPA to target those monitors and address, in populated areas, exactly what was going on. Thus, when EPA started to get some of this data, they would be asking people to start looking at it and take specific actions. Finally, as they got more data out of these 300 monitors, then they might actually begin to use ratios and models to make policy determinations and designations. Thus, Mr. Raher looked at Option 6 as being a truly viable option to implement. He admitted that the devil was in the details, but he thought it was a plausible approach.

John Seitz asked what was meant by areas where monitoring data would be collected.

Joe Paisie said some information was lost between the paper and the overhead.

John Seitz asked where they were going to place the 300 monitors.

Joe Paisie said they will be placed in areas that were anticipated to violate the new standard; they should begin the planning process.

John Seitz asked what EPA could say to those other areas where they do not put monitors.

Joe Paisie said he thought the basic notion was that those areas could sit back and take their chances using the ratio method or another method; or they could go forward and place their own monitors and gather than own information.

Chris Shaver said she thought that this was one of the best issue papers and that it went along with her earlier comment that EPA should be drafting the issue papers. She would propose an Option 10 that would push this along much faster than three years. Ms. Shaver said that EPA knew where the areas of violation were, and in time would be able to handle the areas of influence. She simply wanted to jump-start the process for fine particulate matter and thought it could be started within a year.

Patrick Raher asked whether Ms. Shaver foresaw this as an option for people who would receive some sort of credit or benefit for being forward thinking.

Chris Shaver replied that she thought such a possibility was realistic.

David Baron said that first, he agreed with Ms. Shaver's comment, and thought EPA should be drafting the issue papers. He also agreed with Deborah Shprentz about the issue of speed. There were some places where there was a significant amount of PM-2.5 data, and it was known that they were going to violate. There was no reason for those communities to have to wait a minimum of three years for designations, when EPA already knew that they would clearly violate the standard. In terms of the statistical approach, and the concept that EPA might err in terms of being over- inclusive, Mr. Baron said that did not matter. He would prefer to be overly -inclusive and overly protective as opposed to the opposite. He did not think that anyone could afford to wait until 2004 or 2006 for a designation.

Dennis Lawler (Illinois EPA) said that Option 6 was sort of a compromise to getting the data and speeding up the process. He hated to see the Subcommittee moving away from the concept of combining ozone, PM, and regional haze. Nobody had mentioned Option 9, so he felt obligated to mention it, and wanted to know if it meant that different areas would use different methods.

Karl Schultz (Dupont) said Option 9 was developed after many discussions, and the realization that there were too many negatives and not enough positives. Option 9 was developed in approximately an hour and a half to address this problem. Thus, Mr. Schultz said there was not a great deal of thinking behind this option; it was essentially a compromise position.

Joe Williams (WESTAR) agreed with protecting public health, but did not necessarily agree with the urgency of moving forward hastily. He said they could slow the process down by having debates, but he thought it was prudent to have the data prior to establishing control strategies. He was in favor of getting three years of monitoring data and basing decisions on sound science, based on sound data analysis techniques. If we wait for the monitoring data for three years, we should be able to avoid the label of designation.

Deborah Shprentz said she would like to propose a change to the agenda to allow continued discussion of this issue tomorrow by removing Areas at Risk of Nonattainment to another meeting.

Greg Schaefer said he wanted to build on what Joe Williams was stating. Mr. Schaefer supported Option 6. One year was simply not enough data; a single event could severely bias the data. Looking at the EPA Staff Paper and CASAC indicated that more PM-fine data were needed. If one looked at co-located PM-10 and PM-fine data and looked at the ratios, they would vary from 10 percent to 95 percent. Thus any statistics derived from such a method would be very suspect.

Larry Feldcamp (Baker and Botts) said he would advocate either two or three years of data. He asked what EPA was going to start controlling after it got these data. The flip side to this was that EPA had ozone data and was not moving any quickly, so what did all the data analysis buy? Mr. Feldcamp would advocate moving forward with ozone, since the data existed, and in the interim start collecting PM data. His last comment was that, in the long run, one would get better health benefits; there was not very much up-front benefit until control strategies were in place.

Donna Lamb said that the regional haze data did have speciation.

Larry Feldcamp said it was not available in Texas.

Donna Lamb said that if one looked at all the available data and began to use it to draw conclusions, she thought that they could begin to move forward. There were definite problems associated with delays. There were planning issues that needed to be addressed with respect to regional haze.

Larry Feldcamp said he was not advocating backsliding.

Donna Lamb said she was not implying that he did. She meant that it would come up tomorrow when they discussed regional haze, because it was on a very short fuse.

Deborah Shprentz said first, there was a fair amount of PM-2.5 data available: California had 20 locations available; the Harvard study had data available; and the IMPROVE data were available. Second, there was a fair amount of information available that related PM-10 and PM-2.5 data sets. Third, in the early 1980s there was a fair amount PM-2.5 monitoring that was done in conjunction with PM-15, not PM-10, monitoring, to support SIP submittals. EPA was able to devise a policy to deal with these areas. Ms.Shprentz thought a couple of the options discussed in the paper were viable. The option of designating everyone as unclassifiable was particularly objectionable at this time.

Mel Zeldin (SCAQMD) wanted to relay some real world experiences. South Coast was in nonattainment for PM-10. Last year they collected PM-10 and PM-2.5, and fully speciated both of these inventories. Currently, for PM-10 they were about 38 percent above the standard, and it was heavily slanted toward secondary pollutants. They have looked at the PM-2.5 data. When they fully implement their PM-10 program in 2006, they would be anywhere from 200 percent to 400 percent above the anticipated PM-2.5 standard. Mr. Zeldin thought the important thing to realize was that they had the data, but they needed to get started. An early designation of nonattainment meant one's attainment date would come sooner than someone who was designated later in the process. Thus, for the rest of country which had not yet begun monitoring, it was difficult to base decisions on one year of data; the speciation had to be done so that one could identify the sources that would need to be controlled. Mr. Zeldin said he would recommend that areas in risk of being nonattainment not only monitor, but also speciate in the first year in order to identify the sources.

Tom Godar (American Lung Association) said he thought there was a possibility that after three years of monitoring data, some still might not be convinced that there was enough information. He thought the lesson was learned with ozone. It sounded to Mr. Godar that there was potentially enough PM-2.5 data available to begin to move forward on this issue.

John Seitz said he did not hear anybody comment on a simple no-action mode.

Update on November Issue Papers

This topic was deferred until the next day, time permitting. If time did not permit, they simply would not address this agenda item.

Wednesday, October 30, 1996

William Hamilton began with agenda changes: a one-hour extension of the PM-fine issue, and one hour for institutional mechanisms. He said that these cuts should allow them to maintain the schedule today.

