Document 4JeZZqR64NK3EBBe6bLV0qJ1x

OAQPS Air Toxics Strategy Team Environmental Protection Agency MD-13 RTP, NC 27711 _______ July, 1996 Our intention is not that the "Draft Final Report" for an Integrated Air Toxics Program be circulated for the public's review and comment until it is indeed ready for release. It is not yet ready for distribution as a completed document. It remains in DRAFT FORM and is subject to changes by those who have worked together to create the strategies. Nevertheless, since the draft report has inadvertently found its way to some people outside of the EPA, others concerned with our findings would like a copy. Accordingly we have agreed--most reluctantly--to make draft copies available to concerned parties solely on the basis of personal requests. You will find such a draft copy enclosed with this. Please note that we are not looking for comments on this version of the report. It is sent to you only as a courtesy and to honor your request. OAQPS Air Toxics Strategy Team SL 109988 For review by Lydia and ADDs* July 9( 1996 STRATEGIES FOR AN INTEGRATED AIR TOXICS PROGRAM Draft Final Report July 1996 OAQPS Air Toxics Strategy Team: Dianne Byrne Fred Dimmick Michele Dubow Eric Ginsburg Dave Guinnup Anne Pope Holly Reid Tim Smith A1 Wehe DRAFT SL 109989 Table of Contents: For r view by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 I. PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTION A. Air toxics -- the problem. B. Purpose of the strategy. C. Process to develop the strategy. D. Overviews of the CAA approach to air toxics problems. E. Progress to date. II. FRAMEWORK FOR THE STRATEGY -- A MODEL FOR THE AIR TOXICS PROGRAM A. Introduction. B. Description of the air toxics management model. c. Comparison of current approaches contained in section 112 of the Clean Air Act with the air toxics management model. III. THE OATS STRATEGY A. Strategy -- Goals and Objectives B. Strategy -- Identifying Priorities for Emission Reductions C. Strategy -- How to Achieve Reductions D. Strategy -- Implementation and Enforcement E. Strategy -- Feedback and Evaluation F. Strategy -- The Strategic Matrix IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUTTING AN INTEGRATED STRATEGY IN PLACE A. Planning and Coordination Activities for Making the Air Toxics Strategy Work B. Critical Projects DRAFT SL 109990 For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 Appendices Appendix A. Characterization of Air Toxics Appendix B. Discussion of the Draft Priority Pollutants List Appendix C. Comparison of the Current Approaches in section 112 of the Clean Air Act with the air toxics management model Appendix D. Strategic Matrix. Appendix . Appendix . Discussion of Issues Relating to Data Needs for Tracking Progress DRAFT SL 109991 F r review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 I. PURPOSE AMD INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of the OAQPS staff effort to develop an integrated strategy for air toxics. A. Air toxics -- the problem Billions of pounds of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are released in the United States each year. These air toxics pose a risk of harmful effects to public health or the environment. Potential health effects include leukemia and other cancers, impaired development in newborns and young children, and lung damage. Figure l displays the adverse health effects that may be associated with different HAPs. Potential environmental effects include harm to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, and significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas. Human health and environmental risk due to HAPs can result from exposure to individual facility emissions, mixtures of pollutants found in urban settings, and long-range transport of pollutants over regional, national or even global air sheds. The EPA is concerned about these risks and ranks them high when compared with other environmental problems addressee oy^the Agency. Work is underway to address many parts of the air toxics problem. However, data gaps in such areas as emissions, toxicity, atmospheric transformations and ambient concentrations hamper the EPA's effectiveness in reducing risks associated with HAPs. A more detailed discussion of the nature and magnitude of the air toxics problem is located in Appendix A. B. Purpose of the strategy The purpose of developing an OAQPS air toxics strategy is to improve the administrative efficiency and environmental effectiveness of the Federal program that addresses air toxics. This strategy is a description of overall objectives for the program and the policies that, when carried out, would lead the program to its objectives. The air toxics strategy provides a vision statement for the program and strategic elements that would allow OAQPS to reach that vision. Many programs are in place which directly or indirectly reduce the public's exposure to air toxics. Air toxics are directly regulated by the Federal program contained in section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. The 1990 amendments direct EPA to establish national emission standards for air toxics emitters and to study a number of air toxic problems to determine whether additional reductions are needed. draft SL 109992 t HAPs are pollutants associated with adverse health effects Number of HAPS Adverse Effects 108 54 24 107 100+ Cancer* Reproductive and/or Developmental , (e.g., decreased fertility, birth defects) Endocrine Disruption (e.g., reduced sperm conn# Central Nervous System (e.g., reductions in IQ levels) Other Effects (e.g., burning sensation in lungs) i 1 'Includes known, probable and possible carcinogens. > Figure 1 HAPs are Pollutants Associated with Adverse Health Effects SL 109993 For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 In addition, air toxics are indirectly regulated by criteria pollutant programs, aimed at reducing particulate matter and volatile organic compounds, and by mobile source programs. Other important air toxics programs include State and local air toxics programs, and nonregulatory programs and initiatives. Although much has been achieved by these programs1, the potential remains for duplicating efforts, for establishing redundant or conflicting requirements, and for expending disproportionate energy on relatively low priority program elements. In addition, improvements to these programs have generally been identified within the individual programs, rath r than in concert with each other. These potential problems underscore the challenge to EPA: to create a unified and comprehensive approach to the air toxics program for greater coordination, administrative efficiency, and effectiveness. The purpose of this document is to provide an overall strategy for the air toxics program. This report is not intended as a detailed blueprint, with answers to all questions bearing on how the air toxics program can be improved. The strategy should serve to help provide guidance in the near-term by focusing efforts in the proper direction. C. process to develop the strategy To prepare this report, OAQPS assembled a team with representatives from the offices' four divisions. The OAQPS Air Toxics Strategy team was charged with developing an integrated air toxics strategy and suggesting how OAQPS could improve its internal work processes and use resources to implement the strategy during the next one to three years. The team worked together to develop a list of the air toxic problems that exist and used the benefits of the team members' combined experience to develop a list of the measures and tools that contribute to solving those problems. The team developed an approach, involving an air toxics management model, for organizing the various pieces of the program into a complete and integrated strategy. The team used the results of this exercise to derive the strategy contained in this report. 'The next section 112(s) report to Congress is in preparation. When released, this report will provide further detail on progress to date. DRAFT SL 109994 For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 The report is intended primarily for use by OAQPS staff and managers. However, many of the principles and recommendations are equally important for EPA's partners in State and local agencies and other stakeholders such as representatives from industry and environmental organizations. Although the strategy is intended primarily to guide internal OAQPS efforts on air toxics, many of the recommendations involve improving the partnerships with State and local co-regulators, improving the efficiency of actions affecting the regulated community, and improving the responsiveness of the program to the needs of members of the public who are exposed to air toxics. Accordingly, it is important that this strategy not be developed in isolation. In the process of developing this strategy, the OATS team considered general comments from a broad representation of affected stakeholders who were asked to respond to a questionnaire developed by the team. These discussions provided helpful background information in developing the strategy. OAQPS intends to pursue further discussions with stakeholders on the specific recommendations contained in the strategy, and to revise the strategy where warranted by those discussions. D. overviews of the CAA approach to air toxics problems. The general thrust of section 112 of the Act since 1970 has been to establish national emission standards for HAPs. Controversies over how to interpret the language of the 1970 Act made it difficult to establish emission standards in a timely manner. In particular, the process for listing a pollutant as a HAP, and the requirement to "protect the public health with an ample margin of safety," resulted in disputes, lawsuits, and delays. The 1990 amendments (Public Law 101-549, November 15, 1990) were intended to increase the pace at which actions to protect public health and the environment were taken. The 1990 amendments take a proactive approach in which 189 pollutants are listed by statute as HAPs. The amendments require EPA to list categories with significant emitters of the listed HAPs, and to issue technology-based emission standards for those categories over a 10-year timetable. To ensure adequate protection of public health and the environment, Congress further required that EPA determine whether these standards are adequate to prevent adverse health effects and serious or widespread environmental effects and take additional actions as necessary and appropriate. In response to specific concerns about the threats posed by numerous small sources of air toxics and by long-range transport and deposition of air toxics, Congress additionally established programs requiring EPA to evaluate and DRAFT SL 109995 For r view by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 take further actions as needed to prevent effects which may not be fully addressed through its emission standards program. E. Progress to Date EPA, the States, and the regulated community have taken the first major steps in the comprehensive air toxics program established by the 1990 amendments. EPA stands at the midpoint of the effort to publish a comprehensive set of technology-based standards which appear in 40 CFR Part 63. Standards already published to date, when implemented, will reduce air toxic emissions by 880,000 tons per year. The effort to develop the technology-based standards has been improved substantially by developing strong partnerships with State and local co regulators. Assessments of threats posed by small urban area sources and by long range transport and deposition are well underway and are expected to further guide the emission standard setting process and lead to other strategies to protect public health and the environment. While many of the efforts mandated by the 1990 amendments have been completed, much remains to be done. The technologybased standards that have already been published must be implemented and enforced. Additional technology-based standards must be written. Additional statutory mandates must be fulfilled, including: (l) the requirement to evaluate the residual health and environmental risk that remains after the technology-based standards are in place, and (2) the requirement to evaluate the need for further reductions based upon the results of the various special studies (urban, Great Waters, mercury, etc). One of EPA's main purposes in developing this strategy is to coordinate all these efforts in a way that can produce the greatest progress in reducing the health and environmental problems caused by air toxics. DRAFT SL 109996 For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 II. FRAMEWORK FOR THE STRATEGY -- A MODEL FOR THE AIR TOXICS PROGRAM A. Introduction The OAQPS air toxics strategy is based on three findings. The first finding is that a more comprehensive framework for the air toxics program is needed, and this report proposes an air toxics management model for consideration. The remainder of this section discusses the air toxics management model in some detail. The second finding is that OAQPS needs to plan its activities to fit appropriately the variety of effects and exposures associated with the 189 HAPs. In other words, "one size fits all" solutions are not considered appropriate for the wide range of human health and environmental problems caused by air toxics. The third finding is that a more complete air toxics program needs to involve all stakeholders in proactive ways in carrying out the program's objectives. Without such involvement, the program will not achieve its ultimate purpose. The second and third findings are addressed in the strategy by incorporating policies within the air toxics management model to ensure that OAQPS activities are selected and completed consistent with these findings. B. Description of the air toxics management model. In an effort to integrate the various components of the air toxics program into one comprehensive scheme, the team modified concepts from existing criteria pollutant programs to conform to air toxics program