Beverly Hartstock began by saying that John Seitz had asked a question about monitoring. When looking at PM-fines, she thought they needed to keep in mind the tremendous changes that would be faced, the least of which was the public's perception of what was wrong with the old standard that was put into place in just the last few years. It was going to be nearly impossible to sell this new program to the public if they did not have data available to substantiate concerns, i.e., data from Los Angeles extracted to Lubbock, Texas, simply would not convince the public. Ms. Hartsock said they did need to move expeditiously, but this expedience should be toward getting monitors in place and the proper tools in place to analyze monitoring data. She understood that EPA had funds to support approximately 300 monitors, which would not be nearly enough to handle the scope of this problem. Texas just received a 17 percent reduction in Federal grant monies, so the money was not available at the local levels. Harvey Jeffries alluded to ORD's lack of concern and commitment to the research issues. Thus, the level of resources did not match the level of concern that had been expressed around this table in recent days. They were trying to put monitors in place, and were trying to move forward. However, once the number was on the books, and they started to collect data, they must be responsible to their constituents with regard to what those numbers show.

Additionally, Ms. Hartsock said they had very little knowledge of secondary organic particle formation and concentrations. She said she was simply trying to provide the Subcommittee with a dose of reality. They must commit resources to these issues, and do so expeditiously.

John Seitz said that was exactly what he was trying to get to yesterday. All of them knew that getting the 1990 CAAA up and running was a higher hurdle than had been anticipated. Whatever the tool was, if the light was red in LA and yellow in Lubbock, it was not an acceptable position to say that they were simply going to wait and see what the monitoring results say. They needed to go ahead now and implement strategies to deal with the anticipated problems. Thus, as soon as the evidence appeared, one had the responsibility as a public official to move expeditiously toward resolving the problem.

Bob Palzer said what bothered him was that the reason they were meeting was that there was a compelling amount of data that said that the current standards were not working. The NRDC study showed quite clearly that many areas that did not meet the particulate standard were experiencing increased mortality rates due to this problem. Additionally, the quality of life was severely reduced for countless others. Thus,in a region that would not attain the new standard, they needed to move immediately toward the resolution of the problems.

John Leary said they were dealing with several different issues here. They needed to develop policy around early SIP planning and this did not mean early reductions. Thus, the concept of early reductions needed to be explored, and the availability of incentives needed to be researched. There was work going on in various parts of the country with regard to fine particulates. These data sets needed to be reviewed and used to stimulate early SIP planning, hopefully through early reduction programs.

John Seitz said that was a good idea. For the areas where data were available he agreed that early planning and reductions should proceed. How to develop the policy does definitely needed some work. Where good data existed, they should not sit on it and wait.

John Leary said that anybody that had ever gone out and done SIP work understood that they would get ahead of the curve only to have it backfire on them down the road. They needed to understand the constraints as defined under the law.

John Seitz said he did not think that if they had three years of data they should wait to level the playing field; rather they should move forward.

David Baron wanted to echo what Bob Palzer said and relate some SIP process frustrations. When they started discussing delaying designations, they were basically dealing with a cascading process. The deadlines that were in the Act were almost never met. By the time the States got around to correcting the deficiencies found by the EPA, they were generally three to five years beyond where they were supposed to be - they could see this in the ozone program. Basically, it was like they were starting all over again.

Mr. Baron said there was a comment yesterday that the transition policy would take care of these issues in the interim. However, they really did not know what this policy was. He understood that there was a draft out, but that did not alleviate his concerns, especially with respect to PM. Encouraging early planning as an alternative to early designation needed to be more clearly defined before they could embrace it. First, it was unclear to which areas they would give this option - were they going to give this to areas that clearly violated the NAAQS? Secondly, for this idea to be viable, the early plan had to have requirements for some really substantial measures - it simply could not be a planning exercise. It must contain some real reductions and emissions controls. Mr. Baron wanted to see early reductions from such a report, above and beyond what an early designation would provide. Incentives needed to be defined for this type of approach.

Steve Gerritson said he heard several issues in listening to this discussion. One, the fact that they did not have sufficient data in many places to make these designations. Second, fine particulates were probably going to be found in the secondary organics, and be very sensitive to transport (per Harvey Jeffries). Thus, they were going to have a jurisdiction problem. He would also agree with Bob Palzer that PM is causing deaths, and thus delaying was not an acceptable option. Mr. Gerritson would suggest that EPA place some national controls on major sources of fine particulates during this three year period while they collected the data to do this thing correctly. That would provide public health protection and allow the designations to be done properly.

John Seitz asked whether they should do this through a SIP call.

Steve Gerritson said yes, or other known measures.

Alan Krupnick asked a question. For the east, and maybe for the west, there would be significant SO2 reductions from Title IV. Thus, he would expect fine particle concentrations to benefit greatly from these reductions. Would that alter their thinking or their process? He said it was kind of a tiered system - if an area had data, and its results were exceedingly high, then it would be designated nonattainment. Then if there was a high probability, using other than data methods, the burden of proof shifted to the area to prove why it should not be designated as nonattainment. Other areas would be in a holding pattern while they waited for data. Thus Mr. Krupnick saw a three-tier system.

As far as David Baron's point about SIP delays, Mr. Krupnick would point to the real costs of moving forward when they did not have good data. For ozone, they went ahead and incurred lots of costs, and a lot of nonattainment areas still had not been able to attain, most likely because of transport. They did not want to revisit these areas; thus, a three-tier approach might prove effective.

Richard Dworek said the monitoring networks should be expanded. The proposal here to establish 300 monitors over time was not consistent with this statement. When they had a monitoring network they must level the playing field for all citizens of the United States, not just regional jurisdictions. One thing they could do to expedite the process was to install as many monitors as possible in an attempt to level the playing field. They needed to monitor in areas that currently did not have any monitors.

Patrick Raher said to John Seitz that one thing confused him. Steve Gerritson said that they did not have sufficient data; some other people said that there were not sufficient data. Maybe the Agency or the STSWG could clear-up this issue - did they have something in the science Work Group that could give them a feel for the cities that would definitely not attain, some that would possibly attain; etc. Then they could begin to look at early reductions and develop strategies to get monitors to those people on the double.

John Seitz said they had heard a lot of debate about this issue. They needed to look at all the data and look at the break-out by individual cities. From a policy standpoint, they needed to get on with the game of including these areas in some type of early reductions programs.

Harvey Jeffries said his Work Group did discuss this, but they did not go into great detail. Both Glen Cass and Marc Scruggs were very knowledgeable on this issue of what was available and how it could be used.

Richard Dworek said they simply needed the Federal Reference Method (FRM) to be promulgated as soon as possible. This would greatly expedite this process. Until this was done, they could not start to collect the proper data.

John Seitz said on the FRM, they were doing the best that they could. He agreed that it did need to be promulgated very soon. They needed to concentrate their efforts on FRM monitoring in those areas where the light was already yellow. The areas that were in the red zone did not necessarily have to rush.

Glen Cass (California Institute of Technology) said a lot of discussion had been placed on the number of monitors and their date of installation. He saw two other important points. One of the big risks was that when the FRM was announced, it might not require chemical speciation. This was not necessary for determining nonattainment; however, it was required to design effective control programs and to validate the next generation of air quality models. The chemical material balance of the aerosol data was a requirement of the FRM, not a need or a request. Another concern had to deal with the FRM, and the poor choices taken in implementing the FRM. It could render the wealth of current data legally useless, and this should be considered very carefully.

As far as where the data existed, Mr. Cass said most of the west coast states had a substantial fine particulate data base. California had a dicot sampler network. His group had maintained a measurement program for the past three years; there was the IMPROVE network; and there were probably a number of short-term data sets in other locations which were available. However, the coverage was particularly poor in the eastern U.S., but it did exist. The coverage in the west was not too bad.

Vincent Brisini asked whether they were still a subcommittee for integration and implementation. They seemed to be discussing delaying things. Should the designations consider the programs that were in place in an area? They had Title IV and Title I in place; they had Nox RACT, Nox MOUs, etc. Thus, they had controls in place that were working. While there might be some hesitation in the formulation of the designation, he was not so sure that there was a delay in the control of the materials that are being identified as precursors and fine particulate. From a utility perspective, they had done some stack testing on size fractions, and the utility boilers did not appear to have real large emission of PM-fines. They also had continuous opacity monitoring, and these data were submitted to State agencies. Thus, Mr. Brisini was not so sure they had an actual delay in the controls. In the designation of an area there did need to be a concern for natural events.

Glen Cass said he was raising an important issue. Designation of nonattainment did not imply the tools necessary for an effective control plan - they must speciate.

Marc Scruggs said there were some displays of the IMPROVE monitoring data in the Conceptual Model - approximately 65 sites were currently operational. The data had been collected since approximately 1988, and in some cases back to 1979 (if they were not concerned with monitoring methods). However, this was predominantly rural sites - they had only one urban site. They were not dealing with primary emissions; it was predominantly secondary organic formation. These data were available and they would provide them to anyone who was interested.

Chris Shaver said reductions were all well and good, and the start of these reductions was fine. However, if there was not some mechanism to force these things into place, there would be inherent attempts to derail these programs before they ever got started. Thus, they needed Federal requirements. She would encourage people to collect some health related data also during this three year data collection process. They needed to be working with hospitals and health departments to collect data in a way that would shed some light on solving this problem.

Mark Brownstein said he would not be supportive of designation without data - data were important to public acceptance. It was very difficult to move from designations to reductions without good, sound data. The "yellow zone" which John Seitz had discussed did need to be explored further. This was an opportunity to let people know what was out there, and allowed people to determine their own destiny. He thought that it provided a definite incentive to the public to move forward, ahead of the designation process. All that being said, Richard and Steve pointed out the mistakes from the ozone program. They had rushed to make ozone designations only to find that there were larger issues to be solved in order to bring them into attainment. They must understand the regional aspects of the PM problem in conjunction with the local problem in order to adequately solve the problem.

John Seitz said he would agree. From experiencing the first cross-boundary designations for ozone, he was sympathetic to their concerns.

Mel Zeldin said he suggested yesterday that the data available could be used not for designation, but rather for accelerating the monitor planning process. This was designated the "Early Response Method", and is Option 11. The option basically states: use the probability method to determine areas that had a high probability of violating a PM-2.5 standard. The basis for this method would not be to designate nonattainment, but rather would be to select areas for accelerated monitoring. Accelerated monitoring would include one year of PM-2.5 data augmented with speciated monitoring. At the end of one year, if the monitoring data showed violation, a nonattainment or AOV redesignation would be made, and the area would have the requisite speciation data to initiate the planning process (i.e., determination of AOI or SIP). This process should be linked to a time- certain end point for all areas (e.g., 2009) independent of the year of the AOV redesignation. For areas not determined to be high probability, they would use the appropriate alternative approach based on monitored data, such as Option 6.

John Seitz said that it had been a very good and useful discussion. He needed to get back with EPA staff and regroup on this issue of the "yellow zone". The playing field must be level and consistent for all parties involved. They did not want total chaos here in this process.

Larry Feldcamp suggested that perhaps a small group could work with EPA to help frame another proposal. He envisioned some type of tiered approach to solving this issue.

John Seitz said they would take this up with the coordination committee.

Alan Krupnick said to remember that there was going to be early action to reduce fine particles. They did not have this problem with ozone. There would be early reductions taken under existing mechanisms, and they should help kick-start the process and the program.

Institutional Mechanisms Issue Paper

Highlights

Chris Shaver made a presentation that touched on two main issues: where was the authority for creating an institution and what would be the authority of that institution. She summarized what her Work Group had learned in evaluating mechanisms used by other relevant institutions, such as OTAG, which included charter, participants, funding, and outreach. Issues for further discussion included timing and basis, formality, flexibility vs. uniformity and specificity, and reconciling State, tribe, and EPA authorities.

There was discussion by the Subcommittee on what size and shape a regional authority would take. State representatives were concerned about how a regional authority's jurisdiction would affect their own jurisdiction.

The Subcommittee was reminded that the formation of regional institutions needed not just to address the East and the West but also to take into account the needs of States in the center of the country.

Scientists noted that the creation of a regional mechanism was not only a policy decision. There were technical considerations as well, such as the desirability of having capable, regionally located laboratories and modeling centers.

Chris Shaver of the National and Regional Strategies Subgroup made this presentation. She said what they started with was a list of general principles that they would abide by. The institutional mechanism needed to be sufficiently adequate that control strategies would be developed, implemented, and then strongly enforced. They were not considering whether the institutional mechanism was national, regional, or local. They simply wanted to develop the mechanism.

Generic options were presented at the last meeting. They identified two issues: authority of the institution; and the authority for creating the institution.

Formal transport commissions

Voluntary alliances

Interstate Agreements: CAA Section 102

Interstate Agreements: CAA Section 106.

Authority After Establishment

Direct regulatory authority could raise constitutional concerns

Multi-state consensus - SIP revisions - EPA Approval

Interstate compacts

MOUs

Recommendations to EPA - EPA Rule - SIP revisions

With formal commissions

Without formal commissions.

Timing of Establishment

Sooner the better

Incentive for early cooperation and collaboration

Incentives for early reductions

Clear message on maintaining existing/required strategies.

Basis for Establishment

Rational basis needed: RPAs, AOV/AOIs

Science

Policy/economic (e.g. market-based mechanisms, etc.)?

Administrative/resource factors?

Independent EPA assessment of need and rational basis.

Lessons from Existing Institutions

Charter

The most successful organizations were formed by high level of government (e.g. U.S. Congress or State/Tribal governors)

Clear objective

Incentives for achieving objectives

Political legitimacy and stability.

Participants

Both technical and policy participation from States/Tribes was important (e.g., State/tribe air	directors as well as environmental commissioners or other representative of Governors' offices)

Role of stakeholders and legislators.