needs. The air toxics management model, shown schematically in Figure 2, is the result of these efforts. The most significant feature of the model is that it is structured around a feedback loop which allows for an iterative process to fully solve any particular air toxic problem, as well as to direct efforts over time to address additional pollutants as new information becomes available. The feedback loop is critical in determining whether specific response actions are actually achieving or approaching stated program goals. The individual components (boxes) of the model are discussed below. Setting goals and objectives This component of the model refers to the establishment of goals and the identification of specific measurable objectives. These goals and objectives can include effects-based, risk-based, exposure-based, emissionbased, and air quality-based'targets. Given the wide DRAFT SL 109997 13__________ Establish and Consider Health and Environmental Goals What Reductions Are Needed? - Are reductions needed? - From which sources? Evaluate Results fftt D >73 Implement and Enforce ____ I_____ How to Achiev Reductions/Solve Problem iIft * SL 109998 Figure 2. Air Toxics Management Model For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 variety of effects and exposures associat d with air toxics, there will be multiple and varied goals for the program. It is important that the goals and objectives be quantitative and related as directly as possible to reducing detrimental human health and environmental effects. Identifying needed emission reductions This component involves identifying specific sources of HAPs and emission reductions needed from those sources to meet specified objectives. Moreover, for the broad scope of air toxics problems, this component involves the more general task of identifying emission reduction priorities. Achieving emission reductions This component involves taking actions to reduce emissions identified in the previous component. The actions include the various Federal and State regulatory and nonregulatory programs, and voluntary efforts and initiatives. In taking these actions, working with all stakeholders is the key to an effective and efficient program. Implementing regulatory and nonregulatory programs This component includes the activities necessary to ensure that the identified emission reductions are achieved in practice, including implementation and enforcement of regulatory programs, and implementation of nonregulatory approaches. In particular, it involves close coordination between EPA offices and EPA's partners on the State and local level since they are the primary implementers of the air toxics program. Evaluating progress This component involves establishing quantitative indicators, and tracking whether the implemented measures are actually achieving the intended goals. Indicators that directly measure progress toward a specific stated environmental goal are best; however, indirect or surrogate indicators will be needed for evaluating progress toward some goals. In modified form, this type of model has been applied to many environmental problems. in particular, the criteria pollutant programs in OAQPS are organized around a version of this model (called the air quality management model) which uses DRAFT SL 109999 For review by Lydia and ADDs. Juiy 9, 1996 ambient pollutant concentration levels as stated targets and implements emission reduction activities to bring monitored ambient concentration levels below the specified targets. The air toxics management model seen here is viewed in a broader context with multiple goals because it involves multiple pollutants which contribute to pollution levels and a variety of effects on multiple geographic scales. Each individual stated goal will require counterparts in each of the other boxes of the model for the program to be complete. The air toxics management model has, for the roost part, not. explicitly been applied to the air toxics program. As a result, although many successes have been achieved by the air toxics program, no systematic approach has been used to identify, address, and track the various aspects of the air toxics problem. The team finds the following are important attributes of applying the model to the air toxics program: -- the model provides a means of communicating how the program elements fit together and how they contribute to solving the problem. -- the model provides a direct means of identifying gaps in existing programs -- the model provides for an iterative process that focuses on doing what is practicably achievable in the near term, while recognizing the need to periodically evaluate progress, and re-evaluate goals and program approaches. C. Comparison of current approaches contained in section 112 of the Clean Air Act with the air toxics management model. The air toxics management model can be used to illustrate how the pieces of section 112 of the Act fit together. Section 112 contains 19 separate subsections, many of which are programs in and of themselves within OAQPS. Appendix C contains a more detailed discussion of these statutory programs and how these statutory pieces relate to the five components of the model, viewing the statutory pieces in the context of the model is useful in showing clearly how individual activities link to one another, and in showing how information obtained from one activity can help to support another. Use of the model thus serves as a useful framework for developing strategies to improve and integrate programs. The exercise summarized in Appendix C also serves to identify program gaps. Two notable gaps are identified. First, 12 DRAFT SL 110000 For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 gaps exist in the current program with respect to goals and objectives. Although the statute implicitly calls for EPA to determine what is needed to prevent adverse health and environmental effects, a comprehensive set of quantitative objectives has not been developed. Second, gaps exist in our current ability to evaluate progress. While it appears that statutory authority exists (but without mandate) to create an information-gathering program to evaluate progress, such a program has not been developed. Filling both of these gaps is considered critical in the development of the overall strategy, discussed in the next section. DRAFT SL 110001 For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 III. TEE OAQPB AIR TOXICS STRATEGY This section contains a summary of the OAQPS air toxics strategy consistent with the overall framework discussed previously. The strategy is structured around the air toxics management model, and it is designed to address each of the five elements in the model: (1) goals and objectives, (2) priorities for reductions, (3) methods for achieving the reductions, (4) procedures for implementing and enforcing reduction measures, and (5) feedback and evaluation. In addressing each element of the model, the strategy reflects the need to address the variety of HAP effects and exposures and the need for proactive stakeholder involvement. A. Strategy -- Goals and Objectives The strategy calls for the air toxics program to set goals and objectives that are based on achieving human health and environmental results. The strategy uses an overarching qualitative goal to describe the underlying purpose of the program; the strategy also uses quantitative goals to set the framework for measuring progress towards attaining the underlying purpose of the program. Program objectives, viewed as the major actions necessary to achive the goals, are used in setting priorities for near term activities and in measuring how well the program is attaining these priorities. The overarching goal, or purpose, of the air toxics program is to protect public health with an ample margin of safety and to prevent significant and widespread adverse environmental effects, (accounting for uncertainties in effects and exposure information). Protecting the `public health" involves reducing or preventing the occurrence of adverse effects associated with human exposure to hazardous substances. Protecting the environment involves reducing or preventing effects on wildlife, threatened or endangered species, aquatic life, and other natural resources. The quantitative goals are measurable, long-term targets, and are associated with dates by which they can and should be achieved. Examples of goals are listed below. These examples represent a format that is desirable for goals. The target dates and numerical values (e.g., percentages, risk numbers) are not intended as actual recommendations, but rather as appropriate ways to express the goals and as good starting points for refining the goals. Some are effects-based, while others are focused on emission reductions as the most immediate means towards reaching the effects-based goals. DRAFT SL 110002 For review by Lydia and ADDS. July 9, 1996 Examples of Quantitative Goals o Reduce total U.S. emissions of HAPs by 75% by the year 2000. o Protect public health so that, by the year 2010, no U.S. HAP emission source poses a cancer risk greater than one in ten thousand to the exposed population. o Protect public health so that, by the year 2010, the majority of people living in the vicinity of emission sources do not experience a cancer risk attributable to HAPs in excess of one in one million. o Reduce airborne mercury deposition to U.S. lakes and streams by 50% by 2010. o Reduce the occurrence of childhood leukemia attributable to HAPs by 75% by the year 2"~020. o Reduce urban cancer incidence attributable to_HAPsby 75% by the year 2020 by-achieving appropriate reductions in ambient concentrations of identified HAPs. Examples of Program Objectives Examples of short and long-term program objectives include: o Develop emission standards for 174 source categories by the year 2000 that reduce HAP emissions to a consistent, equitable level that reflects effective control technology. o Identify and prioritize the top 10 pollutants found in urban air by the year 1997. o Subject to control, wherever feasible, all sources contributing to the top 10 urban pollutants by the year 2005. o Establish health and environmental objectives (e.g., body burdens, ambient levels) for 10 pollutants by 2005 which, when met, will result in adequate protection of public health and the environment from known or anticipated effects. DRAFT SL 110003 For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 B. Strategy -- Identifying pri rities for Emission Reductions The air toxics program should not disregard potential exposures and effects from any HAP, but should nonetheless prioritize its efforts such that the most well-understood hazardous pollutants and problems are 'dealt with as soon and as well as posffibiv; The program should particularly emphasize greater control of HAPs which are more highly toxic and to which greater numbers of people are exposed. Development of a "Priority List" OAQPS should focus its efforts on pollutants that are believed to pose the roost harm to public health and the environment, based on available information. Accordingly, OAQPS should develop an approach for identifying a relatively short list of "priority pollutants." This approach would help identify which sources to regulate beyond the minimum statutory requirements (i.e., the MACT floor), which standards to pay special attention to during implementation and enforcement, and which HAPs to ensure are evaluated for determining the effectiveness of the program. In addition, the identification of a short list of high-concern pollutants will help focus the efforts of the research community on the pollutants being addressed by OAQPS. Support for major regulatory decisions would be improved if, in addition to emissions information and health benchmarks, the Agency also had information on how each chemical is distributed within the human body and causes its effects (pharmacokinetics) and on whether exposure can be demonstrated via actual tissue samples (biomarkers). Currently, research is often fragmented and not coordinated well with the needs of OAQPS. A short list of priority pollutants would facilitate this coordination. An initial attempt to develop a list to support this approach is summarized in Appendix B. This is not intended to suggest that emissions of the pollutants not included on the priority list should be ignored. Unless there is adequate justification for removing pollutants from the HAP list entirely, EPA should continue to address these pollutants in the technology standard-setting process. In addition, health data-gathering efforts should continue for the many HAPs with an incomplete health database, and to address general issues related to atmospheric transformation, chemical mixtures, etc. Identify where Additional Eaission Reduction Efforts Can Achieve the Greatest Results draft SL 110004 For review by Lydia and ADDS. July 9, 1996 In addition to using a priority pollutant list, there are a number of analytical efforts underway that will provide useful information on air toxics emission reduction priorities. The urban air toxics effort, the residual risk report, the mercury and Great Waters studies, for instance, will help to further identify where emission reduction efforts can achieve the greatest environmental results. Identify where Regulation is not Needed Where health criteria exist for sufficiently well-studied pollutants, it is important to make use of the available information to insure that OAQPS is not expending efforts on regulations that are not needed. There are several ways that this can be done: (1) by de-listing pollutants, (2) by de-listing source categories, (3) by making appropriate use of section 112(d)(4) to govern the stringency of controls in the MACT standard-setting process, and (4) by establishing applicability criteria in the MACT standards (where appropriate) that exempt facilities whose emissions are not considered to pose a risk problem. These are important tools that should be used when justified by information currently available to OAQPS or made available to