Funding

Steady funding was important for efficient long-term funding

In-kind contributions were often used to perform large technical projects

Multi-state/tribe membership was generally advantageous, allowing for pooling of resources and	mutual benefit obtained through cooperation.

Public Outreach

Most existing institutions recognize that additional public outreach would have helped them in the	past, or would help them in the future.

Authority - Two Views

Interstate cooperation and consensus were key to success: States/Tribes would not cede authority	to regional organization

Authority to make decisions that would be binding on members would be helpful

Next Steps

Establish "working assumptions" about what the institutional mechanism would need to do

Design alternative institutional mechanisms to meet those needs: options + process = scenario

Discuss pros and cons of options

Develop recommendations.

Discussion Issues

Timing and basis

Formality: short-term and long-term (how formal did these institutional mechanisms need to be?)

Flexibility consistent with principles and "core requirements" vs. uniformity and specificity

Reconciling State/Tribe and EPA independent authorities

Comments from the Subcommittee on Institutional Mechanisms

Vincent Brisini said he was unaware that NESCAUM was created by virtue of (i.e., authorized by) the CAA, and he did not think that it was. Membership in the OTC was mandatory, but it their problem if they did not want to come to the meetings. MARAMA was missing from the issue paper, and he thought that it should be included. Pennsylvania was not part of NESCAUM, but was part of MARAMA. West Virginia was not part of the OTR.

Beverly Hartsock asked Mr. Brisini please submit this type of corrections in writing and not take up time today for this type of dialogue.

Vincent Brisini said that as far as the timing of establishing the IM, how many layers of planning did they have in this process. How would they define a performance goal?

Chris Shaver said they discussed a trickle down approach: start large and work down. Initially they would focus on AOIs and AOVs and keep things as small as possible. However, they felt that everyone should be involved initially, and then they could shrink down.

Joe Williams asked whether it was correct that two or three States could go together to form a regional planning process.

Chris Shaver said yes for now. The role of a regional body overseeing a group of two or three States was simply an added level of bureaucracy. However, on larger problems, the concept of a regional body might be more efficient.

Joe Williams asked whether British Columbia and Mexico had been considered.

Chris Shaver said yes, they needed to deal with international issues. They had international representatives on their group.

Steve Gerritson said LADCO was one of the regional consortiums Ms. Shaver tried to capture in her presentation. The success of these regional consortiums was having an individual who represented the regional perspective and not the perspective of any one State. He thought the structure was less important; as long as they had buy-in from the top, things tended to work well. He had not looked at their Charter in over six years and honestly did not really remember what it said. So, the structure was not that important.

Beverly Hartsock said she really liked the idea of built-in flexibility - they all knew the East was different from the West. She liked the concept of designing a system that would work for her, and her problems. She was concerned about the approach of starting large and working down - she could argue the opposite point. When one started large and moved smaller, one was trying to prove the negative, trying to prove that this was not a good expenditure of an individual's time and effort.

Chris Shaver said it was difficult to provide a very strong case for large to small without the standard being on the table. Texas was such a special case, because it was right in the middle. They obviously understood the east vs. west issues. Starting large allowed more resources to be thrown into the pot, and more ideas. They thought this might be beneficial initially. However, there was a need for whatever we do to be rational.

Greg Shaefer asked where they were with their particular paper.

Chris Shaver said this was simply an informational update. This was clearly a Phase II issue.

Glen Cass said most of the discussion that had occurred on regional and institutional mechanisms had focused on decision making. He would like to remind people that there was a technical component of regionalization. They could benefit from regional laboratories doing speciation analyses of the PM-fine network data. Regional data centers and modeling efforts could be greatly enhanced by regionalization. Secondly, it was completely unlikely that 50 different modeling centers could be developed with sufficient expertise to implement a full-fledged photochemical modeling/data analysis effort.

Chris Shaver thanked Mr. Cass and said they would also consider this slant to the issue.

*** BREAK ***

Treatment of Areas at Risk of Violating NAAQS Issue Paper

Highlights

Richard Chastain presented the work of his group in addressing different options for how areas at risk should be identified, who should have authority for making the identification, and what responses were appropriate for an area once it was designated at risk. He also summarized the positions of Work Group members on each option; there was fairly clear division between environmental group representatives and industry representatives on the major options.

Environmental representatives on the Subcommittee expressed support for options that gave EPA the mandate for designating areas at risk. They also generally supported the option that required mandatory responses to such a designation.

EPA's position at this time was that local authorities be given the flexibility to make designations and implement controls; EPA could be used as a fall back but probably would not support implementation of mandatory controls at this time.

There was confusion expressed by members of the Subcommittee on how the concept of an area at risk related to AOIs and AOVs.

Some Subcommittee members expressed support for having a nationwide program with specific guidance about how to determine an area at risk while localities reserved the right to use the guidance in making their own designations and requiring controls. Otherwise, according to these members, there would be a great deal of inconsistency between States in how this program would be implemented and enforced.

Richard Chastain (Southern Company) made this presentation. He said that the initial idea of this paper arose from discussions regarding the new ozone standard. They were just beginning to deal with this on a conceptual basis, and were purposely not looking at a great number of details. The purpose of today's talk was to present where they were, and gather comments and suggestions so that they could formulate their Phase II responses.

Premise

(They had consensus on this as a Work Group, following Monday's meeting.)

For any area that was not violating a NAAQS but could be identified as tending toward an AOV, that area and the area that could become an associated AOI should be encouraged to initiate planning to avoid a possible violation.

One of the questions of all of these papers was what was broken. In the case of this paper, there really was nothing broken; rather, they were encouraging people to take initiatives to prevent from having something that wa broken i.e., designated nonattainment.

First Question

How should areas at risk be identified?

Option 1:	Use a single indicator that is similar to the standard but less stringent

Option 2:	Use a trend analysis (e.g., what is the slope?)

Option 3:	Use a combination of methods (e.g., multiple indicators)

Recommendation: Most of the Work Group favored Option 3, but some favored Option 1. Clearly, Option 2 was very difficult and would require input from the STSWG as to how they would define the trend.

Second Question

Who should be responsible for identifying areas at risk?

Option 1:	State and local agencies through voluntary surveillance programs

Option 2:	State and local agencies through required surveillance programs

Option 3:	EPA

Recommendation: Most the Work Group favored Option 1, but environmental members favored Option 3.

Third Question

What is the appropriate response for an area at risk?

Option 1:	State decides what is appropriate

Option 2:	State decides what is appropriate, but is required to have a contingency plan for violation

Option 3:	State action required for areas at risk

Option 4:	State decides what is appropriate, but EPA offers incentive to take voluntary actions (e.g., States initiating voluntary actions would have some flexibility if they exceeded the standard).

Recommendation: Most of the Work Group favored Option 4, but environmental members favored an approach such as Option 3.

Mr. Chastain said they were extremely interested in the Subcommittee's inputs, and they would be continuing their efforts in Phase II of the program.

Comments from the Subcommittee on Treatment of Areas at Risk of Violating NAAQS

Bob Palzer said he thought this was an extremely important paper. In his view, one of the difficulties in their approach was that they were focusing on areas that did not or were planned not to meet the standard. He thought that it was equally important to look at fringe areas that might be tending toward nonattainment. Mr. Palzer felt they should be considering mandatory requirements for these regions, and not the proposed voluntary efforts. They should take every possible step to prevent these areas from becoming nonattainment areas.

Tom Godar said he liked the presentation. Mr. Chastain outlined options and identified where certain groups sided. He was in favor of EPA providing the regulatory muscle here. States could often make environmental decisions that would have adverse impacts on other States. He thought there should be incentives as part of the process, but he would like to hold EPA responsible here.

Richard Chastain said that his statement that environmental groups strongly oppose incentives was a bit of an overstatement: they really only oppose certain types of incentives.

John Seitz said he supported this paper, because early detection and planning was a key to progress in air quality management. He thought the term State was misunderstood here. In general, it was the local or urban community that recognized the problems and initiated the process to rectify the problem. EPA would support these type efforts, but they should provide the flexibility and room to perform their own classifications and programs. Mr. Seitz hesitated to volunteer EPA to lead this effort; he favored giving localities the flexibility to do their own thing, with EPA as a fall-back procedure. He really could not advocate mandatory controls at this time.

John Leary said it was unclear how this related to the AOI concept, because if one was part of an AOI, a lot of this paper was irrelevant to that particular area. He just did not see how this fit in with integration.

Richard Chastain said this was initially aimed at the AOI/AOV approach. They tried to indicate this in their premise statement, that they were including both the AOI and AOV. They discussed an area tending toward an AOV and the subsequent AOI.

John Crouch (Hearth Products Associates) said three years was not enough. Once the ball was rolling, three years was not enough to bring these programs along. EPA regional people were not in the field. They needed to be able to relate this information to the local city council. He thought the State people had a tremendous incentive to get started early. Mr. Crouch thought this concept worked, and it was working already in parts of the country.

Richard Dworek said he believed the concept of installing new monitors and getting new PM-fine data was extremely important. This type of process could be extremely helpful in implementing the new particulate standard.

Vincent Brisini said the real question was when you got down to defining mandatory programs. If they looked at mandatory measures under the current nonattainment designations, they were not very pretty. He thought this was a real difficult area. If one began to identify mandatory measures such that "thou shalt have a maintenance plan", then this looked and smelled quite differently. If they had this potential AOV, which also had a new AOI, then they needed to identify who the source targets were, prior to forcing unnecessary reductions from the wrong sources. He was not sure what he would support but it would hinge on what measures were mandatory.

Beverly Hartsock said Texas had at least one area, San Antonio, that would fall into this category. There was a real need to get into this issue, discuss the nationwide approach, and identify the level of support that was available. All cities needed a level of certainty in making these types of decisions. They needed to provide these areas as much help as possible in answering the questions related to areas at risk. The cities here were the key issue - they were making steps to move forward and were being pro-active in resolving problems. Thus, anything that the Subcommittee could do from the national perspective as to what the future might hold would be very well received.

Joe Williams said they needed to prevent as many areas as possible from drifting into nonattainment. These efforts might be important for EPA to try and get EPA's budget back in sync with the State and local budgets. He would steer away from non-mandatory measures at this time, until they could get the budgetary concerns resolved.

David Baron said he viewed this concept as sort of bringing the maintenance concept to the front of the process as opposed to waiting until the end. In a maintenance plan, it was not an option. The measures had to be implementable and enforceable. It was important that these measures have substance, teeth, and consistency. Thus, he did not like leaving it up to the States to determine areas at risk. This would lead to major inconsistencies. He wondered what that would we be telling the public. The issue of how the Subcommittee responds was the most important and also the most difficult. He saw the possibility of using both the carrot and the stick here. Using purely incentives, he saw very few cities buying into this program. He thought buy-in should be obtained and then the incentives provided. The risk here was of States adopting the area at risk plan to simply get an extension on their SIP plans.

Mr. Baron also did not agree with this suggestion of requiring mandatory maintenance plans for areas at risk being synonymous with designating them as nonattainment. As to the question of how this interacted with AOIs/AOVs, he said they had the notion that every one had agreed to this concept of AOIs/AOVs. He was still not comfortable with this concept, because they really did not know what it meant. He was not in favor of abolishing current nonattainment areas for simple AOIs/AOVs.

Donna Lamb said Mr. Baron should stay tuned to the regional haze paper for some suggestions.

Patrick Raher said it would help him to clarify areas at risk versus AOIs and AOVs. How did they distinguish an area at risk from an AOI? He still did not understand this distinction. He asked that the group clarify this in a revision of the paper. Secondly, he asked them to take a look and try to learn from other programs which have similar goals and objectives (e.g., the SARA program, the insecticide program). In both of these programs, nobody mandated any types of controls, but the flexibility of both of these programs was working effectively across the nation.

Richard Chastain indicated he would like to discuss those programs further with Mr. Raher.

Regional Haze Issue Paper

Highlights

Donna Lamb's presentation looked at her Group's process, implementation issues, methods for measuring reasonable progress, and underlying issues. She reported options and the Work Group's recommendations on quantitative objectives, institutional mechanisms, planning time, reasonable progress and progress reporting, aerosol and visibility monitoring, emissions tracking and reduction verification, and BART.

Environmental representatives asked how prescribed burning would be addressed and whether it would be considered a natural event and thus exempt from regulation. They noted that it would be hard to differentiate wood smoke from burning from wood smoke coming out of residential sources.

An industry representative suggested that, because visibility was not a public health issue and had many cost constraints, it should take a back seat to ozone and PM health issues.

Donna Lamb presented this paper.

Process

10/10 Reviewed at NRSWG

10/11 Reviewed by STSWG regional haze Group

10/16 NRSWG, STSWG and GCVTC comments incorporated; interim draft posted on TTN

10/17 Reviewed at NRSWG meeting

10/18 Reviewed at STSWG regional haze group

10/21 STSWG and NRSWG comments incorporated; draft posted on the TTN

There had been a lot of changes in the paper since the last FACA meeting. They had been working on some of the underlying issues.

Outline of the Paper

Introduction

The National Goal

Implementation of Regional Haze Program to Make Reasonable Progress Toward National Goal

Methods for Measuring Reasonable Progress

Controls

Implementation Issues

Institutional Mechanism	No Recommendation

Individual or Grouped Class I Areas	Recommendation

Quantitative Objectives	Recommendation

Measures of Reasonable Progress	No Recommendation

Distribution of Hazy and Clear Days	No Recommendation

Planning Time	Semi - Recommendation

Follow-up Progress Reports	Semi - Recommendation

Methods for Measuring Reasonable Progress

Visibility/regional haze monitoring network (Undiscussed Recommendation)

Aerosol and visibility monitoring (Undiscussed Recommendation)

Extent of monitoring network (Undiscussed Recommendation)

Representativeness of sites (Undiscussed Recommendation)

Tracking emissions and verifying reductions (No Recommendation)

Controls

Long-term strategies

BART

Regional Haze in Ozone and PM Context

Paper addresses if and how new PM and Ozone NAAQS implementation could be integrated with CAA Section 169 regional haze program.