OAQPS. C. Strategy -- How to Achieve Reductions Technology-based standards -- the MACT program The MACT program remains the emission control foundation for the air toxics program. The strategy recommends maintaining the approach contained in the 1990 amendments, and it does not recommend reverting to a system to where a risk demonstration must precede the development of emission standards, but such analyses may be warranted where EPA is considering options regarding the relative stringency of the standards. OAQPS needs to continue to work with State and local co regulators, and with industry and environmental group stakeholders, to improve the process for developing emission standards. This needs to be accomplished in ways that achieve environmental goals while being more responsive to administrative and implementation concerns. There are several MACT standards that are due by November 2000 for which there are very few sources (e.g., less than five sources) in the source category to be regulated. For such source categories, OAQPS should develop a regulatory approach that significantly reduces the amount of rulemaking process and that DRAFT SL 110005 For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 increases the environmental effectiveness and practical achievability of MACT for these sources. One approach would be to define 'presumptive" levels of control technology that are mutually agreeable to all stakeholders (developed through a MACT Partnership) as consistent with the statutory definition of MACT. Under this approach, EPA would then develop a single generic Federal standard that would apply to such source categories, in a way that would allow the 'presumptive MACT" determination to be incorporated in a source's title V permit. Residual risk standards In order to accelerate and improve environmental results with greater flexibility for States and regulated industries, OAQPS, States, the regulated community and other stakeholders should strive to expeditiously identify and address the residual risk remaining after implementation of the technology-based section 112 standards. Early efforts to address risk (e.g., during the process for establishing section 112(d) standards or in the establisment of state air toxics regulations and permit conditions) could greatly reduce the need for national residual risk standards. There are a number of ways the strategy envisions this could happen. First, wherever possible, EPA should assess the__l.ikelihood for residual risk when writing MACT standards, with "particular attention given to the "priority list" [i.e., the Appendix B list as modified over time]. It would be preferable to publisJi_MACT standards that are sufficiently strtYjggnt to adaress~the resTdua 1` 'fisk problem, father than to'revisit that standard at~a'later date': ....... Second, the residual risk program should ensure a strong partnership with State risk-based air toxics programs. OAQPS should seek ways of encouraging and strengthening those programs and working with State and local co regulators to maximize the capability of those programs to provide early solutions to residual risk problems. OAQPS should seek ways to provide State programs with a substantial degree of flexibility, so long as there is an appropriate framework for accountability for residual risk results. Third, the process for setting Federal residual risk standards should involve the active participation of source owners. The EPA should use such involvement to create a means for source owners to identify and seek flexible solutions to residual risk problems. DRAFT SL 110006 For review by Lydia and ADDS. July 9, 1996 Fourth, where early efforts have not achieved appropriate residual risk results, the EPA should continue with its plan to establish national, risk-based emission standards. Other standards OAQPS, States, the regulated community and other stakeholders should work together to identify and assess air toxics-related health and environmental problems which may not by fully addressed by the MACT and residual risk provisions of section 112. Such problem identification necessitates: o gathering and sharing pollutant-specific emissions information for sources and geographic areas, o modeling emissions data to estimate ambient concentrations, o measuring ambient levels where warranted, o predicting exposure to ambient levels, based on demographic data, and o comparing population exposure to health effects information to determine whether excessive risk is likely Once the problems have been identified, the stakeholders need to devise appropriate actions to resolve them. Such actions could include listing area sources contributing to urban exposure and including those sources as part of the urban strategy; creating geographically-based initiatives to address problems that are unique to specific areas; and creating emission caps and annual reduction goals for persistent HAPs such as mercury. D. Strategy -- Implementation and Enforcement EPA needs to do a better job of anticipating issues related to program implementation, rather than reacting to problems once regulations have been promulgated. This effort should address better integrating toxics program regulations with each other as well as with other Federal control and permitting programs. It should also address how state and Federal air toxics programs may be better integrated in the rule development stages. The strategy recognizes that State and local agencies have primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing the control measures that are designed to reduce exposures to air toxics. Improvement of role definition and partnerships will maximize the DRAFT SL 110007 For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 efficiency and effectiveness of limited resources at all levels and will take advantage of the considerable skills and knowledge at the State and local level. OAQPS and its co-regulators at the State and Regional levels, as well as other EPA offices such as OECA and OSWER, have already identified a list of priorities and actions for the near term to address the program's current and future implementation needs. These include defining implementation roles and responsibilities across and within levels of government, developing focused implementation strategies, producing enabling materials, reinventing the process by which State and local agencies may receive delegation for implementing Federal toxics regulations, and developing and improving processes for sharing information and communicating program goals and successes to the public. Similarly, co-regulators have identified targeted compliance assurance and enforcement strategies as critical to ensuring that the identified emission reductions are achieved in practice. OAQPS needs to take a leadership role in ensuring that these activities continue and fully consider actions and recommendations arising from this strategy. E. Strategy -- Feedback and Evaluation. Meed for Improved Indicators OAQPS needs to establish a program for an improved information base for evaluating progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the air toxics program. The information base would help EPA and stakeholders to recognize the existence of air toxics problem areas, lessen uncertainties in program planning, allow for measures of program effectiveness, and improve the public's understanding of the program. Efforts are needed to define the types of indicators that would best serve the program. The effort to define these indicators should take into account what is achievable as a practical matter, and should be closely coordinated with the efforts described above to set goals and objectives. Among the components needed for an effective feedback and evaluation program are monitoring, emissions data, modeling, and appropriate trends analysis techniques. Use of ambient monitoring Ambient monitoring is particularly useful as an indicator of program success as it relates directly to urban exposures, Because relatively few pollutants appear to dominate toxic exposures in urban areas, it would appear particularly important draft 3L 110008 For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 and feasible to establish a network for measuring ambient trends for those few pollutants. Such a measurement system need not involve a comprehensive network in all cities, but rather could focus on a subset of cities as indicator areas, possibly building on existing monitoring efforts for criteria pollutants. At a minimum, such trends information should provide a representative picture of urban ambient trends. In addition, exploratory (possibly mobile) monitoring could be used to identify problem areas warranting special consideration or sources of toxic air pollution previously unrecognized. Further, indicators should be developed for exposure and risk which are derived from ambient concentrations and which take into account quantitative health or ecological benchmark information. Use of emissions data Emissions data are useful for evaluating the results of program efforts, particularly in cases where ambient monitoring or comprehensive exposure and risk analyses cannot be performed. This is likely to be the case for evaluating changes in localized emissions due to MACT regulations on many major stationary sources of HAPs. A strategy for making the best use of emissions data should recognize the following: -First, it would be very useful to develop a way of `weighting' emission rates according to their toxicities. Currently, emission trends for air toxics are almost always reported in terms of total emissions across a variety of pollutants. Total emissions can be a useful indicator, particularly where toxicity data are unavailable or sparse, but a `weighted" total, where feasible, would be far more meaningful with respect to evaluating progress toward exposure-based or risk-based objectives. Second, emission trends in the toxic release inventory (TRI), while generally reliable, paint a very incomplete picture of air toxic trends. OAQPS efforts to fill in the gaps left by TRI should be increased, as discussed further in Appendix E. Third, for emission inventory information to be a useful indicator of air toxic trends, it is not necessary to develop a national "bottom-up" inventory, nor is it necessary to have an inventory of all 189 HAPs. The effort should initially focus on a shorter list of pollutants, such as the list included in Appendix B, and should identify streamlined ways of determining national trends for those pollutants. DRAFT SL 110009 For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 Use of modeling data Exposure and risk indicators for some air toxics problems can be estimated using transport and dispersion modeling with emissions data as inputs. Indicators derived in this way can be directly useful in assessing program success relative to objectives based on local exposure and risk targets. Further, such modeling can facilitate the development of composite indicators to evaluate program success on a regional or national scale. Often, such derived indicators (which require knowledge of emission rates before and after control efforts) may be the only means of estimating program success in situations where ambient monitoring methods are undeveloped, or where they are too difficult or too costly to implement for every situation. communicating the Trends Results An important OAQPS function is the development of ways to communicate national trends information to air quality managers and to the public. Outreach efforts are necessary to ensure that the trends indicators being developed are useful to these customers. National trends of indicators based on monitoring, emissions inventories, and modeling results will all be useful in evaluating and communicating program success. In addition, to assist in the public communication effort, consideration should be given to the development of a `pollutant standards index,' or PSI, for all air toxics, or subsets of toxic air pollutants with similar health or environmental effects. A discussion of one possible approach for developing an air toxic PSI is attached to this report as Appendix E. F. Strategy -- A Strategic Matrix A complete air toxics strategy is one which addresses the entire air toxics program, does not ignore important sub elements, and which makes appropriate strategic choices on how to use the available tools to address those sub-elements, consistent with the overall strategy. A strategic matrix is provided in Appendix D as an example of a planning tool which illustrates how the strategy can achieve these multiple aims. This matrix provides the level of detail needed for experts in the field of air toxics, both within and outside OAQPS, to understand better the policy and resource effects of the strategy. Although much effort has gone into developing the details found in the matrix, additional efforts are needed to continue to flesh out further details and the resource and work product implications for both the overall strategy and its sub-strategies. The matrix, although certainly incomplete and imperfect, provides a useful DRAFT SL 110010 For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 starting point for detailed strategy-planning efforts, as called for in the next chapter. DRAFT SL 110011 For review by Lydia and ADDS. July 9, 1996 IV. NEXT STEPS I RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUTTING AN INTEGRATED AIR TOXICS STRATEGY IN PLACE An overall action plan is needed to implement the oaqps air toxics strategy. The action plan will involve a number of planning and coordination activities. While these activities are intended to explore the implications of the strategy, there are a number of critical projects that should be included. The overall planning and coordination activities, and a list of critical projects, are discussed in this section. These activities are envisioned to take place over the next 3-6 months. A. Planning and Coordination Activities for Making the Air Toxics Strategy Work Development of an action plan is important for making the air toxics strategy a reality. There are three major types of activities that must be take place in order for the OAQPS air toxics strategy to be effective. These activities are: (1) within 3 months, identify and begin to carry out concrete steps to involve stakeholders, (2) within 3 months, develop program plans that put the strategy into place for specific areas of OAQPS program responsibility, and (3) within 3 months, develop a management plan that ensures a continued proper focus on the air toxic program objectives, adequate resources, and delegation of program elements to program staff in such a manner as to foster communication, cooperation, and productive effort. Each of these activities is discussed below. 