National Goal

National visibility goal from 169A of the CAA: "The prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution."

Background

Regional Haze rule, including definition of reasonable progress, promulgated 18 months after the GCVTC recommendations (draft 6/97, final 12/98)

Revised SIPS due one year after promulgation (before PM and Ozone designations)

Underlying Issues I

Differences between East and West

Current scientific knowledge adequate for taking regulatory action (National Academy of Sciences,	1993)

Extinction in the east due to sulfate is very important.

Underlying Issues II

Where do you get political will to request additional controls for visibility protection?

Underlying Issues III

Timing of controls for regional haze: before, after, or at the same time as controls for PM and ozone

Comments from the Subcommittee on the Regional Haze Issue Paper

Beverly Hartsock said about East vs. West, please let them not forget the center part of the country.

Donna Lamb said they did not intend to forget.

Vincent Brisini had questions on Ms. Lamb's overhead on the speciation of pollutants and asked for help with the concept of absorption.

Donna Lamb said the first part of the paper dealt with explaining coefficients derived from the GCVTC report. They could not simply deal with fine mass without weighing the potential effects from extinction.

Vincent Brasini asked whether in light of 1995 and 1996 and what had been measured in the field, the significant reductions from the Title IV program, had the Forest Service seen any reductions in what they were collecting.

Donna Lamb said yes, they were beginning to see the benefits of Title IV. They assumed that the progress that was being made to protect health, deal with Title IV, etc., needed to be taken as a credit in the Regional Haze Program.

Mark Scruggs said that anything that was said with regards to trends would be extremely preliminary. One really could not see anything from one year's worth of data.

Developing Quantitative Objectives

Options

(1) EPA specifies improvement needed

(2) Federal Land Managers (FLM) provide information on impairment and set objective

(3) Stakeholders in planning body and FLMs determine objective

(4) States with Class I areas and FLMs establish public process to set objective.

Recommendation

Option 3:	Stakeholders in planning body and FLMs determine goal, or

Option 4:	States with Class I areas and FLMs establish public process to set goal.

EPA would set what needs to be considered, but yes, EPA would have to wait for the results.

Institutional Mechanisms

The key element for regional haze was the role of a planning body. Could the chosen institutional mechanism handle the additional role of developing quantitative objectives for regional haze?

Individual or Grouped Class I Areas Options

(1)	Consider Class I areas one by one

(2)	Group Class I areas, then identify Areas of Influence (E.g. AOIs)

(3)	Identify PM and Ozone AOIs first; modify AOIs to account for nearby Class I areas

(4)	Look at all areas of violation (AOV) and overlapping AOIs. Group AOIs to optimize planning.

Recommendation

Option 4:	Look at all AOVs and overlapping AOIs; group AOIs to optimize planning

Recommendation was consistent with the 7/25/96 Designations Paper and integration concepts

Grouping Class I areas was less critical under AOI/AOV construct

Class I areas as AOVs is key

Clean air corridors (e.g. regional haze terminology) or areas of potential impact must be in the AOI.

Planning Time

SIPs or SPIPs must include regional haze measures

Quantitative objectives for Class I areas should be developed between now and designations

Ozone, PM, and regional haze SIP and/or SPIP dates should be similar

Incentives for addressing all three pollutants should be developed (this was an emerging concept	from the group).

Follow-up Progress Reports

EPA was required to report regional haze progress every five years

Long-term strategies must be updated every three years

Reporting for PM and ozone should be the same as for regional haze.

Reasonable Progress (a graph)

Reasonable Progress (downward sloping line)

Title IV (health emphasis) + Reasonable Progress (i.e., initial downward sloping line, then stabilizing with only moderate downslope trend)

Long-term strategy means short-term degradation (attainment) (i.e., upward sloping line initially, then a downward sloping line)

Are you making reasonable progress if you're at background levels? (i.e,. straight-line)

What Has Been Learned about Reasonable Progress

GCVTC definition of reasonable progress: "Achieving continuous emission reductions necessary to reduce existing impairment and attain steady improvement of visibility in mandatory Class I areas, and managing emissions growth so as to prevent degradation of clear air days."

Criteria for Determining Reasonable Progress

Verify impairment reductions with emissions and monitoring data

Document steady progress at review intervals

Adjust program based on non-visibility program progress reviews

Implement controls equitably across source categories:

Develop cost-effective control strategies

Mitigate adverse impacts

Enhance monitoring and modeling to ensure improvement

Coordinate monitoring, administrative systems, and funding.

Reasonable Progress Elements

Reduce human-caused haze under national visibility goal

Target Class I areas and associated Areas of Influence (AOIs)

Improve visibility on worst days

Preserve existing visibility on best days

Consider equity issues

Measures of Reasonable Progress

Establish targeted emissions budget over time

Reduce monitored impairment

Reduce modeled impairment

Establish targeted emissions budget over time and monitor reduction in visibility impairment.

Target Hazy or Clear Days

Improve hazy days

Prevent degradation of clear days

Improve hazy days and preserve clear days

Develop regional strategy targeting hazy and/or clear days

*** BREAK ***

Regional Haze Issue Paper (continued)

Aerosol and Visibility Monitoring

Options

(1) Specify IMPROVE as the Federal Reference Method (FRM) for visibility monitoring

(2) Approve IMPROVE as equivalent to PM2.5 FRM. Deploy PM-2.5 monitors with nephelometer at transport or background sites.

(3) Accept visibility data from past five years; recommend speciated aerosol data, relative humidity, and extinction monitoring as minimum

Recommendation

Option 1: Specify improve as the FRM for visibility monitoring.

Extent of Monitoring Network

(1) Expand IMPROVE Network

(2) Establish intermediate monitoring sites

(3) Draw on CAA status and Trends Network (CASTNET)

(4) Utilize airport visibility data

(5) Treat regional haze planing areas as air quality management districts

(6) Ensure compatibility of IMPROVE and PM-fine FRM data.

Representativeness of Sites

Monitoring at all sites is expensive

Haze generation has local components

Combining emission reductions with monitoring is one approach.

Tracking Emissions and Verifying Reductions

Monitoring alone is insufficient for ensuring reasonable progress (GCVTC)

SIP Revisions

CAA requires revised SIPS to include long-term strategies (10-15 years). Long-term strategies must:

Consider next 10-15 years

Include growth projections

Be updated every 3 years

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

Options

(1) Continue existing BART rules

(2) Use planning body to identify contributing sources and develop control strategies

(3) Establish distance-based criteria

(4) Achieve equivalent or better controls through market-based strategy

(5) Specify a BART "floor" and allow SPIP to accommodate better solutions

(6) Use SPIP process to determine some other level of control.

Recommendation

Option 5

Ms. Lamb said she was not sure that they would be here talking today with such enthusiasm for market-based incentives, had they not proceeded with Title IV. She thought the progress made under Title IV was the reason for a good deal of the optimism that had been voiced with regard to market- based incentives. Progress towards meeting the regional haze goal would take them toward the ultimate goal of attaining the fine particle standard.

Comments from the Subcommittee on the Regional Haze Issue Paper

Bob Palzer raised the issue of forest health and prescribed burning, and other programs that would be used by FLMs over the next 40 years. He asked how they were going to be able to differentiate the wood smoke from these practices from wood smoke coming out of residential sources.

Donna Lamb said this was a forest health issue and that she was partly speaking from her own interests here. This would fall under their quantitative objectives issue. They wanted to involve the necessary people to resolve these issues. One might not be able to distinguish prescribed fire smoke from wood stove smoke using speciation analyses, but one should be able to address this issue temporally.

Bob Palzer said that when there were natural fires, they were generally in the summer months. However, in Oregon, the majority of prescribed burning had been in late fall and winter, when there generally was the highest amount of particulate matter from wood stoves being generated. Thus, he would advocate some type of controls on when prescribed burning takes place.

Donna Lamb said her answer was sort of a general one. It would take an analysis in multiple areas to resolve this issue.

Bob Palzer asked whether prescribed burning was going to be considered a natural event, and thus exempt from regulation.

Donna Lamb said Chris Shaver had discussed this in terms of institutional mechanisms. Regardless, they would need public participation in whatever approach they chose.

Sarah Pierce-Sandner had a question on the underlying Issues III. First, in terms of areas that were unlikely to have a PM or ozone violation, it did not seem a reason to delay planning. However, for areas that were likely to have a PM and/or ozone problem, it was proper to have the NAAQS drive the planning process. Her anticipation was that when there was a violation, what needed to be driving this issue was the public health concerns, Then, the visibility concerns needed to be addressed at a later time. Secondly, ozone and PM should drive the control strategies because of the statutory basis. NAAQS were designed to protect the public health and welfare, regardless of the cost. Visibility on the other hand, had all kinds of cost constraints that needed to be considered, which she thought should take a back seat to the ozone and PM health issues.

Greg Shaefer wanted to reiterate that the prescribed fire issue really needed to be addressed. As they came to the reasonable progress section, the regulated community would be held accountable for these type emissions.

Sally Shaver said they had asked the FLMs to come to us and discuss with us how we should/could deal with this. They were trying to draft some principles and guidance on this very issue. They were beginning to address this issue; it would not be considered a natural event; it would be some type of emissions event.

Greg Schaefer said, having lived through the NSR drafts and redrafts, he would recommend that they step back, revisit, and simplify prior to going into the details of Phase II.

Donna Lamb said they had discussed cutting the paper up into several pieces, hoping that people would read some of each part, where they would not be willing to read the entire document. She thought they had some agreement on how they might do this effectively. They were trying to integrate these issues as much as possible into the other issue papers. To an extent they had been successful in doing this with the AOI/AOV and Institutional Mechanism papers.

Vincent Brisini said when he was asking what the data had shown, Mark's comment was, "Bear with me for a few years and let me look at the trends". They could call this approach whatever they liked, but what they were doing was achieving reductions. First, they must identify the reductions and where they were going to make them. Ms. Pierce-Sandner brought-up the issue of trading and substitutions, which happened to be near and dear to Mr. Brisini's heart. Substitutions would be good here.

William Hamilton said that this wrapped up the regional haze presentation and discussion.

Monitoring Incentives Issues Paper

Highlights

The presentation was made by Richard Dworek. He reviewed the make up of the Work Group, outlined the two key options of incentives for monitoring and monitoring SIPs, and reported the number of group members for and against a series of recommendations associated with monitoring incentives.

Environmental representatives expressed strong objections to many of the incentive options put forth by the group saying that they represented a relaxation of current standards. Some interest group spokespersons objected to the idea of having monitoring incentives at all.

Industry representatives cited examples where incentives had proven effective and generally supported some sort of incentive program.

Several attendees raised scientific, technical, and cost issues associated with monitoring particulates.

Because of the clear divisiveness of this issue, it was referred to the coordination group, which was given the job of setting up ad hoc subgroups to look at monitoring incentives.

Richard Dworek his group was looking for feedback, just like the other groups. He referenced David Barron's memo dated 10/14/96, which dealt with the monitoring incentives issue paper.

John Seitz asked whether it was correct that the updated paper was placed on the BBS on 10/18/96.

Richard Dworek said that was correct. The content was basically the same, simply reorganized. He believed they had active participation. They distributed a questionnaire to all members, to help them arrive at consensus on these issues.

Slide 1

Charge - Monitoring issue assigned to the BPAP

(1) How could they create incentives for monitoring?

(2) How could they create incentives for private sector monitoring?

Slide 2

Who is this work group?

26 members

3 environmental

12 government

11 industry/utilities.

Slide 3

Activities

Initial paper drafted 5/31/96

Major work group meetings 7/1-2/96 with BPAP, NRSWG and STSWG

Paper was on the BBS, and had been reviewed and revised numerous times.

Slide 4

An attempt to improve the stakeholder process

an attempt to improve on the reporting viewpoints of the members.

Two Key Options

(1) Incentives for monitoring Option

(2) Monitoring SIP Option

Did they agree with expanding the national ambient monitoring network? Yes, all 19 members present agreed with this. Basically, some wanted to revise it, but they wanted to expand tit for better data collection.

Did they agree with expanding the national ambient monitoring network to define the AOI? 16 agreed, 3 no comment.

Did they agree/disagree that there should be consistent national guidelines for monitoring that had to be followed in all States, with respect to minimum number of monitors, spatially located, population, quality control monitors and referenced monitors ? 14 agreed, 4 disagreed.

Did they agree/disagree that incentives should be provided to the private sector to support additional monitors that would supplement basic regulatory monitoring programs? 14 agreed, 4 disagreed.

Did they agree/disagree that one of the major incentives for additional monitoring should be to eliminate the disincentive for expanded monitoring, such as mandatory nondiscretionary control programs in response to monitoring violations? 13 agreed, 5 disagreed.

Did they agree/disagree with a policy to initiate a national voluntary partnership program for voluntary sources in lieu of command and control requirements, covering the full range of private sector involvement in the development and implementation of integrated strategies designed to attain the NAAQS? 11 agreed, 5 disagreed.

These programs should be regional in scope and not national. An ad hoc committee may be required to work this issue out.

Did they agree/disagree that population-weighted monitoring data should be used for measuring rate of progress (ROP)? 10 agreed, 7 disagreed.