1. Action Plan: Stakeholder Involvement in and Contributions to the Air Toxics Strategy Although the strategy is primarily aimed at OAQPS activities, many of the strategic policies involve participation by other stakeholders. Active acceptance of these policies will be important to the success of the strategy. The action plan should identify the stakeholders, the important segments where stakeholder involvement is appropriate, the periods in the implementation schedule where involvement should occur, and the type and purpose of the involvement. DRAFT SL 110012 For review by Lydia and ADDS. July 9, 1996 The action plan should recognize that a public outreach program should be created that communicates with the general public in meaningful ways. For example, goals and objectives contained in the air toxics strategy should be in terms the public can readily understand, even though EPA may use more complex, technically appropriate goals for its internal use and communication. Other stakeholder groups or their representatives may contribute to the development and implementation of specific components of the strategy. Accordingly, OAQPS should make maximum use of the partnership activities that it currently has in place and should expand partnership opportunities where they promise to be effective. 2. Action Plan: Development of Action Plans to Put the Strategy into Place Because coordination within OAQPS is so vital to the success of putting the strategy into place, OAQPS group leaders are the key persons to develop this action plan. Group leaders should plan a 2-3 day working session away from OAQPS to develop the action plan. This meeting's primary objective is to work out the elements of a plan that will make the air toxics strategy an integral part of OAQPS's organizational culture, and foster effective staff interaction. This meeting should use the strategic matrix in Appendix D as an integral part of the discussion. This effort includes providing input to management, through the four division directors, that will assist the directors in developing a management plan that accomplishes the objectives outlined in the next section. This action plan should be completed in two months. 3. Action Plan: Development of a Management Plan The purpose of this plan is to ensure a continued focus on the air toxic program objectives, directing resources, accountability, and delegation of program elements to program managers and staff. The division directors should complete this action plan in three months. The plan should include a focal person or multi-divisional committee that is responsible for developing and communicating the thrust of the air toxics program, bringing together the organization's elements into a comprehensive and integrated effort, an efficient resource allocation process, and DRAFT SL 110013 For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 measures of accountability for the successful conduct of the air toxics program. B. Critical Projects In addition to development of an operational action plan, OAQPS must undertake a number of specific projects in addressing various elements of the strategy. OAQPS staff involvement in these projects is vital to the success of the strategy. A list of specific projects is outlined below. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and certainly the activities described above will result in additional projects. The purpose of providing this list is to identify certain projects seen today as critical, and to provide specific examples of the types of additional projects that should be identified consistent with the overall strategy. All of the following projects are envisioned for completion within the next 6 months: Project 1 - A team should identify health and environmental effects benchmarks which currently exist for HAPs. This team should assess and report on the feasibility of using these benchmarks as quantitative health and environmental objectives for MACT, residual risk, and control strategy planning. Project 2 - Considering the results of Project 1, a team should develop a proposed mechanism for setting, reviewing and revising a set of quantitative health and environmental objectives, which provides for peer and stakeholder review. Project 3 - A team should assess and summarize the state of analytical tools and the appropriate use of those tools for assessing the severity of air toxics problems and estimating needed HAP reductions (this should include monitoring, modeling, emission inventory tools, risk assessment, etc.). Project 4 - A team should develop an internal process for coordinating among efforts to achieve emission reductions and for ensuring appropriate institutional mechanisms for implementing all elements of the program. Project 5 - A team should develop a plan for organizing and carrying out an air toxics tracking and evaluation program, including indicators, collection methods, and infrastructure needs. This plan should take into account resource constraints. EMAD should work with other divisions to DRAFT SL 110014 For review by Lydia and ADDs. July 9, 1996 identify the appropriate uses of monitoring, emission inventories, modeling, etc., in developing this program. This effort should be coordinated with Projects l and 2 so that the chosen indicators are directly relevant to the identified quantitative objectives. Project 6 - A team should conduct a more thorough statutory analysis of section 112 authorities and gaps in our implementation of those authorities. Project 7 - Teams currently developing programs under section 112 should evaluate the strategy-specific recommendations contained in this report and consider how they will respond to them. Project 8 - ESD should work with States to provide a more detailed plan for evaluating the approach described in the strategy for source categories with only a few sources in the category. Project 9 - AQS5D should define a strategy for identifying potential risk problems. This strategy should explore the use of emission inventories, data on ambient concentrations, and census data in producing 'risk maps' as a basis for prioritizing risk reduction efforts. Project 10 - An implementation team consisting of OAQPS (ITPID lead, with input from other divisions), OECA, Regions and States should develop a specific plan for addressing issues such as implementation of area source standards, prioritizing enforcement activities, and identifying appropriate roles for EPA regions, States, OECA and OAQPS. Project 11 - A team should explore the potential for co control of toxics and criteria pollutants via the ozone, PM, MACT and mobile source programs. A team was created to address co-control opportunities at the request of staff developing this air toxics strategy. However, competing priorities prevented the team from addressing this task. Project 12 - AQSSD, in conjunction with ORD, should develop a decision framework for addressing noncancer risk. This framework should include criteria for evaluating exceedances of reference concentrations and for determining when such exceedances are unacceptable. This team should also act as a focal point for OAQPS and ORD coordination with regards to communicating long-term research needs in air toxics. DRAFT SL 110015 APPENDIX A. CHARACTERIZATION 07 AIR TOXICS. [Note to Lydia and ADDs: This appendix is nearing completion, it is a 15-20 page description of the magnitude and nature of the various scales of the air toxics problem. The team felt it preferable to provide this to you within the next few days rather than to provide a version that did not reflect input from the entire team] DRAFT SL 110016 APPENDIX B. BACKGROUND ON THE LIST OF PRIORITY HAP The following list of HAP represents those HAP which, based on available data, are of high concern with regard to posing a public health or environmental concern. The list includes pollutants that are of concern for one or more reasons, including high toxicity; persistence in the environment; presence in urban areas, where they may be causing a threat to public health; identification in the Great Waters report as a pollutant of concern due to deposition; or, designation as a Clean Air Act section 112(c)(6) pollutant. It reflects an attempt to integrate the health and risk-based provisions of section 112 into a single set of HAP that AQSSD can best support regulating. This list should not be construed to mesa that other pollutants on the HAP list are not of concern. Rather, the list of 37 includes HAP for which we have the best supporting rationale to offer, based on data regarding their potential Impact on public health. As new data on HAP become available, the list will be subject to change, with additions and deletions of HAP being a possibility. This list of HAP is intended to be used as an internal to 1 that can assist in prioritizing MACT sources for regulation development. The list focuses on HAP that can be regulated under sections 112 or 129 of the Clean Air Act. Thus, HAP that are emitted by stationary sources are of most interest. The list does not reflect emissions from mobile sources or non-classical sources (e.g., pesticide application) since these are not within the authority of the MACT program to regulate. The list is organized into two parts. Part l of the table lists "priority" HAP and notes significant features of each pollutant. Part 2 of the table is a list of additional HAP of concern that are not included on the "priority" HAP list. These are HAP that are either regulated under other federal authorities (e.g., the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)) or that are not emitted by 5 or more facilities (based on available data). The criteria used in selecting HAP for the "priority" list are provided on the last page. DRAFT -2.1- SL 110017 Part 1. List of 37 pollutants on the "priority" list HAP (>5 facilities)* Acetaldehyde Acrolein Acrylamide Acrylonitrile Arsenic and compounds UASP HAP* X X X Great Water**/ 112Cc)(6)" Highly Toxic HAP* X N X X Antimony and cotnpds. Benzene Beryllium and compds. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 1,3-Butadiene Cadmium and compds. Chloroform Chromium and compds. Coke oven emissions 2,3,7,8-TCDF 2.3,7,8-TCDD Ethylene dibromide Ethylene dichloride Ethylene oxide Formaldehyde Glyeol ethers Hydrazine X \ \X \ \ \\ \\ xf X x' X X X X X X X X X \ X X X X DRAFT SL 110018 HAP ( >5 facilities)' Lead and compounds Manganese and compds Mercury and compds. Methylene chloride MD1 Nickel and compounds Phosgene POM (PAHs) Styrene Tetrachlorocthylene Trichloroethylene Toluene 2,4-Toluene diisoevanate Vinyl chloride Xylenes wasp hap* X X X X x' X X \ xr Great Waters*/ 112(e)(6)* X X X Highly Toxic HAP* X x X X X X X X X DRAFT DRAFT SL 110019 Part 2. Explanation of Why Certain Additional Pollutants Were Not Included on the List HAP UASP HAP* Asbestos X Benzidine Bis(chloromethyl) ether 2-Chloraacctophenone Chloromethyl methyl ether 1 J-Dibnjjno-3-chioropropane 1,2*Diphenylhvdrazine Hexamethylene-1,6diisocyanate Phosphine Carbon tetrachloride Methyl chloroform Chlordane DDE/DDT HeptachJor Hexschlorobenzene Lindane (all isomers) Toxaphene PCBs X \ Great Waters*/ 112(c)(6)* Highly Toiic HAP* Issues Related to "Priority" Status of HAP X Source category delisted. Emissions are mainly from demolition activities. X 1 facility* X 2 facilities' X 0 facilities' X 4 facilities' X 0 facilities' X 0 facilities' X 0 facilities' X 0 facilities' Being phased out by 2000, under Title VI of the CAA Being phased out by 2002, under Title V] of the CAA XN Regulated by F1FRA X Regulated by F1FRA \ Regulated by FIFRA X\ Regulated by FIFRA X Regulated by FIFRA XX Regulated by FIFRA X Regulated by TSCA * DRAFT DRAFT -31- SL 110020 Footnotes: * HAP shown in this portion of the table reflea those emitted by at least 5 facilities, as reported to the Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS) for 1993. h Urban Area Source Program (UASP) HAP. * Great Waters HAP of concern, from the 1994 report to Congress. ` The seaion 112(c)(6) pollutants are also Great Waters HAP of concern. * Highly toxic HAP are those HAP with a reference concentration of less than SxlO^mg/m* (noncancer effects); a weight of evidence classification of A (known human carcinogen) or B1 (probable human carcinogen); or, a verified unit risk estimate of greater than 2x1 O'* (ug/m1)'1 and a weight of evidence classification of A or B. f Potential UASP HAP of concern, due to high emissions and to toxicity. 