Mr. Dworek thought this was consistent with what has been discussed in recent meetings.

Where were they going with all of this?

(1) Review revised paper (covers incentives and options from diverse interest group)

(2) Request FACA comments/support/revisions to following Executive Summary recommendations.

Executive Summary Recommendations

Appoint national "monitoring" task force consisting of FACA, FACA Work Groups, other interested	organizations/individuals

Develop policy and technical guidelines

Consider incentives option and monitoring SIP option.

Comments from the Subcommittee on the Monitoring Incentives Issues Paper

Deborah Shprentz said that she objected to policy recommendations that they were advocating, and NRDC would view these as regulatory relaxations. She went through these incentives one by one, because each of them was a direct weakening of CAA regulations. Incentive 1 was a clear cut example - ignoring monitored violations would counter-productive to their mission. Incentive 2 was also counterproductive - if there were not any emissions reductions there would not be any improvement in air quality. Incentive options 4 and 5 were similar.

John Seitz asked for a process clarification from Mr. Dworek, wanting to know whether it was true that they had not reached closure.

Richard Dworek said that was true for some of the issues.

John Seitz said he was trying to determine what Mr. Dworek's group was looking for from this discussion.

Richard Dworek said there should be smaller ad hoc groups developed on some of these issues.

John Seitz asked whether incentives were one of these issues.

Richard Dworek said yes. However, there would be certain issues that they would not be able to reach consensus on. Perhaps then the onus should be on the group not supporting the position to provide an alternative approach.

John Seitz said he was looking at process. Everyone agreed that they needed more monitoring. Part of the group said they needed incentives for additional monitoring, but the environmental groups said they did not need this incentive, because it impeded progress towards environmental quality. Thus, they needed an ad hoc group to handle the incentives issue. Was this correct?

Richard Dworek said yes, he thought that was correct.

Deborah Shprentz said she was not so sure that it was such a positive thing to have monitoring incentives. Incentive 8 suggested that more interest was placed in monitoring in high population areas. NRDC simply could not accept these incentive options because they served to severely reduce the CAA's ability to protect the public health and welfare. These incentives all reflected a significant relaxation of the CAA-mandated standards. A survey was not an adequate response to these concerns. The whole presentation of the paper was not a balanced discussion of the issues. EPA needed to spell-out the regulatory requirements in order to adequately identify nonattainment areas.

John Seitz said he indicated earlier that EPA would be doing exactly that.

Deborah Shprentz said there were over 1,200 PM monitors currently operational. NRDC was extremely upset at the position that this paper has taken.

John Seitz said he understood Ms. Shprentz' sentiments. EPA would be monitoring in conjunction Part 58 guidelines, and they recognized that the current network was not adequate to handle the issues before them. That brought them back full circle to the need for incentives.

Georgia Callahan said she supported the generation of the ad hoc group to deal with the incentives issue. There were a lot of super-technical issues that needed to be dealt with here, and she would encourage them to draw from these type people to resolve this issue.

Alan Krupnick said the issue here was how to get the data - it was fairly clear that EPA could not fund this effort, and that the States were not willing to take on this responsibility either. So, the issue was who would pay. They had knocked-out local, state, and Federal governments, which only leaves the private sector to fund this thing. What incentives were appropriate to give to the private sector to facilitate this type of additional monitoring? He disagreed with Ms. Callahan saying it was not a technical issue at all, it was purely a policy issue.

Georgia Callahan said she would agree with Mr. Krupnick.

Mel Zeldin said the cost of particulates was expensive. The labor, the data analysis and the filters were all significant. This was markedly different that ozone. If you look at the country and where particulates were monitored, there were substantial holes. Even if we had available resources to put out these monitors, there would still be sufficient holes, even after EPA installed the monitors. The purpose of the current monitoring program was to generate incentives for the public and private sectors to join in the Federal monitoring program (i.e., the 300 monitors they had been discussing here).

Kelly Brown (Ford Motor Company) likened this debate to the mobile source debate 20 years ago. For 10 years they had less than stellar results. Finally, when they re-asked the question in the 1980s, they got a totally different answer.

Larry Feldcamp said he thought it had helped through special studies to get a better handle on issues. Incentives had been a real strong benefit towards monitoring progress.

Donna Lamb said the objections that Ms. Shprentz raised triggered a broader issue in her mind. The AOI/AOV concept was not a way to get away from nonattainment issues. They did not know what they were losing when they moved away from designating nonattainment areas. It might be appropriate to take a look at nonattainment areas and those parts of the CAA that were addressing them prior to moving towards the AOI/AOV concept.

John Taunton (Exxon) said apparently there was general support for more monitoring. There also appeared to be some disagreement on how this additional data would/should be used. Perhaps, then an ad hoc group was the answer to all of this. On the other hand, he would like to support the industry programs that Mr. Feldcamp was discussing for the State of Texas. Perhaps they should do this on a larger, regional basis, perhaps with EPA coordinating.

Glen Cass said particulate matter differed from ozone monitoring. Particulate matter monitoring was more valuable than ozone monitoring, and could save money in other areas of environmental quality programs. Incentives which relax environmental quality are not the only incentives which are available to us here. There should a number of positive incentives which we could draw upon to bolster our monitoring network.

Alan Krupnick asked whether Mr. Cass was saying that the incentives for industry to support speciated monitoring should exist now.

Glen Cass said yes, and not only industry would reach this conclusion.

Beverly Hartsock said she though Mr. Cass was absolutely right. What this meant was that problem areas were doing the monitoring and benefitting from the increases in knowledge gained. What about those vast unclassified areas? They really had not addressed those regions today. Money was decreasing for monitoring, and they had not addressed the incentives to stimulate monitoring in these rural areas.

Glen Cass said it was more complicated than that. If they left it completely to chance, people would learn that it was prudent to supplement EPA's minimal monitoring support. They would need speciated monitors in rural areas to get background concentrations in those regions.

Donna Lamb said in talking with STSWG about visibility monitoring, she would challenge them to look beyond air quality data. They needed to be in an inventory mode in some of these non- classified areas. They needed to be looking at airport visibility data to assess some of the new opportunities that these data could potentially provide. This could perhaps help guide the placement of monitors.

Alan Krupnick said it would be referred to the coordination group, with the intention of forming an ad hoc group to work through these issues.

John Seitz -said in terms of the process, he basically agreed. They needed to revise this and perhaps simply rephrase some of it and revisit the issues.

Southeast Texas Regional Planning Group have submitted a report to the FACA Subcommittee - Bill Hamilton will make this available.

Beverly Hartsock thanked the Subcommittee for coming on the road and giving them the opportunity to host a meeting. It would help them relate these things to the people of Texas. Was there anyone from the audience who would like make presentations to the Subcommittee?

No response.

The next meeting would be in Denver in November.

The December 4-5 meeting in Los Angeles was still under debate, but the November meeting was okay.