1 Data on the number of facilities emitting the HAP are from the Toxic Release Information System (reporting year 1993), and, therefore, do not fully reflect the possible sources of emissions of the HAP. DRAFT DRAFT SL 110021 CRITERIA USED FOR SELECTING PRIORITY HAP: Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that meet the following criteria were selected as priority HAP for the MACT program: 1) One or more of the following applies. The HAP: a) is a Great Waters HAP of concern (listed in the 1994 Great Waters report), or b) is an Urban Area Source Program (UASP) HAP or a potential UASP HAP, or c) has a reference concentration (RfC) of less than 5xKT* mg/m3 *, or d) has a weight of evidence (WOE) classification of A or Bl, or e) has an EPA verified inhalation unit risk estimate of greater than 2x10'* (ug/m3)'1 and an EPA WOE classification of A or B; and, 2) 1993 TRI data for the HAP indicate that it is emitted by 5 or more facilities. For the four HAP on the list for which no TRI data are available, they are known to be emitted by more than 5 facilities which are subject to MACT. * The RfC cutoff of 5x1 O'* mg/m3 is based on dispersion modeling results for a facility that emits 10 tons/year of the HAP from a 10 meter stack. The resulting concentration of HAP at a receptor that is 200 meters from such an emission point is 5x10`3 mg/m3. Assuming that the parameters selected are, in general, reasonable and appropriate, that an exceedance of the RfC by a factor of 10 is unacceptable, the cutoff would be 5x1 O'4 mg/m3. (Calculation; RfC x 10 < 5xl0*3mg/m3 => R/C < SxlO-'mg/m3) DRAFT SL 110022 APPENDIX C. COMPARISON F CURRENT APPROACHES CONTAINED IN 8ECTION 112 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT WITH THE AIR TOXICS MANAGEMENT M DEL. While section 112 contains 19 separate subsections, many of then constituting programs in and of themselves, they can largely be organized around the air toxics management model. Figure 3 displays the statutory programs and their relationship to the various components of the model. This comparison of the current program to the air toxics model is useful because it suggests a number of interprogram links and corresponding coordination needs and because it highlights some definite gaps in the statutory scheme, gaps that will exist unless concerted efforts are made to fill them, and ambiguities in statutory authority or directi n. Health and Environmental Objectives The statute contains provisions to address a number of different air toxics problems. For some of the air toxics problems, the goals and objectives are explicitly stated. For others, they are implicitly stated, or were left intentionally ambiguous to be identified at a later date. To establish health and environmental objectives, two actions are needed: to identify the pollutants of concern and to establish the levels, concentrations, or other measures which provide the requisite level of protection. A framework for identifying pollutants of concern is provided in the Act with the list of 189 HAPs contained in section 112(b), which identifies pollutants which are of concern for health or environmental effects, and a process to add or delete pollutants. This list and the process for identification of HAPs are supplemented by the requirements of section 112(m) to identify and assess atmospherically-deposited HAPs to determine whether they cause adverse health or environmental effects, of section 112(k) to identify and characterize HAPs and their effects in urban areas, including products of atmospheric transformation, and of section 112(f) to identify health effects and risks presented by concentrations of HAPs, both background and produced by specific sources. To establish appropriate levels of health and environmental protection, the section 112(f) residual risk program provides the key authority to establish air toxic goals which are sufficient to protect public health with an ample margin of safety, as well as to prevent serious or widespread adverse environmental effects, specifically mentioning risk targets for maximum exposed individuals. To complement these efforts, the section 112(k) urban area source program is required to reduce the incidence of stationary source-related cancer by at least 75%. Additionally, the section 112(m) Great Waters program is required to prevent adverse health and/or environmental effects related to atmospheric deposition. The Act does not define specific goals for the Great Waters program, but requires EPA to determine DRAFT SL 110023 whether section 112 provisions are adequate to prevent adverse health and environmental effects, thereby impliedly granting authority to EPA to establish appropriate objectives or benchmarks for such protection. Additional support to the identification of acceptable (or necessary) objectives for health and environmental protection are provided through scientific studies under section 112(n) including, but not limited to, utilities and mercury, and through the National Academy of Sciences' study of EPA's risk assessment methodologies. Although the provisions described above support the establishment of health and environmental protection objectives which could be used to guide emission standards and other control measures, the authority to use these objectives in legally defensible ways beyond defining the stringency of MACT standards is ambiguous, at best. This is because the section 112 program is predicated on emission standards rather than on ambient, health, or environmental targets. Thus EPA would have to go to extra effort to justify its use of such objectives for purposes other than setting MACT standards. Further statutory analyses by the Office of General Counsel are needed to better define the limits of our authority for this. Section 112(f) residual risk provisions do not mandate specific goals and objectives, but gives EPA considerable flexibility and discretion (at a minimum, it uses the standard set in the `benzene decision,* i.e., a cancer risk to the maximum exposed individual no greater than l in one million as a default requirement). It is unclear to what extent, for instance, residual risk authorities and activities could be delegated to states. Determining Needed Emission Reductions To determine necessary emission reductions to meet a specified health or environmental objective, the sources emitting those pollutants must first be identified. The various source category listing provisions under section 112 are most relevant and include not only general listing provisions for major source MACT activities, but also more specific efforts, such as the identification of urban area source categories under subsection (c)(3) and the listing of sources of specific pollutants under subsection (c)(6). These efforts are cross-referenced in section 112(k) for urban area sources and are further supported by the section 112(m) Great Waters Program, which is required to identify the sources contributing to transport and deposition of key HAPs of concern. The establishment of appropriate levels of emissions control is primarily addressed through the standards under section 112(d), according to schedules set forth in section 112(e). Section 112(h) provides for the establishment of alternative standards, especially work practice standards, in appropriate instances. The section 112(m) Great Waters and section 112(k) DRAFT SL 110024 Urban Area Source programs are further required to determine what additional standards or contr Is are needed under the statute (or other lavs, in the case of urban area s urces) and to ensure that appropriate regulatory action is taken. These efforts can be supported by early efforts under section 112(f) for residual risk where evidence supports the establishment of stricter standards initially. Section 112(d) is designed to ensure that all major sources of HAPs are well controlled. While there is some legislative history indicating that some members of Congress envisioned a 75% reduction in emissions, there is no explicit target for what overall reduction should be obtained. The Act assumes that all major sources of HAPs require maximum achievable control technology unless EPA can justify removing the source category from the section 112 list. Implicit, however, in the structure of the Act is broad flexibility to EPA in deciding which major source categories should be regulated first.. Additionally, the Act is not explicit regarding the determination of which categories should be regulated beyond the minimum (MACT 'floor") requirements. To the extent that residual risk and other provisions support the development of health and environmental objectives, these could serve as levels which risk, air quality, or other analyses could be used to define emission control requirements. However, it is unclear from the statute to what extent EPA could use these authorities in geographically-focused ways, as opposed to revising MACT stringency across a source category or subcategory. Identifying Strategies and Actions to Achieve Reductions The Act identifies national emission standards as the primary means of achieving needed emission reductions. The Act provides certain additional authorities, e.g., section 112(m)(6) mandate to establish "emission standards and other control measures as may be necessary and appropriate" to address effects from atmospheric deposition. Section 112(k) additionally requires a published strategy and additional control measures under the Act and other statutes as needed to reduce emissions from stationary and area sources to meet a minimum 75% reduction in associated cancer incidence. Two provisions of the Act, sections 112(g) and 112(j) require States to provide for case-by-case control technology results. Section 112 (j) of the Act provides a mechanism under which State and local agencies provide for the needed emission reductions in cases where the EPA has not regulated a source category in a timely manner. Section 112(g) requires that States ensure that newly constructed major sources are well-controlled, and that emission reductions are achieved even if no federal emission standard has been promulgated. One provision of the Act, section 112(1) (5) is intended to provide an incentive to source owners to provide for early DRAFT "3> SL 110025 reductions in emissions by granting a compliance extension when a 90 or 95% control level is achieved. While a number of strategies and actions are called for in section 112 to reduce emissions, few are explicitly coordinated or cross-referenced within the statute, making it difficult to establish interprogram relationships or to set priorities and levels of stringency among them. Moreover, there is little recognition of the fact that a number of States are currently developing their own risk-based standards at the same time that EPA is developing technology-based standards nationally. With the exception of section 112(k), where it is implied in the authority to consider other statutory authorities, the Act does not recognize the contributions to air toxics reductions that are made by criteria pollutant control programs, nor does it explicitly recognize that the air toxic emission standards program can provide important reductions in criteria pollutants. While there does not appear to be any barrier to taking advantage of mutually-supportive programs, it is unclear to what extent HAP reductions achieved through criteria control programs can be credited toward statutorily-required actions under section 112. In urban areas, mobile sources are significant contributors of HAPs and one cannot establish an accurate assessment of exposure risks in urban areas without explicitly considering mobile, area and major stationary source emissions together. Moreover, the lack of a statutory linkage between mobile and stationary sources for overall control strategy purposes fails to consider the possibility that mobile source controls may more cost-effectively reduce exposures in some instances. As with co control opportunities in the criteria pollutant programs, it is unclear to what extent mobile source HAP reductions can be used to meet section 112 goals. Implementing and Enforcing Identified Actions The Act, through section 112 and part 70, clearly establishes State and local agencies as having the primary role to implement and enforce the emission reduction measures envisioned by the statute. Implicit in this structure is the need for EPA to work closely with States in establishing and evaluating the emission standards. Section 112(1) recognizes an important role for existing State and local air toxics programs, and implicitly recognizes the need for a smooth interface between the Federal and State/local programs. Unlike section 110, which establishes a set of specific components to be included in State implementation plans for criteria pollutants, however, the Act does not provide any specific criteria for how this is to be accomplished for air toxics, providing only that State programs cannot be less stringent than federal standards. Moreover, EPA's authority to delegate responsibilities for actions such as residual risk standards to States through the 112(1) program approvals is unclear. DRAFT -36- SL 110026 v lusting Pr grass and Results While section 112 requires EPA to assess and report on the status of EPA and State actions under section 112, there is no explicit program set-out to gather and evaluate air quality, emissions, or other relevant information. Several subsections could be read together to form the basis for such a program, but with only limited authority to require information. Section 112(b), in addition to the listing of HAPs, grants to EPA the authority to prescribe methods for the monitoring of emissions, air quality, atmospheric deposition and bioaccumulation. This authority could be regarded as broader than authorities for criteria pollutant programs in the sense that it permits the establishment of federal reference methods for a broader array of environmental indicators. However, it does not authorize EPA, explicitly, to require the deployment of monitoring networks, as do other portions of the Act for criteria pollutants. Section 112(m) requires EPA to conduct monitoring of transport, deposition and effects of HAPs in the Great Waters, and thus establishes at least a partial basis for a national monitoring network. Section 112(k) also authorizes EPA to conduct monitoring of HAPs in urban areas, although this authority appears more related to initial research activities to identify most critical HAPs. Finally, section 112 (s), normally viewed as the basis for EPA's periodic report to Congress on the status of EPA and State actions under section 112, also requires EPA to establish and maintain a database on pollutants and regulated sources. This provision appears to provide the best basis for a broader data collection and analysis effort which is directly related to judging the effectiveness of section 112 programs and activities. The Act provides only general guidance when it comes to evaluating the results of the air toxics program embodied in section 112. This is in contrast to the criteria pollutant program, for which detailed and explicit requirements are given (monitoring in nonattainment areas, percentage reductions towards reasonable further progress, etc.). The only explicit requirement for progress evaluation in section 112 is the requirement in section 112(s) to maintain a 'database on pollutants and sources' and to report periodically to congress on the status of EPA and State activities, consequently, there is no clear authority for EPA to require monitoring and reporting by States on emissions, air quality, or other potential indicators which could be used to evaluate program success over time, and the requirement of section 112(s) to maintain a database on sources and HAPs is silent on the nature of our authority to actually collect the information. Conclusions From the various provisions of section 112, one can infer a statutory scheme which is generally supportive of the air toxics DRAFT SL 110027 management model and the approach embodied in the strategy. The statutory pieces do not form a `perfect fit,* particularly where health and environmental objectives and progress tracking are concerned, but it appears that such a strategy can be implemented without posing clear statutory conflicts or violating the spirit and intent of section 112. Because EPA's authority is significantly more ambiguous and, therefore, more limited in a number of areas for air toxics than it is for criteria pollutants, EPA will be challenged to find defensible ways to implement them which will find support among States and other stakeholders. Effective communications and outreach strategies will thus be critical to success, as will cooperation by the Office of General Counsel in the careful crafting of additional program elements. draft SL 110028 Establish and Consider Objectives What are the pollutants of concern for Health and environmental effects? 112(b) Listing or HAPs 112{m) Great Whters Study 112(k) Urban Area Source Study Figure 3. Statutory Relationship to Air Quality Management Model What objectives are needed to protect public health and the environment? DRAFT SL 110029 Evaluate Results 112(1) Residual Risk standards 112(m) Great Waters Study !1?(k) Urban Area Source Study 112(n) Utiity and Mercury Studies 112{o) NAS Study 112(p) Mickey Leland Ceneter Are actions being implemented and are they protecting health and the environment? - What Reductions are Needed? What are the sources (major, area, mobile) 112(b) Monitoring methods for emissions, air quality, deposlion and bioaccumulalion 112(m) Monitor transport, deposition and effects of HAPs 112(s) Database on pollutants and regulated sources. Reporl to Congress on EPA and Stale actions under 112 112(c) Listing of sources 112(m) Great VWters Study What level of emissions control should be required Implement and Enforce How should emission standards be implemented and enforced? 112(d) MACT standards 112(e) MACT schedules 112(h) Alternative standards 112(m) Addlional standards or controls (Great Waters) 112(k) additional measures under CAA or other laws 112(g) Permits 112{j) Equivalent limits In Ihe absence of MACT I X t 112(1) Stale air toxics programs 112(g) Permls 112(t) MACT compliance schedules APPENDIX D. STRATEGIC MATRIX A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE OATS STRATEGY While creating the OAQPS air toxics strategy, the team developed a matrix as a tool to describe many of the detailed aspects of the strategy. The matrix is the teams interpretation of the basic direction for specific topics currently being worked on in the air toxics program and implies certain policies and activities that are needed to carry out the strategy. The strategic matrix was based on use of the air toxics management model and a recognition that a number of separate air toxics sub-problems should be addressed by the strategy. In short, the subproblems included (1) high risk cancer and non cancer effects typically associated with exposures near point sources of HAPs (microscale problems), (2) urban-like situations where large numbers of people are exposed to a variety of HAPs from a number of sources, including mobile sources (urban scale problems), (3) emissions and exposures that affect populations in cross jurisdictional situations, like Hg deposition in the Florida everglades (regional scale problems) and (4) national problems such as total cancer incidence and large scale deposition of bioaccumulative HAPs (National scale). The matrix includes eight sub-problems; the magnitude and nature of these eight separate air toxics sub-problems are discussed in Appendix A to this report. For each sub-problem, the matrix identifies an integrated strategy that would serve to address that particular sub-problem in a comprehensive manner. As discussed in section II of this report, an air toxics management model was used for this purpose. The air toxics management model involves five separate components that the strategy needed to address; (1) goals and objectives. (2) priorities for reductions, (3) how to achieve the reductions. (4) implementing and enforcing reduction measures, and (5) feedback and evaluation. The strategic matrix provided in this Appendix is intended to illustrate how the strategy described generally in section III of the report can address each of these components for each air toxics sub problem. The matrix provides the level of detail needed for experts in the field of air toxics, both within OAQPS and beyond, to understand better the policy and resource effects of the strategy. Many efforts are needed to flesh out the details, resource, and work product implications of the strategy. The matrix, although certainly incomplete and imperfect, will provide a useful starting point for these efforts. In developing the strategic matrix, the team found that It is difficutt to learn how to read the matrix. Nevertheless, the matrix does provide a thorough (although not necessarily complete) interpretation of the strategy into practical policies and activities. Thus the team developed the following suggestions for learning how to read the matrix. M 2. SL 110030 . Please look over Figure 0-1 before you begin navigating through the strategic (air toxics management model - air toxics problem) matrix. Figure 0-1 provides an overview and index to the strategic matrix. Look af the rows The Rows represent the types of air toxics problem to be solved the scales and subproblems. - tt is probably most useful to begin by looking ACROSS ONE ROW AT TIME to get an idea as to how the table works. By focusing on a single sub-problem, the reader can get a quick look at the entire strategy for a given sub-problem. - Each row (identified es rows 1,2,... 8) represents a different aspect of air toxics problem. + Involve scales, i.e., microscale, urban, regional, and national/global. * Identify the subproblems pertinent to a particular scale are identified as SUB-PROBLEM 1.2. ...8). + Give reader a view of the entire strategy that addresses a given subproblem. For example, what the strategy recommends for urban air toxics problem can be found in Rows 3 and 4. Look at the columns The Columns represent the elements of the air toxics management model: + The first column indicates the scale/subproblem, + The second column identifies the draft Human Health and Environmental (HH&E) goals/objectives selected by the team for the particular scale/subproblem, + The third column identifies activities and policies for setting priorities in emission reductions needed to achieve the HH&E goals/objectives. + The fourth column identifies activities and policies for achieving the needed emission reductions or program direction, f The fifth column identifies activities and policies for implementing the activities established to achieve the needed emission reductions, and + The sixth column identifies activities and policies for evaluating the effectiveness of the program for the scale/subproblem. - The columns give the reader a view of integrated activities and policies being used to address a given element of the air toxics management model. Looking DOWN an INDIVIDUAL COLUMN, the reader can see how a given element of the air toxics management model varies across the different sub-problems. For example, by looking down column G (indicators of progress), the reader can get an idea of the entire set of environmental indicators recommended by the team. In summary, Each BOX in the table (i.e. and intersection of row and column, A-1. B-1, etc) represents how the strategy would cover an element of the air toxics management model for a given air toxics subproblem. For example, box 1-A indicates how the strategy would address 'goal-setting* for th sub-part of the microscale problem dealing with individual risks that can be quantified. DRAFT -h3- SL 110031 Figure D-1 - Overview and Index to Strategic Matrix DRAFT Sc alefsub problem Subproblem t: Microscale Individual risk, quantified Subproblem 2: Microscale Individual risk, not quantified Subproblem 2: Urban Widespread risks due to typical urban sources Subproblem 4: Urban Widespread risks due to clusters of unique sources Subproblem S: Regional Risk not justifying national solution Subproblem 6: Regional Loading of persls/bloacc. poll. Subproblem 7: National/Global Aggregate population risk Subproblem 8: National/Global Loading of persIsJbtoacc. poll. (Column A) Human health and environmental (HH&E) objectives ... A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 (Column B) How can we identify emission reduction priorities,... (Column C) What specific emission reduction measures will be taken ... (Column 0) Implementation Considerations -- (Column EJ Evaluate results. B-1 C-1 D-1 E-1 0-2 C-2 D-2 E-2 B-3 C-3 D-3 E-3 B-4 C-4 D-4 E-4 B-5 C-5 D-S E-5 8-6 C-6 D-6 E-8 B-7 C-7 D-7 E-7 B-B C-8 D-8 E-8 STRATEGIC MATRIX - July 9, 1996 D TO > I X I (Column A) ScaWtubpioblem HH&E Objectives or process for establishing HHAE Objectives' for addressing that sub problem Mlcroscaie (Column B) (Column C) (Column D) (Column E) How can we Identify emission reduction priorities, that Is, the types of reductions that contribute the most towards achieving Ihe goal? What specific emission reduction measures wtll be taken consistent with these emission reduction1 priorities? Implementation considerations what activities can help ensure that the reductions are achieved In practice? Evaluate results. What Indicators wtll be used lo determine whether the Implemented measures have achieved the goal? Subproblem 1: - Efleets associated with inchidual risks (inducing ecological risks) that can be quantified horn nearby or contiguous stationary sources and 'dusters' of stationary sources. BoxA-1. HH4E Objectives for addressing subproblem t: Box B-1. How lo establish priorities for meeting HH&E Objectives In box A1. Sources meet MACT end then `Benzene decision* test tor maximum Individual risk (MIR) (10-4). Threshold polutants el < 'ample margin ol solely.' (reference concentrations (RfCs) as appropriate). Where they exist, use threshold concentrations tor eco effects (e g . water quality criteria). Short-term objective: reductions In # of people exposed by tedudng emissions and risk tor highest priority HAPs. Long-term objective: significant reduction In M ol locations where individual sources or 'dusters* cause this level to be exceeded To set MACT priorities, use 'short list* of high priority KAPs lo identity 10-year categories ol greatest importance (Note: strategy assumes al 7-yr categories are a priority, because al emit high-priority polutants): -Short-term Focus on categories emitting 1 or more ol *short 1st' of high priority HAPs. To identify, use active data colection by EPA, SA_, sources. - Long term: coled health and environmental effects into to identify polutants to add to HI of highest priority HAPs Box C-t. Specific measures consistent with Ihe priorities Identified In B-1. Continue to propose and promulgate 7-yr MACT on schedule. For 10-yr categories: -Source categories >a few sources, develop MACT. Where reasonable go beyond MACT floor through MACT partnerships. -For source categories with <a tew sources, use partnership*, but State and source operator put finishing touches on MACT determination. State Incorporates in Title V permt. Develop this approach through early partnerships with States, industry, and environmentalists Begin process using appropriate 7yr and 10-r MACT projects In the near term. Box0-1. Howto Improve Implementation of measures Identified In C-1. To Improve MACT Implementation tor 2,4, 7 and 10 yr standards (l.s,, to achieve predeted emission reductions): - Readty Implemented stds by continuing lo work with states and Industry In drafting stds. -Amend rules to Improve aubpart E end We V. thereby achieving better Integration with State programs. - Continue to use ensblngtoutreach tools. Satette. TTN. tmal business assistance, etc - Target enforcement efforts to categories of greatest risk. States Implement and enforce. Work with Stales lo establish accounlabthty Box E-1. Evaluate whether Implemented measures per D-1 ate successful To assess bends: Short-term: -Track emissions of the highest priority HAPs Develop appropriate means to periodicafy update the inventory In reasonable manner (note: we do not emtskm national `bottom-up* Inventory). -- Consider developing Index (e g., potency X emissions) to give Improved picture of emission totals. Consider outreach effort lo gain consensus on trends Indkators Once In place, outreach on results could improve effectiveness SL 110033 STRATEGIC MATRIX - July 9, 1996 O TO (Column A) Scale/s ubptoblem HH&E Objectives or process lor establishing HH&E Objectives1 lor addressing that sub problem (Column B) (Column C) (Column 0) (Column E) How can we Identify emission reduction priorities, that Is, the types ol reductions that contribute the most towards achieving the goal? What specific emission reduction measures will be taken consistent with these emission reduction1 priorities? Implementation cons(derations what activities can help ensure that the reductions are achieved In practice? Evaluate results. Whet Indicators wilt be used to determine whether the Implemented measures have achieved the goal? Bos B-1 (coni) Box C-1 (cont) Box D-1 (cont) Box E-1 (cont) To set residual risk (RR) priorities (affects 2.4.7 and 10-yr categones) - Use targeting and risk assessment to identify indMdual sources and dusters with high MIR after Implementation of MACT. (RR applicability Imrted to high-risk sources or dusters). Consider uncertainty In risk assessments when Identifying needed reductions. Residual risk(RR) To minimize need lor federal RR standards.1 -Short-term: (for both >a few and <a lew), provide incentives for operator and State to consider residual risks now. - Longer-term: Provide RR targets, guidance, and assistance lor Stales to address high-risk sources. Provide criteria that. H met. would obviate need tor national RR sld. To reach objective that states/sources deal with RR where possible, outreach program wd probably be needed. Ideatty, want States summaries ol residual emissions and risk info, also. States Identifies 'dusters.' Long-term: - Use rjsk screening, risk assessments, and/or other means to track ff of sources with risks above MIR target of 1(M. - Develop Risk Map Long-term: As needed, develop residual risk standards through partnerships. SL 110034 l er SL 110035 D >TO I X I STRATEGIC MATRIX - July 9,1996 {Column A) Scale/subproblem HH4E Objectives or process lor establishing HH4E Objectives' lor addressing that sub problem (Column B) (Column C) (Column D) (Column E) How can we Identify emission reduction priorities, that Is, the types of reductions that contribute Ihe most towards achieving the goal? Box B-1 (coni) What specific emission reduction measures will be taken consistent with these emission reduction1 priorities? Implementation considerations what activities can help ensure that the reductions am achieved In practice? Evaluate results. What Indicators will be used lo determine whether Hie Implemented measures have achieved the goal? Box C -1 (coni) Box 0-1 (cont) Box E-1 (cont) To ensure an appropriate Consider 112(d)(4) in Implement through Survey major degree of regulation lor decision on MACT partnerships. threshold polutanls, regulale stringency, or whether MACT stakeholders and determine satisfaction lo ensure emissions cause should be required. with this program concentrations below an `ample margin ol safety* Consider 112(d)(4) in element level decision whether lo 1st area sources under urban Identify source categories program with only threshold HAPs. Develop approaches to use Section 112(d)(4). Based on consensus target and methodology. Identify where 112(d)(4) can be used to identify over or under regulation. Box B-1 (coni) Box C -1 (coni) To ensure that program does not address `non-problems: * - Identrfy/delst categories with no major sources and no connection to urban or effects due lo persistence or bioaccumulation. Develop internal procedures for HAP and category deisting efforts. Include in these procedures a process lo involve MACT partners In decision to deist. Identrfy and delist categories (or HAPs) posing no human health or environmental harm . # Box 0-1 (cont) Implement through partnerships. Box E-1 (cont) Survey major stakeholders and determine satisfaction with this program dement .______________ 1 STRATEGIC MATRIX - July 9, 1996 (Column A) Scalefsubproblem HH&E Objective* or process lor establishing HH&E Objectives' for addressing that subproblem (Column B) (Column C) (Column D) (Column E) How can we Identify emission reduction priorities, that Is, the types of reductions that contribute the most towards achieving the goal? What specific emission reduction measures wlH be taken consistent with these emission reduction* priorHies? Implementation considerations what activities can help ensure that the reductions are achieved In practice? Evaluate results. What Indicators will be used to determine whether the Implemented measures have achieved the goat? Microscale Subproblcm 2: - Quafctathre ejects associated with maximum exposed IndMduato that cannot be quantified due to lack ol health, emissions oi other Information. BoxA-2. HH&E Objectives lor addressing subproblem 2: Reasonable reductions In emissions based upon consensus agreements with stakeholders. Long-term: Add heelth end eco benchmarks. Active effort to develop RICs. Moderate effort to coled and Interpret health data. Boa B-2. How to establish priorities for meeting HH&E Objectives In box A2. Short-term: Identify categories without any of the highest priority HAPs, and with qualitative basis lor regulating (E g. large volume of toxic HAP for which heafih effects cannot be quantified). EPA cotects information to develop qualitative estimates for health benchmarks. Box C-2. Specific measures consistent with the priorities Identified In B-2. Where there Is a qualitative basis for addressing risks/exposures, develop MACT through MACT partnerships. Where this Is not a qualtatlve basis for regulating, EPA would support State action on an as-needed basis. Box0-2. Howto Improve Implementation of measures Identified In C-2. [see Box D-1 - same as for MACT Implementation] BoxE-2. Evaluate whether Implemented measures per 0-2 are successful (see Box E-1 - same as for MACT evaluation except may need to reduce evaluation given lack of qualtatlve health basis.) SL 110036 S- t STRATEGIC MATRIX - July 9, 1996 (Column A) (Column B) (Column C) (Column 0) (Column E) Scale/s ubproblem HH&E Objectives or process for establishing HH&E Objectives' for addressing that sub problem How can we Identify emission reduction priorities, that Is, the types of reductions that contribute the most towards achieving the goal? What specific emission reduction measures will be taken consistent with these emission reduction1 priorities? Implementation considerations what activities can help ensure that the reductions are achieved In practice? Evaluate results. What Indicators will be used to determine whether the Implemented measures have achieved the goal? Urban Subproblem 3: - Widespread risks due lo sources typicaty found In urban areas (4) Box A-3. HH&E Objectives for addressing subproblem 3: Statutory goal of 75% reduction in incidence (tom stationary sources relative to 1990 baselne. Consider cancer and. to extent possible, consider noncancer effects* Box B-3. How to establish priorities for meeting HH &E Objectives In box A-3. Identify major and area sources of HAPs on the original source calegory Irst that contribute lo reductions In the HAPs being evaluated under section 112(KI Conduct urban risk study. Including stattonaryhnobie. If warranted based upon this study, add categories to source calegory ksl. per 112(k) and 112(c)(3). Likely, categories emitting one of the specific urban HAP* Identify rnobie sources contributing significantly to the problem. Identify polulants beyond the specific uiban HAPs that contribute significantly to the proWem." Box C-3. Specific measures consistent with (he priorities identified In B-3. MACT: -Short-1erm: For currently listed categories, develop MACT, where reasonable go beyond MACT door, through MACT partnerships. - Long-term: develop MACT tor additional categories added per urban risk study. Consider standards beyond MACT Door, through MACT partnerships Box D-3. How to Improve Implementation of measures Identified In C-3. Readiy Implemented standards; Improved subpari E/TMe V. MoMe sources: - Long-term: develop appropriate mobffe source regs. Co-control of HAPs by VOC and PM SIP programs: - Short-term: Inform and encourage Slates lo describe HAP impficabons of SIP actions for VOC end PM. - Long-term: Develop additional info on HAP characteristics ot VOC and PM. and alternative technologies tor co-contfot Partnership between HAP and criteria program: faring dscusskm forward through an effective process. Market-based: dialogue on BoxE-3. Evaluate whether Implemented measures per D-3 are successful. Trends: Short-term efforts: - Identify evaiable ambient monitoring data for specific urban HAPs. Develop xystecn for cooperating with states on Inexpensively yet regularly updating this Inf rmatton. - Develop PS1 fcuftcator for urban monitoring hands for the specific urban polutants - Use urban study to devise a method aimed at providing progress report on the 75% target - Track emission Inventories lor the specific urban polutants. Trends: long-lerm efforts: -add pollutants and monitoring sites as Into is available - It surrogate tor the 75% targejMttU)". SL 110037 STRATEGIC MATRIX - July 9, 1996 (Column A) Scale/subproblem HH&E Objectives or process for establishing HH&E Objectives' for addressing that subproblem Urban Subptoblem 4: - Widespread rtsk* m populated areas due lo contributions liom stationary source 'dusters* that are unique to e grvert area (5J BoxA-4. HH&E Objectives for addressing subproblem 4: Reduce population exposure lo 'duster* pdManti (Column B) (Column C) (Column D) (Column EJ How can we Idenltfy emission reduction priorities, that Is, the types ot reductions that contribute the most towards achieving the goal? What specific emission reduction measures will be taken consistent with these emission reduction1 priorities? Implementation considerations what activities can help ensure that the reductions ere achieved In practice? Evaluate results. What Indicators will be used to determine whether the Implemented measures have achieved th goal? Bo* B-4. How to establish priorities for meeting Hit &E Objectives In bo* A-4. Short-term conduct a study to identity such 'clusters* to see it any additional emission reduction measures are needed later. To support this, data colection lor the highest priority HAPs and specific urban HAPs. Initiate active data colecbon by EPA. SA. & Sources of emission patterns Follow up with risk assessment as appropriale to evaluate significance of dusters lo area wtde concentrations. ** Bo* C-4. Specific measures conslslent with Ihe priorities Identified In B-4. MACT: -No active efforts to consider dusters In MACT development. Consider in response to request. -Indude as consideration In MACT development where needed. Discuss with Stales the need for guidance document and assistanca for addressing this issue. Box D-4. How to Improve Implementation of measures Identified In C-4. BoxE-4. Evaluate whether Implemented measures pet D-4 are successful Trends - Short-term: no active consideration of this In trends reporting. -Long-term: Develop process to Indude In trends report It documented that these problems ensl SL 110038 STRATEGIC MATRIX - July 9, 1996 (Column A) (Column B) (Column C) (Column D) (Column E) Scale/subptoblem l HHAE Objectives or process for establishing HHAE Objectives' for addressing that subproblem How can we Identify emission reduction priorities, that Is, the types of reductions that contribute the most towards achieving the goal? What specific emission reduction measures will be taken consistent with these emission reduction' priorities? Implementation considerations what activities can hefp ensure that the reductions are achieved In practice? Evaluate results. What Indicators will be used to determine whether the Implemented measures have achieved the goat? Regional Subproblem S: - Risk caused by transport within a broader 'region' with multiple Jurisdictions, not widespread enough to Justify national solutions (6) Box A-S. HHAE Objectives for addressing subproblem S. {see above discussion ol issues lot urban risk HHAE Objectives] Box B-5. How to establish priorities for meeting HHAE Objectives In box AS. Long-term Identify any such transport regions. Guidance to States and Regional Associations tor considering such situations. BoxC-5. Specific measures consistent with the priorities Identified In B-5. Box ti-S. How to improve Implementation of measures Identified In C-5. Long-term: use transport studies as basis to 1st adcktional MACT within urban ah toxics program as needed. Outreach to States end public Box E-5. Evaluate whether Implemented meesures per D-5 are successful. Trends: regional emissions, ambient monitoring tor any such Identified regions > -n Encourage and facitate multi-Slate planning and control Initiatives. SL 110039 I STRATEGIC MATRIX - July 9, 1996 (Column A) (Column B) (Column C) (Column D) (Column E) Scale/s ubproblem HH&E Objectives or process for establishing HH&E Objectives' for addressing that subproblem How can we Identify emission reduction priorities, that Is, the types of reductions that contribute the most towards achieving the goal? What specific emission reduction measures will be taken consistent with these emission reduction' priorities? Implementation considerations what activities can help ensure that the reductions are achieved In practice? Evaluate results. What Indicators wilt be used to determine whether the Implemented measures have achieved the goal? Regional Subproblem 6: - Regional loadngs lo environment ol persistenl or bio accum triable polutants (7) Box A-8. HH&E Objectives for addressing subproblem 6. Reduce deposition to levels that do not contribute significantly lo exceedances ol RIDs or other measures of harm from such polutants. Add quantitative HH&E Objectives later based upon peer review/SAB process tor mercury. Box B-&. How to establish priorities for meeting HH&E Objectives In box A6. Reasonable reductions in ecosystem loadings as result of partnership process Involving stakeholders. Including SAB process. Complete 112(c)(6) studyto Identify additional categories. Long-term: Continue special study efforts. Great Waters etc. (Focus GW efforts on specific 1st of HAPs.] Use results to identify categories of pollutants In addition to the 112(c)(6) polutants. or to identify categories that have been overlooked. Box C-6. Specific measures consistent with the priorities Identified In B-6. MACT: Short-term: Focus on 112(c)(6) categories. Develop MACT If needed or appropriate alternative measures: go beyond door where reasonable. Long-term: Set appropriate alternative measures In residual risk process. Partidpale In mercury task force aimed at dtecusslng emissions 'cap* end other concepts. Box D-fi. How to Improve Implementation of measures Identified In c-e. Consider extra effort to ensure compiance with MACTs reducing emissions of bioaceumutating polutants Box E4. Evaluate whether Implemented measures per D-& ate successful TRENDS: Regional Inventories, updated on a regular bases every tew years. for key polutantx, writh assistance from Stales In the region. DRAFT o oI o VO M I STRATEGIC MATRIX - July 9, 1996 (Column A) (Column B) (Column C) (Column D) (Column E) Sceleis ubproblem HH&E Objectives or process for establishing HH&E Objectives' for addressing that subproblem How can we Identify emission reduction priorities, that Is, the types ot reductions that contribute the most towards achieving the goal? What specific emission reduction measures will be taken consistent with these emission reduction1 priorities? Implementation considerations what activities can help ensure that the reductions are achieved In practice? Evaluate mutts. What Indicators wlH be used to determln whether the Implemented measures have achieved the goal? National/Global Subproblem 7: BoxA-7. HH&E Objectives for addressing tubproblemT: Box B-7. How to establish priorities (or meeting HH&E Objectives In box A7. Bo* C-7. Specific measures consistent with the priorities identified In B-7. - Aggregate population risk (mddence) (B| Primary objectives: Reduce number of people exposed to MIR above 10-6, end exposed above RICa. RIDs. and exposed to HAPs in general (where cannot quantify) Identity widespread, highemitting categories emitting one or more ot the highest priority HAPs F or these, develop data base to consider incidence calcUlalions in the residual risk evaluation process. Folow MACT perhaps more MACT (loot; include Incidence hr residual risk process Note: cross-check micro- and urban-scale appfcabiHy- no extra elTotl may be required here. Secondary objectives: - Reduce total nationwide emissions of HAPs by 75%. - Develop an index that can provide dearer picture of emission totals (where quantification b possible). Identity widespread, highemitting categories emitting HAPs not on the 1st of highest priority HAPs; typicaly these wi be sources of large VOC or PM emissions Box 0-7. How to Improve Implementation of measures Identified In C-7. BoxE-7. Evaluate whether Implemented measures per 0-7 are successful. Trends: Track total HAP emissions, taking into account mobile and non-TRI emission sources. Consider developing Index (e g., emissions X potency). To support this, data colection for highest priority HAPs and specific urban HAPs, and addWonat HAPs that with large emission rates. Active data colectlon by EPA, S/L. & Sources. - Develop better measures lo characterise reductions of HAPs where problem b not quantifiable. SL 110041 STRATEGIC MATRIX - July 9, 1996 a 73 > ScaWsubptoblem HH&E Objectives or process lor establishing HH&E Objectives' for addressing that sub problem How can we Identify emission reduction priorities, that Is, the types of reductions that contribute the most towards achieving the goat? What specific emission reduction measures will be taken consistent with these emission reduction* priorities? Implementation considerations what activities can help ensure that the reductions are achieved In practice? Evaluate results. What Indicators will be used to determine whether the Implemented measures have achieved the goat? National (cont) Subproblem 8: - National loadngs to environment of persistent or btoaccumulable polutants. Rhta sub-problem b very sJmlar lo `regional* above except that Involves situations where national reductions ere needed to toht the problem) 19) BoxA-6. HH&E Objectives for addressing subprobtem 8: Box 8-8. How to establish priorities for meeting HH&E Objectives In box A8. Box C-8. Specific measures consistent wllh the priorities Identified In B-8. Reduce deposition to leveb that do not contribute significantly to exceedances of RIDs or other measures of harm from such polutants. Add HH&E Objectives later based upon peer reviewfSAB process for mercury. Reasonable reductions In national ecosystem loadings as result of partnership process involving stakeholders, including SAB process. Complete 112(c)(6) study lo identify additional categories. Continue special study efforts. Great Waters etc. Use results to Identify categories of polutants In addition to the 112{eX6J polutants. or to Identify categories that have been overlooked. MACT: Short-term: Focus on 112(cK6) categories. Oevelop MACT it needed or appropriate alternative measures; go beyond Door where reasonable. Long-term: Set appropriate alternative measures under Section 112(mX6). Participate In mercury task force aimed at dbcusslng emissions "cap" and other concepts. Box D-8. How lo Improve Implementation of measures Identified In C-8. Consider extra effort to ensure compiartce Mh MACTs reducing emissions of Woaccumulating polutants Box E8. Evaluate whether Implemented measures per 0-8 ate successful. TRENOS: National Inventories, updated on a regular bases every few years, for key polutants. with assistance from States. SL 110042 i X ( STRATEGIC MATRIX - July 9, 1996 1. An issue for long-term strategy development is whether there should be a process to gain consensus on an improved set of human health and environmental goals for air toxics. Such a process, while resource-intensive, could serve to help focus efforts in the most productive direction. 2. Although the focus on this column is largely on regulatory tools, comments are welcome on nonregulatory approaches, and how they could be used to complement and improve the approaches described. With respect to regulatory and nonregulatory approaches, successful completion of the activities in this column depends on resolving the collective interest of all stakeholders. Thus, the partnership concept is core to all the approaches. The ability to fulfill these partnerships is greatly enhanced with additional resources. 3. One approach to minimizing the need for federal residual risk standards be to create a program similar in concept to the California "hot spots" approach. Such a program would provide a method to screen out tow-risk sources, and would involve risk assessments by sources and/or Stales. This approach would require extra resources in the near term but would significantly reduce resources and efforts in the future. O 70 > 4. It may be useful to complement the statutory target with specific ambient concentration targets Tor the highest priority urban HAPs. If feasible, this may involve a consensus effort to devise targets. There may be advantages to express such levels as informal environmental goals rather than specific regulatory targets. 5. A long-term strategic issue is whether to recommend a concentrated effort with greater targeting/outreach/indicator- tracking efforts on a relatively few pollutants that appear at present to be the greatest contributors to the urban problem, or to devote less concentrated attention to a larger list of pollutants (e g., a list of 30 as called for in I I2(k). 6. If such regional clusters exist (i.e. areas having noticeably higher area wide concentrations due to an unusually high concentration of stationary source emissions), it may be appropriate for the EPA to develop targeted geographic assistance programs, similar to the Integrated Environmental Management programs conducted during the mid 1980s. 7. An issue for long-term strategy development is whether there should be a process to gain consensus on an improved set of human health and environmental goals for air toxics. Such a process, while resource-intensive, could serve to help focus efforts in the most productive direction. SL 110043 I I APPENDIX E. DISCUSSION F ISSUES RELATING TO DATA NEEDS FOR TRACKING PR0GRES8 1. Toxic Release Inventory Data Isauas The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) does not present a complete picture of HAP emissions in the United States. TRI collects data from point sources and does not include area or mobile sources emissions. According to our most recent estimates, area and mobile sources contribute approximately 70% of HAP emissions annually. In addition, the point source HAP emissions reported in TRI do not comprise all point source categories. The OAQPS National Toxics Inventory (NTI) currently reports that, of the 2.6 billion pounds of HAPs emitted by point source facilities nationwide, less than 50% of these point source emissions are reported in TRI. Factors contributing to the under representation of data in TRI are: * Emissions from small point facilities as well as commercial, residential, area and mobile sources are not included in TRI. * TRI collects data from a subset of industrial point sources having Standard Industrial Classification Codes 20 - 39. Under this exemption, facilities such as mining operations, electric utilities, and oil and gas production are not required to report HAP emissions to the TRI. * TRI excludes combustion emissions from sources required to report to the TRI. * Sources with <10 employees are exempt from reporting to the TRI. * TRI excludes facilities that use <10,000 lbs or produce <25,000 lbs of listed HAPs from reporting requirements. From a health impact, OAQPS is interested in releases of small quantities of some HAPs. These emissions would likely not be reported in TRI. The result of all these factors combined is that the coverage of the TRI is less than 15% of the total annual HAP emissions that contribute to air toxic problems across the United States. In spite of the deficiencies of the TRI noted above, the TRI remains useful tool for both analytical and regulatory purposes. It should be noted that the quality of HAP emission estimates have improved in TRI since its first annual release in 1987. For the specific sources included, these estimates are believed to be better than estimates generated using typical emission factor calculations. Therefore, the OAQPS National Toxics Inventory does use data compiled in TRI in addition to other data sources such as State & Local HAP inventories, data gathered by OAQPS to support MACT development, and HAP estimates generated by OAQPS. DRAFT -ft - SL 110044 TRI has also been used as a "voluntary" to 1 in reducing HAP emissions. Since facilities do not want to be at the top of the TRI list, many have voluntarily reduced HAP emissions. 2. A Possible "Pollutant Standards Index' Approach to the Air Toxics Problem The relative success of the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) in communicating the severity of criteria air pollutant probl ms in metropolitan areas suggests that an adaptation of the PSI approach may be useful in implementing the air toxics program. The current criteria pollutant PSI is an index calculated daily from air quality monitoring data which indicates the relative level of air pollution in that area based on the "worst' criteria pollutant on that day, where "worst' is defined as that pollutant whose measured concentration represents the highest percent f its standard value (as defined by a National Ambient Air Quality Standard, or NAAQS). Obviously, since the EFA has not defined NAAQS values for any air toxic pollutant, this approach will need modifications if it can be useful for the air toxics program. Further, since the majority of air toxics are hazardous based on chronic exposures rather than acute, daily PSI calculations may not have as much meaning as yearly updates. Finally, the ambient measurement of 189 air toxic pollutants will neither be nationally feasible nor locally routine in the near future, and this will need to be reflected in the adapted PSI approach. It seems likely that a useful PSI for air toxics would involve the development of an annual data summary which took advantage of available monitoring data, emissions inventory information, modeling results, and health studies to present a combined view of the area-by-area severity of the air toxic problem, identifying significant individual HAP and sources, as well as any progress that may have been achieved in reducing the problem over the previous year or years. To promote national consistency, OAQPS should develop national assessments which build off of the current air toxics emission inventory to identify both microscale and urban-scale "hot spots,* and the specific pollutants most responsible for them. Existing ambient monitoring-based assessments should then be mapped onto this national emission-based assessment to refine and calibrate the overall assessment, resulting in a more accurate national problem assessment and the ability to extrapolate city-specific assessments from one urban area to another. It can also be used identify whether particular pollutants or sources pose a local, regional, or national problem. The actual PSI-type indicator (or indicators) used for these assessments should combine the existing information in the most logical fashion to provide numerical values which can be ranked much like comparative risk or exposure numbers. The actual numbers could then be report d as numbers, ranges, or even as qualitative ranges (high-mediumlow) . One possible approach for the treatment of ambient data has been outlined in "An Examination of Alternative Air Quality DRAFT n SL 110045 Indicators to Better Understand Global Pollution,* by William F. Hunt, Jr. (1991). other approaches for combining emissions, modeling, and health information should be developed by a crossdivisional team in collaboration with State and Local Agencies. The final step of implementing a FSI-type approach is to provide guidance to the individual metropolitan (and potentially, non-metropolitan) areas on how they can perform their own annual assessments to parallel the national one. This can be accomplished by providing them with the national assessment as an example and encouraging them as environmental partners to collect the data necessary to best evaluate their own particular mix of air toxics problems. As a part of this effort, OAQPS should also support a common database (such as AIRS) to consolidate information feeding into the P5I process. SL 110046